electricity and gravity are a far ways way from being linked. At the moment, they are fundamentally different forces, and it will take a veritable epiphany in physics to unify them. Although superstrings make a valiant effort, they are far off from perfect.

Technically, the only answer to this question is "I don’t know" because this is all I can think. If they are related more than we think, how would we know? But anyway . . . Are electricity and gravity related more than we say? No, they are not. When we look upon these two things, we must realize that we are dealing directly with forces of nature and, in this respect, gravity and electricity are directly related. They respond to each other as siblings, and I think the only way to have a closer relation would be as identical twins, which would result in gravity being identical to electricity, which it is not, or vice versa. In this respect, I would categorized the forms of electricity, alternating current, direct current, static, ambient electromagnetism, as descendants of electricity, rather than siblings. As it’s own offspring, gravity could claim linear and angular momentums and accelerations, centrifugal force, magnetism. The siblings, electricity and gravity, coupled with various radiations, are the very forces that make atoms work. All of these forces interact and have the ability to be converted from and to each other. All of these have both positive and negative influences (because you can’t have one without the other). You see, as the good Dr. Sagan pointed out so eloquently so long ago, all matter is made up of "Star-Stuff", and it is in this way that all of creation is so profoundly connected. Physics goes into quite a bit of detail involving such things as centrifugal force and linear momentum, the forces which tend to drive an object away from its axis of rotation, along with the pull of gravitational attraction, the force which counters the other two. When these three forces interplay, they tend to hold a said object in it’s orbital path. Here, we’re dealing primarily with the forces and offspring of gravity. Tapping into any of these forces and transferring the energy, say from momentum to electricity, will diminish the transferred source being tapped, while at the same time strengthen the electromagnetic field being produced. If you were to now transfer the force back into momentum, you will increase that momentum, while diminishing the electromagnetic field. The study of energy and dynamics are closely related, as both deal with the influence of different forces, deliberate and natural, and transferring energies back and forth like this is rather like accounting. What goes in has got to come out, and the books gotta balance. Dan

I haven't read much on Einstein lately, but I do remember his work on the "Unified Field Theory". He showed that electricity and magnetism were related, and he tried to show that gravity was also related to these two. Though he failed to find a correlation, he did NOT prove there WASN'T a correlation! (Big difference!) Personally, I feel that there IS a relationship between gravity and electricity (and thus magnetism, too!) and that it is by nature tied to the Fourth Dimension. I honestly believe that one day we will be able to figure it out and be able to create artificial gravity and maybe even anti-gravity using electrical and magnetic fields. I think where Einstein went wrong is that he felt the Fourth Dimension was TIME. I believe I remember that electricity creates a magnetic field that is PERPENDICULAR to it. So maybe he couldn't create a gravitational field because you need both a magnetic AND an electrical field that are perpendicular in a Fourth *Spatial* Dimension! Honestly, I don't know how they're related, but my guess is that to find the correlation you need to view the Fourth Dimension as spatial and not temporal. But that's just a wild guess on my part. But I do believe there *is* a correlation and that one day we will find it.

Well, it depends on how you think they're related. I think that electricity does affect gravity in many ways, but I don't think it affects it more than we think.

Yes. There are many similarities and the major difference is the fact tat electricity repels. But, as I have suggested before, there is an anti - gravity which we have not experienced. There are both gravitational and electrical fields. Perhaps Anit- matter plays a role in this.

The fourth dimension is not only important in an abstract way that only physicists can appreciate, but its implications profoundly affect our thinking on a very human, philosophical level. 4d space time implies that our lives are predetermined, that our bodies are only 3d cross-sections of a 4d structure. Free Will vs Determinism is one of the basic questions of existance. One's position on the issue greatly affects one's outlook on life in general. The fourth dimension is important for the far future of space exploration of course, but higher dimensions have consequences in more immediate, less lofty subjects. A recent article in "Discover" magazine proposed that 6th dimensional physics can effect the behavior of lowly animals, since the dances of bees have been found to conform exactly to shapes described using 6d models! This should be taken with a grain of salt, but it just illustrates that higher dimensions like the fourth dimension can affect us in real ways, and are not just abstract models with no real bearing on life.

