What is electricity?

[webolife]

Forrest,
Thank you for joining our forum to help us all through this. You have an enthralled audience.
I'm still not understanding... can you explain in terms of C Theory, what is happening at my home when I turn on my light switch and at the same time what is happening at the dam end? First, are you saying the transmission line from dam to my switch is ACTIVE with a standing TEM wave form, before I flip the switch? If not, explain. If so, is this what I would call voltage, and explain what happens [C Theory] at both ends of the transmission line, including at my ground post, and at my light bulb, when I flip the switch... Second, does it matter at all whether the two sections of the transmission line are of equal length, ie. is it possible that one length could be thousands or more times as long as the other? Then, does it matter whether this is AC or DC [it seems to make no differrence in C theory]... again, there is something I'm missing in order for my own "light" to go on...

[Chromium6]

Here's Mathis with his Mechanical Model... the PI = 4 wasn't the best introduction...

81b. How a Battery Circuit Works.
Not the mathematical or field model, but the full mechanical model, with photons. 9pp.
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf

Understanding Electricity and Circuits:
What the Text Books Don’t Tell You
Ian M. Sefton
School of Physics, The University of Sydney
I.Sefton@physics.usyd.edu.au

http://sydney.edu.au/science/uniserve_s ... sefton.pdf

[webolife]

Mathis helped some... more than Sefton, but both have several similarities to Catt.

In a simple circuit diagram with a battery at one side and a fixture or capacitor at the other, I get how they all are trying to say electric energy is directed through the space between the top and bottom of the circuit diagram. But I still want someone to explain to me how this works in my Dam to house question.

[mjv1121]

Solar,

But, they all stem from these variations of the original "field energy." One is really just chronicling variations of 'field activities.'

Field energy is beside the point, since it is force that causes motion and changes of motion, and the only way to generate force is from collision and a transfer of momentum.

It is all very well invoking EM fields, but you need to go back to first principles and consider what the EM field consists of and what causes the field. The EM field is only an effect, that results from the emission of charge from electrons.

The concept that EM fields appear and exist only outside the wire would be analogous to saying that smoke causes fire. Whereas actually the fields also exist inside, and in fact originate from, the wire. In this case, the "fire" is hidden, from view or detection, inside the wire, but that is no reason to ignore the bleeding obvious, that the EM "fields" are emitted from the wire - the "field" emanates from the wire. Crude misinterpretations of logic that define the field as emanating from, and travelling through the dielectric material that surrounds the wire are beyond ridiculous.

Planck's constant....the smallest “energy quanta” i.e. IT ACTS to convey, transmit, and itself BE “energy.” Considering that the definition of “energy” is the ‘capacity to do work’ i.e. ACT-ion, how would this be an affront against credulity??

What on earth are you talking about: "BE energy". You cannot "do work" without applying a force and force is the act of transfer of momentum. Momentum is mass in motion, so Planck's constant is telling us about the smallest possible transfer of momentum, which we know occurs from bodies travelling at c. If you wish to include yourself among the band of merry mediaeval theologians that consider "energy" to be an entity you are free to do so, but you should not at the same time claim to represent science and the scientific endeavour.

How dare anyone reexamine and/or reinterpret the interpretive framework of “scientific” gnosis and all of its wonders.

I dare.

Michael

[mharratsc]

So there is really no difference between potential kinetic energy and electromagnetic energy then, if it is all motion of particles?

[mjv1121]

Mike,

Potential energy most certainly does not exist, except as a mathematical tool - the clue is in the name: "potential". Most commonly potential energy is used in gravitational scenarios - clearly the object endowed with the P.E., does not possess the momentum to account for the P.E., until it receives the momentum (and thus energy) from the gravitational "field".

