What is electricity?

[starbiter]

Hello SJW: You said,
[...]


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.


me again,
My highlight

I think the images of M87 are a visible, detectable representation of an outside power source. The jets of hot gas are most likely plasma. It doesn't seem like a stretch to think there might be a wee bit of current involved

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 80&bih=685

I'll let someone more qualified deal with the energy question. There will shortly be a response from an EU insider. I hope they discuss energy.

I detect an angry tone to this thread.

Om, michael

[Sparky]

sjw,

Yes, but then how do we describe the field? What is a magnetic or electrical field made up of?

well, particles. Miles thinks they are photons. mjv thinks they are emitted quantums. i don't know, but will accept those + electrons and ions...

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.

when you get two iron atoms to align, you may have a combined force of more than double. when you get several trillion atoms to align, the combined force potential is enough to affect the surrounding EM field which aligns with the potential/charge. when the EM field aligns with the iron atoms in a magnet a field is created. how does that sound.?

sjw.

What is energy, and what is it composed of?

mjv

Energy is composed of nothing, because it does not exist, it is a number calculated from mass and velocity.

I accept that ! I don't have to worry about that anymore, until someone comes along and has a stronger argument...it eleminates a source of confusion....

sjw, if you would just accept that as a working theory, then that source of confusion would be eliminated. you seem to be doing what i am doing, going around in circles because of so many theories, beliefs, and ideas to consider. theories need support and to conform to all data. beliefs are more like religion, data is distorted or ignored to support the belief. ideas are in a range from hypothesis to delusional.

mjv,

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?.

That is beyond me without some help...can you give a hint as to what may cause vibrations at the atomic level.?

btw, you did not grade my post...will accept a pass, maybe, or fail on each point...
***************************
as to charges of an "angry tone"...hugs and kisses to everyone..

[mjv1121]

Michael,

No angry tone here, just impassioned debate. I only get angry when someone mentions magnetic reconnection - uh oh

Michael

[sjw40364]

Hello SJW: You said,
[...]


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.


me again,
My highlight

I think the images of M87 are a visible, detectable representation of an outside power source. The jets of hot gas are most likely plasma. It doesn't seem like a stretch to think there might be a wee bit of current involved

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 80&bih=685

I'll let someone more qualified deal with the energy question. There will shortly be a response from an EU insider. I hope they discuss energy.

I detect an angry tone to this thread.

Om, michael

No not angry, as mjv stated, just impassioned , and I agree, it IS generating energy, just as the Milky Way is and Andromeda is, and every other galaxy in the entire universe is. Just as every single atom that exists is. Let me ask a question. How could an electron, orbiting at close to the speed of c around a nucleus inside its magnetic field, NOT be generating energy? Do electrons know they are not supposed to generate energy when traveling inside a magnetic field unless they are part of a man-made generator? Ok, that's two questions. And how do you suppose M87 is generating energy? Perhaps by a spinning plasma torus at its center?? A plasma torus that is spinning inside the very magnetic field it created? A spinning plasma torus that I believe is at the center of every single galaxy that exists. How did it create this magnetic field if it cannot produce its own electrical charge? So then if it can not then it has to get it from another, which has to get it from another, and on and on and round and round we go.

[sjw40364]

Sparky, I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with energy being nothing but a misconception, still i doubt if the word will drop from my vocabulary, it's a convenient word. Lets take the electric field, say the attraction part of it, how do particles, call them quanta, whatever, pull two wires together? And then these same quanta push them apart when they near one another? People like to use the word bombardment, but in reality that explains nothing. If two objects are bombarded from all sides equally, why would they move in the first place? Secondly if they are shadowed by each other and therefore receive less bombardment from one direction the inevitable result is collision in all scenarios. Yet the moon is receding from the earth, not spiraling inwards. The electron never collides with the nucleus, even if it changes orbits. So the nucleus must be emitting quanta at the same rate the electron is randomly bombarded from outwards (always, without fail), but wait, do quanta only collide in the x,y, plane and never the z plane? Things only orbit perpendicular to the electric force, the same as spin from the magnetic force. particle bombardment lacks a little something, but so does action at a distance, but still it works better than bombardment.

[webolife]

SJW said:

"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."

