Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Yaniv, Nov 2, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's obviously an "alternative" theory, so it belongs where it is.
It is up to you, as the proponent of the new idea, to show why it is superior to the current model. "Prove me wrong" is the cry of the crank throughout the ages, but that is not how science works.
Since you have no results, and are not prepared to explain your theory where it can be discussed, this thread seems to serve no further purpose, as nobody but you is going to spend time to get those results.
See you in another 6 years, perhaps?
If we're all still here.
So you are also not interested to test your #physics. #ResultsRequired
"Our" physics, i.e. "Physics", is very well tested already, thank you very much. No purpose would be served by spending millions of dollars on a pointlessly difficult experiment, when E²=(mc²)² + (pc)² has already been amply demonstrated by other more practical means, such as measurement of the mass defect in nuclear reactions.
It is you who needs to provide the reasons to change the model, not all the people who see no need to do so. This is called "making your case". Either make it, or stop whining.
Okay... first and foremost, this isn't twitter or facebook, so the hashtags mean and do absolutely nothing.
Secondly, exchemist (and the rest of us) are under no obligation to test your pet theory, especially when you admit you have no actual evidence to back it up.
Finally, the reasons for the second point have been repeatedly provided to you, and you have summarily dismissed them without any apparent cause or explanation.
Please, explain why anyone here should take any of this seriously, since you do not appear to be doing so yourself? As it is, this entire train wreck of a thread seems to be nothing more than a rehashing of old grit that, honestly, contributes nothing of value, while you whinge on that nobody is willing to do your homework for you.
Are you suggesting E=mc2 is proved and should not be tested further ?
I don't think anyone is suggesting it is "perfect" or need "no further testing" - rather, the point is, you need to have some basis to demand a new test, as well as an idea as to what that test is.
In counterpoint - are you suggesting E=mc^2 is flawed?
Well, strictly speaking nothing is ever "proved" in science but, certainly, E=mc² has been extremely well verified and corroborated, for over half a century.
See here for a relatively recent and outstandingly accurate corroboration of it: http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2
No doubt there will be further tests over time, but it is found to be accurate in the daily work of nuclear physicists and chemists every day, just as other predictions of relativity are in daily use in GPS systems etc.
This has been shown to be a robust theory. It has been tested and explained. Do I think we should keep testing that E=mc2 to see if it suddenly stops being true - uh, no that is a waste of time.
If a new hypothesis is put forward with very convincing support that something else is going on then by all means scientist will revisit the theory.
But if someone says, "I have a hypothesis that under certain conditions E does not equal mc2, but I won't discuss my hypothesis until you do the experiment", the scientist will rightly say, go away crank.
Science hasn't got a unifying theory that links the great pillars of physics relativity and quantum together and appears full of corrections such as dark matter and energy, black holes, inflation, tunneling, superpositions, higgs exc. My theory reduces four forces to one, particles to two and dimensions to three and predicts a link between weight and temperature.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2.
You mean it would do if demonstrated, which by your own admission it has not been. So do the test (good luck!).
You are right. The next experiment can always disprove a theory.
I said before this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists.
Only in your mind.
You can't just make up stuff with no evidence to disprove a theory.
You are right. Only in my mind. I am waiting for experimental evidence to test both our theories.
So how are you going to persuade them and how are you going to get a government or private institution to fund it?
Tell me, how big a % change in mass does your theory predict, for a temperature change of, say, 1000K, in some suitable high heat capacity substance?
Sorry this just too goofy, bye-bye.
The University of Leeds advised me to drop my theory without results of experiments and elsewhere I couldn't find scientists interested to do the experiment and publish the results.
My prediction is a qualitative prediction. I can't make a quantitative prediction without results. Say, after an experiment you find 1 microgram lost per 1 gram per 1 degC you can make quantitative predictions.
Glaser, Metrologia, 1990 used precision balance to measure W reduction of 100 micrograms from 20 grams metal rod heated by 5 degC in air. Such precision balance may be sufficient to find the missing weight predicted by my theory.
So you are not interested to test E=mc2 ?
Separate names with a comma.