Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

## Experiment to test W=mg

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Yaniv
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 12:13 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

-1- wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 4:26 am
Not really. After the most careful calibration, if both are accelerated at the same rate, in any direction but perpendicular to the vertical axis of the scale / spring, then even if they are calibrated, they will show different values.

The scale will keep on showing 12 tonnes, whereas the spring will show more than twelve tonnes if the acceleration is somewhat away from the Earth, and will show less than twelve tonnes if the acceleration brings it toward the Earth.
Under the conditions of the proposed experiment acceleration is perpendicular to scale.
-1- wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 4:22 am
Gravity is not a measurable unit. Not in Newtonian physics anyway. Gravitational force is, but gravity is not. g is normally used as a short form for acceleration due to gravity near the Earth's surface. That is acceleration, not gravity. It is nearly 8.9 meters divided by second squares.
W=mg is like F=ma. W=F, m=m and g=a.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma. #ResultsRequired

Halc
Posts: 285
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 11:49 pm
Halc wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 9:42 pm
Not so. Weight is a force, and you measure force with something like a spring. A spring scale might say I weigh 2 stones on the moon, but a balance scale would measure me at 12 stones on the moon. Clearly weight is not what it is measuring.
If your spring and balance scales measure different W at the same geographical position one has to be calibrated.
That you seem not to know the difference is a good clue as to why "thousands of scientists" are ignoring your contact attempts.

Stones is a unit of mass, and a device that measures weight should correctly report it in units of force like the Newton. That spring scales do not report weight in units of weight is a convenience to the Earth-bound users of the devices who really want to know their mass, not their weight. For you (somebody pushing some new physics theory) to not know the difference seems inexcusable.
So I might mass 12 stones, but the spring scale, correctly calibrated, would read out about 747.5 Newtons on Earth and about 123.3 Newtons on the moon. The balance scale, not measuring weight despite your claim, would read 12 stones (about 76.2 kg) in either place, and also on the accelerating elevator as pointed out by -1-.

I don't actually see your theory stated even, just that this unstated theory predicts lower mass with raised temperature.
For that matter, why does relativistic physics predict greater weight with higher T in a vacuum? It doesn't. Mass would have to be added to get an object to weigh more in the same place. Others have posted the potential sources of that extra mass, depending on how the object is heated. For control purposes, your sample should be not only in a vacuum, but also in a sufficiently insulated container to prevent mass gain/loss from thermal radiation and such.

Relativity does predict that a 1kg object (at sea level) masses more than 1kg if raised to the top of a tower, but that's because energy is added (actually negative energy/mass removed) to get it up there, and energy is mass, so the mass must increase. The same object weighs less atop the tower, despite being at the same geographic location (where the tower is) because it is further from the center of the source of gravity and also because it has more negative acceleration than it does at sea-level, which negates some of the total force (weight) required from the tower to keep it on its circular trajectory. Build a tall enough tower and the weight will actually go negative. The temperature of the object seems to play no role in the matter.

-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv, I would advise you not to argue with the Halc. He is the Hulk in disguise under a similar but equally pronounced spelling of his name.

He leaves clues.
Halc wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 9:07 am
So I might mass 12 stones, but the spring scale, correctly calibrated, would read out about 747.5 Newtons on Earth and about 123.3 Newtons on the moon.
He says he weighs 747 and a half New Tonnes. (English and some Americans still call he French Rev convention units "new".) That's the size of seven hundred and forty elephants, or seventeen locomotives. That's the size of someone not to mess with.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Yaniv
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 12:13 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Halc wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 9:07 am
Yaniv wrote:
June 1st, 2018, 11:49 pm

If your spring and balance scales measure different W at the same geographical position one has to be calibrated.
That you seem not to know the difference is a good clue as to why "thousands of scientists" are ignoring your contact attempts.

