Capiert

Pre Einstein. Typical Ether, before the M&M (=Michelson & Morley) problem set in. Sorry Strange (for not answering your 1st answer, it seemed friendly, inviting; but a loaded question afterwards when it suddenly became "my" (own) Ether concept). I'( woul)d like to picture the ether (medium) (2D) (simply) like water, with waves; ((even) although its 3D also with compressional waves, like sound in air (or thru a solid, like Einstein1922 Leiden University). Can we keep it that simple, for a start? I've never been more honoured to have the floor (for my own concept, of ether; but I'm only after the non_distorted (from relativity) model). I'm after the classical Ether of Newton. (I know) you'( all a)re all against his defining photons as a particle; but intuitively (=reading between the lines) I think (=suspect) he meant "a photon has mass" & that'( i)s all (to what he meant). From that, he could estimate a (desired) photon's mass('s value, as a number). P.S. I personally find "Interested" great(!), he knows quite a bit, makes conclusions, ask questions, but presents it "very" simply that "anybody" can follow him (even if he does not stay on topic (for the thread), which does NOT bother me (at all (in the least)!) because he is so interesting, (simply (because he is)) being himself (=curious!). + point. Keep it up, you're doing fine! (=Mega!) (Surely) conjecture. ? (I'll assume yes.) See, I've been confirmed (by automation). Even again. ! (Period. !) (~approximately sea-level). But how is that possible? The atoms at the equator are (being accelerated; &) moving faster at the equator (than at the north, or south pole). Doesn't that (velocity & acceleration, at the equator) affect their mass (force) on them, to deliver (at the equator) a slightly different frequency (of precession, wrt a north (pole) position)? Which in turn affects their output frequency in (general=) whole? I'd even expect a magnetic affect on the atomic clock's frequency at the north pole because the flux density is larger. (If that (stronger magnetism) can affect NMR=Nuclear magnetic resonance, precession frequency; then it's going to (also) affect atomic (ESR=electron spin) resonance frequencies.) How can you say that (the north pole & equator atomic frequency (=inverse period) measurements are the same) Swansont? Do you have any measurements to back it up? E.g. Throughout the (24 hrs=) day the (frequency) differences will be compensated to about=approximately the same average; but the instantaneous values (look to me, like they) will vary.

I can't make any sense of "some" of the things (the most famous & respected (irish) mathematician) Hamilton wrote (about Quaternions). E.g. i*j*k can NOT (possibly) be -1, because each (i, or j, or k), separately squared, is -1, resulting in a "negative" singular (of either i, or j or k), i.e. (that'( i)s) the(e) "minus" root, of minus 1; NOT (simply) minus 1! e.g. -j (instead of -1=(j^2)). His use of accelerating "force" is (also) most profound (=doubtful)!; if (that's) NOT a typo (need(ing, the word) "of" (in the sentence), as: accelerating (of) force). Can anybody clarify (the non_sense, that'( i)s going on)? ..so I can make some (better) sense of it. 2018 02 15 2342_Errata for Hamilton 2018 02 16 0342 PS Wi.pdf

Variation(s) (away) from (given, ideal) exact (whole number) integers. E.g. (+/-%) (mechanical measurement) tolerances, you might (also?) call uncertainties? E.g. Is it possible the (Heisenberg) uncertainty principle is (just a fancy wording, for) dealing with something like (the metal) industry's "+/- Tolerances" (of measurement, e.g. in length)? Since your instruments are not precise enough, you loose a decimal place of accuracy, thus defining the ruff approximation as quantized (into (number) groups), integerized into integers, ruff approximations. .. (for the lack of precision). Quantum isn't that (really, a (fancy) word) (for meaning) ruff approximation(s)?

Measuring a volt or more should be trivial even with inexpensive equipment. Measuring less than a volt, e.g. to 3 decimal places is a problem. No, it's not. I guess you mean, charge must_be (=is) unique (if it has nothing to do with spin).? Does a neutron have (any) charge? E.g. Can we accelerate or deflect neutrons with (electro) magnetism (at all)? (.. Is a (neutral) neutron (dielectrically) polarizable? e.g. to some degree (chargeable). Can a neutron have (or get (some kind of, or amount of)) spin? e.g. rotation. E.g. like a spinning [base]ball. ) If yes I would expect a (~bell shaped) statistical distribution curve.

