Why electricity flows

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
this is actually similar to what i imagined may be the case... when thinking of what einstein ment by space-time being "something" or a fabric.... and also when he thought it could be distorted.....

Listen,

you are looking at a design which has a bunch of arrows point inward. That's extremely basic. It really beats me how you can deduce any sort of "fabric" or anything like that, from a few arrows pointing to the center. Could be an electric field. Could be roaches running towards the bait.

if the "vacuum" is a fabric of quantum energy.. then i could imagine that energy reacting to a mass displacing it in the manner suggested...
this vacuum squeezing mass effect may have an effect from the middle of the mass,, to the surface of the mass, and beyond into space such as seen by gravity,,, with a force that wares of the further you are from the mass by the inverse square...

Dude, stop the word soup already.

nope...

the image and the explanation is something I imagined and asked bedlem a few pages ago if it could be true... and he said ...... i dont think so.... but he might have put as much thought into it as you....

reality is exactly as it is.......

it is possible scientists view reality,, draw it to the best of their ability,,, and still do not have a proper objective qualitative comprehension of the meaning, actuality, and most proper way to interpret reality...

so when scientists say particles move in waves ( a "squiggly" path through space)...
and string theorists say there exists no particles but different strings ( squiggly components that travel through space) .... you can use whatever symbols and words to describe reality... but we have nothing to compare reality as a whole too...

so you have a personal interpretation of reality..... if you want to talk science and reality... and be an authority ( on message boards or in the universe) you have to have an objectively true comprehension of reality... what is actually going on... so that you can tell me that the words i use to describe this same reality we occupy and are attempting to describe, are wrong... and why they are wrong.... not just wrong because they clash with your internal model... but wrong because when you momentarily drop your model,, and think about reality and the things about it that may not be completely described and comprehended by your model..it doesnt seem like reality behaves the way i am describing..... since you already know everything,,it seems you dont even bother to attempt thinking about any information provided,,, because if its not something you dont already know,, it cant be true.... and it just seems you dont like thinking about anything in general,, it must hurt your head or drain to much energy....

so you really couldnt understand what mary or I was trying to get across?

why does a mass distort space time?

what is space-time?

does empty space exist?

does the less dense energy/matter regions of the universe (space) have its own mass, pressure, force?

is the only reason two massive bodies attract... because of distorted space time?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Bedlam
The short answer: conservation of angular momentum - the original dust/hydrogen cloud was rotating. The spin is conserved.

The long answer: this is a fairly good link

thanks for that.....

do the planets ( more specifically to think about.,, earth ) revolve horizontally around the sun? as in passing in front of the suns future path and then swinging around? or do they orbit some other directional and angular way? like vertically wobbly around?

I answered that question about the path the Earth takes here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ok that kind of answers my question.....

im wondering if the earth is ever "in front" of the suns path... while it is just getting to in front of the suns path and the sun is moving foward as well,, why at that moment and beyond in the earths orbit,,, they dont begin attracting more?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
answered that question about the path the Earth takes here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ok that kind of answers my question.....

im wondering if the earth is ever "in front" of the suns path... while it is just getting to in front of the suns path and the sun is moving foward as well,, why at that moment and beyond in the earths orbit,,, they don't begin attracting more?

OK I'm officially tired of posting off-topic answers to off-topic questions that aren't about "why electricity flows", so this is the last one. A mod could delete all these posts for being off-topic and I'd have little defense*, and I don't like my posts deleted. (*the defense would be that it all started with Leedskalnin's claims about electricity and magnetism and the earth's rotation, so I did have that defense initially, but I think we are beyond that now). So, any more off-topic questions, start a new thread with the appropriate subject title. Any more questions about "why electricity flows" or something closely related enough so we can even claim it's on topic, ask in this thread.

Did you watch the animation in the OP at that link? Just imagine the angle is 60 degrees instead of 90 and you get the idea.
Even if the angle was zero degrees instead, which would put the Earth in the sun's path at times, I don't know why you think gravitational attraction might be different. Just look at the formula for gravitational attraction...it's proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the distance squared....so even if the Earth did pass in front of the sun's path, there's nothing about that to enter into the classical gravitational formula (see note 1).

Since the Earth's orbit is very slightly elliptical. then the attraction when it passed in front of the sun's path (if it did that, which it doesn't) would depend on whether the elliptical distance was at maximum (aphelion), minimum (perihelion), or somewhere in the middle. Since the perihelion occurs around Jan 3, this is when gravitational attraction is the greatest, and this would be true whether the Earth was leading or trailing the sun if the solar system to galaxy angle was hypothetically zero.

en.wikipedia.org...

In modern times, Earth's perihelion occurs around January 3, and the aphelion around July 4 (for other eras, see precession and Milankovitch cycles).

