What is electricity?

[Daniel]

As is the case with so many things in Physics, much of what we speak has to do with what DOES rather than what IS... Light, Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Charge, Nuclear Force, whatever these ARE is invisible to us and undetectable apart from what HAPPENS in each case. As a result our definitions and delimitations of cause and effect [our Physics] try to account for observations, but ar always built on the premises we hold about that which cannot be observed. Here's my take, based on a unified universal pressure field:
All forces, incl electricity, are vectors of the centropic universal pressure field, directed toward local centers of polity [centroids], which we think of as centers of mass. Mass itself is a centropic field pressure, as is charge, not an emission of stuff from the center. Light is manifested as local charges "drop" toward a lower energy state [toward the system centroid, eg. the nucleus of the atom], instantaneously changing the voltage of the surrounding field, and detected by voltmeter-analog photoreceptors which are resonant with that voltage field; ie. the pressure field "forces" the drop in [PE] energy state, which then resonates throughout the field as a delta-voltage. The movement of objects resulting from this pressure is variously described as "orbital dynamics", "current", "spin", etc. [depending on what level of the (fractal) structure of the universe is being observed] and these motions describe the effects we then call gravity , electricity, etc. Gyroscopic forces, magnetism, the EM spectrum, are manifested as orthogonal ["null"] vector fields to the primary centropic system, a natural consequence of vector geometry. This geometry is sometimes attributed to the presence of aetheric particles [maybe neutrinos, "ropes" (Gaede)] standing waves (LaFreniere), sometimes material, sometimes immaterial; but the geometry exists one way or another, and is describable at 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional, and 3-dimensional levels with vector diagrams. Poynting vectors describe magnetism and electric current, gravitational vectors describe orbital dynamics, and the term "dipolar" can be understood as analogous, and perhaps synonymous, with vectors in a pressure field. In this view, forces are primary, motion is the secondary result. In any given field the vectors are centropic [center-directed, not emitted entities] and act across distance [as it may be understood that no objects actually come in direct contact with each other like billiard balls, not even billiard balls], and that in a large field, eg. the interstellar, this field action is observable as light from a very great distance... this is possible because our retina is a peripheral member of the light field of the star, electrons drop there, and we detect the voltage change here. This is not infinite speed, which is agreeably an oxymoron and a logical impossibility, but an instantaneous action within a unified system. "Quantum entanglement" is an natural and predictable result of this unified field. Light does not move [it doesn't have to, it's always "there"], and the voltage aspect of electricity is also instantaneous. The hydroelectric process exemplifies the unity of all fields: water falls over a turbine, causing that to spin in a magnetic field, building charge, which is discharged across the length of a wire [not flowing liquidly through it] when a fixture closes the connection between the charge and the ground [manifesting the voltage drop]. From the reservoir to fixture to the ground, the geometry of the field is predetermined and instant. The relays within the system cause delays in the actions at various stations, sometimes attributed to a c-rate; but it is only the belief in an Einsteinian-relative-c-limit that causes folks to declare that electricity acts at "nearly the speed of light" --- I see it as analogous with Newton's cradle... the left ball swings down and hits the center balls, the impulse sends the right ball flying... now there is a momentary delay in the cradle due to inertia [eg. of the right ball] but not due to an impulse speed within the cradle. To say that there is no action faster than the so called c-rate of light is simply a belief built on SR and justified with Lorentzian mathemagic. The same is true for electrical signals in a circuit... turn on the switch at Ross Dam, and provided the light switch is on in Seattle, on go the lights... no "current" delay is necessary, the "electricity" was already "there". So all of this inward push appears as what we call "attraction" [though I do think it is a PUSH] within whatever local system we are investigating, so where does "repulsion" come from? My perhaps overly simple sounding solution is this. Where two [roughly equal] fields interact peripherally, the vectors of each field are in opposite directions [each centropically directed due to the overarching unified pressure field], and the effect on objects located at/near this juncture is that they move in opposite directions [ie. competing centers of polity]... this yields the observation of elasticity, Newton's 3rd law, repulsion. We live of course in a universe filled with many objects of vastly differing field "strengths", and gravitation [HOLDING FORCES] seem to predominate, but the occurrence of "repulsion" may come into play in multi-body orbital dynamics [eg. moon pairs of Saturn, etc.], interstellar/galactic Birkeland currents, planetary magnetic fields, etc.

here here

[Daniel]

Please search for my other posts in other threads. I don't much like typing!!

Energy is a measure of magnetic potential. The wider the radius of the flux lines, the higher the potential, the denser the flux lines at right angles, the higher the voltage induced into the aether surrounding the field of the unit particles within the system.