Stones is a unit of mass, and a device that measures weight should correctly report it in units of force like the Newton. That spring scales do not report weight in units of weight is a convenience to the Earth-bound users of the devices who really want to know their mass, not their weight. For you (somebody pushing some new physics theory) to not know the difference seems inexcusable.
So I might mass 12 stones, but the spring scale, correctly calibrated, would read out about 747.5 Newtons on Earth and about 123.3 Newtons on the moon. The balance scale, not measuring weight despite your claim, would read 12 stones (about 76.2 kg) in either place, and also on the accelerating elevator as pointed out by -1-.

I don't actually see your theory stated even, just that this unstated theory predicts lower mass with raised temperature.
For that matter, why does relativistic physics predict greater weight with higher T in a vacuum? It doesn't. Mass would have to be added to get an object to weigh more in the same place. Others have posted the potential sources of that extra mass, depending on how the object is heated. For control purposes, your sample should be not only in a vacuum, but also in a sufficiently insulated container to prevent mass gain/loss from thermal radiation and such.

Relativity does predict that a 1kg object (at sea level) masses more than 1kg if raised to the top of a tower, but that's because energy is added (actually negative energy/mass removed) to get it up there, and energy is mass, so the mass must increase. The same object weighs less atop the tower, despite being at the same geographic location (where the tower is) because it is further from the center of the source of gravity and also because it has more negative acceleration than it does at sea-level, which negates some of the total force (weight) required from the tower to keep it on its circular trajectory. Build a tall enough tower and the weight will actually go negative. The temperature of the object seems to play no role in the matter.
You are writing nonsense.
A balance scale and a spring scale both measure W - not m. W divided by g gives you m.
My theory can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com.
E=mc2 does predict W should increase at increasing T. You add heat energy you add mass. And anyway, W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2. #ResultsRequired

-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv, I respectfully submit that you should officially change your name from Yaniv Stern to Ayvey Stern.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Steve3007
Posts: 5629
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Hi -1-. Good to see you posting here again.
Yaniv wrote:Classical physics predicts weight (W) should not change at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum. Relativistic physics predicts W should increase at increasing T in vacuum.
Yes. Relativistic physics predicts that an object (object A) which is in motion relative to another object (object B) will have an increased mass as measured in the reference frame of object B. The same is true of object B when measured in the reference frame of object A. This is observed to be true by observing the behaviour of various fast moving objects. It is very well established experimentally. When an object that is made of lots of little objects (molecules) is hot this is because those molecules are moving backwards and forwards faster than when it is cold. So I presume the hot object will be calculated to have a slightly greater mass (by measuring its weight) than when it is cold. But not much.

I guess we could work it out. Apparently the specific heat of aluminium is about 910 Joules per kg per degree Celsius or Kelvin. So if you heat a 1 kg block of aluminium by 100 C you add 91000 Joules of energy to it. That increases its mass by 91000 / c2 kgs. That's about 10-12 kgs. Not much. I'm guessing there are probably other factors that would (as it were) outweigh it. Like other things that happen when you heat things up.

I've read that Mount Everest is estimated to have a mass of about 160 trillion kgs. That's 160 x 1012 kgs. So if you heated Mount Everest by 100 degrees C (and if it has about the same specific heat as aluminium, which it probably does, give or take), then you'd increase its mass by about 160 kgs. The mass of one very obese man, or two normal men. But I suppose the snow would all melt/boil and not be on Mount Everest anymore, which would mess up the experiment. Still, fascinating stuff.

Also: the mass of Earth is (I'm told) about 1024 kgs (give or take). So if you heated the Earth up by 100 C its mass would increase by about the mass of Everest. So, in a sense, Everest is to Earth as a very fat man is to Everest.

Yaniv
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 12:13 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv wrote:
May 28th, 2018, 12:29 pm
My theory predicts W should decrease at increasing T in vacuum. #ResultsRequired

Steve3007
Posts: 5629
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv wrote:My theory predicts W should decrease at increasing T in vacuum.
Yes, so you've said. Could you explain what leads your theory to predict that?

Theories that attempt to describe and predict the way the world appears to behave don't generally just spring out of nowhere. They follow logically from previous empirical observations that have resulted in previous theories. They don't contradict already established experimental results. They encompass and add to them. For example, when Einstein dreampt up the predictive theory of Special Relativity, he did it as a result of considering the implications of previous empirical observations and the theories that emerged to describe them. Such things as Newton's mathematical descriptions of the observed movements of objects, Galilean invariance/relativity and Maxwell's mathematical descriptions of the observed phenomena of electromagnetism.

What is the empirical basis for your theory? Why is it needed? What gap in our knowledge does it fill? How does it deal with the empirically observed increase in mass of moving objects?

Steve3007
Posts: 5629
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv wrote:"W" is what you measure with a balance.
Halc wrote:Not so. Weight is a force, and you measure force with something like a spring. A spring scale might say I weigh 2 stones on the moon, but a balance scale would measure me at 12 stones on the moon. Clearly weight is not what it is measuring.
Yaniv wrote:If your spring and balance scales measure different W at the same geographical position one has to be calibrated.
Halc is correct to point out that a spring scale and a set of balance scales measure different things. A spring scale compares the weight (force) of an object with the restoring force of a spring (Hooke's law). A set of balance scales (such as the ones illustrated in your avatar) compares the weight of an object with the weight of another object.

So, in the latter case, since the two weights being compared are in almost the same location within a gravitational field, if the apparatus is moved to a different gravitational field (e.g. on the moon), the balance will not change, but the spring scale will. The set of balance scales therefore measures the mass of an object whereas the spring scale measures its weight. Spring scales should really be calibrated in units of Newtons. To convert that to kgs you need to know the local value of 'g'. To find the mass (kgs) of an object using balance scales you don't need to know 'g'. You just need to know the mass of the object(s) on the other side of the scales, and that the gravitational field is uniform on a scale of a few centimetres; i.e. that 'g' is the same on both sides of the set of scales. (Normally a pretty safe assumption.)

Yaniv
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 12:13 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:04 am
Yes, so you've said. Could you explain what leads your theory to predict that?
Yaniv wrote:
June 2nd, 2018, 8:14 pm
My theory can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com.
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:04 am
Theories that attempt to describe and predict the way the world appears to behave don't generally just spring out of nowhere.
My theory sprung out from my mind.
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:04 am
I couldn't find the results of the experiment in the literature. Can you ?
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:04 am
What is the empirical basis for your theory?
My theory provides a qualitative descriptions of physics. Quantitative prediction could commence after the results of the experiment.
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:04 am
Why is it needed? What gap in our knowledge does it fill?
My theory clears our minds from the illusion of knowledge and provides a simpler description of the universe.
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:04 am
How does it deal with the empirically observed increase in mass of moving objects?
How do you calculate the mass of a moving object ?

Yaniv
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 12:13 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:44 am
Yaniv wrote:"W" is what you measure with a balance.
Halc wrote:Not so. Weight is a force, and you measure force with something like a spring. A spring scale might say I weigh 2 stones on the moon, but a balance scale would measure me at 12 stones on the moon. Clearly weight is not what it is measuring.
Yaniv wrote:If your spring and balance scales measure different W at the same geographical position one has to be calibrated.
Halc is correct to point out that a spring scale and a set of balance scales measure different things. A spring scale compares the weight (force) of an object with the restoring force of a spring (Hooke's law). A set of balance scales (such as the ones illustrated in your avatar) compares the weight of an object with the weight of another object.

So, in the latter case, since the two weights being compared are in almost the same location within a gravitational field, if the apparatus is moved to a different gravitational field (e.g. on the moon), the balance will not change, but the spring scale will. The set of balance scales therefore measures the mass of an object whereas the spring scale measures its weight. Spring scales should really be calibrated in units of Newtons. To convert that to kgs you need to know the local value of 'g'. To find the mass (kgs) of an object using balance scales you don't need to know 'g'. You just need to know the mass of the object(s) on the other side of the scales, and that the gravitational field is uniform on a scale of a few centimetres; i.e. that 'g' is the same on both sides of the set of scales. (Normally a pretty safe assumption.)
It doesn't matter which scale is used in the experiment. In my theory both scales should register W reduction at increasing T in vacuum.

Steve3007
Posts: 5629
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv wrote:My theory sprung out from my mind.
Did it spring out of your mind as a result of some sensoy experiences that entered your mind first? Is it the result of anything that you have experienced? If so, what?
I couldn't find the results of the experiment in the literature. Can you ?
No. That could mean that the experiment hasn't been done. If a theory that there are swans living on the far side of the moon springs out of my mind and if I search for an experiment which has tested this theory but don't find one, it probably means that the experiment hasn't been done.

Why not try to perform the experiment yourself? According to your theory, how much reduction in weight would you expect to find for a given increase in temperature? If you can't tell me that, how would I be able to conduct an experiment? I wouldn't know what I was looking for. Should I expect to find a reduction of the same order of magnitude that I calculated in my previous post? Bigger? Smaller? Do you predict that it would be a big enough reduction to be measurable by ordinary kitchen scales? Or will I need more accurate equipment?
My theory provides a qualitative descriptions of physics. Quantitative prediction could commence after the results of the experiment.
But you still haven't described a theory. "W should decrease at increasing T in vacuum." is not a theory. It's a simple one sentence assertion. A bit like "there are swans living on the far side of the moon.". That's not a theory either. To be a theory, you have to tell me why you think the weight of an object will decrease with increasing temperature. What previous experimental results suggest that your assertion must be true? What's going on at the molecular level in your model? Describe to me the mechanism which results in a reduction in weight. Or perhaps point me to somewhere where you've already described it before.
My theory clears our minds from the illusion of knowledge and provides a simpler description of the universe.
Sounds good. I can't wait to hear it. Your single sentence has not so far achieved that ambitious aim.
How do you calculate the mass of a moving object ?
Various ways that are essentially the same as calculating the mass of a stationary object. i.e. exerting a force on that object and seeing how it behaves.

For example, in a mass spectrometer or a particle accelerator the motion of particles is affected by a magnetic or electric field. The extent to which their trajectories are affected by that magnetic/electric field depends on their masses. In a particle accelerator the large relativistic increase in mass due to the fast movements of the particles has to be accounted for when calculating how strong a magnetic field is required to deflect them into a circular path of the required radius. Similarly, in a mass spectrometer the mass of particles is calculated by observing how much they are deflected by electric and/or magnetic fields.

Yaniv
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 12:13 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 12:01 pm
No. That could mean that the experiment hasn't been done.
Do you agree its time to do the experiment ?
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 12:01 pm
Why not try to perform the experiment yourself?
I think the most important experiment in history of physics should be concluded by proper experimentalists.
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 12:01 pm
According to your theory, how much reduction in weight would you expect to find for a given increase in temperature? If you can't tell me that, how would I be able to conduct an experiment? I wouldn't know what I was looking for. Should I expect to find a reduction of the same order of magnitude that I calculated in my previous post? Bigger? Smaller? Do you predict that it would be a big enough reduction to be measurable by ordinary kitchen scales? Or will I need more accurate equipment?
Several papers in the literature and on the internet weighing heated metals in air describe W reduction in micrograms. I think a microgram balance could be sufficient to find W reduction in vacuum predicted by my theory but the experiment should be completed to highest precision measurable. References below:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 4/27/2/008
http://www.intellectualarchive.com/getf ... Weight.pdf
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 12:01 pm
But you still haven't described a theory. "W should decrease at increasing T in vacuum." is not a theory. It's a simple one sentence assertion. A bit like "there are swans living on the far side of the moon.". That's not a theory either. To be a theory, you have to tell me why you think the weight of an object will decrease with increasing temperature. What previous experimental results suggest that your assertion must be true? What's going on at the molecular level in your model? Describe to me the mechanism which results in a reduction in weight. Or perhaps point me to somewhere where you've already described it before.
Yaniv wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 9:15 am
My theory can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com.
Steve3007 wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 12:01 pm
For example, in a mass spectrometer or a particle accelerator the motion of particles is affected by a magnetic or electric field. The extent to which their trajectories are affected by that magnetic/electric field depends on their masses. In a particle accelerator the large relativistic increase in mass due to the fast movements of the particles has to be accounted for when calculating how strong a magnetic field is required to deflect them into a circular path of the required radius. Similarly, in a mass spectrometer the mass of particles is calculated by observing how much they are deflected by electric and/or magnetic fields.
Curving charged particles in magnetic and electric fields is a completely different experiment to weighing a heated metal in vacuum.

Halc
Posts: 285
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Yaniv wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 9:15 am
My theory can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com
The 'Types of Matter' section reduces all particles to two types (electrons and positrons (???)) which account for positive and negative charges. They supposedly form a neutron when joined (cancelling their charge), but in reality they annihilate each other since positrons are antimatter. You need to come up with a different name for this positron fundamental thingy if it isn't antimatter.

Secondly, the little box makes no mention of mass. A neutron is a E and a + (I refuse to call it a positron) implying that the + provides the mass for the neutron. But then the proton would mass twice the neutron mass since it consists of a second + thingy.

As a matter of fact, the difference between a proton and neutron is indeed a positron. When a proton decays into a neutron, say when an unstable O15 nucleus decays into N15, it ejects a positron (and a neutrino) in the process. It doesn't lose much mass because positrons mass far less than a proton. You need to account for that.

Anyway, the bit about heat and mass seems just made up. It doesn't follow from the mathematics that are completely absent from the web page. This blog post is not science at all. Steve3007 is correct (in his first post some hours ago) about how theories come from some kind of empirical basis, a thing in need of better (even if only simpler) explanation than is provided by current theories.

I marveled at the part about light refraction, where light consists of faster and slower E particles, a complete contradiction to empirical observation of light not being charged, nor moving at different speeds.

Yaniv
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 12:13 pm

### Re: Experiment to test W=mg

Halc wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 10:10 pm
The 'Types of Matter' section reduces all particles to two types (electrons and positrons (???)) which account for positive and negative charges. They supposedly form a neutron when joined (cancelling their charge), but in reality they annihilate each other since positrons are antimatter. You need to come up with a different name for this positron fundamental thingy if it isn't antimatter.

Secondly, the little box makes no mention of mass. A neutron is a E and a + (I refuse to call it a positron) implying that the + provides the mass for the neutron. But then the proton would mass twice the neutron mass since it consists of a second + thingy.

As a matter of fact, the difference between a proton and neutron is indeed a positron. When a proton decays into a neutron, say when an unstable O15 nucleus decays into N15, it ejects a positron (and a neutrino) in the process. It doesn't lose much mass because positrons mass far less than a proton. You need to account for that.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass and will require new explanations for all physical phenomena based on mass.
Halc wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 10:10 pm
Anyway, the bit about heat and mass seems just made up. It doesn't follow from the mathematics that are completely absent from the web page. This blog post is not science at all. Steve3007 is correct (in his first post some hours ago) about how theories come from some kind of empirical basis, a thing in need of better (even if only simpler) explanation than is provided by current theories.
I can't recall any equations in the origin of species. Are you suggesting Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not science ?
Halc wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 10:10 pm
I marveled at the part about light refraction, where light consists of faster and slower E particles, a complete contradiction to empirical observation of light not being charged, nor moving at different speeds.
In my theory light consists of negative E particles travelling at different speeds and there are papers in the literature describing deflection of light by electric and magnetic fields. References below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delbr%C3%BCck_scattering
https://www.photonics.com/a52202/A_Magn ... or_Photons
I also read red light travels faster than blue light in water and glass. I have not seen experimental results showing red and blue light travel at the same speed in vacuum.