This is something which is more than a little complex CliveS, and probably not entirely correct from many points of view. I would certainly agree with you about the nature of electricity, in that we have no idea how it works, and the field and electron theories are immediately seen to be incorrect. Someone above suggested tennis balls (touching) in a tube as a model of electrons carrying electric current. This cannot be correct because the current would travel (as the force does) at the acoustic velocity of the string of balls. The force applied to one end is not immediately shown at the other, because this would require the balls to have infinite modulus, and thus infinite acoustic velocity. Replace the balls with steel ones, the same applies each ball must deform somewhat to pass the force to the next ball. A Newtons cradle demonstrates this well, the ball on the collision end sends a force wave through the other balls to push the far end ball away, but certainly not instantly when measured. The same problem applies by saying the electric fields repel one another, to do this they must be infinitely stiff (or very nearly so) whereas we know this is not true. The speed of light varies with the density of the material through which it passes, and the velocity of electricity changes with the velocity factor of surrounding dielectrics, these things therefore must react with the EM (or whatever) waves or particles in ways that are not described or understood, particularly by the ridiculous "ball" type models.


We do seem to have an analogy between the two actions, and sometimes the light one is considered on a dielectric basis, but then we have a problem as to how DC works, because it cannot depend on a wave motion, unless this is something completely separate to the current. Miles Mathis (interesting guy, Milesmathis.com) has a large number of theories on many bits of physics,chemistry and astronomy, and has made a number of predictions on several things which have been found correct by mainstream science. It severely disturbs many people and they troll him to death, but it is all worth a read and consideration. If you want to look at vibrations,you need to define how fast they are and why they occur, with considerations of the energy needed. The ball model fails because whoever thought of it (and I have it in many top textbooks going back a long time) because electrons cannot have any velocity of current flow without serious energy being available, whereas currents of a pA travel at exactly the same speed as ones of kA. The electric and magnetic fields around wires do not seem to be the power carriers either, although we can make components where they can be used, and the EM theory of Maxwell is not useful to design Yagi antennas for example, because it is obviously incomplete.


Please keep thinking for that is where progress is made.

This is something which is more than a little complex CliveS, and probably not entirely correct from many points of view. I would certainly agree with you about the nature of electricity, in that we have no idea how it works, and the field and electron theories are immediately seen to be incorrect. Someone above suggested tennis balls (touching) in a tube as a model of electrons carrying electric current. This cannot be correct because the current would travel (as the force does) at the acoustic velocity of the string of balls. The force applied to one end is not immediately shown at the other, because this would require the balls to have infinite modulus, and thus infinite acoustic velocity. Replace the balls with steel ones, the same applies each ball must deform somewhat to pass the force to the next ball. A Newtons cradle demonstrates this well, the ball on the collision end sends a force wave through the other balls to push the far end ball away, but certainly not instantly when measured. The same problem applies by saying the electric fields repel one another, to do this they must be infinitely stiff (or very nearly so) whereas we know this is not true. The speed of light varies with the density of the material through which it passes, and the velocity of electricity changes with the velocity factor of surrounding dielectrics, these things therefore must react with the EM (or whatever) waves or particles in ways that are not described or understood, particularly by the ridiculous "ball" type models.


We do seem to have an analogy between the two actions, and sometimes the light one is considered on a dielectric basis, but then we have a problem as to how DC works, because it cannot depend on a wave motion, unless this is something completely separate to the current. Miles Mathis (interesting guy, Milesmathis.com) has a large number of theories on many bits of physics,chemistry and astronomy, and has made a number of predictions on several things which have been found correct by mainstream science. It severely disturbs many people and they troll him to death, but it is all worth a read and consideration. If you want to look at vibrations,you need to define how fast they are and why they occur, with considerations of the energy needed. The ball model fails because whoever thought of it (and I have it in many top textbooks going back a long time) because electrons cannot have any velocity of current flow without serious energy being available, whereas currents of a pA travel at exactly the same speed as ones of kA. The electric and magnetic fields around wires do not seem to be the power carriers either, although we can make components where they can be used, and the EM theory of Maxwell is not useful to design Yagi antennas for example, because it is obviously incomplete.


Please keep thinking for that is where progress is made.