Strange

So the capacitance is proportional to the area of the plates (which in this case doesn't change) and inversely proportional to how far apart the plates are. (In other words, the closer together they are, the higher the value of the capacitance.) One of the plates is the vibrating mass that you can see in the video. The other plate is fixed on the surface of the silicon underneath the mass. As the gyroscope rotates, the vibrating mass is forced downwards (by the Coriolis force) making the gap between the plates smaller and hence increasing the capacitance. The other mass moves up, making the capacitance smaller. There are various ways of measuring the value of the capacitance and I don't know what they use in this circuit. Typically, you measure the time it takes to charge the capacitor or the frequency of a resonant circuit containing the capacitor.

! Moderator Note You need to present your argument here, not tell people to Google something.

Not sure what your question as the explanation in the video seems quite clear: when the device is rotated, the Coriolis force causes the vibrating system to deform which moves the two capacitor plates and changes the capacitance. There is a more detailed description here (of a slightly different structure) which includes videos showing animations of the change in the movement of the vibrating part when it is rotated: https://www.siliconsensing.com/technology/mems-gyroscopes/

This is a key point that Itoero needs to understand. Good point!

And the reason it isn't a good example, is that it is more complex than it seems!

I'm not sure that is a good example because it doesn't change the fundamental frequency - the vocal cords still resonant at (approximately) the same frequency. It just changes the resonant effects of the vocal cavities, so we hear different harmonics.

So your main point is that: Then the thread appears to be in the right place. Which is why you said absolutely nothing at all about it.

Report the post with your question and maybe someone will tell you. Or maybe not. And the point of that claims is, what, exactly?

I'm not sure what conservation of expansion of space means. And dark energy is not conserved. There is no reason why it should be.

I don't know. I stopped following this thread because I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be saying that GR is wrong (in a very roundabout and incoherent way) in which case, Speculations is the right place for it. If you want to clarify what your point is exactly and then report that post, perhaps it would be reconsidered.

Let’s try 8: 1 + 8 + 8 = 10 Nope. Anyway, this has nothing to do with gravity. But it does seem to show that you don’t understand basic mathematics. So I think we can ignore your claims about problems in existing theory

Of course it works. It is used to calculate the falling of apples and the orbits of planets. What? That doesn't make sense. Either the model is correct or wrong. It can't be both. Nonsense. x=4.5 They don't need to. We have a model that works. (Actually, we have two.)

Well, if you are going to redefine all movement as rotation then inevitably you are correct. But that is pretty pointless, because now you need a new word to distinguish "what we used to call rotation" from other types of motion. And yet it works. Why is that? Do you have an alternative mathematical model that doesn't involve mass but that still gives the correct results?

I certainly hope not. You would need to provide some evidence for anyone to reach that conclusion. I don't any connection between gravity and rotation. Look at Newton's law: where does rotation appear in it?

I really wish you hadn't used a capital M there. It makes it sound like a really daunting task. But probably easier than inventing anti-gravity.

Why is it quantised (indivisible) if it just a series of waves? Why are the interactions of always localised? Planck's constant does not have the units of energy. This doesn't appear to relate to the actual measured energy of a photon. So what evidence do you have for this? In what way is an electron a "vortex"? What evidence do you have for this? What are "vortices" in nuclear fusion or fission? What are these "half waves"? How do they relate to the actual measured radiation released by nuclear fusion or fission? What evidence do you have for ether? What evidence do you have for vortices? Your half wave is supposed to be a photon and therefore interacts electromagnetically. Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically. If your half wave is a photon, then it obeys Bose-Einstein statistics (ie it is a boson). Neutrinos obey Fermi-Dirac statistics (they are fermions). Your half wave (assuming it is a photon) has integer spin, while neutrinos have half integer spin. Photons (your half wave?) are massless while neutrinos have mass So in what way, exactly, are they "alike"? Neutrinos are just as much particles (or waves) as photons are (ie, not at all). Maybe that is the only way they are alike. So, no evidence and no maths. Why do you think this thread should stay open?

What is the evidence for this? How fast are we moving through it? What are "subjective velocities"? What is the nature of these particles? Why can't we measure this "objectively static" field? As magnetism and gravity behave very differently, in many ways, why do you think they can both be explained by the same field? You don't think this might be a problem? Do you know that electric charge, magnetism and light have all been unified already? By relativity TBH, I gave up at that point.

That is another, very good, way of descring it. I think we need to get past the basics first! (Although I am fairly sure that is in the link I posted on the first page.)

You have completely misunderstood the explanations provided. The whole point about the the energy not being the same when measured from different frames of reference is that E(t1) is not equal to E(t2). So, If E(t1) != E(t2), there is no problem.

! Moderator Note @OOO It is against the rules to post images or links with no explanation. If there is something you wish to discuss, please try again.

I have never found his explanations particularly clear. I’m not sure why so many people seem to start with his writings on the subject.

The waves are oscillations in the respective field, surely. As he says, not a material medium. So nothing like sound waves. I can’t see much difference between his characterisation of spacetime and, say, the electromagnetic field. (Sorry if I missed some of the points you have made, but it is almost impossible to read your posts, as they are all mixed up with quotes from other people) So, like light waves in the electromagnetic field then? That sounds as if you are saying GR is inconsistent with GR, so I must have misunderstood.

Gravitational waves and light waves are both propagating in a field not a medium. (I assume a medium means something material) Although that series of articles start by saying that gravity does not gravitate, it then goes on to explain all the ways in which it can be considered that it does.

Why?

Are you sure? They have energy and so must be a source of gravitation. My understanding is that this self-gravitation is a cause of the non-linearity that makes GR so complex, mathematically.