Capiert

I don't know if he did assume that. Do you have a source. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html In this case (=of (extremely_large=) cosmic dimensions, but tiny density) the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded (=flexible) and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density. 1920 GR part 3 chapters (30,) particularly 31, (32) & Appendices 3 & 4. Ch31 The possibility of a finite & yet unbounded universe. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf?session_id=291ace058d13f13348e18ff7fbbfcabb52aedf4c 2017_12_11_0102_Einstein’s_finite_universe_2017 12 11 0102 PS Wi.docx

On ‎2017‎ ‎07‎ ‎07 at 5:32 PM, Capiert said: The (capacitor's) plates are physically separated (naturally, no argument there); but the(ir) (positive & negative, as) "sum" of their surface_charges (sigma=+/- Q/A) at the "position" of the oil drop has a cancelation effect (=resulting total, which is less (than a single plate)). Please identify "it"=? I'( ha)ve taken a 10 cm diameter styropor ball, wrapped it with Al foil (to be like a Gaussian sphere, e.g. the center is always zero (charge?, E_field?), so it's a self_discharging single plate capacitor, being charged externally from the environment (surroundings).) & connected it to a J-FET input oscilloscope's probe. The (oscillo)scope indicated RF noise (voltage on the ball, exponentially) when that ball was brought near the ground (or walls, ceiling). (Much larger) AC voltage also showed (on the display) when the ball neared AC cables, & increased as distance decreased. I made 2 large capacitor plates (each 1 m x 0.5 m x 0.1 m, from styropor plates covered with Al foil), separated them (e.g. d~0.5 m) as a parallel plate capacitor & connected them (in parallel) to the AC (house) power (outlet, via wires & alligator clips). I moved the ball_probe between the 2 plates (back & forth). As the Al_ball probe neared an inside plate surface the AC voltage ((that) displayed on the oscilloscope) increased (exponentially); & the polarity was opposite for the other plate; but (ruffly) zero (voltage) in the middle between the plates. That looks to me like (a single probe) plus+minus (=adding) cancelation so please identify what I measured. (=What was I measuring? Electric potential?)

Erratta1: Sorry, slope=y/x [=rise/run; NOT x/y. My mistake=typo]. Errata2: I also think it would be wise(r) to state the cone's given height as a capital H, (instead of h); like its base radius R. So I can use h for the plane's intersection height in the axis of symmetry (=y axis) when that plane starts from the (most) left side of the (cone's) base circumference (=perimeter). Erratta3: I suppose you've meant my (Egg thread) slip Hi Strange. I can present evidence that "the orbits are not symmetric as stated above." Instead (improved), should have read: I can present evidence that the orbits are not "that" symmetric or that the (single symmetric axis, 2D egg) orbits are not "completely" symmetric (as an ellipse with 2 symmetric axii=), as stated above. (But that (evidence) is only based on a (slanted) cone cut (math (derivation)=plane intersection) that is NOT an ellipse. A similar derivation (=slanted cut, plane intersectionon) on a cylinder produces an ellipse. E.g. Why do I get such results, when the text books say otherwise? Why bother using a cone (cut, at all), when a cylinder will do? Thus something is wrong, please check.)

A cone is only partially symmetric, it is not generally symmetric for all cases (=axii). (Was the glass half full; or (half) empty?) Bohrmann also had the (orbit) excentric equations with + & - in the denominator & nummerator respectively, or visa versa. That is the (same) asymmetry I mean(t). Ellipses have 2 different axii of symmetry (not just 1) (axis major 2*a; & axis minor 2*b; (they are) at 90 degrees to each other); (but) a (2D) egg shape has only 1 axis of symmetry (the length, =longest axis).

! Moderator Note Then you did it wrong. A cone is symmetrical, and you are "deriving" an asymmetry that doesn't exist. A cone is symmetrical, & I'm deriving an asymmetry that does not exist (from a cone) sure sounds (to me) like the cone has no asymmetry. ?

Why not? Please explain. in I suppose that's the catch. Far beyond is not observable (although still in the universe). What do we do there? We know the universe is very large. (=Fact.) Infinite (universe) is an unproven assumption, limited to our capabilities. (=Not a fact.) Did Einstein assume the universe is finite because (he ran out of (proved) facts,) he could not comprehend all of it? With only the (remains of a tiny) average density (throughout the universe) (=outer space is not a perfect vacuum); & that light bends (a curved path) (e.g. light falls (when)) around (=near) mass when travelling those immense distances; I guess he assumed a (perfect) circle (light_)path would eventually (be possible &) happen, thus limiting the universe's size to that radius. (But average density is a random thing varrying with the sample size (=volume); & where it's taken. Light could eventually travel a zig zag path (in 3D, not just 2D).)

Degrees?

How can we detect a light frequency (as light) that has been decreased so much (with so much (leaving) Doppler shifted speed) that its frequency is lower than (either) IR, radio waves, ultra sound, audio, sub acoustic (rythems).. ? I mean the universe is infinite (although Einstein said it's finite), & the (decreasing frequency=red (Doppler) shift wrt fast speed, physics) tendancy is established, but there is still lots to discover (far beyond) that we don't know (about).

With (the cone's) round base placed on the ground so the apex (=tip) points upward let the vertical y axis, be the rotatonal axis of symmetry. Let the x axis be on the ground, to the right from the cone, & the z axis also be on the ground but away from the cone & me. Let the cone's base radius R=1 (meter) & the cone's height h=1 m. I know both the x & z axii of the cone's contour are symmetric (by rotating the cone wrt the y axis). But the cone has a taper (the radius changes) wrt the y axis (height). Starting with the base's radius r=1 (meter) on the ground, both x & z will decrease proportionally (x^2=z^2, r^2 = x^2 + z^2) to zero, upon reaching the cone's height h=1 (meter). But (partially) rotating the cone (to any angle <360 degrees) wrt either x or z axis will not give the same (constant=identical) contour (x,y,z) values. So how can the cone be (mirror) symmetrical in all 3 axii (as Swansont implied, in my egg thread)? A non_symmetry must exist (e.g. the taper, slope=x/y), doesn't it? The base radius is wider than the apex's (pointed tip). (That's like (horizontally) cutting (or mirroring) a flower at the stem: the blossom does NOT resemble the roots, at all.)

What is the flaw? (That was my question. What are the flaws?) Not according to Michell's idea. Micro black holes have NOTHING to do with a radius 500x larger than our sun! Please stay on topic. (But thanks for the background info, anyway.) Michell's (big) dark star will do that too. (So that doesn't help the argument.) That sounds post Michell. (I (only?) know gravity accumulates matter. Things get bigger (e.g. radii).) I assume At Wt determines the age of isotopes, to some degree. Hydrogen is young, uranium is very old. I know nothing about black holes because I've never seen 1. Are neutron stars suppose to be Michell's invisible star or do other alternatives exist too? That makes no sense to me. Do we not observe red shifts? Do we have infrared galaxies? Do we (not) have radio galaxies? Isn't the (light) frequency (tendency) sinking into the invisible? (Not to mention quasars, & pulsars.?)

What was wrong with Michell's idea? Why isn't a very large star (& many of them, i.e. dark stars) simply the answer for so much invisible mass? & Why isn't the collision of 2 dark stars into fragments simply the explaination for so_called super novas? E.g. At what distance away (from earth) will a specific large radius star become invisible to us (on earth) as a dark star? (I can imagine a (distant) dark star would begin to become visible as we get near to it. E.g. it takes time for gravity to slow light down to zero & large distance will give gravity that time.) Why can't we (classically) calculate those (dark) star radii, & their distance away from earth, if the laws of physics hold everywhere (even in black holes)?

Yup!

Why is Wiki wrong & repeatedly making the same mistake? (Don't they know what they are doing?) Can they be helped to be put (back) on (the right) track again? I don't think anybody wants wrong info, not even them. Where has the error started? How can this mess be corrected, for good?

If I didn't know better, I'd say it's N2. Yes, exactly! That globe makes my proportional detector whistle! Like when touching the (detector's) inner electrode with my finger. (Wrongly?) interpretted, that means both (globe; & finger) are radioactive. (?) They produce similar results on the detector, that radioactivity would. But I have not reversed the experiment: I have not brought a radioactive source near (only) the globe. I would expect the globe would go crazy, conducting, with much more light (near(est) the source).

I'll assume it's (evacuated) air. Otherwise no info available. I guess so, the arcing is blue, & fleshy magenta near the glass when touching ~10 cm outer glass ball. I'm trying to figure out what insulation is, & e.g. why radioactivity changes that. I'm afraid they might send me back here, because it's NOT a typical explaination e.g. (radioactivity) wrt insulation. Judging from detector response with repect to touching the middle electrode, & the positive discharge lamp, I get the idea that radioactivity might have a large positive charge_density. We know the nucleus is largely positive (protons). It's also interesting, that oil (an insulator) (also wax) can stop some (nuclear) radiations (a bit). Thanks.