I don't know if this is a deliberate misrepresentation, or just a misconception on your part? Or perhaps I don't understand what you don't understand about shadows? To begin with objects do not "cast" shadows... a book sitting on a table may be said to be in a "gravity shadow", since it is not APPARENTLY moving toward the gravity center. But that doesn't mean that "gravity" is not acting on the book! The table doesn't block gravity! Analogously your body is not blocking the light action, it is rather stepping in to the line of light to receive it [ie. if your eyes are open].

All light is invisible until it is received by a resonant photoreceptor. There is no physical difference between "visible" light and "invisible" light, except in the type of detector being used to sense it.

There is most certainly light in the "shadow zones" of objects! A resonant receptor might detect it as heat. The question: is there a resonant receptor there in your shadow zone? The light in fron of you is just as invisible as the "shadow" behind you... but your resonant retina detects those portions of the light we call colors. If you were an UV detector you would only see those light rays; if a radio receiver, only those. I guarantee you, the IR detector sitting on the floor in the shadow behind you is detecting light in your direction!

As long as you think of light as stuff being emitted from the "source" you will struggle with this concept. If you shift your thinking to consider that light is the "gravitational" [or "potential drop", aka voltage] pressure directed toward the centroidal source as a "ground" or "sink", you may be able to understand why/how light connects all objects in the field, whether the field of an atom, a light bulb, the sun, distant star, or the CMB.

Here's another thought to sink the eye teeth of your mind into: When you look toward the light you thought was casting a shadow behind you, it is the light vectors from behind your head pushing your retinal rods and cones toward the light source/centroid/sink that cause the sensation your brain interprets as light. Study the cellular biology of the retina and you will see how it is uniquely structured to do just as I describe.

It's a different paradigm, I've been working on it for over 30 years, so I don't expect it to "sink in" quickly.

[Sparky]

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,

we generate electricity by converting stored energy in one medium and apply that to making a generator spin or directly to electricity. there is no free lunch that i know of, just more efficient ways.
and yes, the universe is no different.

you see an electric motor spin and assume that it is connected to a power source, not that it is creating it's own electricity by spinning in it's magnetic field.

[sjw40364]

SJW said:

"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."

I don't know if this is a deliberate misrepresentation, or just a misconception on your part? Or perhaps I don't understand what you don't understand about shadows? To begin with objects do not "cast" shadows... a book sitting on a table may be said to be in a "gravity shadow", since it is not APPARENTLY moving toward the gravity center. But that doesn't mean that "gravity" is not acting on the book! The table doesn't block gravity! Analogously your body is not blocking the light action, it is rather stepping in to the line of light to receive it [ie. if your eyes are open].

All light is invisible until it is received by a resonant photoreceptor. There is no physical difference between "visible" light and "invisible" light, except in the type of detector being used to sense it.

There is most certainly light in the "shadow zones" of objects! A resonant receptor might detect it as heat. The question: is there a resonant receptor there in your shadow zone? The light in fron of you is just as invisible as the "shadow" behind you... but your resonant retina detects those portions of the light we call colors. If you were an UV detector you would only see those light rays; if a radio receiver, only those. I guarantee you, the IR detector sitting on the floor in the shadow behind you is detecting light in your direction!

As long as you think of light as stuff being emitted from the "source" you will struggle with this concept. If you shift your thinking to consider that light is the "gravitational" [or "potential drop", aka voltage] pressure directed toward the centroidal source as a "ground" or "sink", you may be able to understand why/how light connects all objects in the field, whether the field of an atom, a light bulb, the sun, distant star, or the CMB.

Here's another thought to sink the eye teeth of your mind into: When you look toward the light you thought was casting a shadow behind you, it is the light vectors from behind your head pushing your retinal rods and cones toward the light source/centroid/sink that cause the sensation your brain interprets as light. Study the cellular biology of the retina and you will see how it is uniquely structured to do just as I describe.

It's a different paradigm, I've been working on it for over 30 years, so I don't expect it to "sink in" quickly.

Ok, so the cup on my desk casts a shadow, I can see the light from every position as I circle it and the shadow never moves. No matter what position I place myself in I can observe no light where the shadow is cast, but I can observe it everywhere else. If the cup is not blocking whatever causes the light then how is this so? Either one of us is misunderstanding the other or well, light is blocked. If light was everywhere then why does the shadow only occur in the direction of the source? I did not say there was not x-rays and infrared rays reflecting from nearby sources that your IR detector was picking up, even shadows are not completely black due to reflected light. Even if i look directly at the source that doesn't stop the shadow from still being there.