] I think that theorizing and imagining is very important in itself, whether it's about the fourth dimension or about time travel or about life on Mars. Thinking is a wonderful thing, and anything that pushes the limits of our mind and makes us think in ways that we have never thought of before will cause us to grow in ways we can't imagine. And imagination is the first step to invention and discovery. However, I think the Fourth Dimension is an important topic itself. Whether the Fourth Dimension is time or whether it's a spatial dimension affects our view of the world itself. Special Relativity is based on the fourth dimension being time, while in math the fourth dimension is spatial. Which one is right? Can they BOTH be right? Could NEITHER of them be right? This will affect physics and other sciences, but it may affect more personal things such as travel on earth and space. And experiments with the Fourth Dimension could lead to breakthroughs that will change our lives forever.

Well, first off I think that the fourth dimension and the other dimensions are as real as anything. And I think that learning about them will also enhance our knowledge of the third dimension.. people in the 2nd dimension speculate about the third dimension.. and maybe even *gulp* the fourth! :) another reason is we're just curious.. if there is something unknown, make it known!

Mankind is by nature argumentative. The fourth dimension does indeed exist, but it is not a measurement of the preceding three. So, what is it? Is it Time . . . ? Temperature . . . ? Wind . . . ? Well, the last two items can be easily measured and can be dropped into fourth dimensional geometry quite easily. Time is another matter. Temperature and Wind can be felt and vary from area to area, circumstance to circumstance. Time appears to be a constant and is measured by a device that counts . . . But what does it count? What is a second? If the clock, for some unknown reason, were to be suddenly invented today, who would set it? What time would it be? Caring about something as intangible as what the fourth dimension is is an exercise in mathematics. It helps the brain become more productive. It’s a puzzle. It makes you think. The concept is a building block for greater achievements. Don’t spend too much Time on it, though. You’ll end up as one of those people you see who are constantly working on the New York Times crossword puzzle that you think should be doing something more constructive . . . Like wondering if Time really does exist . . .

The Fourth Dimension is important because it is crucial that we understand our universe to progress further. Without knowing whhat is out there, we can set no goals. The study of the fourth dimension happens to be of particular interest to me. My purpose here is to introduce the topic and provide a stimulating environment.

Yes, the universe does have a center but not in our 3-D universe. It is more like the center of a balloon. Our universe is the surfacwe of this balloon, a 3-D plane wrapped around a 4-D hypersphere. The center is located at the center of this hypersphere. This explanation explains many things in scienc. Infact, I have used the hypersphere idea to argue about many topics. I explains the observed isotropy of the universe and unification theories. Anyone interrested? Write me.

I’m afraid the universe does not have a center. It cannot. A theory pressed forth by Dr. Isaac Azimov in one of his many books (I believe it was Universe) was that the universe is not created by a Big Bang, but rather by a mass of Baby Bangs. He suggested that the bangs are going on continuously in an infinite, 3-D area that we call the universe. With this concept in mind, how can there possibly be a center? -Dan

I believe that the Universe does have a center. It's a little hard to explain, but I'll try. If you consider the Universe as all the planets and stars and galaxies and etc., then there is inevitably a center, because there's an outer-edge where there are no more masses. However, if you think of the Universe as everything, including nothing (that is, the void past the stars.... where the stars and galaxie are heading a they expand) then there are no edges, and thus, seemingly no center. Even with no edges, the stars are expanding from a central point. That CENTRAL point, would be the center of the Universe. It's probably where the big bang occured.

I think it does have a center, because I can't imagine it not having one. How could it not? There has to be a center to everything, it's warped somehow. I can't really see how there couldn't be a center to anything.

Yes, but whether we'll be able to get to it or not is completely different. And even if we get to the center, would we kow we got to the center? What is so special about the center of the universe? So I say yes there an unreachable center to the universe. (Yes... there is a center of the universe, and I enjoy being it :) )