(Very) good question. Maybe yes. My (virtual, working theory) guess (=hypothesis) is (molecules or atoms, ions of) bipole chains build along a voltage drop V=E*d (e.g. in a wire). Each bipole has a neutral center. d is the bipole's length. The wire's resistance & voltage would help determine d. Any voltage drop will produce a string of bipoles. You probably explain things (=neutrality, zero middle charge) with dipole moment('s center) & (an insulator's) dielectric polarization. ? Yes, that's probably true. I think from nearest neighbours (along the voltage drop, direction). Maybe a (severe) "lack of negative" charges is why it's (called (the)) positive (terminal). That's a mighty good question. Charge might be spin direction (e.g. left & right hand rules, curled fingers vs upright thumb) for + & -. If charged particles have a spin or rotation then they have magnetism (you say a magnetic field; but I have great difficulty trying to comprehend what a field is (in detail); so I tend to avoid using the word (field). Occationally I use that word (like everyone else) when I'm careless & casual (taking it for granted). It's a big problem. Anyway, in reverse: a magnetic field indicates a moving charge(d material, matter). As we've seen voltage affects matter & charges (that matter). (But (charged), voltage in a capacitor only indicates the amount of charges (per volume?).) I suppose it's the difference of nearby materials (e.g. electronegativity?) that charges them initially to make a battery (differential cell). Considering (a generator, & forceably) turning copper wire thru a magnetic field (careless again, I should say magnetism instead) at 90 degrees we get electricity (=moving charged electrons=electron_charges?). I assume an electron always has a charge & that it is negative. I don't know if a neutral electron can exist?; or a positron electron pair. ? Most atomic orbitals can pair opposite electrons, but nuclear physics distinguishes (positive) positrons from (negative) beta electrons. It's a wonder why a positive (electron?) orbital is ignored. Maybe that has to do with our instrumentation is grounded wrt negative for measurements. What would the (new) world be like with positive grounding=earthing. Who knows? Maybe we would find a few new missing (non_heavy) isotopes. E.g. Charging the environment affects the measurement. The common ground earth is made 1 of the noisest conductors. I don't know why positive is positive; but I enjoy the lack of electrons; especially when it's sunny & the light drives them away (with the photoelectric effect) like in our photocopiers. Electrons (scattered (all over)) are the culprit for our (modern) stress. Positive (electric) potential calms, maybe because our eyes are an exposed nerve, a (electric) zero_crossing detector. Subconsciously maybe we can notice what is NOT there; but it's the (increasing negativity) negative voltage spikes (=when the noise voltage goes downwards from zero, seen as a falling flank because it's negative going) that bother us, I think? (When our body has a similar potential. Mine was ~0.14 V AC (based on body size, capacitively) when touching a bare probe. Any noise approx. my body's potential (voltage) made me ill, probably because random cancellation confused my automatic vegetative nervous system signals (mostly visually). I concluded that's what made people sick from Electric noise. Large or smaller values did NOT affect illness as much. But larger was worse. Thanks for the question, I didn't know, maybe the eye (subconsciously) reacts exclusively to only electrons' (increasing) negative charge? That's screwy to explain positively if electrons are the major charge carrier & positive charge is the lack of electrons. I guess, it's the atomic kick_out "sequence" that might count (maybe due to the coreolis direction? earth, sun, galactic rotation direction? which has priority, spin up vs down). 1 is easier to do (kick out) because of a (rotational) momentum assist (against the whole?); or the other spin direction sits better, as more stable, in harmony, rotating (or spinning) in a similar direction to the larger cosmic scale's rotational direction. Positive is a lack of electrons. Is it possible electrons spinning direction is in the opposite direction than most of the mass in the universe rotates? Or galaxy rotation. I often wondered why galaxies rotated.

..by the nearby (things) of the environment, e.g. plate's voltages. Yes, just (trying to) narrow in on trying to understand the mechanism (cause details, for the effects). Yes, (very) good tip. Thanks (for making it simpler). Maybe it's (= the cause details are) not as difficult as I expect, but I doubt my optimism. For my crude measuring instruments it does (help accuracy to deal with large approximate voltages). I can't measure small values very accurately. I don't have a big buget for best instruments like gov officials do. (Good) Instruments are rare for me; & too expensive. No place to store everything either. I thought that too at 1st; but got reproduceable values. & they were stable. I tried similar measurements with other (company's better) equipment & got (only) crap. So I guess I had luck finding that (Russian) Oscilloscope. It caught my eye; contemplating what I could do with it to answer my questions. (I was curious about the emotional effects radiation produced. E.g. stress.) It wasn't enough for all my needs, (an extra channel would have been helpful) but I'll never regret buying it. I had lived in an old house where the (electrical wiring's) cloth insulation had burn marks, all over. I was curious why I felt certain sensations that reoccured & wanted to find out why. A lot of strange things happened. The strangest is, all that happened (but mostly) only in that house. It had peculiar problems that I could not reproduce elsewhere. (So that house('s problems) & its circumstances was a rare artifact (for me) or (my lab) reference. Something like Marie Curie's pitch blend. Something strange, noticeable, repeats, not explained. What is it? How could it be explained? Build theories, & test them with the observations. It's subjective testhing (for an egoist); that does not interest (objective) physicists. That reference seems to be taken care of (automatically) by (some) FET's wiring circuits. Correct; & a single potential is not. ? Yes. Yes, perhaps that's the tip. The Oscilloscope was grounded (by its power cable, 3 wires) although I didn't use the ground input, that might have been internally grounded (at the input). Expensive scopes leave the ground input open (=not connected) so the user can & must connect that (everytime). That's interesting, & might explain why I could almost see arcing in clumps (when a boy while playing around with DC motors & batteries). Seems reasonable (& good description). uhmm, (ruffly) yuk! (for the approximating); but its a good=excellent description. (=I don't like that AC & DC are treated as so different; but I have to face the facts (even though I don't like guesses (too well), because I have enough of my own (guesses, & assumptions) trying to get to the bottom of things). What does that mean then? I had eventually thought the house had RF on the power cables as a (wireless) carrier for LF (low frequency) noise because the radio transmitter was 5 Km away in the next villiage. Sometimes the stress was so (high=bad), it hurt more to cry=weep, than not. All I wanted was peace (& quiet) but could NOT get it (without further R&D).

Where does the (right red) ball's horizontal motion come from? The right red ball has collided with the (horizontally) moving half mirror (& then moved up). But that red ball was bounced (=recoil, in the opposite direction). (Naturally, the half mirror was only 45 degrees (instead of 90 degrees) orientation, but it's still a recoil (at least partially).) So why should the right red ball have horizontal motion to the right after the 1st collision with the half mirror? Aren't the dotted (diagonal) lines' angles wishful thinking (from Michelson)? He no longer has 90 degree incidence. The 90 degrees that Michelson used to aim the light beam at the mirrors, for reflection (back to the half mirror). Good answer. But (Michelson's) 90 degree angle? The lab apparatus always had 90 degress, but his diagram did NOT. What tells the photons to change their aimed angle (wrt v)? (Magic?) =How do the photons know which angle they need to stay in sync? (Michelson (thought he) knew, that's why he sketched the (other than 90 degree) angles. But the photons didn't (know). They only had 90 degree angled apparatus, I assume.) =What (manually) re_aims the beam('s incident angle) wrt speed v? (Magic?)

Thank's Strange it looks like you won & cleared that. But why aren't both red balls going vertically up at the same speed? That's suppose to be a comparison in the same medium. Only the apparatus is suppose to be moving to the right til it (=the right red ball) hits the top mirror; or else travel diagonally. I guess you mean, the right ball is moving slower vertically? Ok, thanks. It seems to make sense to me now. Except the 90 degree angle is missing for the red incident ray (right side: diagonal up & right). How do you explain that?

That's suppose to be a (classical=non_relativistic) demonstration, & it breaks the rules, both (classically & relativistically): of not obeying wave physics (of Michelson's time 1887), nor obeying relativity's light_speed c "limit" (Einstein 1905, 1915, 1916, 1920 .. til now).