Yes, but I'm still asking what resistance & insulation are. E.g. With radioactivity some of that resistance & insulation does NOT exist. Without radioactivity the insulators (will) insulate (again) as normal (=natural).

Good stuff. I guess so. (Time will tell.) I purchased a proportional counter too because I was fascinated by the linear (distance) response of a wire between a parallel plate capacitor; instead of GM coax form. The author's name looks like a distant relative. Can you elaborate (please)? I was more concerned with the (instant) real_time phenomena, (the opposite of what you (all) call ionization, i.e. electrical insulation, (atomic work potential?) e.g. what makes an atom insulate (electricity)? What is (electrical) insulation? E.g. What is resistance, atomically? Why do things insulate (electrically)?) not necessarily the (long_term) accumulated damage. Perhaps that's why Senei did NOT recognize my speculation? The breakdown voltage decreases near radioactivity (=a radioactive substance) but recovers (almost instantly=immediately, after) when the radioactive substance is removed (=taken far away); (excluding that little bit of the GM tube that remains radioactive). The authors name looks like a distant relative. Thanks for the article.

"Can't beat the feeling." It's a hormone trip, a natural high. "The feeling'( i)s gone" (with (negative) criticism. "My heart belongs to (only) me"-Streisand.) Golf, what's that? A whole in 1? Facit: The emotional problems begin when we start to care & (to) decide, but why do we fall in that (incomplete) trap?

There you have made an important decision, to know (=recognize) what is proveable showing the futility (& uselessness) of argumentation. That alone decides the argument (as true or false). (Or does it?) Doesn't it at least indicate (=imply) on the right (=proveable) or (unproveable=) wrong track? Unfortunately, not always? But many false arguments can be eliminated, before hand. Maybe. The way I see it, people like to be lied to, I don't know why, it supports fantasy so they can sleep well (=dream (better)). They loose no sleep. I haven't a clue why I punish myself, unlike them. I guess I'm nuts (=crazy)?

Yes but how can you know either? Aren't we all agnostic (to a degree)?

What is radioactivity? What is (electrical) insulation? (Are they opposites? e.g. oppositely proportional?) Marie & Pierre Curie measured (& compared) the amount "time" in seconds (from a distance) that their (charged) capacitor discharged (e.g. (to) half its voltage). (The sooner their capacitor was discharged, (meant) the more radioactive the location was. =Less (discharging) time meant more radioactivity.) A Geiger_Mueller (GM) tube is something like a piece of coax wire acting like a((n air, or gas filled) charged, but dischargeable) capacitor. (A high voltage supply repeatedly recharges the capacitor.) (I'll ignore the window on some tube's end, but that (window) exposes the inner electrode to electromagnetic fields (e.g. no shielding)). Basically: The electronics ((audio) amplifier, (like from a stereo music player)) produces an acoustic signal, a "click", from a(n input) voltage spike. I've touched the (shielded) inside electrode of the (GM) tube with my finger & the amplifier just whistles (many "clicks" per second). (Perhaps due to the (background) electromagnetic noise on me as a (charged) capacitor based on my size, e.g. (as) surface area.?) It seems like the air's (electrical insulation) insulating properties break down; or that an extra voltage is (temporarily) present that adds to lower the (total, insulating) breakdown voltage. That means (to me) a zener diode (with its voltage held near (=just below) max breakdown voltage) could be used instead, but needs a large surface (area) (acting like a chargeable capacitor). I've connected a doubled_sided copper circuit board to a zener diode, acting like a capacitor('s area) in parallel, & the background (radiation) count (=clicks rate) went up. (I've also done the same with a small GM tube (instead of zener diode) & had the same results: click rate increased depending on the capacitor plates' size.) I've also noticed that the click rate increases (wildly) when the Geiger counter (tube) gets near a (kopfball) spherical (positive) high_voltage vacuum glass discharge lamp=light. (I assume that exposed high voltage (glass) electrode is positive(ly charged).) This thread('s question) is more about what is (the nature of) radioactivity (e.g. ruining electrical insulation), considering that we (indirectly) measure that (radioactivity) with (simple) electromagnetic instruments (instead). E.g. although we measure voltages (spikes, or pulses), they are (really) produced by tiny (electrical) currents. & (=But the whole idea brings up the question:) what is electrical insulation? .. because radioactivity is affecting that (electrical insulation).

Yes (I agree with you), originally (some of the ideas (of science) were very approximate, at some point in time), it's a comparative process (=technique) (of similaries & differences, to quantively (& qualatively) evaluate). It was just a vague description for "form of" energy "kind of" energy "type of" energy. He implied that energy is mass (or matter). E=m*(c^2). He mentioned, 2 purebreds (particle; wave) & 1 hybrid characteristics (wave_particle).

Yes, (dog spelt backwards is god needing a 2nd "o" for good) I think we have to look for the virtures (=positive points) of theories (for our progress). Typically science has evolved from ruff (=approximate) ideas. Looking closer, the previous theory description had errors. Our descriptions (will) narrow in on the details (later, in the future). Then we can bow (&) wow.

I'll assume I am. Maybe you missed the point? (The previous interpretation is an intermediate, inspired from my boredom with dead ends, that don't work right, completely.) I'm trying to figure out (& identify) what he is "trying" to say even though he is not using the correct vocabulary. It's simply a different perspective, & Einstein said there is no preferred perspective (reference frame), they are all valid if you can convert (to them). He (=Dr Turner) has mentioned a math technique & has stated it has advantages (e.g. (it's suppose to be) easier) so I would like to try (=test) it to see what they are. Thus, I have given him the benefit of the doubt. The mind completes itsself in peculiar ways (of encryption). (That is perhaps the subconscious part (90%?, often mentioned) which runs automatically.) People do not always say (exactly) what they mean, but that does not mean they are stupid. That is a communication problem instead which starts arguements because the egos burst (& go) out of control. I'd like to sort the facts from the fiction, instead of throw (away) everything, at first without knowing what got thrown out. I can ignor the most vulgar (=common (standard)) info to try to catch new (subtle) ideas (because the standard will be driven in you, so that once in, you can never get rid of it without extreme effort). This is a speculations forum so I do expect something different from all the brainstorming (=0..20% useful, the rest trash) (even if you might not (want it)). We've seen Einstein & we know he wasn't perfect, so there has got to be a different way to tackle things (even if it is not popular). (I'm just looking for inspiration. Otherwise it was science fiction (=entertainment)). It doesn't look like you quoted correctly (=accurately). Wasn't the word "form", instead of "state". Or are you ruffly describing? (which I'll assume). That's an interesting theme, but it's beyond me. I'll assume the 3 states of matter are solid, liquid, & gas; ionized(_gas, plasma) is the 4th; & the (legendary) quintesscence (ether) is the 5th (which I'm (often) tempted to interpret as space). I suppose all are a ruff description of the flexibility (=lack of hardness, & density). Reading between the lines (=interpreting) I'll assme he (Dr Turner, ruffly) meant "form"=kind (of)=type of e.g. ..energy; not in the strict sense. It was just a vague (=ruff, approximate) description.

Dear Dr Turner (Charles or Michael if I may?). I've tried to interpret your 1st & 2nd posts, but I'm still (quite) a bit shakey (trying to make things fit) so please feel free to correct it. If I understand correctly, you are trying to say the following. Space s is the 3rd form of matter, which is a completely new idea that (nobody has thought of before, &) helps me to simplify my own understanding of general relativity. I call it, (NToE), The newest Theory of Everything by Dr. Charles Michael Turner. The Expanding N.E.T. (=New Everything Theory?) Wave theory states that not only did the Big Bang change (=transition) the finite singularity to create mass m, energy E and space s, (the) three forms of matter, but each atom [is] still, (&) radiates more space. Space is defined as the gravitational field, continually radiating as a lowest energy field from all mass. It is important to not(ic)e that low energy gravitational waves radiating from all mass simply follow Newton’s 3 motion laws, like mass (does). The standard model can be linked to general relativity, using space s=E*(c^3) is energy E (=e) multiplied by light_speed c to the 3rd (exponential) power, i.e. (c^3). I (can (more) easily) understand (& comprehend) the entire universe’s mysterious actions, simply by (also) overlaying GR’s static field with a continually radiating field & knowing that Newton’s (& Euler’s) motion_laws apply. Dark_energy is then Newton’s 2nd law (F=m*a) applied to 3 dimensions & that (also) explains inflation properly. Dark_matter & gravity are Newton’s 3rd law ((opposite & equal “reaction” 0=F1-F2) which makes the Huygens principle the Huygens law or Newton’s (Euler’s) 3rd law applied to waves. Time and space and gravitational_mass (weight Wt=m*g) are measurements of this process which creates an expansion force (F=m*a) and as each galaxy is loosing mass (m=F/a) with a constant force (F=m*a) then each galaxy being its own Spacetime generator can travel up (=be accelerated “a”) to light’s_speed c relative to the other galaxies & no laws are broken. ..because.. General relativity & Maxwell’s equations create perpetual motions machines which violate the basic laws of physics; & my concept corrects those (GR) flaws. A dark matter halo is the constructive wave interference patterns of all mass radiating gravitational fields in the galaxy and forming a standing wavefront outside the galaxy and (so) the inverse square law needs to be added from that perspective loosing force back to the center of the galaxy. That is (ruffly) the copyrighted paper from Dr. Charles Michael Turner. Michael Turner Posted yesterday at 12:10 AM By overlaying the Expanding N.E.T. Wave theory of the radiating gravitational field from all mass over a static field concentrated around all mass with infinite range as in general relativity and by knowing that radiating low energy fields in a medium collide and form larger combined radiating fields, (then) the resulting reactions of field tension simply follow the physics laws just like radar 1/(c^4) when the range is infinite vs 1/(r^4) when the radar range is known. That is basically Newton’s 3rd law or Euler’s law of motion. Coincidentally, that is the undiscovered back action of wavefront formation of the Huygens principle which is by definition, now the Huygens law. So low energy gravitational wave emissions from each mass collide forming wavefronts with back actions of gravitation which include gravity and dark matter (no particles) is a “reaction” function of Spacetime radiating from all mass. To summarize, the total energy Et = M + E + S or (rewritten as) Et = Em + Ep + Es is made from 3 types of energy: (Rest) Mass energy (Em=m*(c^2)) is a particle; Photon energy (Ep=h*f) is a wave_particle duality; & Space energy (Es=s/(c^3) is only a wave (not a particle at all) (=all wave); where I’ve defined space s=E*(c^3) as energy E multiplied by light_speed c to the 3rd exponent; so that mass m=s/(c^5) is space s divided by light_speed c to the 5th exponent. The universe is radiating or expanding from mass to space via photon_decay in the magnetic_dipoles (that are) holding the atom together. An orbit, a dark_matter halo and an event_Horizon are continually radiating standing waves of the gravitational_field of Spacetime. Particles & lowest energy waves simply follow Newton’s (& Euler’s) 3 motion laws. Time and space and gravitational mass (Wt=m*g) are relative because they are aspects of mass radiating it’s field into a larger combined radiating field. Depending on your speed (relative to the surrounding) changed the density relationship which is the basis of relativity. Radiating waves into a field & increasing speed desynchronizes the field by increasing density of the field nearby slowing the ability to radiate into a more dense medium slowing time and increasing relative mass and constricting relative length. So with that understanding, space does not violate any laws & has to obey the speed of the gravitational field (wave). That is because in this concept, a gravitational wave is a ripple of Spacetime, not a ripple in Spacetime. So, by overlaying General relativity (also) with a radiating field from all mass(es) in static equalibrium and having these fields follow Newton’s 3 laws of motion, that then helps me to understand the universe’s actions better (=more thoroughly or completely) than without. So with my theory I understand 100% of the universe, (but) with the current way only 5% of the universe was understood. Expanding N.E.T. Wave theory all forces use energy and space follows the laws. With current thinking: energy spontaneously appears in vacuum energy, orbits are perpetual motion machines, atoms are perpetual motion machines and magnetic fields are perpetual motion machines. Space is outside the laws. Yes it is embarrassing that a dentist (such as I) has to step in and straighten out theoretical physics’ universe; & solve the formula Einstein could not. Einstein said he was not smart enough to figure it out, spent 30 years trying and died not knowing. Please answer me this: What have you done as your 2nd job? I’ve been trying to solve the universe’s mysteries, & (I) believe I have succeeded. E.g. My concept of: while Spacetime increases, the fabric of space radiates from all mass = A decrease in the energy in the magnetic dipoles in mass*(c^3). s=E*(c^3)=m*(c^5). Dark_energy = (F=m*a) Newton’s 2nd law Dark_matter and gravity = Newton’s 2nd law because Newton’s 3 laws of motion apply to the waves of Spacetime, not just particles. 2017_11_13_0031_SFN_Dr_Turner’s_NET_Physics_2017 11 13 0035 PS Wi.docx