What is electricity?

[sjw40364]

sjw,

electricity both attracts and repels, and it is difficult to have this same emission that pulls also push, just because you went from far to near.

the only way, as for now, that i can envision is that a magnetic field, electrons (possibly ions) are aligning themselves and that alignment bombards and propels other matter to follow along the same path, which is toward one of the magnetic poles . When the distance between the particles is reduced to such that E/M emissions, bombardment, from each will overcome the magnetic field effect, sweeping them together, and a repulsion effect will be seen.

please don't destroy this concept, it is the only thing holding my fragile mental frame together...

Ok, but maybe as the object approaches the ones between stack up and prevent any further inward flow and therefore act as a repulsion once compressed to their limit?

[Sparky]

sjw, you lost me...

[sjw40364]

sjw, you lost me...

Well if these particles are being emitted and held in place by charge, such as your field sweeping objects in, then as more are emitted they would build up between two objects, creating a cushion like aspect. Put a pillow on the floor and sit on it, are you touching the floor? No, because the particles of the pillow prevent you from getting any closer to the floor, regardless of how much force is applied downwards. If I lessened the downward pull the particles in the pillow would decompress and push you back upwards slightly. I am only talking the repulsion aspect as I still do not accept the attraction aspect in bombardment theories.

[webolife]

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.

[sjw40364]

Ok, but if light is already there, then why do I cast shadows? If the light is still there then the shadow should not be, if I block the light then the light is not still there, and must propagate once I move to fill the space once blocked by me.

[Sparky]

sjw, you lost me...

Well if these particles are being emitted and held in place by charge, such as your field sweeping objects in, then as more are emitted they would build up between two objects, creating a cushion like aspect. Put a pillow on the floor and sit on it, are you touching the floor? No, because the particles of the pillow prevent you from getting any closer to the floor, regardless of how much force is applied downwards. If I lessened the downward pull the particles in the pillow would decompress and push you back upwards slightly. I am only talking the repulsion aspect as I still do not accept the attraction aspect in bombardment theories.

the particles that make up the field are not emitted, but captured by, first the magnet, then the adjacent aligned particle. these are free electrons and possibly ions. I don't think the "cushion" analogy is a good one. we are talking about a lot of open space which just does not "fill up". there is either a charged field or bombardment, maybe both...

[sjw40364]

sjw, you lost me...

Well if these particles are being emitted and held in place by charge, such as your field sweeping objects in, then as more are emitted they would build up between two objects, creating a cushion like aspect. Put a pillow on the floor and sit on it, are you touching the floor? No, because the particles of the pillow prevent you from getting any closer to the floor, regardless of how much force is applied downwards. If I lessened the downward pull the particles in the pillow would decompress and push you back upwards slightly. I am only talking the repulsion aspect as I still do not accept the attraction aspect in bombardment theories.

the particles that make up the field are not emitted, but captured by, first the magnet, then the adjacent aligned particle. these are free electrons and possibly ions. I don't think the "cushion" analogy is a good one. we are talking about a lot of open space which just does not "fill up". there is either a charged field or bombardment, maybe both...

Yes, but then how do we describe the field? What is a magnetic or electrical field made up of? This is the problem with cause and affect. Either it is a field of charged particles or a field made up of nothing but empty space. This is what mjv is getting at. What transmits this magnetic force? We see the effect, but we still do not understand the cause. I for one believe planets are held in orbit by the E/M force, not gravity, you can't convert the converted . I believe atoms produce their own charge, needing no outside source. So either there is a sub-atomic particle field we have yet to detect, or things "can" be acted upon at a distance with no mechanical means. Personally I don't have much of a problem with that. Some things just are no matter how we might try to reason otherwise.

[starbiter]

Electrical engineer William J. Beaty has an excellent article on this very subject: "What Is "Electricity"?"

He writes:

This question is impossible to answer because the word "Electricity" has several contradictory meanings. These different meanings are incompatible, and the contradictions confuse everyone. If you don't understand electricity, you're not alone. Even teachers, engineers, and scientists have a hard time grasping the concept.

Thanks for the link Ian. Your link seems to answer the questions, but it hasn't slowed down the comments a bit. It's like You never posted it.

michael steinbacher

[sjw40364]

Ok, so I'll go along with that. then let me ask this question, What is energy, and what is it composed of?

[mjv1121]

starbiter,

Your link seems to answer the questions, but it hasn't slowed down the comments a bit. It's like You never posted it.

Comments continue because the article contained no answers whatsoever. It was amusing to some extent, but I did notice that the author mentions matter and "energy" as though "energy" were a separate entity - some people seem to insist crippling there intellect with this bullshit from the ancients.

sjw,

What an unbelievably ridiculous question/suggestion. Energy is composed of nothing, because it does not exist, it is a number calculated from mass and velocity.