This "energy" that we keep hearing about simply does not exist. Mass in motion is defined as having momentum, the collision of "masses" may cause a deceleration and an acceleration and a transfer of momentum. The process of deceleration and acceleration is called force - force is the act of collision. There is no "energy" involved. The energy is simply a calculation based on an objects mass and velocity : E = 1/2 mv^2. Thinking in terms of energy is equivalent to thinking in mathematical abstracts and can result in avoiding consideration of the physical and mechanical processes involved.

Michael

[Forrest Bishop]

Chromium6-

81b. How a Battery Circuit Works.
Not the mathematical or field model, but the full mechanical model, with photons. 9pp.
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf

Understanding Electricity and Circuits:
What the Text Books Don’t Tell You
Ian M. Sefton
School of Physics, The University of Sydney
I.Sefton@physics.usyd.edu.au

http://sydney.edu.au/science/uniserve_s ... sefton.pdf

Both Sefton and Mathis are attempting to retain the idea of an unseen electric current inside of a wire traveling along- in circles no less- in conjunction with the measured external force fields. These would be Theory H(eaviside) men. Notice the contradictions Mathis point out about Sefton, however Mathis seems oblivious to the experimental results from transmission line theory, including Time Domain Reflectrometry (TDR) that Solar works with. 'Photons' need not substitute for the TEM wave: for all we know the TEM wave is divisible to subphotonic energies, nor is frequency involved at the primitive level. Frequency of light is more likely an artifact of the source, just as the resultant waveform on the line is originally generated by the source, though in the "electricity" case the perceived waveform is further modified by the things along the line.
Also notice both the great Charles Proteus Steinmetz, following Heaviside, fails to state that the standing wave on the line is a measurement artifact created by the two traveling waves which always move at c. This same measurement illusion gives rise to the imagined static field of a 'charged' (I prefer the term "loaded capacitor") capacitor. Everything that applies to a transmission line applies to an electric "circuit"- another word I don't care for.

"Language creates spooks which get into our heads and hypnotize us"- Robert Anton Wilson (quoted form memory)
Electric "current" is a spook, so is "electric circuit", "voltage", "electrostatic field", and electric "charge". Once infected by a meme-virus it can be difficult to remove it.

Webo-

Forrest,
Thank you for joining our forum to help us all through this. You have an enthralled audience.
I'm still not understanding... can you explain in terms of C Theory, what is happening at my home when I turn on my light switch and at the same time what is happening at the dam end? First, are you saying the transmission line from dam to my switch is ACTIVE with a standing TEM wave form, before I flip the switch? If not, explain. If so, is this what I would call voltage, and explain what happens [C Theory] at both ends of the transmission line, including at my ground post, and at my light bulb, when I flip the switch... Second, does it matter at all whether the two sections of the transmission line are of equal length, ie. is it possible that one length could be thousands or more times as long as the other? Then, does it matter whether this is AC or DC [it seems to make no differrence in C theory]... again, there is something I'm missing in order for my own "light" to go on..

AC and DC are second-order effects. Even Theory N men say that, in effect, by using the "slowly varying" approximation to analyze 50-60 Hz AC. They use DC theory to simplify the problem to first order. Yes, energy is constantly moving toward your house from the dam. It is looking for someplace to go, just as light is. If it finds a "mirror" at the house (an open termination, a tripped breaker) it turns around and goes back the other way, just as light does. Notice the equations for impedance mismatch are the Fresnel Equations reduced to the case of normal incidence, yet another thing I've never seen mentioned.
If you close the breaker and turn something on, part (in general) of the incoming TEM step-wave (aka Energy Current) now sees some unexplored territory, analogous to what happens when light reaches a half-silvered mirror. It passes through the 'mirror' and goes on to see what needs its attention (I'm anthropomorphizing) and how much. Notice that any part of the TEM wave that has already turned around to head back to the dam cannot participate. It is going the wrong way.
Yes it matter if the two wires of the line are different lengths, not because of the length per se but because the longer wire has to be folded in some fashion in order to span only the "distance" (in the Mathis sense) in the idealized figure above. That folding-up causes a variety of impedance changes (mismatches) along the line, so intermediate reflections are sent back to e.g. the TDR.

[mjv1121]

Forrest,

Your theories seem to revolve around "TEM waves". What are TEM waves? How do they travel? How do they "reflect"?

Michael

[Plasmatic]

Pardon me for having a little fun here but this thread should be changed to "What is ENERGY"......

"A wave is what something does, not what something is." Gaede.

One replies: "energy is waving". What is energy? Now we are back to fundamental constituents and their ontology etc... Lets add to this "What is an entity?"....

My point is ALL of these arguments are centered on the question of how one forms a normative definition of these fundamental concepts. Until you all take up concept formation you are all gonna keep talking past one another.

"First principles" are grasped conceptually. What are concepts? How do we form them? Is there a wrong way? How do we solve the epistemic regress problem? I know my answer to these questions. Do you?

Just some premise checking stimulus.

[mjv1121]

Plasmatic,

My point is ALL of these arguments are centered on the question of how one forms a normative definition of these fundamental concepts. Until you all take up concept formation you are all gonna keep talking past one another.

You are quite right of course, but it is always going to be a difficulty to be worked around without a mediator/facilitator.

What is ENERGY?.......I'll answer that one! E=1/2mv^2. Energy IS a mathematical abstraction from momentum. ONLY mass in motion can be deemed to "have" energy. Energy cannot "do" anything, since it is just a number. Force is the act of "doing" something, since force is the act of collision and thereby the transfer of momentum. Thus "energy" only ever comes in one form: numerical. The only physical manifestation of "energy" is kinetic energy.

"A wave is what something does, not what something is."

Except when what is pre-conceived to wave is not actually waving. For example there is a rather foolish school of thought that believes that electromagnet fields travel as waves, and ridiculous and bizarre as it may sound, that light is an electromagnetic wave.

Michael

[mharratsc]

Then what IS light, exactly?

[Corpuscles]

...
What is ENERGY?.......I'll answer that one! E=1/2mv^2. Energy IS a mathematical abstraction from momentum. ONLY mass in motion can be deemed to "have" energy.
...
Michael

What then , is "mass"?


BTW: As a spectator (non profound reader) I am very grateful for the great contibutions (particularly recently)being made in this thread by all

[Corpuscles]

PS I mean:
Newton made some clever basic observations and produced algebraic formulas but "mass" was and is only a unknown variable, measured via circular reasoning = weight ( effect of gravity).

Later these things called particles are described as "electric"in character and some of those act as waves?

[mjv1121]

Mike,

what IS light, exactly?

"Light" is photons. Electrons are constantly bombarded by quantum aether particles and consequently they emit "charge" particles constantly. If, due to the proximity of other charge emitters, an electron is subjected to an increased incidence of quantum particles that exceeds its ability to emit them as "charge", the electron will continue to absorb the incoming particles until they are eventually emitted en masse as a photon. Obviously a colliding photon will induce a similar affect.

Photons are simply a part of the way that electrons operate. Life on Earth has evolved to utilise photons for vision. There is no "light" in the universe, except that in the images generated by our brains.



Michael

[mjv1121]

Corpuscles,

What then , is "mass"?

Mass is matter. The smallest (detectable) quantity of matter can be defined as a quantum aether particles and has a mass of 1.47x10^-50kg, since these particles travel at c, they have a momentum of 4.42x10^-42 kg m/s and a kinetic energy of 6.626x10^-34 J (which is Planck's constant, h).

The only occasions that these particles become "detectable" is as the effect of gravity (and inertia), as photons or as charge. Charge then gives rise to what is referred to as electromagnetism.

(Of course, we may normally only describe electrons and protons as "matter", but that is merely a semantic argument.)

some of those act as waves?

Do they really, when and how? I would suggest that electromagnetism never behaves as waves - pulses perhaps, but not waves.

Michael