Note 1: For the pedantic, since the speeds aren't relativistic, I think the classical math is a good enough approximation for the purposes of answering this question.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

Now you can see that one-half of the electricity escaped their notice. If the researchers had used the same kind of equipment I use to demonstrate what magnetic current is, they would have found out a long time ago what electricity is. The positive electricity is composed of streams of north pole individual magnets, and negative electricity is composed of streams of south pole individual magnets. They are running one stream of magnets against the other stream in whirling right hand twist, and with high speed.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

Now you can see that one-half of the electricity escaped their notice. If the researchers had used the same kind of equipment I use to demonstrate what magnetic current is, they would have found out a long time ago what electricity is. The positive electricity is composed of streams of north pole individual magnets, and negative electricity is composed of streams of south pole individual magnets. They are running one stream of magnets against the other stream in whirling right hand twist, and with high speed.

And it seems quite obvious that old Ed doesn't understand an electric charge from a magnetic field.

Personally, I like to think of "positive electricity" as gray sock monkeys, and "negative electricity" as blue sock monkeys, and to get electricity, you have to run them by each other with a rapid do-si-do. But that's just me, I didn't take out an advertisement for my tourist attraction.

Lookup "Hole Theory", it covers it in detail.
You can imagine electric propagation as negative to positive or visa verse depending upon if you are an electron, or the domain it is about to occupy. Proven science, and if it did not work that way, you would not be reading this.

Originally posted by charlyv
Lookup "Hole Theory", it covers it in detail.
You can imagine electric propagation as negative to positive or visa verse depending upon if you are an electron, or the domain it is about to occupy. Proven science, and if it did not work that way, you would not be reading this.

Thanks for something actually on topic.

Holes are fictitious "particles", yet they are still useful modeling tools:

Quasiparticle

...the aggregate motion of electrons in the valence band of a semiconductor is the same as if the semiconductor contained instead positively charged quasiparticles called holes. Other quasiparticles or collective excitations include phonons (particles derived from the vibrations of atoms in a solid), plasmons (particles derived from plasma oscillations), and many others.

These fictitious particles are typically called "quasiparticles"...

We know the difference between what's real and what's fictitious with some confidence, but I see no evidence Leedskalnin knew the difference.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
answered that question about the path the Earth takes here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ok that kind of answers my question.....

im wondering if the earth is ever "in front" of the suns path... while it is just getting to in front of the suns path and the sun is moving foward as well,, why at that moment and beyond in the earths orbit,,, they don't begin attracting more?

OK I'm officially tired of posting off-topic answers to off-topic questions that aren't about "why electricity flows", so this is the last one. A mod could delete all these posts for being off-topic and I'd have little defense*, and I don't like my posts deleted. (*the defense would be that it all started with Leedskalnin's claims about electricity and magnetism and the earth's rotation, so I did have that defense initially, but I think we are beyond that now). So, any more off-topic questions, start a new thread with the appropriate subject title. Any more questions about "why electricity flows" or something closely related enough so we can even claim it's on topic, ask in this thread.

Did you watch the animation in the OP at that link? Just imagine the angle is 60 degrees instead of 90 and you get the idea.
Even if the angle was zero degrees instead, which would put the Earth in the sun's path at times, I don't know why you think gravitational attraction might be different. Just look at the formula for gravitational attraction...it's proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the distance squared....so even if the Earth did pass in front of the sun's path, there's nothing about that to enter into the classical gravitational formula (see note 1).

Since the Earth's orbit is very slightly elliptical. then the attraction when it passed in front of the sun's path (if it did that, which it doesn't) would depend on whether the elliptical distance was at maximum (aphelion), minimum (perihelion), or somewhere in the middle. Since the perihelion occurs around Jan 3, this is when gravitational attraction is the greatest, and this would be true whether the Earth was leading or trailing the sun if the solar system to galaxy angle was hypothetically zero.

en.wikipedia.org...

In modern times, Earth's perihelion occurs around January 3, and the aphelion around July 4 (for other eras, see precession and Milankovitch cycles).

Note 1: For the pedantic, since the speeds aren't relativistic, I think the classical math is a good enough approximation for the purposes of answering this question.

ok this is what you made me think of reading your post... me trying to comprehend what gravity may be for massive bodies.....

the sun is the leader of the pack of planets... and is rotating... this rotation and motion through space as a massive body is warping space as a cannon viewed slow motion shot through a swimming pool would like like... some type of tornado, whirlpool, or vortex,, of space-time,, or vacuum, or quantom foam, what ever you want to call it....and the planets that are orbiting are really just riding in this wake,, as if the sun is the bottem of a toilet bowl,,, and the earth is a grape being flushed.... but this flush is taking over many billions of years......

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

Now you can see that one-half of the electricity escaped their notice. If the researchers had used the same kind of equipment I use to demonstrate what magnetic current is, they would have found out a long time ago what electricity is. The positive electricity is composed of streams of north pole individual magnets, and negative electricity is composed of streams of south pole individual magnets. They are running one stream of magnets against the other stream in whirling right hand twist, and with high speed.

And it seems quite obvious that old Ed doesn't understand an electric charge from a magnetic field.