I don't know if I exactly believe in a "center of the universe", but I believe in something similar. Almost any scientist will agree that the universe is expanding in all directions, and that leads them to believe in a "Big Bang" that began the entire universe as we know it. So IF the "Big Bang Theory" is true, (and I believe it's at least close enough to the truth to merit some attention) then there was a SINGLE ORIGIN POINT of the universe, and the universe is expanding from that point. If the expansion had been TOTALLY UNIFORM, this origin point would be the physical "center of the universe", but the Big Bang was very asymmetric. So if there is a "center of the universe", it continually shifts with the expansion. (For example, the comma two lines above after "center of the universe" was the middle of this paragraph. But as the paragraph "expands" down, the center shifts down as well. And if I added some lines to the TOP of the paragraph, that would shift the center, UP. But since The paragraph isn't expanding OUT any, the center doesn't shift to the SIDE at all!! Does that make any sense??) So I believe there is an "origin point" of the universe that everything is expanding away from, and I do believe there is a physical center of the universe that could be found if we knew the exact shape of the universe, (and somehow taking into account the curvature of space thru the Fourth Dimension--HOW is another question) but I don't think there's really anything special about it.

While the universe could have a center in the fourth dimension, it could not have one in the universe, rather in the manner of two astronomical bodies orbiting a common center. Furthermore, in the fifth dimension, in which the universe is curled up very tightly, it would have a different center, although if certain ideas about the Planck length (for a description of these ideas, look in the book Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything)are correct, it could bethe same. The sixth through tenth dimensions would be in similar conditions. (Read A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking, to understand what I'm talking about.)

No, I do not think it does because since space goes on forever(regardless if the space is curved in a hypersphere) which means there is no middle of infinity.

The flame of a fire is energy in an almost pure form called plasma. But where does this energy come from? At a campfire, the energy is generally derived from the carbon built-up within firewood and charcoal. These are heated and we get a chemical reaction called fire. The energy in the wood and coal is released. How much energy is there in a cord of wood? Well, the simplest way to measure this would be by weight. Weigh the wood . . . Burn the wood . . . Weigh the ash residue. The difference should average out to about 99% burned away. That’s a lot of potential energy in a very small area. I’d say that’s condensed energy and I don’t see anything strange about it. Dan

Ooo... what fun. Here goes. Energy is most times discribed as a wave, and rightly so. This means that matter, if it truely is energy which it appears to be, can also be described as a wave. This might seem stupid or trivial but it has major effects. It makes it so that matter is only "seen" as a probability. When you describe a wave's location you describe where it most likely is not where it really is. So, if matter is a wave, then all that we see might not be here. If this turns out to be true then what is the wave function of the universe and where else might it be?!?

I totally agree that matter is just condensed energy. It is just very tightly packed energy and it appears solid. I don't think it really seems strange in everyday life, but I do think it seems a little strange overall. It used to be thought that matter was composed of molecules, which were composed of atoms, which were composed of neutrons, protons, electrons, and various other sub-atomic particles. However, with the arrival of quantum theory, it is now believed that everything is composed of energy. So the question to people unfamilar with quantum physics is "Are atoms energy themselves? Or do atoms exist at all? Is everything just a bunch of energy packed together?" I think everything IS packed energy. I would like to know more, though. It is a very interesting subject that is very widely accepted now.

Matter and energy are, first off, completely different entities in our universe. Anybody who has taken ninth grade physical science knows this fact. Matter can be transformed into energy and energy into matter. This transformation occurs within an atom bomb. Dutrium atoms are split by an electron and transformed into energy. The amount of energy is so massive that it is measured in megoton-kilojoules. One small portion of matter can be transformed into a massive amount of energy. Mankind has yet to attain the ability to transform energy into matter however, because of the massive amount of energy one small portion of matter has at rest. Einstein is the first one to have recognized the relationship between matter and energy....E=mc^2. The amount of energy an object has at rest is equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Energy is however, in no way a form of energy. Energy and matter are made up of completely different pa! rticles. Energy is comprised of quanta and matter of protons and electrons ( the neutron is mearly a proton and electron fused ). The Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Conservation of Matter also support the proof that matter and energy can be converted but aren't the same. Both laws state that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed, but only converted. If one could destroy enery or create it, then one would have the ability to transform the energy into matter and create matter from nothing....or, in essence, play God

Matter has to come from somewhere... however it would be strange if we could consider it a condenced form of energy. That would mean that all humans had to do to make their own matter would be to gather large ammounts of energy in a container (which of course is immpossable) and condence it. We all no that matter can not be created. However... this is not to say that matter is not energy... another stage theory is that mater is energy moving at a very very slow pace. This makes a little more sense but not much. How it would slow down in the first place is beyond me. What do you think of my speculation? Mail me.

Are you certain that Life in space is non-existent? If, as you correctly assessed - we are energy, and we can certainly relate to ourselves as living beings - then how is it possible to call the Space, which is the same energy as not having Life? Homogeneity is a main characteristic of The Field. Don't you think?

Matter in my opinion is a form of energy but this seems very strange when we think about how our bodies are nothing but energy . This gives the impression that there is nothing physical in the universe. On the other hand, when you think sbout a large lifeless mass in space, it is easier to see how it could be dense energy.

Of course not! Look at the world and look at history. Was Alexander Graham Bell too powerful? Was Benjamin Franklin? What about Leonardo da Vinci? Yes, I put William Gates on that pedestal. I may be grossly mistaken in doing so, but that is my choice. Without Gates and MicroSoft, what would be pushing us? Would there even be an Internet? Certainly not on the scale we have today. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, and with good reason. Opponents are trampled under his feet, because his vision exceeds their wildest dreams -- and yours! The man is a genius. When Bill Gates is dead and gone, yes, MicroSoft will then be too big for any one person, any one company to handle and will have to be broken up. Not yet, though. Let’s first see where he takes us! I’m ready!

www.best.com/~genesa

Obviously. Look at Microsoft's possition on the computer world. Microsoft makes the ONLY widespread PC operating system in the world, meaning that, by simply susspending code rights or program rights, can easily influence othe companies decisions. An example is Compaq's attempt to make Netscape the default browser instead of Microsoft's IE. Microsoft, in responce, threatened to remove Compaq's Win95 copy rights. This is the first in what I see will become a long string of Microsoft domminace. The aplication world is almost already totally owned by them with Office, the spreading of Win97 and 98 will make using any other browser besides IE close to impossabe, and we are begining to see Microsoft's attempted influence in the Gaming industry.

My vision for the future? Microsoft take over. With one simple statement, Microsoft could cripple all software competition. "Our new operating system source will now only be availible to us" With the widesprededness of the Microsoft opreating system, most people would just accept this statement without thinking, and Microsoft take over would be as simple as snaping your fingers. With no OS competition, Microsoft needs not be afraid of anyone taking their place if that such statment was made. With their OS (which isn't very good I might add) Microsoft is taking over the software indusrty, and ,given time, perhaps the Hardware industry as well.

I think so. But, not because they have forced themselves into that possision. It is because the consumers have put up with all of these other companies. Everything is now designed for a Microsoft opperator. Even the stand alone Mac now has some MS crap. They are too powerful but it is the consumers fault. Before MS became too big we should have demanded regulations. Too late now.
Art Kenney
Oxymoron: Microsoft Works

I think that Microsoft, being the leader in software in the country, has every right to be as powerful as it is. After all, it has provided us with endless possibilites with its software. Take Windows 95, for example. So many good things come from it, it's amazing. Better memory management, better interface, better overall handling of the system. It's so good, almost everyone in the country who has a computer for personal use owns it! Now, some of you might say this isn't due to its advantages, but rather to Microsoft's literal domination of the software industry. But imagine, for a moment, that Microsoft was not in existence. Where would we be? (Don't say better off, you're wrong)

Yes, yes, YES!!!!!! The trouble is, they have such a monopoly that they can charge whatever they want. I paid (or at least my dad =) $90 to upgrade Windoze 3.11 to Windoze 95 and it totally screwed up my system!!! It took weeks to get our sound working. Then, there's $500 for a program that compiles Visual Basic (Actually, it doesn't compile at all, but it just puts the code into one big file and lets the system do the compiling as it's running), and, in total, $1000 for the entire Microsoft Developer's studio. This includes "Visual" Interdev, a web page tool that is basically a slightly fancier version of notepad. In other words, you type 100% of the code in a so-called "visual" product. Does that make sense? We can only hope that they're split up, rather like AT&T was. As for last week's "immorality of contemplating the 4th dimension" - No. I, personally, think that it's basically just a healthy curiosity that will never kill the cat. =)

Yes. But I think most of their success is due to hard work and good timing. No other company does what they do when they enter a new technology. However, sometimes, their success is due to domination rather than innovation.