The nature of energy

[albsmith]

clean energy in nature of energy

Fuel sources consist primarily of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear material, hydroelectric, wind, solar and biomass. We must invest in systems and processes that convert raw resources into a useful stream of high-energy electrons or high possible chemistries.. While proponents of wind & solar might claim the moniker of "clean energy", it should be remembered that high purity poly-silicon is not a naturally-occurring substance and the
process of converting silica to solar panels is both energy consumptive and
involves intermediary steps that produce harmful byproducts. Nor, for that
matter, are the rare-earth metal used inside of high performance wine turbine
generator drives readily abundant on the surface of the earth. Instead, these
must be extracted from deep within the planet, purified, processed and
transported around the world before finding their home inside the stator behind the whooping turbine blades that dot the landscape of north Texas and the Columbia River valley.

[Aalia Nebhan]

I don't agree, energy is everywhere, even where we call nowhere, and that's why it all exists. We do have unlimited energy,

it's simply a case of conversion into a useful form. So, I adamantly disagree with that statement and would challenge any physicist who efforts to use that as an excuse to curtail mankind's use of energy.


___________
Hair Extensions Salons

[Xseries]

I find this interesting. Although I did not read all the replies the initial comment was what caught my interest.
Firstly I agree with you that modern physics has lost their path. They seem to have focused more on a mathematical representation of theoretical views than an actual postulated observatory hypothesis. It is understandable to see how this came about due to the rise in popularity of the quantum theory, but it is apparent that the current view is seriously flawed and needs revising.
The first revision I believe should be with the definition of energy. Currently energy is not a substance or force but is a characteristic of a substance or force, i.e its ability to do work.

As for the definition of energy it is apparent from the writings of Planck, Tesla, Maxwell and many others that Energy was viewed not as a vector quantity but instead as a substance that formulated the universe. So in this light I give it the following definition.

o A fundamental imbalanced partial component of the universe that through interaction and exchange seeks balance. It is variable in its state. Dynamic in its nature and has changing attributes of quality, quantity.

From this definition alone, a whole new structure of physics can be born. If you look closely you can see that this definition defines energy as "the fundamental component" of the universe.
I have knocked this all around in my brain many times over. I have started and written down many theories, some with promise, some just ramblings, but this definition that I wrote stood out.

It is the foundation of my "Understanding The Aether" paper that I am currently writing. I along with others believe that many of the forefront authors on the subject today have too much of a classical mindset and fail to grasp the observable characteristics of nature. Not only that, they present a lot of information that is vague to say the least.

Here are a few statements from my paper, incase some are interested. It is not for sale and will be given to anyone who wants a copy.

• Motion is the result of interaction
• The Universe is comprised of variable states of energy. Nothing within the universe is anything except energy.
• All Energy in the Universe is in a constant state of interaction and all interactions have an effect on the constant state.
• All Force, Primary, secondary and tertiary and minute are due to relationships between these variable states of energy and are all in themselves energy interactions.
• All Matter is a disruptive interaction in the Aether, all energy exchanges are the resultant of these disruptive interactions.
• Geometry brings about stabilization, amplification, dissonance (Kaos), resonance and transformation of state.

[Allcanadian]

@albsmith

Fuel sources consist primarily of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear material, hydroelectric, wind, solar and biomass. We must invest in systems and processes that convert raw resources into a useful stream of high-energy electrons or high possible chemistries.

The problem with this way of thinking is that intuitively we already know the outcome, conversion of raw resources is unsustainable on a large scale. It may work for us as long as the raw resources last however we will have created a disaster for future generations.

It is comical when a person thinks about it, we proclaim to be "intelligent" and "responsible" yet we don't act responsible or make intelligent choices. Not unlike an irresponsible child we want things now with no regard towards the consequences of our actions in the future. Now the real question is why do most people claim to be responsible adults when they act like little children with no regard towards others or the future?. You see any claim requires proof and the proof we have is conclusive, we are not acting like responsible adults.

AC

[GageTyler13]

A Force is any kind of push or pull exerted on an object.

Gravity is a force which keeps us stuck to the earth.
The Electrostatic force attracts electrons to protons in an atom.

If you move an object against some force, work is being done.

[lcam88]

I believe that most who participate in this forum will agree that the physics which is taught and generally accepted today has serious flaws and does not take into account the phenomena we come on here to discuss and refine.

With this thought in mind, I submit to you some of my thoughts on energy for you to tear apart, add to, subtract from, etc.. It is not my goal to come up with a unified field theory, but I would like to understand this universe we call home as much as possible. My goal here is as much anyones goal- to experiment, discover, and harness these phenomena, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before... er, I mean scratch that part about new life and civilizations


As well, please forgive the nonconscise nature of these ramblings, I hope everything will turn out clear in the end..