Personally, I like to think of "positive electricity" as gray sock monkeys, and "negative electricity" as blue sock monkeys, and to get electricity, you have to run them by each other with a rapid do-si-do. But that's just me, I didn't take out an advertisement for my tourist attraction.

describe electricity fundamentally

Originally posted by ImaFungi

describe electricity fundamentally

The phenomenon characterized by the flow of electric charge. Second line.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi

describe electricity fundamentally

The phenomenon characterized by the flow of electric charge. Second line.

what is electric charge?

how is it related to magnetism?

can electrons be related in any way to magnets?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

They are running one stream of magnets against the other stream in whirling right hand twist, and with high speed.

That must be what researcher Matt Emery is illustrating here:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contrasting Leedskalnin/Emery with Mehran Tavakoli Keshe, Keshe also talks about the North and South poles of a magnet. He says that North and South attracting is the gravitational field and North and North repulsing is the magnetic field. He talks about the gravitational and magnetic fields as a plasma.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what is electric charge?

how is it related to magnetism?

can electrons be related in any way to magnets?

If you read the wikis and didn't understand them and needed clarification, then that would be a good question. But these questions sound like you haven't even read the wikis. Have you got something against doing that and then asking for clarification?

Electric charge
Electromagnetism

And if you want deeper understanding, you could try these free MIT courses:

MIT electrical engineering course list

This one looks good:
Electromagnetics and Applications

This course explores electromagnetic phenomena in modern applications, including wireless and optical communications, circuits, computer interconnects and peripherals, microwave communications and radar, antennas, sensors, micro-electromechanical systems, and power generation and transmission. Fundamentals include quasistatic and dynamic solutions to Maxwell's equations; waves, radiation, and diffraction; coupling to media and structures; guided waves; resonance; acoustic analogs; and forces, power, and energy.

Maxwell's equations were mentioned earlier in the thread, I believe, and are fundamental to understanding the concepts you ask about. You probably won't understand them with a forum post but if you take the free course you might, which is a nice resource.

And here's a picture:
www.ohiomagnetics.com...

You've seen these before at scrap yards? The operator sends electrons through it creating a magnetic field to pick up the scrap, then he moves the load where he wants, and stops sending electrons through, and it loses its magnetism and drops the load.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He says that North and South attracting is the gravitational field . . .

Contrast that with what student of Walter Russell Robert Arnett Otey says about magnetism at his website Free Energy and Free Thinking:

It is not an attractive force as defined by academia.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what is electric charge?

how is it related to magnetism?

can electrons be related in any way to magnets?

If you read the wikis and didn't understand them and needed clarification, then that would be a good question. But these questions sound like you haven't even read the wikis. Have you got something against doing that and then asking for clarification?

Arb, I gave an almost identical advice to the poster a few pages ago, they don't heed. They don't bother to read.
Makes you wonder.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Arb, I gave an almost identical advice to the poster a few pages ago, they don't heed. They don't bother to read.
Makes you wonder.

I recall, that's why I asked if they had something against reading the wikis.

And I checked these, the one on electric charge is very readable, even for a non-technical person.
The electromagnetism link may be a little bit harder, but still isn't too bad for a non-technical person to read, considering the topic.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Tied up all day. Get back to you tomorrow.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what is electric charge?

how is it related to magnetism?

can electrons be related in any way to magnets?

If you read the wikis and didn't understand them and needed clarification, then that would be a good question. But these questions sound like you haven't even read the wikis. Have you got something against doing that and then asking for clarification?

Arb, I gave an almost identical advice to the poster a few pages ago, they don't heed. They don't bother to read.
Makes you wonder.

I read them... just dont get what it means by certain subatomic particles have a specific positive or negative charge,, when the only way to explain positive or negative charge otherwise is an atom with an over abundance of electrons.

and how the electrons moving through a magnetic material them self can be related to the magnet whole itself,, in terms of north and south pole... and what is actually going on with a magnet to create a magnetic field,,, do the electrons leave the magnetic material and travel in the air to physically create the field? or is the field some virtual particle magic?

please ignore my other post/questions directed towards you.... I wrote them for my own enjoyment... knowing you wouldnt be able to answer them,, and if you did you would have to steer clear of their intended significance and pretend like i was asking something else which is easily and fully comprehended from a wiki article..

Originally posted by ImaFungi
please ignore my other post/questions directed towards you.... I wrote them for my own enjoyment... knowing you wouldnt be able to answer them,, and if you did you would have to steer clear of their intended significance and pretend like i was asking something else which is easily and fully comprehended from a wiki article..

So, do you consider this a form of trolling?

Do you think we are mind readers that can infer what significance you intended to these simple questions, since you failed to articulate it?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I wrote them for my own enjoyment... knowing you wouldnt be able to answer them,, and if you did you would have to steer clear of their intended significance and pretend like i was asking something else which is easily and fully comprehended from a wiki article..

I think this is a proper answer to your "intended significance":




...continued here: