Paul, Paul, Paul you missed my point again, never mind :) To go back to your pet theory, since as you said the formulae for field energy and potential energy are the same, there are in fact at least three equivalent ways to describe the same thing: field energy, or potential energy, or work done by the forces.
All in all the third way: Kinetic energy change = Work done by the forces seems the most sensible to me as it is universal (functions with all types of forces), it is not 'potential', and it is also the most fundamental since fields are defined from forces, not the other way round as is commonly thought. How does the work approach fit with your violation theory? Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: electricity question > Michel Jullian wrote: > > (*) To Paul: typing this makes me realize that you cannot > consistently deny the concept of potential energy and accept that of > voltage (potential) :-) > > > > Michel, Michel, Michel ... we went over this. As previously stated, I > do not consider the electric field as potential energy because we can > detect E-fields, know where it exists, how much energy it contains. > Again, my theory works out nicely regarding E-fields. Two *oppositely* > charged separated particles attract and accelerate. While the two > particles gain KE there is a simultaneous decrease in net electric > fields. :-) > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance >
