Strange

That is a very silly argument. I have never been to America so I am only taking its existence on "faith"? (And stop trying to drag your closed thread into this.)

Do you have any evidence to support that? That appears to be a problem with your understanding, rather than geology and seismology. Do you have any evidence to support that? Without that it is completely unreasonable. Do you have any evidence to support that?

You are far more likely to catch something else from those sources - which could also be very unpleasant and possibly fatal.

Apparently, you should not make such an extreme choice; you must go to all pubs and none of them simultaneously. Ommm....

A pinhole camera is the model for an "ideal camera" that can be used to quantify the errors introduced by optical systems. However, real world pinhole cameras are not perfect. One reason is the diffraction at the edges of the hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera#Selection_of_pinhole_size We seem to be getting ever further of topic. You would be better off asking these questions in the Physics sections of the forum as you would get more knowledgeable people responding.

Once again you attempt to ignore the substantive issues (and shift the source of confusion). The word "appears" does not appear in the following: Here you very clear state that there is a difference between the effect of gravity and the effect of acceleration. Please explain why: 1. This is NOT a violation of the equivalence principle. 2. Your hypothesis is not falsified by the fact that this has been tested to a precision of about 10-12. This would easily detect the difference you claim should exist.

No. The light comes from the ionized gas. It is not the referencing or copying information that I was objecting to, it is the increasingly irrelevant and desperate objections that you bring up to defend your erroneous positions. You have already dragged this thread off topic by bringing up spark gaps, coronal discharge, etc. So lets leave it there.

But velocity is relative. Chemistry isn't. The same reactions occur, whoever observes them. Even if nobody observes them. The analogy just doesn't work. And certainly isn't science. Unless you can make a testable prediction?

I assume you mean electric field?

He didn't say it is. "Tends..." Of course there is. (Although, again, he didn't say there was a limit on the range.) Once the dielectric breaks down it is a conductor and therefore the arrangement is no longer a capacitor. Following your usual pattern, I now predict you will drag up a series of increasingly irrelevant references rather than admit you might have made a mistake.

See post 31 for a detailed explanation. There is no such thing as a "charge field". The plates cannot see each other. There is no charge between the plates.

A particularly ugly baby.

There is no evidence for that.

OK. But ... If a change is not measured for gravitational mass but is measured for inertial mass, then this is a violation the equivalence principle. Saying that gravity and acceleration are not identical is a violation of the equivalence principle. You say that the difference should be on the order of 10-7. However, the equivalence principle has been tested to far, far higher precision than this. This would appear to falsify your theory. (Although you obviously won't accept that.) This is not an exact measure. It is an average based on the geoid used to model the Earth. By the way, you never did explain what you thought was anomalous about the measurement of the newton, or which experiment you were referring to. You deny you are violating the equivalence principle and then immediately state two ways in which the equivalence principle is violated by your theory. This may be that you are, again, just communicating your ideas in a very confusing way. Or it may be that your idea is fundamentally flawed. Your theory is not based on any evidence or sound theory. It seems to be a series of ad-hoc assumptions based on your flawed "common sense" understanding of how things should work. As seen with the discussion of conservation of angular momentum and your curious notion that this is only accounted for when the Earth returns to its starting point; and the even stranger (and still unexplained) idea that the Earth's orbit should not be stable. That's about as honest as I can be. I know it isn't what you seek but what can I do, I'm not going to lie to you.

The "surface of last screaming" analogy might help: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html

In the trap. http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/200

Real crackpots prefer vortices.

I think I did no better than chance when I tried (not surprisingly).

You mean Lion King wasn't a documentary?

The difference is that there was never any evidence at all for the aether, direct or indirect. There are multiple lines of evidence for dark matter. That cannot be just ignored. It needs to be explained.

Crop circles? Really? Why do people still think that is mysterious when the people who make them have videos on YouTube!

Sorry!

Why not tell us what it is about. I am certainly not going to follow potentially dodgy links with no explanation.

How about these: http://snarxiv.org/ http://davidsd.org/2010/03/the-snarxiv/

I assume they are as close as possible to the edge facing the dielectric (attracted there by the positive charges on the other side). The outer electrons of the atoms in metals form a sort of "sea" of free electrons - this is why they are electrically conductive. For quantum mechanical effects that I don't fully understand. the available energy levels become so close togehter that they are effectively continuous, giving the electrons freedom to move around. There will be "holes" as positive charge carriers. Just a reduction in the number of electrons. The breakdown voltage of the dielectric. Which depends on the material and the thickness.