electricty
electricty
(OP)
Is this a true statement: Electric current is a flow of energy. Is energy and electricity the same thing?
When was the last time you drove down the highway without seeing a commercial truck hauling goods?
Download nowINTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
|
RE: electricty
Is this a true statement: Electric current is a flow of energy.
///True\\\
Is energy and electricity the same thing?
///It depends. Electricity, may represent store energy, e.g. a battery cell. However, the VARs (representing reactive power, and reactive energy) do not produce Watthour energy (active energy). See your kWattHour meter. Only the active power in watts leads to active energy.\\\
RE: electricty
Electricity is a 'form' of enegry. Energy comes in various forms such as heat, light, electricity, moving mass (kinetic) and so on.
When electric current flows, energy transfers, just as when water flows, it is at the 'expense' of energy (pump or gravity-potenital energy). This in fact only a conversion of energy from one form to another...but it is not the point of discussion here.
Technically electrical 'energy' is measured in Watts, which is equal to product of the voltage (pressure) and the current (flow). (just like horsepower is a product of head of fluid or pressure and the rate of flow)
Hope this helps.
RE: electricty
Watt is a measure of rate of energy or power, just like horsepower.
Total energy is measured in watts times hours that wattage is used!!
RE: electricty
Therefore, energy and electricity are NOT the same thing.
RE: electricty
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/electricity.html
for electricity being a form of energy
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
Energy is not a material, its an 'effect'. Charge of electricity is mere exchange of electons (this again is a simplified model).
Electrical energey sets of electromagentic waves that pass through conducting material, very much the like a mechanical force created by wind, a hurricane or a volcanic activity sets off 'waves' in seawater! Water molecules themselves are not 'meachanical' energy, likewise electrons or exchange thereof is not electrical enegy rather just a medium to conduct energy in electrical form.
RE: electricty
taught in high schools. One just should not sleep during physics classes in the high school.
RE: electricty
You are diverting a topic of discussion and the 'purpose' of the discussion, which is to explain the person asking question that "electricity is a form of energy and it DOES flow through a condcutor".
Besides I was not sleeping in the class of physics. In the the Einstein's equation you indicated above, the mass m is constant untill a (neuclear) reaction takes place which chages the mass to release the energy. But energy itself does not have a mass although is has a relation to the mass!
In the case being discussed here no mass is being coverted to energy or vice versa!!
Its like but heat, another form of energy, does not have a mass although it changes the property of the material(temperature) while passing through it.
At the same time I am not boasting to have studied or understood Einsteins's theory of relativity or neuclear reactions to the extent of being an expert!!!:)))
RE: electricty
Charge of electricity is mere exchange of electons (this again is a simplified model).what do you think of this statement:
In an AC system, the electricity moves back and forth. In other words, it sits inside the wires and vibrates. The electricity does not move forward at all (if it did, that would be a direct current or "DC.") At the same time, the electrical energy moves forward rapidly. Only the electricity "alternates." The electrical energy does not, the energy flows continuously forwards.
RE: electricty
Jbartos, I don't know what high school you went to. In my high school, one of the best in Greece, Einstein's formula was mentioned. But none of us was expected to understand its implications. Even today, there are not many people in the world who fully understand Einstein's theories.
RE: electricty
Something else to consider: all known forms of energy have their source in the sun. For example, the energy of falling water is a form of solar energy. The energy from wind is a form of transformed solar energy.
Furthermore, the sun's energy is generated from a nuclear reaction, according to our beloved formula E=mc**2. Therefore, the source of all known energy is nuclear.
Question: is gravitational energy an exception? Is gravity a form of solar energy? In other words, does the earth derive its magnetic properties from the sun?
RE: electricty
Energy (joules) = charge (coulombs) x potential (volts)
Current (amperes) = coulombs / second
RE: electricty
I agree with you,current is not a form of energy but a carrier of energy (joules)
RE: electricty
jbartos:
You are diverting a topic of discussion and the 'purpose' of the discussion, which is to explain the person asking question that "electricity is a form of energy and it DOES flow through a condcutor".
///I commented on what appears to be misleading posting:
""rbulsara (Electrical) Oct 23, 2003
imok:
Energy is not a material, its an 'effect'.""
The "m" in the Einstein's equation is often cited as "mass" which is more or less "materia" and "c" is velocity.\\\
Besides I was not sleeping in the class of physics.
///I beg your pardon Sir, I did not mean it this personal.\\\
In the the Einstein's equation you indicated above, the mass m is constant untill a (neuclear) reaction takes place which chages the mass to release the energy. But energy itself does not have a mass although is has a relation to the mass!
///This is one way to interpret it. Another way to interpret is to see the mass "m" on one side of the equation and the energy change dE on the other side of the equation. This is the materialistic approach. If one says that the mass releases energy that is not materialistic, then one is living in non-materialistic world, which is close to unscientific explanation of existence. What is then the released energy quantum dE. Is it emptiness? What is emptiness or nothing?\\\
In the case being discussed here no mass is being coverted to energy or vice versa!!
///This is one way to perceive it. If I understand you clearly, the energy is then released by materia into emptiness. Perhaps, some other materia receives it then if it does not disappear in some emptiness. However, energy is changing its forms, and it does not disappear. That is why there are energy converters. Now, if the energy is not materia, then what about some material shielding electromagnetic energy? The material is blocking or absorbing energy. If the energy is nonmaterial or nothing, how could materia block it or absorb it? If one can feel the heat energy, e.g. radiation, is the radiation material energy or nonmaterial energy, i.e. nothing or emptiness?\\\
Its like but heat, another form of energy, does not have a mass although it changes the property of the material(temperature) while passing through it.
///What about radiation? Is radiated heat such that it does not have any mass?\\\
At the same time I am not boasting to have studied or understood Einsteins's theory of relativity or neuclear reactions to the extent of being an expert!!!:)))
///Very hamble, Sir. Your statements are impressive.\\\
RE: electricty
http://www.mrseiler.org/ions.html
for: Ions, Cations, Anions (all charged particles)
http://www.mrseiler.org/conductivity.html
for: Conductivity
The above links tend to link electricity to floating particles of material nature. All particles carry energy.
RE: electricty
Jbartos, don't be surprised that the statement "One just should not sleep during physics classes in the high school" has offended people. That is an offensive and intimidating statement.
Now, the term "materialism" is foreign to physics and science in general. It was invented by some political philosophers who attempted to combine Hegelian dialectic philosophy with materialistic concepts developed by Marx and Engels. We know how political ideologues are: they will "prove" anything that promotes their agenda. These writers would apply such concepts to physics and would conclude, somehow, that everything is material. I could say much more on this but we're already way off topic.
In my view energy is not matter but a property of matter.
RE: electricty
E.g. Funk & Wagnalls "Standard College Dictionary" defines Materialism as:
1. Philos. A. The doctrine that everything in the universe is reducible to matter and can be explained in terms of physical laws. B. The doctrine that physical well-being and material possessions constitute the highest good.
2. Undue regard for the material rather than the spiritual or intellectual aspects of life.
Now, engineering, as the applied science, tends to be very materialistic rather than spiritual. Although, any engineer may say that "engineering is my spiritual religion or Christian Science."
In view of the above facts, to consider the energy material is nothing wrong. I often have to protect myself against stored energy or emanating energy by materia or material layer. The spiritual protection would not help me much. I might even have been electrocuted without the material protection against so-called emanating unmaterial energy. Clearly, the spiritual defense would not suffice.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
The other view indicated that the energy is not a material it is an effect.
What about mechanical energy:
F = m x a
Where
F is force
m is mass
a is acceleration
Work = F x s
s is distance
Energy = Work x time = F x s x time = m x a x s x time
where mass "m" substantiates material nature of energy.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
Suggestion to Jbartos: your argument that you can block energy with material layers doesn't mean anything. Energy is carried by material particles and surely can be blocked if you block the particles. This doesn't mean that energy itself is material.
RE: electricty
Lets take a step back and take a deep breath! Clear your preconceived thoughts, right or wrong. This is not as complicated as it is made out to be otherwise there won't be many electrical engineering graduates or only geniuses would be electrical engineers.
Also draw a boundary to limit our discussion in order to understand the basics. So we will not go beyond Newtonian physics, still valid for our day-to-day life. (Imagine if we try to explain all knowledge in one class! No one will learn a thing.)
If you re-write your original statements as "Electrical current is established when electrical energy flows. 'Electrical' energy is same thing as electricity" Then they would be more accurate. Read this a few times.
Also when you say electricity moves back and forth, you are thinking electrons or electrical charge as electricity that is not accurate. Electricity is the ‘name’ given to electrical form of energy, same as ‘heat’ is for thermal energy.
You can think of movement of electrons under the influence of electrical pressure/field same as vibration of atoms under influence of thermal gradient. More the ‘vibration’, more elevated is the temperature; we say more ‘heat’ is there. You don’t call those molecules ‘heat’. Heat ‘transfers’ or moves; molecules don’t.
As for AC and DC it gets little complicated but I will try to explain with ‘heat’ analogy.
Imagine a piece of pipe with water flowing through it. The friction will cause the pipe temp to go up. This is equivalent to a resistor connected in an electrical circuit, AC or DC. Now this pipe don’t care as to which direction water is flowing inside. The water can be flowing in one direction constantly and create X amount of heat. (Equivalent of DC). Moving the water back and forth through the pipe can create the same effect, which is equivalent of AC. (Side note: The AC value which creates the same effect in a resistor as DC is termed as rms value of AC). It is incidental that in one case it is the mechanical energy and in other it is electrical but both produce the same effect ‘heat’, just a conversion of ‘form’ of the energy! Hail Newton! The water is just a medium; so do not confuse the flow of water with flow of electricity, the energy.
This discussion can go on and on, but I think I did my best to explain. You will do well to remember that ‘energy’ by itself is not visible, it does not have mass, only its effect can be felt or ‘seen’ by change in the characteristics of a visible object.
Also based on its form, it may or may not need a medium to travel. In poor form it requires a medium, such as heat or certain range of frequency and DC in electrical form, but can also travel through space in it much purer from, such as light or electromagnetic waves and cosmic radiations. By Einstein’s theory, which is not contradictory at all, energy in its purest form will have no mass! All of mass m is converted to E then. But as long as we are not converting mass into energy or energy into mass (a feat not achieved yet by man), both can be treated independently.
Material carrying energy is not same as energy! Moving car has kinetic and inertial energy but car is not the energy! Energy does not have a Car, but car does have energyJ.
Let me also clarify the mechanical/hydraulic analogy. Water distribution network and electrical power distribution network is a famous and well established analogy, so much so that the same form of equations could be used to solve either network problem.
There quantity of water equals ‘electrical energy’ only from modeling point of view, the difference being electricity is not a material or mass like water.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
Now you are entering a subject beyond this forum and even beyond anyone on earth have understood. No one really knows answer to some of your question in your last post as to what the ‘energy’ is or what it is like in its purest form. There are a bunch of theories and that is pretty much that, theories. Some may be relevant, some not. But we do know ‘effects’ of energy to some extent. (Here ‘some’ is a relative term J)
I am not a physicist, but photon is a unit of light, not electricity. Light is not the electricity, as we know it. Electromagnetic energy is only a ‘form’ of energy, not the only or all of the energy. Or all electricity is energy but all energy if not electricity. The same apply to all ‘forms’ of energy. Electricity is NOT made of electrons or photons. Electrons help carry electrical charge.
What we do know is the ‘effect’ of electricity and how to maneuver it in a limited fashion to our advantage.
Electricity is a creation of Nature and not of humans. It is a discovery, not an invention. We do know that moving a conductor in electrical field creates the current but not necessarily know why does it happen.
We, mankind, collectively have yet not resolved the mystery of this universe. Existence and origin of energy is one key part of it. According to our known basis of science something has to come from something, so where does the last thing comes from? This is where faith in GOD and science meet, someday hopefully mankind will advance enough to know that, not likely anytime soon when we are still fighting over petty things and relying on fossil fuelJ).
Sorry, I an unable to agree to some of your statements, but this has been a good discussion, I think. I will stay tuned for any expert physicist's posts!
RE: electricty
Suggestion to Jbartos: your argument that you can block energy with material layers doesn't mean anything.
///Really?\\\
Energy is carried by material particles and surely can be blocked if you block the particles. This doesn't mean that energy itself is material.
///I am not writing that the energy is material only. My claim is that without material there is not energy, e.g. bullet has to have mass and speed to have energy to impact the target. If the speed subsides, energy subsides and the bullet stops without doing any harm. E.g. bullet shot upward stops at some height, experiences mass and zero speed and zero energy. Also, one cannot have nothing with speed. That does not make any sense. Therefore, without mass there cannot be energy. So, the energy is mass plus speed, for example. The mathematical equations must hold. Else, they would be meaningless.\\\
RE: electricty
This discussion can go on and on, but I think I did my best to explain.
///That is great.\\\
You will do well to remember that ‘energy’ by itself is not visible, it does not have mass,
///If one writes a mathematical relationship, e.g. for Energy=mxaxsxt
then, there is "m" which stands for mass. Therefore, the energy must have mass "m" else the equation would not be valid.
To put it some other way, say, my account accrued $12000 during year by saving $1000 a month or
$12000=$1000/month x 12 month.
If one says the account does not have $ value just its form, then I guess every banker would like one very much.\\\
only its effect can be felt or ‘seen’ by change in the characteristics of a visible object.
RE: electricty
TTFN
RE: electricty
With all due respect, you are caught in a web of your own miscoception. Please take a step back.
Energy has 'effect' on mass or material, but its not the mass. (except as noted further down)
In the equations you referred to, F=ma and Work= F.s, all it indicates that a certain amount of energy will have the effect on mass m to gain certain speed or acceleration. It does not add or dedcut the mass! The mass remains the same before during and after the effect of the energy is over.
Mass to energy covnersion only takes place in nuclear reactions or when mass approches speed of light (an un-understood part of Einstein theory, I have no intention to discuss that here as I have very little idea about that).
Another example, when the electro-magnetic energy transforms into mechanical energy through an air gap in a motor making the rotor turn, no 'mass' transfers through the air gap! Upon removal of the electric energy no phycial or chemical change in the material is detectable (ignoring hystersis).
Only poorer forms of energy need medium or mass to propagate and we on this mortal earth deal mostly with poor forms of energy except for light so it appears that energy always need a medium.
As for your dollar value example, try this, an ounce of gold is worth, say $100.
You may write $100=1 oz Gold, but that does not make gold the dollar, the bill! Although it has a dollar value. And both can exist independetly. Even though ultimately both may have came from a common source! (like mass and energy.)
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
/// In an AC system, the electricity moves back and forth. In other words, it sits inside the wires and vibrates. The electricity does not move forward at all (if it did, that would be a direct current or "DC.") At the same time, the electrical energy moves forward rapidly. Only the electricity "alternates." The electrical energy does not, the energy flows continuously forwards. ///
I hesitate to plunge into this debate but thought I 'd comment on the above...
Although electrons (and other components) within conductors may oscillate when an AC 'current' passes through this is not the 'electricity' as such - the energy is within the electromagnetic wave and the conductor is merely an effective waveguide for the sort of wavelengths used in normal electricity networks. The first transfer of energy in an electrical power system is aross a machine air gap with no 'conductors' as such and there is no interruption to energy flow when the magnetic paths of power transformers replace the electrical conductors as the conduit...
I suppose my point is that electricity is just one way of using electromagnetic radiation to get energy from A to B. We can also use radio waves, microwaves and various others to transmit energy (although these are of lower power due to limits in our understanding and technology). Its easy to focus on conductors when discussing electricity but they are not the underlying physics.
RE: electricty
I am not a physicist, but photon is a unit of light, not electricity. Light is not the electricity, as we know it.
imok2
Light is energy. I never said that it was electricity.The smallest particle of energy is the unit quantum of electromagnetic energy: it is the photon. So should we no longer say that electric current is "a flow of electricity." Instead, call it a "flow of charge" or a flow of electromagnitic photons? Also that electrons are "charge carriers" rather than "particles of electricity." Should Faraday's Law be changed, so that scientists today can speak of "quantities of charge" rather than the "quantities of electricity" discussed in the traditional definition of the Faraday Electrolysis Law.
RE: electricty
I agree with your statement: "The simple counterexample is that light and electromagnetic radiation in general are indeed a pure form of energy, yet has no mass".
