Capiert

On ‎2017‎ ‎12‎ ‎09 at 3:01 PM, Strange said:

 

On ‎2017‎ ‎12‎ ‎09 at 2:11 PM, Capiert said:

Did Einstein assume the universe is finite because (he ran out of (proved) facts,) he could not comprehend all of it?

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:

On 9 December 2017 at 6:37 AM, Capiert said:

A non_symmetry must exist (e.g. the taper, (inverse) slope=x/y), doesn't it?

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:

8 hours ago, swansont said:

And you claimed that orbits weren't symmetric. That's the context of my statement.

So kindly leave me out of this. 

I suppose you've meant my (Egg thread) slip

A cone is only partially symmetric,

 it is not generally symmetric for all cases (=axii).

(Was the glass half full; or (half) empty?)

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ellipses have the same symmetry as a cone - a symmetry around one axis. Which you were claiming does not exist in orbits.

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).

7 hours ago, swansont said:

I said no such thing. You claimed a lack of symmetry in orbits, which you claimed were not ellipses and instead egg-shaped, and that you derived these from a cone. I said that cones had symmetry. I did not say that were symmetric in all dimensions. 

   On 16 April 2017 at 4:09 PM, Capiert said: 

I derived it (the egg shape) from a cone cut.

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.

?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

There would be a limit (to how low a frequency we could detect), I suppose, when the highest frequencies in the source have been shifted below what we can detect. But that won't happen for anything in the observable universe.

Why not? Please explain.

Quote

We can never know anything directly about what is (far) beyond 

in

Quote

the observable universe.

I suppose that's the catch.

Far beyond is not observable

(although still in the universe).

Quote

I suspect we can never know if the universe is actually infinite or just very large.

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).)

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

It isn't (mirror symmetrical in all 3 axii). It has rotational symmetry about the y axis (which requires three degrees

Degrees?

2 hours ago, Strange said:

not two, to also answer the question in the title).

 

On 19 November 2017 at 12:31 AM, Strange said:

Light gets increasing red-shifted. But we can still detect it. And other frequencies get shifted into the visible range. 

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.)

 

 

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nothing much. It was remarkably good, considering it was based on a flawed theory! 

What is the flaw?

(That was my question. What are the flaws?)

Quote

One possibility for dark matter is micro-black holes.

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.)

Quote

The problem is that if there were enough black holes to provide the extra mass then we would probably see them (because they would travel in front of other stars and block our view of them). They would also cause gravitational lensing, which should be detectable as well. 

Michell's (big) dark star will do that too.

(So that doesn't help the argument.)

Quote

We have a model based on the physics of stellar fusion that explains supernovas.

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.

Quote

Colliding black holes don't produce the same effects.

I know nothing about black holes because I've never seen 1.

Quote

Colliding neutron stars produce much larger explosions.

Are neutron stars suppose to be Michell's invisible star

 or do other alternatives exist too?

Quote

In principle, never.

That makes no sense to me.

Quote

But in practice it depends on the brightness of the star and the size of the telescope. We can see stars (well, galaxies) that are nearly 13 billion light years away. 

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)?

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nice.

(But I guess when people say "the laws of physics" they mean our models. Usually.)

Yup!

On 14 June 2014 at 9:27 PM, Sensei said:

See how easy is to introduce error.

 

Check Zn-64 on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_zinc

 

They say it's "observatory stable" with possible double beta decay+

But calculate decay energy, and it'll be obvious it cannot happen.

Simply sum of nucleus of Ni-64 + 2e+ have higher mass-energy than nucleus Zn-64.

They had to use D.E.=(m_parent-m_child)*931.494 MeV=73.6 keV

 

This error is repeated over and over again in many elements.

I have checked three elements, and all three wrong.

Ni-58 another example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel

 

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?

 

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Discharge tubes are filled by gas. Different colors, different gases.

If I didn't know better,

 I'd say it's N2.

Quote

Are you talking about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_globe

Yes, exactly!

Quote

"Although many variations exist, a plasma lamp is usually a clear glass sphere filled with a mixture of various gases (most commonly neon, sometimes with other noble gases such as argon, xenon and krypton) at nearly atmospheric pressure."