Energy... is stated in many physics texts as "the ability to do work"

That is an engineering definition where work is defined relative to the problem being solved as a raising of potential in some form.

In physics energy can take a different form: the ability to cause change to a neutral state.

I defined it as a much younger researcher of all things quantum mechanical (albeit incorrectly) as bosons... these are force carriers, such as photons, but "force carriers" and the "force" they "carry" are two separate things.

But going back to what I wanted to talk about today- the root of things

Why is a magnetic field (or why isn't it) energy?

It indeed can cause a change of state to neutral bodies effected by it. It therefore is energetic.

Well obviously it has the ability to do work, but I'm beginning to think you can't really call static fields (or "potential energy") energy

Of course you can, it boils down to environmental factors though.

Dividing it down, we can model the magnetic field of a magnet with a coil of wire and electricity of a certain voltage and current. But we've just taken one value: magnet A has field geometry of X, Y, Z; and we've reproduced it with several different variables: coil of certain number of turns, potential difference between ends of the coil, current through the coil yeilds magnetic field of geometry/strength of X, Y, Z.

We used a dynamic system to reproduce something which was happening in a static system.

Nothing is actually ever really static though, is it?

Sitting in a motionless universe, who would know or care whether or not a magnet had a magnetic field. Better pictured this way- if time stopped, how would you measure the field strength of the magnet.

Dwelling on hypotheticals is a meaningless exercise. It is important to note that magnetic fields appear as a consequence of charged particles of some kind in movement. That would mean the universe cannot be motionless and the presence of the magnetic field would be evidence of that.

I think it is important to remember what time actually is. It is a duration that relates to the natural cycles observable in all oscillations. This can be understood to be further evidence that a motionless universe cannot exist.

Energy is change.

It is the potential to cause change.

Energy requires a differential, a movement, a change of some sort. The two scenarios- of time being stopped and motion being stopped yeild the same exact results to any experiment done in one's head. Time is an illusion created by motion, yet, movement is an illusion created by time.

That does say something about your experiment doesn't it? A=B therefore B = A.

I will ask though, can energy be defined as a difference between two potentials? Why not? What is missing?

Time has always been the important part of any equation of energy. Force over time equals energy... force over distance equals, guess what, work (AKA energy)

the equations are the same

From an engineering standpoint yes.

Lamda * Time = Energy too. Thing of electromagnetics and how frequency is directly proportional to energy.

Shifting gears away from my past arguments to something more recent and more akin to peter lindemanns neck of the woods,

a magnetic field IS energy, I have determined. A partice will curve in a magnetic field- a change in direction is defined as acelleration- so there is as much energy transfer, but not in a way we can directly plug into- but thankfully, because since it transfers energy in this way it doesn't destroy its ability to do so, like an electric field.

Yes.

Here are the rules:

The electric field is a longitudinal field, it propogates in its direction of motion, therfore it transfers energy directly from point A to point B. A spark jumps from a negatively charged electrode to a positively charged one.

But the magnetic field is transverse, it propogates perpendicular to its direction of travel, thus it transfers energy by curving ones path.

If you have two plates with different electric charge, you can establish that an electric force acting between the plates. If you shoot a magnet between the plates, it too will follow a curved path.

And these forrces wrap themselves together in an electron.

Going deeper, and this is my point, I believe in what one might call a theory that says there is a medium filling space by which forces act.

Well yes, if you choose the space occupied by a liter of water, you can be fairly sure the medium is water.

An ether or aether or subspace or whatever you want to call it. Early radio books speak of 'waves in the ether' it, but with einsteins relativity and quantum mechanics they say there are only particles and waves and a strange duality, but they've found a way to work the universe without an aether, which I believe is incorrect.

I agree with this.

My only real point to all this, besides asking what theories you all ascribe to-

Wouldn't it work better if we thought of an electron not as a particle sometimes and a wave other times, but as two fields

something like this:

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...m4ce/cpmas.jpg

The image you depict is what you would expect from the flow of electricity down a wire. The right hand rule so to speak.

Consider what you would have if you where to neutralize the charge of an electron. The standard model defines a neutrally charged electron as a neutrino. What is interesting about neutrinos is they too follow the same basic electric principles as electrons except that they have no charge. Right?

Can a neutrino current also build a magnetic field?

What about an ion current of hydrogen nucleai? Can that build a magnetic field?

That does the difference between the neutrino and the electron say about the nature of the electric force? About the material they are composed of?