Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 204: Line 204:     
:Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date.  But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it.  [[Quantum mechanics]] may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)
 
:Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date.  But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it.  [[Quantum mechanics]] may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)
 +
 +
::I'm not interested in what the anomalous precession proves or doesn't prove, or what scientists pretend that it proves or doesn't prove.  I want to know why it occurs.  The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it?  Can you say what the tweak is?  I hope it's not the Hall-Newcomb exponent tweak that was proved to be incorrect almost immediately after it was proposed.  Do you have another tweak in mind?
 +
 +
::Time dilation is most definitely shown, both by GPS, and by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.  This can be explained by classical physics?  Really?  Can you give us details?  Can you give us a Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist type of explanation, that goes beyond the cop-out of saying that the laws of physics are simply different in different parts of the universe?  "Different parts of the universe" is a far bigger chunk of real estate than is needed to show the effect.  The Pound-Rebka experiment involved different parts of the ''same building'', and GPS exhibits the discrepancy between different parts of medium Earth orbit.  We should have a pretty good handle on how physics works in the vicinity of the Earth.  Newton's law of gravitation worked over the whole solar system.
 +
 +
::Evidence for non-conservation of mass is not "almost non-existent"; it is ubiquitous.  The specific case of Radium alpha decay can be found on the periodic table charts hanging in high-school science classrooms.  "I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved"—well at least you qualified it with "necessarily always", but can you be more specific?  To a degree that Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist would respect?  You are quite right in that Newtonian physics does not depend on it, but that's not what I was asking.
 +
 +
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:38, 22 December 2014 (EST)
    
==Categories==
 
==Categories==
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266

edits

Navigation menu