In the animation’s right side (or half): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MichelsonMorleyAnimationDE.gif Why does the red (ball) go faster than c? Speed (v=d/t) is distance (d) per time (t). & the left animation (clearly) shows that the red ball moves (diagonally (up & then down)) faster than the wave(_speed c). (Simply compared:) The ball is moving faster than the waves. E.g. That (right_side’s red) ball travels more distance (diagonally); than the waves (can) do in the same amount of time. I.e. longer (diagonal) path, compared to the horizontal path; & arrives (back at the gray half_mirror) “sooner” (=in less time) (than the blue ball). Imagine (that), light (is) travelling faster than light. =Is that suppose to be physics? (It's a classic (joke or fake), but NOT classical.)

What sort of evidence wound you need to prove the ether? Please give me some examples that are (=would be) acceptable?

Very good, that's what I'm looking for. (Attraction & repulsion.) ((But now let's back up.) How is the ball charged? From the (voltage) on the plate. ? So the plates feel their own forceful effects? (The electrified (=charged) plates cause the ball to be electrified (=charged) so both ball & plate will feel forces. ? (So that's:) Action at a distance. Only air in between. Air is also electrified. Electrical chains (=series)? (Electrification) also happens without air (=vacuum). Why? Electrons are shot out (by the acceleration), but that acceleration is caused by (electric) repulsion. I.e. Too many electrons in the volume of metal (plate). Seems ok, but I can NOT explain attraction; only (higher) pressure (repulsion). Maximum accuracy, simple math. My original intent was to predict the probe's measured voltage based on (any) area. Then scale down (smaller). I.e. Calibration. No, my oscioscope also has a ground, like any other; but it's NOT used for the potential measurements (except to calibrate zero, by shorting the input (manually) for a few seconds). Yes. Yes. The ground (wire) is not used. Yes, 10 M Ohm impedance. (..from what?) I don't understand that 1 (sentence). Do you mean, the electrons redistribute in the (probe) wire (metal) as charges per volume? I assume the number of free electron( charge)s Q per vol(ume) (=volume charge density rho=Q/vol) is changing in the (probe) conductor. Those repelling electrons affect the J-FET's (gate G (e.g. pinch off by affecting the silicon's charge(_density) nearby G, & thus the) drain to source (electron_)flow (decreases). More electrons per volume means more (electric) potential. Subtracting potentials is voltage (difference). I enjoyed your questions.

How do you define learning? (Memorizing?) I'd prefer to digest by sorting things into the right boxes. There is too much confusion, to proceed otherwise. Hi John I can't tell you how delightful it was to read that. It looked almost like mine.

Thanks too for the good reply. Do you have a link or info to reinforce getting me on track there. E.g. both polarities moving in a wire? I though only electrons (if they can be called that) hopped around because the heavy nuclei were bound (=bonded) as solid. I suspect the 1990s confusion was the vast amount of older literature with conventional flow sabbotaging progress. All literature (that made any reference to electricity) needed review. For then mission impossible. But I don't know the issues. Now (it looks to me like) we close an eye (& make a compromise) to get around the (polarity confusion) problem. (?)

Please explain a bit (how or how much, an example)? What will happen to the charge on the plate? You have a 10 cm ball. There can be currents flowing on the surface of it. What happens if we use a flat_probe (instead of the round ball) e.g. Square Al(uminum) 10 cm x 10 cm x 1 mm, parallel to the 2 plates. (I chose 10 cm to make the math easy; but that could be smaller, e.g. of only a few cm square foil, instead, if needed.) The problem with electric potential (voltage measurement) is, there doesn't seem to be a 2nd electrode (=return wire, or ground) for the (forced) current flowing thru the probe into the Oscillscope.

1st I'd like to thank both of you (Studiot & Swansont) for your careful handling (hands on) approach to get me thinking. My reactions might sound harsh (e.g. Abracadabra) but they are only reflexes, (which accelerate me to the point of importance) I'm not angry. Thanks Studiot for asking about capacitance (my depth) before proceeding; & for those few helpful reassuring small phrases (to steer me along). (E.g. That led up to Abracadabra.) (Although I'm ambivalent) I've got mixed feelings about Swansonts post above: I cringed at (1.) the "guess" of (2) an "antenna"; but was intrigued by the idea that a current was forced (thru the probe). It's very (importantly) interesting. I can't quite tell (=figure out) why I don't like the idea of an antenna. I suspect I wanted to hear (an exacter (=pin pointed) answer like): the probe is acting like a capacitor plate. Maybe bidirectional: "sender"; & receiver=sensor? But I'm still curious (though) why the electric potential measures zero in the middle between the 2 plates. That (zero voltage, on the probe) means zero current? How can that be? (You might (probably) say because there is zero (net) force? Such an answer as that leaves a vast pillar like column, hole tunnel in my mind, an abis (=bottomless pit).) Matter is 3D, so a 2D cross_section(al area) is expected by me. Pressure was my suggestion to him. I think I would call it (my) lack of knowledge (=not knowing), but I have to admit I must sort things out (into the right sequence) first: I can not accept anything but the key sequence (to the major problems) I need. Everything else is a distraction.

I still have a big gorge (=lack of info) in between the words "exerts force"s (Surely you mean pressure too?) That's not telling me how things are happening (as a mechanism); it's only telling that they happen & by how much. Are not static charges moving more than 100s of m/s on this rotating earth? I only see that you are speeding them up or slowing them down. Thus static is an illusion, a lie, deceipt. Perhaps you mean the non_linear acceleration of AC, which is (too) difficult (=complicated) to follow linearly? We don't want that. Sorry, I'll try to be careful. E=F/q (=itsself) If you double the (E) field for constant charge (q) then the force F will double (agreed); but if you double the charge q then the E field will half (for a constant force F) (= something is (really) screwy about that); or (else) the E field must stay the same & the force F will double (as you said). E.g. Isn't more charge more electric field E=Q/(4*Pi*Epsilon*(r^2))? But (isn't it so, that) you can NOT have charge without mass. It (=charge e) is always (found) in (nature as) an e/m ratio. Charge does NOT exist alone without mass. Charge is (always) a property of matter (=mass); & NOT mass is a property of charge (although I am not sure about that last 1 (phrase)?). Charge with zero mass does NOT exist in nature. The (charged) electron has mass. (Will) what? . Please explain, you lost me (on that sentence). Electric "co"_relation="direct"_proportionality; instead of inverse proportionality. E.g. Working together for something; instead of (counter productively) against. If I'm talking about "electric" charge & "electric" field, then I expect they both have something (electric) in common; instead of behaving oppositely. Not for me. (That's not what I see. Something there is NOT working right.) In that equation E=F/q says more charge q would produce "less" field E. Which makes no sense at all. At least that's what I can see there. I can't quite completely agree with you there. But conventional flow does NOT work right. (Thus it's non_sense.) Electron flow does (work right). (They are opposites: 1 makes sense because it works; the other does not make sense, because it does not work.) I think the point is to clear the misunderstandings. What's the purpose of perpetuating non_sense? (To avoid booby traps? as cautions?) (Please don't get offended when I say you have been brainwashed to accept something that does NOT work because your brain is not ticking on that point. It has shut off any questioning about it. That's not an insult, it is a fact. It happens to me (often) & everyone (else) also. (It's a short_circuit, bypass program.) Descartes said "the greatest thing you can do is to doubt", perhaps because you will search thru everything till you find the (correct) answer. That's the purpose of discussion, to find the right answer(s). So I will repeat, (more mildly in other words): I doubt you can convince me that conventional flow is correct, as not (confusing) non_sense.) Sorry, appollogies in advance.

Yes, some of them (at least, if not all). =If I know what you mean ((then, that_is=) it's clear; & I think I (can) understand you. (But please do NOT force me to read Wiki, because they are NOT (always) reliable, nor perfect, although they try hard. =When do I know when they are right, or wrong?) Your questions are very thought provoking because they are (also) so well thought out. I'm sorry if you got angry with me because Swansont (or others, prematurely) stopped my threads so I could not continue (to present further info, or clear misunderstandings, &) to answer your (interesting) questions, e.g. concerning binding energy. (But he only reacted due to his nature; & (my provoking, or) situation, so in the end it's my fault.) It is very difficult if they get impatient (or frustrated) because they do not understand what I intend to say (in the future). But the frustration is mutual, but it's my job to bridge the (gaps of) mis_communication (=misunderstanding, somehow). We (all) see things from different perspectives; & have different standpoint(s with evidence)s for our viewpoints. (..But..) We have to overcome our egos to bridge those gaps. There are great resentments (=anger, & (naturally, unwanted (emotional)) provocations) because of the lack of being understood. (I don't deny that.) That is only a natural outcome from the scattered=divergent chaos which is splitting our civilization (instead of unifying it). The way I see it, if the people get nasty (or nice), then there is a reason why they react so. That's the reason why they react so. (Sorry for the moral preach.)

(Sensei, I have) no arguments (there), if the numbers (which you (use, &) do not doubt) are right. Avagadros Nr (counted, to the last atom) is rather doubtful in accuracy; but worse: I suspect its magnitude based on electrical measurements. E.g. (Fiv)^2=Fi*Fv where Fv is a (D'Arsenval's, =spring_loaded, analog) voltmeter's (electrical) force & Fi is an (D'Arsenval's) Ampmeter's (electrical) force; then Fiv is the rooted (electrical) power's "force" (P=I*V)^0.5 . (E.g. Some sort of mean average for (electrical_mechanical) force.) Any questions?

Thanks: John; & Tuco, that guy is excellent. Could you expain a bit (which secondaries)? Btw, doesn't the metal Pt have the ability to absorb hydrogen &/or oxygen gas? (~20 times its volume?) Constant environment (low humidity) might degas (it)? Otherwise, I can only suspect Hubble's expanding universe & its matter (=material, atoms) expanding with it (=the universe) (due to the surrounding=outer_space vacuum. E.g. Osmosis: the high concentration tends to go to low concentration. Thus high density migrates to the low(er) density; & the (previously) higher becomes less; while the (previously) lower becomes more; so both will (finally) become similar (=almost equal). Cosmically that ((homeostasis) result from Hubbles (non_linear?) (volume) expansion_constant) might take billions of years; if not more?)

The 1875 Paris, 1 kg standard (IPK, Pt Ir) seems to have lost about -50 µg in 100 years. Now, assuming that (1 kg) standard is based on 1 m length derived from the (average, back & forth) light_speed c, is it possible light's speed is NOT constant? E.g. if c varies semi_annually (to affect volume standards of a density) how can exactly 1 kg be expected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram Otherwise, if the earth's speed v changed thru an ether; would that affect the Atomic weights enough to detect weight (not mass) differences between (different elements &) isotopes on balance scales. (Obviously not; but subtly?) It seems only the variable: called volume (instead of mass) seems to be left to deal with.

Yes, but can you elaborate how the E_field moves things like charge(d matter). I'm still looking for the mechanism. I think it's obvious from where we got the electric power but maybe that should be stated for security that I don't go astray. Yes. Yes, but as stated (above?) the purpose is to interpret how (so_called) static electricity is (responding). The AC is a statistical method (technique) for acquiring (behaviour) info. I want to find out how Electrostatic behaves, but don't have the equipment, so the most I can do is lower the frequency (to near DC) & observe the tendencies. Yes, absolutely. I wanted to accentuate it (draw it to your attention) for my following comments. How should I do that? I don't use quote marks like you do. My technique stems from the days before I had Winword: Different editors & PC software were unstable, did not last long & crashed. I needed (my own) standards for recovery & used ASCIi (in an encrypted way, you will say) instead of loose valuable info & files. I also experimented with language searched for a ideal, never found. I can't stand my own style so it's no wonder you can hardly understand me or like it either. That might be useful (for what I'm looking for)? Is there any more to it that can be broken down. E.g. What does E=F/q the force F per charge Q mean? It looks like the electric field E=(m/e)*a is a mass to charge ratio being accelerated, but it seems to me corrupt(ed)=peculiar if that ratio is not inverted for a passive (inefficient) mass (factor) m. That equation is failing symmetry for me. E.g. We're dealing with an "electric" field E (on the left side) & the right side shows NOT enough corelation with the charge "inverse". If both E & e were in nummerators respectively, then there would be a direct correlation between both, for what(ever) electric (parameter) is (defined as). I (also) get the idea Newton's 2nd law is poorly defined for a harmony with electromagnetism. It would have been better (sometimes) to have used an inverse mass symbol because I tend to notice 2 types of mass: (storable) active; & (inefficiency) passive (coupling) (masses). Sorry for thinking too loud. How do I get nearer to my quest for potential('s definition, & relations)?, since that is what I have measured; or has that (potential, as idea) bean dropped (=kicked out) due to your antenna interpretation. Why should I be hopping back a forth between the different threads like a rabbit when this thread is capacitor experiments (plural). I evaluate based on comparisons. I'll do it (for you) if you suggest a good reason. I'm trying to unify my scattered concepts, (to universal formula, by narrowing in), not diverge them although I often need your divergent, isolating method. This thread is for both AC & DC, however we are concentrating on AC. It's interesting that some people have the talent (to understand, even when things aren't always logical). I don't know what that gift is, special software (for de_encryption) that they possess or have aquired? Some are born as natural teachers, others are not. You cannot convince me that conventional flow is not (utter) non_sense.

(Yes) But we have a current (from the antenna)? I.e. Current flow. What is the motivating (=motion) mechanism? Abracadabra? (Newton's 2nd law: (accelerating force), requires the 3rd law: recoil.) When do we not (have charges on metal & in metal)? The atoms are full of them (electrons). I suppose you mean free(d, =unbound) electrons. But doesn't the presence of (free) charges influence materials to also have (freed) charge(s)? Naturally different (amounts) for the various materials (insulators & conductors). That (changes, of E_field) means DC will not NOT produce a current flow to produce a voltage (measurement). ? (Back to the Millikan oil drop experiment (thread); that means a horizonal setup (instead of vertical) would not accelerate e.g. move, a charge(d oil drop) sideways.) ? Sorry you're not making (enough) sense to me. Yes, it does. Quite probably (true). Loading, e.g. like a resistance (is a small conductor, that) (allows a curent flow), i.e. an impedance. That means the probe's presence acts to produce (something like) less (insulation) resistance than the air's (resistance).

What does that electric potential look like mathematically. I familiar with voltages which are said to be potential difference. But I'm missing something there. I'm also familiar with Gauss's (surface) charge_density Q/A, A=4*Pi*(r^2), but I don't know how they are related (to electric potential)? Yes. Yes, that is what I meant. I measuured the voltage at specific distances but the voltage values did not have a linear relation wrt distance; so I tried to develop a formula to predict those (voltages) wrt (also) probe area. If you mean vibration, no not really, The real time response was fast enough (for me) to ignore wiggling. (I was only interested in the static DC values anyway; even though I used AC instead as a statistical method, =average of ruff values, thumb rule.) There is no sense in high accuracy measurements for low quality apparatus. I just wanted an idea of how it worked, not how well. The experiment measurements were very ruff approximations (to give me an idea of what to expect, so I could calculate the exact values). E.g. I doubled distances (to determine the tendancies). Maybe a bit, I would have to guess the rest & figure it out. (But I don't think that (swaying or vibration) was important for 50..60 Hz. 110..230 V AC.) I guess the probe capacitance C would act like a low pass filter as it charged & discharged thru the (series) wire resistance R. (The capacitor's charging voltage would be vc=Vmax*(1-(0.5^(-(t/(R*C)*(2^0.5))))) & the capacitor's discharge voltage vc=Vmax*0.5^((t/(R*C))*(2^0.5)) where Vmax is the max voltage applied & t is the half_(voltage)_time (in seconds) e.g. the time t it takes for half the capacitor's voltage.) Thus it would round off a noisey waveshape, e.g. making a square shaped wave look (a little) like a rounded sine form. At least (it would) tend to do that some amount. I can not imagine a D'Arsenval analog voltage measurement without a current. Where is the return path (current flow) i.e. 2nd electrode (for the probe's measurement)?