Michael

PS sjw. Don't worry about electromagnetic attraction and repulsion, we'll come to that later.

[mjv1121]

Mike H,

The vibration of atoms? or even of sub-atomic particles. Think about that for a moment, what does or could that mean?
What is the nature of these vibrations? What might be the cause? and by what mechanism could that translate into charge?.

Michael

[mjv1121]

tayga,

Not necessarily but almost, in my opinion. I'll posit that charge is a property of all matter except photons and that mass is a consequence of it.

An ether would enable the communication of cause and effect you desire without the need for emission. If charge were a 3-dimensional motion, say, it would communicate its effect by imposing torsion on the ether.

There's always one that has to be awkward.

Emergent mass? I made a decision, early on, to make mass an inherent property - it feels more likely. But I am still toying with the idea that all mass is inertial.

Aether, of some sort, is unavoidable in all theories of fundamental existence. The only difference is the definition of nature and purpose. The most important point to consider when establishing an ethereal cause to an effect, is to ensure that all other phenomena remain accountable. Would you care to detail your aether more fully - what is it made of? how does interact with or avoid interacting with, gravity, photons, magnetism?

I'm not necessarily stuck fast to any of these ideas and I'm not sure whether my answers are exactly what the OP was looking for but heck, why not let's kick these ideas around?

The main purpose of this thread is to ask people to think. Consumed knowledge is easier, but not as satisfying - especially when so much of it is entirely unpalatable.

Michael

[mjv1121]

webolife,

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 are always built on the premises we hold about that which cannot be observed.

Can't argue with that - we cannot KNOW, we can only THINK. Apart from technological progression there is no practical purpose to the pursuit of knowledge. It is simply a desire to make sense of our existence. To have a description of universal reality that "makes sense".

I will have to read your post and think and read it again and think...it may take a while. Are you able to provide any further insight on the nature of this "pressure field" - would fish in a deep ocean be some way to a useful analogy?

Michael

[sjw40364]

starbiter,

Your link seems to answer the questions, but it hasn't slowed down the comments a bit. It's like You never posted it.

Comments continue because the article contained no answers whatsoever. It was amusing to some extent, but I did notice that the author mentions matter and "energy" as though "energy" were a separate entity - some people seem to insist crippling there intellect with this bullshit from the ancients.

sjw,

What an unbelievably ridiculous question/suggestion. Energy is composed of nothing, because it does not exist, it is a number calculated from mass and velocity.

Michael

PS sjw. Don't worry about electromagnetic attraction and repulsion, we'll come to that later.

Well I figured since they insisted on telling me what electricity wasn't then they should be able to answer my question about energy. Oh I do agree with them that we have more than one action confused into the word electricity and that there is bo such thing as "static" electricity. But I am curious as to what their definition of energy is. They separate it from the electrical force but then do not bother to explain what it is at all. They say it and not electricity flows in wires so I am curious as to what they think energy is, besides some unexplained force that they leave undefined and just as mysterious as electricity

[sjw40364]

Well my idea of an aether is subatomic particles emitted by every atom in existence due to the atomic spin of every atom. This whatchamacallit is affected by gravity, by magnetism, by electricity, by everything. It can be pinched together to form molecules, and can be non-homogenous. When QSO's are ejected from their parent galaxy they eventually form into new galaxies of their own. To surmise that they obtained all their matter from their parent galaxy would mean the parent galaxy had to be, well, HUGE to start with. I believe QSO's draw the whatchamacallits together in pinches to form the matter that then forms the galaxies. Space is not the same density throughout, just on what we can observe we know this, I then have no reason to believe this aether would be any more homogenous, and not drawn together in places.

I still insist that atoms/galaxies produce their own charge and need no outside source. Until someone in the EU can reasonably explain to me how this outside power source could be anything other than what we already observe around us, I must stick with this reasoning and drop the unobservable, undetectable, up-in-the-air, outside power source as being too magical in nature to be acceptable. We know that everything in existence emits what we term energy, but then for some reason have decided that this energy must come from somewhere else and not by the very atoms we detect emitting this energy.

Charge, energy, electricity, I really do not care what terms you want to use to describe it, I am not a dictionary so I don't care to get into a word war of what is proper terminology and what isn't. One gets the drift of my meanings and that should suffice. If I use the wrong word, substitute it with the correct one. If my use of words confuses some, hey, sorry, but these are the words I use to understand my existence, if you have pet words feel free to substitute mine with your own.

All I know is that we generate electricity by spinning things in magnetic fields and I have no reason to believe the universe is any different, considering everything in the universe is moving and spinning in magnetic fields. And when I say everything I do mean everything, even the whatchamacallits.