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).

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Simplifying, some radioactive decay produces highly accelerated charged particles.

When they pass through medium, they ionize atoms and molecules, and electrons from medium are ejected.

When you will charge capacitor (two electrodes, one will have abundance of electrons, second one will have absence of electrons), and start ionizing medium between them,

current will flow through medium closing your circuit. Use this information for transistor to increase power and then further to speaker, and you have radioactivity meter.

It takes time to load capacitor, it takes some time to discharge capacitor. So it does not tick at every single event on quantum level.

 

Air medium requires high voltage, that's why in circuit presented by Studiot, there is voltage amplifier.

Radioactivity can cause ionization of atoms and molecules.

That's the same like with Cloud Chamber.

 

These traces are visible just because electric charged particles passed through medium, ionizing it.

Electric neutral particles don't leave traces.

 

Which gas is ionized in your discharge tube?

I'll assume it's (evacuated) air.

Otherwise no info available.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

They produce UV ionizing photons.

I guess so,

 the arcing is blue,

 & fleshy magenta

near the glass when touching

 ~10 cm outer glass ball.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

ps. Why is it in Speculation? So far there was no speculation (and I hope so it'll remain this way!), so it should be in mainstream physics section instead.

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).

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

ps2. +1 for interesting subject to discuss.

Thanks.

11 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 

It's inverse square law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Unstable point particle can decay randomly uniformly in the all directions. When they pass through medium, they ionize it, and electrons from negatively charged electrode find path through medium (air or other gas typically), to positive electrode. Yes, smaller breakdown voltage is needed to initiate flow of electrons. Because there are electric charged particle in medium, which helps electrons to flow through it.

 

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).

1 hour ago, studiot said:

1967 I built my first geiger.

Good stuff.

Quote

Gosh was it that long?

I guess so. (Time will tell.)

Quote

I don't think I even own one now.

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.

Quote

Anyway here is a good simple explanatory article.

The author's name looks like a distant relative.

Quote

Don't forget geiger tubes use high voltage, when you are thinking about radioactivity.

Can you elaborate (please)?

Quote

Yes readioactivity does degrade insulation over time.

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).

Quote

The authors name looks like a distant relative.

Thanks for the article.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Same here. I am baffled as to why anyone would believe in gods

"Can't beat the feeling." It's a hormone trip, a natural high.

Quote

but equally baffled as to why anyone would care that other people do.

"The feeling'( i)s gone" (with (negative) criticism.

"My heart belongs to (only) me"-Streisand.)

Quote

I long ago gave up worrying about why people play golf. 

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?

 

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not all.

I'm a don't care, since it makes no difference to me.

And I sleep better at night for not feeling the urge to prove or disprove the unprovable.

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.

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

(Didn't Oscar Wilde say something like that?)

 

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)?

On 13 November 2017 at 3:52 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Probably why the agnostic dyslexic insomniac stayed up all night...wondering if their really was a doG...

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

 

59 minutes ago, studiot said:

very approximate ?

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).

1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said:

(Dr Turner's (words) "form of"

was just a vague description)

Of what exactly?

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).

 

48 minutes ago, studiot said:

Capiert I do like your new mellow perspective. +1

Is that dog ruff?

 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.

6 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Are you for real?

I'll assume I am.

Quote

Why are you entertaining a bogus idea?

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)).

Quote

The whole terminology ''space as a state of matter'' is ridiculous.

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).

Quote

A few years ago, the community got excited over new buzzwords that didn't make any sense, like considering consciousness as a state of matter, and yet thinking of consciousness as a state of matter is one thing, but

That's an interesting theme, but it's beyond me.

Quote

space is an arena where fields and their particles exist, it is not a state of matter per se.

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).

Quote

So thinking of the two on equal footing, makes no sense to me. And I assure you, will make little sense with anyone else here.

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 3^rd (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.

 

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 3^rd exponent;

 so that mass

 m=s/(c^5)

 is space s

 divided by light_speed c to the 5^th 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