Everything comes down to the unit particle, and it's inherent magnetism induced by the passage of matter through the area of electrical tension we call "The Universe".

[webolife]

The manifestation of "holes" in electric current is, as I understand it, the observation that positively charged impulse acts from the "ground" toward the source at the same instant that negatively charged impulse is directed from the source to the "ground". The amount of charge "flux" [or amperage] detected on either end of the "circuit" is roughly equivalent and follows conservation rules for energy and mass. The objection that a "hole" cannot be "matter" [thus how could it have mass?], is answered readily by the realization that neither is mass the same as matter. Like many/all[?] fundamentals in physics, mass is a measurement of an interaction between "stuff" --- it is not the "stuff" itself.
imho

[Daniel]

The manifestation of "holes" in electric current is, as I understand it, the observation that positively charged impulse acts from the "ground" toward the source at the same instant that negatively charged impulse is directed from the source to the "ground". The amount of charge "flux" [or amperage] detected on either end of the "circuit" is roughly equivalent and follows conservation rules for energy and mass. The objection that a "hole" cannot be "matter" [thus how could it have mass?], is answered readily by the realization that neither is mass the same as matter. Like many/all[?] fundamentals in physics, mass is a measurement of an interaction between "stuff" --- it is not the "stuff" itself.
imho

The above explanation of holes sounds like the accepted, conventional description. It has no basis in truth, Also, I think you may find that mass is related by the equation E=MC^2 where the amount of measurable energy from a collapsed atom is equivalent to it's measured mass times the speed of light squared and forms the basis of the calculations of matter at rest. It is this which allows so called unstable matter, ie; nuclear material, where there is an excess of E, to be artificially collapsed and release it's energy in a cascade event.

It is this "energy" which lacks an appropriate description in the conventional thinking. It is in fact, like PH is the glue holding molecules, a measure of the magnetic component of atoms, which is why conventional pictorial descriptions of nuclear material shows high energy matter via swirls of "activity" surrounding atoms.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.48512824 ... 4&pid=15.1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.47902510 ... 8&pid=15.1

This statement: "The amount of charge "flux" [or amperage] detected on either end of the "circuit" is roughly equivalent and follows conservation rules for energy and mass" only applies with conventional energy. There is more than one way to skin a cat as the saying goes, and electric energy is no different. It is simply that people have forgotten to look deeper into the problem.

[webolife]

Daniel,
Could you explain further? I'm not sure that the "conventional" wisdom about "holes" infers what I said, which is that the charge flux is directed in both directions simultaneously, one positive, one negative, and is measured at the same time at both ends of the circuit. Also I'm not sure how your E=mc2 application contradicts this.

[Daniel]

Daniel,
Could you explain further? I'm not sure that the "conventional" wisdom about "holes" infers what I said, which is that the charge flux is directed in both directions simultaneously, one positive, one negative, and is measured at the same time at both ends of the circuit. Also I'm not sure how your E=mc2 application contradicts this.

http://www.ece.utep.edu/courses/ee3329/ ... ption.html


"Likewise, we can say the valence band is full and the conduction band is empty since positive charges do not occur in the conduction band."
"Since electrons like to be at the lowest energy state possible, they take the place of the hole in a lower state, making it rise to a higher state carrying the absence of an electron, a positive charge, with it; therefore, we get a positive current due to holes."

Now, please explain to me how, if "positive charges do not occur in the conduction band", we "get a positive current due to holes."

This would seem to infer the positive charge is a "virtual" charge, without mass. It is denoted as "positive" because it absorbs "electrons". It is not a measurable flow, it is an inferred one.

"The number of carriers in an intrinsic semiconductor is one of the identifiable properties of a material. These are denoted n, for the number of electrons per cubic centimeter, and p, for the number of holes per cubic centimeter. In an intrinsic semiconductor and under equilibrium conditions, these two quantities are equal, since they occur in pairs. If a bond is broken, creating an electron, it also creates a hole in the process."

So, when an "electron" is removed from the valence region, it is "created"???? I thought a hole was a lack of an electron??? How could both occur at the same time in the same place???? That is like saying the ground is not solid as it is all just a big hole......look, I'll dig one and you can see......see??? See the hole???? that makes it real.......
Never mind that time has now moved forward from when the ground was soild, before I dug the hole in it. The hole exists IN THE SAME TIME FRAME......

Please, use your mind before asking silly things.

And yes, the equation E=MC^2 is only a measure of what we sense as mass and is just a theory. It will soon be shown to be wrong. The fact that holes are immeasurable quantities and have no mass is demonstrated by the direct inversion of electric energy. There is no magnetic component to the "hole" current and thus, no mass, only charge.

This is easilly varyfiable with experimentation and observation.

[Xantos]

So, a trick question...particle physicists consider electron as an elementary particle which (so far) doesn't have any substructure. If so, where does its mass come from? If electron has a negative charge and proton has a positive charge, why is positive charge heavier than negative charge?

[Siggy_G]

So, a trick question...particle physicists consider electron as an elementary particle which (so far) doesn't have any substructure. If so, where does its mass come from? If electron has a negative charge and proton has a positive charge, why is positive charge heavier than negative charge?

Positrons have positive charge and the same mass as an electron, so the mass difference of protons vs electrons doesn't come from the type of charge. As for the origin of electron mass: pass.

As for the method of measuring particle masses:

One way to measure the mass, say, of a proton, is to put it in a mass spectrometer. Accelerating it in a known electric field gives it an amount of kinetic energy proportional to its charge. Causing the proton to move in a circular path in a uniform, well-calibrated magnetic field allows the momentum to be measured quite precisely.

[LongtimeAirman]

Michael V, (or mjv1121)

First off, You're mjv1121 too, aren't you? If not, I beg your pardon.

Plowing on, I recently read through this topic "What is Electricity" that you started. A thoroughly enjoyable though lengthy read, as well as the tangents and side issues I try to keep up with. I must ask you a couple of questions; But after 51 pages, a year and a half of inactivity on the topic and a general impression that you'd somehow yielded, I wonder if you would prefer not to answer.

It's a tough crowd but you defended your ideas well and convinced me I need to rethink voltage and current (definitions in terms of measurement) in light of your descriptions. Have you continued developing your theory? My comments primarily concern the extent that you have avoided or denied photons as charge carriers.

by mjv1121 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:49 am, Bottom of page 40.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &start=585

In your answer to sparky, you included the three bullets:
- electric and magnetic fields are emitted by electrons
- without electrons there cannot be electromagnetic fields 
- light as an self-sustaining electro-magnetic wave is utter nonsense (it was Maxwell's black hole) 

by mharratsc » Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:40 pm@ mjv1121- Bottom of page 31

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &start=450

Do I misunderstand your argument? Do you believe that energy (however or whatever you wish to call it or define it) cannot propagate through a vacuum? (And here I am referring to a vacuum as a space in which atoms and molecules are very, very far apart, and for the moment ignoring any aetheric substrate.)For instance- if you feel that all energy/power/momentum/etc can only be transferred by physical collision of electrons, protons, whatever... then how does a 'radar wave' propagate through a near-vacuum?

by mjv1121 » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:19 am, page 32

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &start=465 

Your answer concluded

There are only two possible answers to this. One involves mass in linear motion, such as would be the case for a photon particle - a radar photon. The other is for mass in motion perpendicular to the wave motion, such as would be the case for a "radar wave", where at times the arrival/absorption of the wave momentum may be perceived as a photon. In both cases there is mass in motion. The radar photon has a frequency of 50Mhz-100Ghz, so using h and 1/2mv^2, it has a mass of 7.37x10^43kg to 1.47x10^39kg. It is either a particle that travels through the quantum aether field or a wave in the aether.

The detailed nature and operation of the aethereal substrate is indeed open for speculation and discussion, but, even allowing for the odd electron or proton here or there, the vacuum is far from empty.

Despite your statements to the contrary, you've accepted the possibility of a "radar photon" as a charge carrier. (I no longer believe in electromagnetic waves analogus to sound waves). I'm convinced that e and h-fields do not require just electrons. These large charge carriers make convenient circuits, but I believe there is an underlying charge field consisting of the entire electromagnetic spectrum that drives and recycles through the electrons much as you've described.

Another question I don't recall seeing you adress, "How does your b-field curl"?

REMCB

[Sparky]

LongtimeAirman:

"How does your b-field curl"?

If I remember correctly, it doesn't. The aether/charge is sprayed out in a straight outward fashion and the e field is a vector of that. Of course Michael was in flux at that time, so this may have changed. He thinks things through, so I now just go along with him....

[LongtimeAirman]

Michael,

I love coincidences.

by vanlore » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:09 am

New Discovery DRAMATIC & suprising Magnetic effect of LIGHT

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=14759

Light has electric and magnetic components. Until now, scientists thought the effects of the magnetic field were so weak that they could be ignored. Rand and his colleagues found that at the right intensity, when light is traveling through a material that does not conduct electricity, the light field can generate magnetic effects that are 100 million times stronger than previously expected. Under these circumstances, the magnetic effects develop strength equivalent to a strong electric effect.

We can no longer deny that photons, by themselves, can convey EM radiation. Now we can possibly discuss your heirachy of ether emissions in terms of photons? How about photon spins?

REMCB