The book isn't in a gravity shadow because the table is just as much a part of the gravitational mass of the earth as is the book itself, as are you, as is everything within a certain distance. If this was not true objects of different masses would not fall at the same speed since each mass has its own gravitational potential. Once within a certain distance all mass is simply part of the entire gravitational influence of the earth. That is part of your misconception and most others, to actually believe you are separate from the earth gravitationally.

[sjw40364]

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,

we generate electricity by converting stored energy in one medium and apply that to making a generator spin or directly to electricity. there is no free lunch that i know of, just more efficient ways.
and yes, the universe is no different.

you see an electric motor spin and assume that it is connected to a power source, not that it is creating it's own electricity by spinning in it's magnetic field.

No, I see a generator spinning that needs force to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth and air resistance as the spinning generator has to push itself through billions upon billions of air molecules. Not to mention friction and the added fins for cooling which cause further drag. I see a plasma torus spinning in a virtually gravity free environment since all mass is now outside this torus and pulling equally outwards. I see no resistance as all molecules that would resist its spinning are spinning with it. it does not have to spin through anything, everything is spinning with it.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I must confess I am struggling to understand your conceptual world. What is the physical nature and properties of this pressure field of yours? and, how does does it differ from my gravito-electrical quantum vacuum field?

Michael

[webolife]

SJW,
I think what you may be missing is the fact that the "light" you are describing is actually occurring in your own eyes [and brain], not on the table with the cup. The rays that are stimulating your retina to see that "light" are reflecting off the "source" side of the cup. There is no lack of light behind the cup just less stimulation of your eye from that direction. REMEMBER, ALL light is invisible, ie. transparent. It's not like a liquid filling some space but not other.

MJV,
I understand your dilemma. Your quantums, like any other aether-ish theory, require particle bombardment to produce force; my view is the opposite approach, the overarching force/pressure field produces the interactions between objects.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

What is the field made of? By what mechanism is force/pressure exerted or imparted?

Michael

[Oracle_911]

For me electrostatic charge is broken balance of aether.
well for me is aether formed from yin-yang components, which represents different aspects of physical world. If you separates them you get charge/potential differences , if you connect different places with different potentials with conductor you get electric current.
Different aspects are electrical current/magnetism, radiant heat/cold (that thing from air conditioner or freezer) etc.

Electricity is the same thing but it is dynamic.
Question what is causing the permitivity and permeability of vacuum if there is nothing?
IMO electricity is really a broken balance between Yin(B)-Yang(A), these elements together acts like a super-fluid (but near velocities c became hard) and creates arc around atoms and bonds between them. And every matter is "soaked" with them. These counterparts reacts to the atomic structure of matter and determinate its (electric and magnetic) properties, and they can be (it depends on method, matter and its state)easily separated. Like in conductors, semiconductors and plastic you can generate big DC/AC or electrostatic charge by moving it in magnetic field, heating it or rubbing it.

Any questions?

[sjw40364]

SJW,
I think what you may be missing is the fact that the "light" you are describing is actually occurring in your own eyes [and brain], not on the table with the cup. The rays that are stimulating your retina to see that "light" are reflecting off the "source" side of the cup. There is no lack of light behind the cup just less stimulation of your eye from that direction. REMEMBER, ALL light is invisible, ie. transparent. It's not like a liquid filling some space but not other.

MJV,
I understand your dilemma. Your quantums, like any other aether-ish theory, require particle bombardment to produce force; my view is the opposite approach, the overarching force/pressure field produces the interactions between objects.

Then if all light is invisible, why does the light side stimulate my retina why the shadow side does not? Remember, I do not have to be facing a light source to see the light. If they are reflecting off of the source side of the cup then they are being emitted.

[sjw40364]

For one thing light is not traveling at c, since we are traveling around the Sun which is traveling around the galaxy, which itself is traveling through space, just what stationary object are you using as your reference point to judge your speed by? You only know a car is going 40 mph because you have stationary reference points to measure from. What stationary reference point in space is light being referenced to?