RE: electricty
Perhaps you should all of my posts over again and also the last post of rsherry.
Elecricity DOES flow, expcet electricity is not electrons and electrons do not move same as electricity! Electricity is the 'name' given to electrical energy which does flow!
Electrons themselves do not move at the same speed at the electricity (electomagnetic wave). Same as when a wave in a body of water propagtes, the water molecules do not travel as as the wave and the enegrgy associated with the wave! I am not sure why you have such a difficulty correlating to this 'mechanical' anaology.
You can say the disturbance (wave) of the electrical charge passes through a condcutor by exhanging the 'charge' like a batton in a athletic relay race at the speed of the propagation of electiricity, but a physical electron barely moves.
You need to give up imagining electrical current as a physical (material) entity, it is not.
May be the follwing example will help. Say a pipe is used to empty all water from a tank. Upon releasing of all water, there is no physical water particles left. While in electricity, if you consider the condcutor a pipe, all of the electrons remain there, before, during and after the electrical current and the energy has passed through it! You are not injecting any electrons nor are you removing any ewlectrons when you apply or remove electrical current through a conductor.
I will not be offended if anyone else wants to jump in with any opinions.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
At least this is entertaining:)) LOL.
But now I will have to "charge" for any more fun.
RE: electricty
Quantity Unit Unit Symbol Dimensions
==========================================================
Energy Joule J kg m**2 s**-2
Power Watt W kg m**2 s**-3=J s**-1
Voltage Volt V kg m**2 s**-3 A**-1
Voltage Volt V J s**-1 A**-1
Etc.
It is clearly seen that the energy has the mass in its dimension
Then, for example the time rate of change of energy within a given volume is determined by the power flow through the surface A of the volume as:
P=dW/dt=integral over the area A of (S x dA)
where S=ExH
is the Poynting Vector pointing in the direction of the per unit area power flow
Since the Energy dimension includes kg of mass, the radiated energy characterized by the Poynting Vector has a material or kg of mass in its dimension.
Therefore, the mass is tied to energy even though it is not apparent, and the mass is hidden by different units, e.g. J
RE: electricty
peebee, yes we ARE funny.....You know, I did my first year in physics before switching to engineering. The reason I switched is because my girlfriend at the time told me that engineers are more fun than physicists. I haven't regretted my switch one bit.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec98/915160538.Ph...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/lig...
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/4096-1.html
RE: electricty
http://amasci.com/miscon/energ1.html
RE: electricty
imok2, after a quick first reading of Beaty's article I think this man likes to play with words and semantic twists and ends up making some absurd statements.
For example, he says:
"Electricity is made of electrons, while electrical energy is electromagnetism and is made of photons".
We all know that:
1. the presence of current and voltage means that we have electrical power.
2. if we have electrical power for some time, even a fraction of a second, we have electrical energy. Or, in mathematical terms, electrical energy is the time integral of power, which is the product of current times voltage.
3. photons have nothing to do with any of the above.
There are many more absurdities in the article but that's for another day.
RE: electricty
At the energies of these particles, all boundaries blur, e.g kg and/or volts and/or seconds etc. can be applied interchangeably to some measurements. (Someone at the start was asking about gravity. They havn't quite figured out how to get gravity to fit in interchangeably yet. I wouldn't agree that all energy comes from the sun, though that is a useful analogy if you prefix "useful forms on earth except fission, fusion, some chemical (e.g. pure hydrogen atoms arriving from another star as cosmic rays and reacting with oxygen to produce heat and water) and gravitation so far")
To get back to the question, I like the "water in pipe" analogy for electricity. Electron particle accelerators are almost a pure version of this, a pure example of DC current. And if you push some more water in one end of an inflexible pipe, you'll get water out the other end much faster than the water molecules individually travel. DC is similar, a wire is just a full pipe that doesn't naturally drain. AC is like heating a pipe loop on the other side of a wall by pumping small amounts "alternately" into each end of the loop very fast and waiting for the friction between the water and the pipe wall to heat up the pipe.
I know, that AC analogy sucks. Oh well.
RE: electricty
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/mainpage.html
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.php
http://www.geocities.com/bjorn_cedervall/
RE: electricty
Rubbish!
As everyone knows: electricity is made of smoke.
Power stations make smoke, pump it through tiny pipes to your house or factory, into your machines where it makes them work.
Then it goes back along a second pipe to the power station and up the chimney, which we've all seen happen.
Don't believe me?
Well, what happens when the smoke escapes from inside the machine?
It stops working.
That proves it!
Sorry!
Carry on the discussion...
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams
RE: electricty
I strongly disagree with your last posting. The smoke does NOT go to the homes through wires. The smoke goes up the smoke-stacks. You can see that clearly if you look at fossile fuel power stations. I do not know what happens to the smoke in nuclear plants, though. Anyone got a good explanation to that?
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
For what it's worth, I prefer the golf-ball-in-a-garden-hose analogy to the water pipe analogy.
RE: electricty
"Is this a true statement": Electric current is a flow of energy. Is energy and electricity the same thing?
Current (Amps) in electricity, is like gallons (or litres) in water. It is a quantity.
For the quantity to become power it must have some sort of force applied. In electrical terms this force is Voltage.
At any given instant of time the voltage applied to a completed circuit will push the current through that circuit delivering POWER to the circuit. If the circuit has a device in it such as a 60 Watt light bulb then the circuit will require the force VOLTAGE (usually fixed (ie 120 volts)) pushing the current AMPS (variable depending on the devices) through it. The product of the Voltage and the Current is power measured in WATTS. Power is an instantaneous value applied to a completed circuit. If the power is applied continuously over a period of time then energy is consumed. In electical terms this would be Watts x Time so that Energy = Volts x Amps x Time (usually hours) this produces Watts x Time or WattHours.
Now back to the question Is electric current a flow of energy. and the answer must be conditionally yes.
Is energy and electricity the same thing, and the answer must be conditionally yes.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
What do you suggest, jbartos?
RE: electricty
Engineers can be funny... but not frequently!
RE: electricty
I will admit that sone of you are way above my intellect, but I enjoyed all of you very much.
P.S. I think I stick with HVACR, at least I think I know a little bit after 40 years in the business. Again thanks and I hope I can have other discussions with you all!!!
RE: electricty
TTFN
RE: electricty
Just FYI, this is not a new topic.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec98/915160538.Ph...
///My postings and the energy versus mass relationships essentially agrees with
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/lig...
""Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy so it is a redundant concept. In the modern view mass is not equivalent to energy. It is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.
Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass but we call it relativistic mass.""
Major shortcomings in some of these writings are missing dimensions pertaining to mathematical relationships covering engineering and science phenomena. Dimensions tackle the engineering and design mathematical relationships for all practical purposes.\\\
RE: electricty
1. Dwight E. Gray "American Institute of Physics Handbook," McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972,
page 8-199 Table 8e-2 indicates:
MoC**2 in MeV
Photon Energy h(nu)o in MeV
Recoil Electron average energy (T)ave in MeV
etc.
Reference:
2. IEEE Std 100-2000 Dictionary
photon (1) (A) (fiber optics) A quantum of electromagnetic energy. The energy of a photon is h(nu) where h is Planck Constant [...h=6.626176(36) x 10**-34 kg m**2 s**-1 (or J s)] and nu is optical frequency.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
'Question: is gravitational energy an exception? Is gravity a form of solar energy?'
Gravity appears because spacetime curves (or wraps), as per Einstein and this is the latest cause for the effect of gravity so far.
If the speed of gravity is equal to that of electromagnetic radiation, our belowed Earth would have fallen into Sun by this time (This is called Poynting-Robertson Effect). So gravity is otherthan electromagnetic radiation.
Jbartos may be correct in referring mass to energy (and viceversa) excepting gravity. A graviton is still a fictitious particle.
Thermodynamics says Electricity is a high grade energy (and heat is a low grade energy)
Regards,
Believe it or not : Had we trusted Archimedes and assigned him the work of lifting the earth(or any mass equivalent to that of earth on earth),with a lever of suitable length, it would have taken him 23 million million years to lift the earth by one centimeter.
RE: electricty
RE: electricty
I'm with you, This is a dead end argument!
RE: electricty
RE: electricty