these posts are increasingly like going over niagara falls
without a barrel, and then, this further attempt to clarify is
as if attempting to create that barrel while rapidly going over
the edge. the reason for attempting to share these ideas was
to convey a model of how this aetheric medium could potenitally
be visualized or modeled, in terms of movement. actually, there
is a diagram that i had hoped to work towards, an animation,
yet my route there was to try to convey a structure for it first.
because it is tied up into this issue of zero and the number line,
in some fundamental way. and while this may be a naive view,
if not largely inaccurate due to a lack of knowledge and also,
a one-way format for communicating ideas, for the most part,
it was deemed worth the risk to try to share the idea, what is
this conceptualization, even if it is very sketchy for the most
part. to me, this approach could be 99% inaccurate yet may
touch on 1% that is slightly at odds with the present approach,
and this effort would be worthwhile. even if it means/requires
playing the fool to do so. so, this may not be coherent enough
or could be so misguided as to be deemed irrelevant. and my
understanding is probably much below the average on these
issues - because i do not understand them and have not been
readily able to, due to incomprehensibility in certain aspects.
and, lacking this comprehensible approach, i am contributing
this perspective, which may make more sense logically than
it may appear, due to inadequate presentation and people
who can clarify how things more actually work. so this is a
very rudimentary, probably inaccurate view to begin with.
yet, it is proposed it is getting at something that is defined
to exist in certain patterns which are accurate, within this.
if only in the most limited way. it still may be of relevance.
i have tried to learn about electricity and worked with the basic
battery circuits. trying to relate this to the model of the atom,
in terms of charge. and this is based on that given approach,
as i rightly and-or wrongly understand it, having worked with
LEDs, integrated circuits, resistors, transistors, the basic stuff.
it is mostly based on the chemical battery and electricity which
moves through copper wire, through a circuit, and back to the
battery. or that this creates a loop, one end is - and the other +.
and the circuit goes back to itself, and somehow navigates or
moves through the ambiguous 'middle' realm of neutral/ground.
so, the directionality of current or flowing charge from a battery,
through this copper wire, into and out-of various configurations
of electronic components, is, in my experience, to consider the
electrons moving from the negative, through this wired circuitry,
towards the positive terminal of the battery, while touching the
neutral realm to keep things balanced (or, in many instances).
so, while reading that electricity moves from negative to positive,
that this is the direction of flow, it is also said it is dual
directional,
as far as i remember, electrons flowing both ways - and that it is
not actually electrons moving so fast, and instead some motion
that moves this 'charge', as they bump up against one another
at 1 cm/sec or something approximating that, versus 'lightspeed'.
this 'current' has been described as an electrical fluid by Benjamin
Franklin, i think it was, who also defined two aspects to electricity,
if remembering correctly. a positive and negative aspect. and of
a flow, which has always seemed arbitrary, given naming options.
(i.e. maybe it is accurately negative to positive flow, yet what if the
two aspects were reversed when named, would it not be a positive
to negative flow of charge...)
in any case, maybe this is all wrong. maybe this is inaccurate to
such a degree as to be incoherent. yet this is a boundary or limit
to my non-expert attempt to understand, because how this model
functions begins to not make much sense, in terms of how neutral
or ground is dealt with and explained in electronics books. at least
for my brain, which is not very good at learning via books, primarily.
the above diagram/model is of this issue of charge, which has been
related to the number line. and i think this is a solid yet complex case
that can be made. and maybe it can be considered and shown to be
absurd and-or unreal. and that is fine. it is about a question, and so
until i know more, this is where it stands for me, as a questioning.
many electronics circuits which get more complex, and which can
be copied via solderless breadboards, such as timing circuits that
drive an LED display via counters, would map out how to put the
wires to make it all work. and often 'ground' would be referenced,
which equates to 'neutral' as far as i understand the concept. so,
while it seems the majority of the circuitry is occurring via a flow of
'electricity' between negative and positive (and back to negative),
there is also this jumping into/out of this neutrality or ground, in a
more complex circuitry. it was not possible for me to decipher how
this was/is being figured out. it just hasn't been apparent, and the
complexity of dealing with issues of the atom today seem to map
into a different structuring than basic electronics, of moving charge
via 'electrons doing work'.
and the thing is, as far as i can relate to these issues, this also is
an issue of logic, at a certain point. and things begin to not make
any sense, in terms of how 'electricity' is defined. at least to me.
so more and more questions arise and less and less understanding
and awareness of how it works. versus taking it on faith, and then
remaining bounded to not readily getting it. as if a moral problem.
when logic enters into things, mathematics can also be mapped
into it, to some extent. or so that has been the proposal. and the
one major idea of all of this is the role of 'zero' as it may relate to
the issues of grounding and neutrality, as it could be hypothetically
modeled to exist in terms of a vacuum/medium interaction. that is,
with a different 'mathematics of zero', a different understanding of
the way 'electricity' works, could be modeled or developed, at least
potentially. then again, maybe not. maybe this is not even possible.
though, it is worthwhile to attempt to question the assumptions that
underly the existing approach, which may limit comprehension, and
if they are indeed dealing with this, at least it is to find out more of
these issues and resolve or better understand what is going on. yet,
the type of experience i have had is that there is a type of hanging
irrationality that is encountered in attempting to make sense of it.
and that it has become purposive. to keep people from 'getting it'.
so, what if 'electricity' is like the dark ages, and what is actually
going
on is different than the way it is being accounted for. and even, the
possibility that knowledge has been lost, or secreted away, as a way
to maintain power (over truth), etc. these are also possibilities.
in any case, when moving into issues of the number line, the dynamics
of 'charge' can be evaluated in terms of 'zero'. or so it has been pro-
posed and maybe wrongly. this is of the most abstract aspect of my
own research work, into a type of structuring of the alphabet (HIOX),
as it relates to this particular symmetric/asymmetric rotational
dynamic.
i would place the thinking/evaluation at the origin of logic, prior
to the
fusing of mathematics and language, via logic. it is not a coincidence
that letters like d|p or d|b are used in logic, and from where i learned
about it, Plato's Republic is one way this is conceptually approached.
there is too much overlap and chaos, yet, in a symbolic letter like N,
for 'neutral' which may function in an atom as a neutron, somewhat,
and as 'ground' in a circuit, somewhat. it begins to have patterning of
other dynamics, and it is this aspect which begins to relate to zero,
in some way. and this has been approached. the mapping of zero
into the placeholder N. yet, this "N" has previously related to a type
of unknown or superposition of number, it could be zero or it could
even be infinity, given N-dimensionality. so, this too has also been
included, and swapped in and out of various diagrams. the reason
for doing so was to begin to imagine how a vacuum/medium model
could differ in terms of this model of 'charge' which has 'neutrality'
of some kind, as this could sink into/emerge out of potential infinity,
while symbolically held in place by 'zero' which is now a no-go zone.
it is instead equated with 'nothingness'. the end. the void of all
voids.
versus plenum, of a sort, if through another conceptualization.
thus, the question of 'movement' via & through the _flow of 'charge'
may be assumed to be electricity, itself. that this is what electricity
is. yet, with the recent interview, Helen Hall brings up another POV
in which this movement could be occurring from somewhere else,
which is the aetheric origin of movement. which seemingly could
be carried within or through matter or even electrons. yet, without
greater knowledge of 'what electricity actually is' (flow of electrons,
flow of charge - what is charge?) - how do we know that what is
motivating this motion is not aetheric energy that is non-charge
based, yet moves through or with charge as manifest electricity?
maybe people have already decided and know these things, via
the Michelson-Morley experiment which has been called amongst
the most dubious scientific experiments ever, to discredit this option
via assuming the aether functions at the same level as the vacuum,
or stuff within it, versus constructing it, potentially motivating
it. it is
curious how it can be removed from consideration in terms of basic
reasoning, and how severely limiting this is to understand what may
be going on, beyond the boundaries of 'electricity' as defined around
the electron, primarily. or so it would seem. so, in a time where there
are more and more fundamental particles discovered, all of this is
somehow to fit together in a model of electricity based on the electron.
and not some more advanced understanding of charge, which could
be taught to people, about how things fit together in a larger whole.
instead, they seem not to. a new difference emerges every hour.
with these kinds of conditions, then you get people like me who
probably don't have a clue as to the existing models, yet who
wish and have tried to gain a better understanding, from their
own grounded perspective of how things work, empirically. yet,
it becomes 'faith based' at a certain point. and heretical questions
then may be voiced, with potential for ensuing ridicule for being
amongst the 'not knowers' of what is, as it is believed to exist,
in expert and esoteric chambers. what about the public view?
so, left to one's own devices, and confined to monologue, the
limited and probably ignorant understanding i have becomes
a way to explore these issues, in a severely limited way, that
may or may not be accurate to any given degree, depending
on what assumptions are made about what questions/views.
and the thing that gets me is that 'electricity' does seem to
require navigating into this neutral or grounded realm as part
of its basic operation, in terms of the circuitous flow of charge.
in some way. maybe not in the model of the atom, per se, itself,
nor in a circuit, literally -- this is attempting to get at a conceptual
relation, of a certain dynamic that may have some role, yet may
not be the rule or define the entire event. in some way, possibly.
and to the best of my knowledge, via empirical experiment, in
a limited exploration, this is where i ended up, at questioning of
charge, and how charge is pegged to the electron, which is the
way electricity has been defined. why this and not something else?
so what i am trying to convey is some idea or impression that
this experimenting has had on me, regarding charge and logic,
which actually does relate to 2-value and 3-value logic, in some
way. i do not know enough to know, one way or the other, yet it
is a potential and given more information it could be clarified. yet
i do not have such knowledge. though there are people who do.
what my question is, is to ask if this issue of charge relates to
this condition of 'zero' and that charge could be seen as part
of the number line, in terms of how zero might work or function.
and so, it is to (only) imagine that a 'flow' could move around
zero, versus moving through zero, under certain conditions.
and what might this mean if the 'zero' functioned differently,
and, say, you could divide by zero. what might happen to the
flow of charge? how might it be changed and-or transformed,
if not even generated- that is, its motion or motivation to move.
and so, entirely abstract, charge moves into the number line,
where there might be a negative and a positive which then are
established via a boundary or limit or threshold of zero/neutral.
what makes +1 unlike -1. how is symmetry related to this, and
issues like mirroring, of virtual and actual instances of events.
whatnot. now, it is also possible to imagine flow or movement
through the numbering; what if somehow there is a motion that
goes from -1 through neutral/zero, towards +1, and back to -1?
what if this is what electronic circuits seem to do, in some way?
what is involved in such a situation or scenario. what is going on?
answer: nothing. it is irrelevant as a question. as if it is all
about -1.
what if this movement were actually to go from the vacuum (-1)
and enter into a medium (0 or N) and then reconnect with the
vacuum (+1 and back to -1) via flow or movement of charge?
in terms of numbers, what if 'zero' were involved, that somehow
the ground/neutral realm was identified with this mathematics of
zero, which then enables this mysteriousness of 'electricity' to
exist, yet questioning is bound outside of or beyond zero itself?
does that not seem odd, to not consider it further, what might be?
and, in terms of the vacuum/medium issue, this 'zero' could be
considered the aether, which, in this motivation of electricity, to
move through charge and via charge -- it may well be this 'charge'
yet what if this movement is occurring via the aether, instead? is
that not a relevant question to ask, if this is indeed a *mystery*?
to attempt to further clarify this issue with the number line as it
relates to 'electricity' and logic, consider that it was brought up
again in the context of the vacuum/medium as potentially relevant
to conceptualizing what may be going on, in terms of how these
could feasibly be related. hypothetically, pending more evidence.
and the important thing about the number line is that there is an
assumption built into it, about how these relations with 'zero' are
to occur, or so it would seem. thus, to arrange 'charge' in a similar
context could then repeat or extend these assumptions. such as
how 'electricity' is mapped into this and how 'flow' could function,
if indeed it were to move from negative to positive, etc. it is relevant
to question the assumptions which underly this given modeling. or
so this is how the situation is considered, rightly and-or wrongly. etc.
and the big issue with the number line and 'zero' is that there is a
potential boundary condition, around 'zero', if there were indeed
a vacuum/medium dynamic which potentially occurs at different
scales or some other hierarchical or nested structural relation.
i.e. the 'flow' which moves from negative (-) to positive (+) could
be onesided, one one-side of zero, in terms of symmetry, or it
could be navigating across or through this realm, seemingly, in
two other ways. or so it has been proposed, at least, a potential.
thus, what if 'electricity' is actually the flow of charge between the
negative negative and the positive positive, via complex symmetry.
that is, b and q, which somehow have a symbiotic circuitous relation,
in which this relation with zero also is of a particular dynamic. under
what conditions might this occur? who knows. maybe none, never.
yet, what if it were to begin to define a geometry in terms of matter
and antimatter as it relates to zero, in a way differently than normal?
that is, what if these relations were not incomprehensible as a whole?
else, what if 'flow' of charge were somehow functioning across or
through this zero or neutral divide, in some way, such that b|d is
the model of symmetry. what if, then, this was a flow between the
charge of anti-matter and matter, across this zero realm. maybe it
is irrelevant. maybe it is not, if issues of rotation and handedness
and other dynamics began to be explained by how zero functions.
and so the point here is that the number line could be assumed to
ordinarily function in a linear same-scale way, -1, 0, +1, and this is
possible to then map something like 'electrons' and neutrons, and
'protons' into, as 'electrons, neutrons, protons' -- yet, what if there
is a more complex geometry involved. and that this type of electric
flow would be across this zero-point, between matter & antimatter.
that this is not the type of model that describes today's view that is
taught in the most basic and simplified texts for learning about this.
instead, what if today's model of electrical flow, that is found in the
common battery circuit, could occur on one-side of this zero, given
a certain configuration. that this flow may be related to zero or this
neutral realm in a way differently from the matter/anti-matter duality.
and that these types of dynamics could also involve rotational if not
other dynamics, as (dimensional) structures or frameworks, etc.
thus, what if the flow of electrons in an electronics circuit were to
be modeled to occur in relation to the number line, as such, in
terms of this 'matter/matter' connection, for instance, (as it relates
to the earlier division in the 'particle ladder' diagram into 2 sides,
one for anti-matter and the other right-hand side for matter, etc).
naive as heck. i understand and offer this up as a way to question
the situation. what if 'electricity' were not limited to this approach,
this flow of 'electrons' as it moves charge through circuits, and that
instead this charge may be able to move between the various other
configurations, from matter to antimatter, and between scales within
this context of the particle ladder, as charge can be related/moved.
and what might move this charge? what is the origin of this charge,
and why does it move, and how might this movement be harnessed?
i've read accounts of scholars who have said that everything there
is to know about electricity has been learned 100 years ago. that
may be true, with the given approach and modeling. as 'electricity'
ceases to define this 'other movement' of charge that is seemingly
possible, and would also be defined as electricity, were it not for the
need to peg this definition to the electron. as if it all happens there.
there are a lot of other goofy diagrams i have made to try to
establish enough of a structure to draw the animated diagram
yet this is starting to collapse in on me, as i write more and more,
and know less and less of what i am trying to convey, in tangible
terms. this account is also all over the place, and an attempt
was going to be made to present it in terms of an atom, which
is not meant to be a literal model of the atom, and instead of
a conceptual questioning of these relations, as they may occur
in some way, in relation to the atom as a structure in the universe.
for instance, imagining this same approach to the number line
in terms of a certain ordering, it was imagined that the neutral
aspects of the atom could be evaluated as if they might ~sink
into the aetheric medium, via this issue of grounding. somehow.
thus, while this may be wildly impossible to consider in the least,
it would begin to explain how movement might be conceived of,
if taking on assumptions about how the aether may work, etc.
e.g. reconsidering the basic battery circuits mentioned earlier,
and knowing that this model of atomic particles does not equate
with how matter exists or actually functions, it is to still attempt to
get into questioning how 'electrons' may flow through things and
how charge may move, somehow, if these atoms were related,
and somehow this models several sitting atop one another, that
interact with eachother's structuring, somehow, so that electrons
flow through a realm also involving protons, etc. this is naive and
i have no idea the unreasonableness of this consideration, and
it only seems to be an issue of proximity that is asked of this. of
some interaction within a vacuum where movement is occurring,
that is considered 'electric', as the charge of electrons is moving
through something, somehow. and how neutral aspects may or
may not relate, to how this 'electricity' may or may not be defined
to exist. whatever is going on here is beyond my ability to model,
yet it is a sketch of a question that is curious in terms of the issue
of the vacuum/medium, and as this relates to the issues of zero.
in any case, in massive abstraction, at least for my limited view
and subpar understanding, it would seem that there are also the
dynamics of balancing the neutral and positive aspects with this
negative flow which seems to return to itself, in some way. or this
has been assumed, via my naive attempts at exploring this. and,
rightly or wrongly, it would seem that one of the main issues that
keeps everything stable or in-balance, is this grounding or in the
relation with the neutral aspects. how this may or may not be an
issue of how this 'electricity' is defined. via this relation with
ground.
if the flow of 'electricity' is related to this issue of ground, it
would
then seem in the model of the vacuum/medium, that 'electricity' is
not just occurring in the vacuum, and instead this 'movement' can
also be tied-into this grounded or neutral functioning. and this is
a conundrum for me, to understand how this may or may not work,
because it seems to me that if this is indeed related to zero, in terms
of the number line, that this 'movement' or motion could be aetheric
which is establishing the movement of this charge, in some way.
now, this may be entirely wrong and mistaken and it seems that it is.
because then it would be to consider that what is called 'electricity'
today could be driven by a more fundamental cosmic process, that
is related to as 'electricity' and movement of charge -- yet that it is
not charge itself which is motivated, mysterious, to do this stuff, and
instead is part of a structuring that has a threshold, at this boundary
with the aether (zero) which then is the pressure encountered within
material stuff, in some way. then again, maybe not. probably not. if
the flow of charge of electrons is the bounded view. and maybe even
if it is not bounded, this is not the case. maybe electricity _is the
actual
_movement of charge. whereas, this other viewpoint would begin to
consider whether it is the movement of charge, yet not the movement
itself, which could be questioned as something underlying this charge.
and thus, the movement of charge which goes through a circuitous
route, including dipping into/out of this zero/neutral realm -- what if
it is in this process that this movement is established and-or created?
what if this is the issue of equilibrium and tapping into another realm?
and that it is as basic and as ubiquitous and ever-present as is zero?
in any case, this has then been about consider the possibility of such
a situation whereby this vacuum/medium condition could occur within
the model of 'electricity' and also electromagnetism, in terms of how
'ground' or neutrality (equilibrium) occurs. and how this relates to the
mathematics of zero on the number line, feasibly. and further into it,
how dimensionality and aspects of infinity could be nested into this
aetheric context, beyond a given threshold/boundary/limited relation.
thus, the naiveness of considering the basic circuit as it seems to
function, and addressing the ideology of "electricity" as defined
around the electron, would be to also consider including how this
model might change if a vacuum/medium were including in this flow,
and how this 'movement' could originate, within and through "charge".
if it is an issue of faith and belief in an intangible lack-of-cause,
as it
seems to exist, or as it may find motivation in hidden structuring, etc.
including down the particle ladder, to the smallest subatomic particles,
where there is nothing left except a boundary condition or threshold,
between what is charge and what is not-charge, and this movement.
now, maybe people who know about all of this stuff are having quite
a chuckle at the ignorance on display in this questioning. how little is
known at a time when so much is understood by those who do know.
so, the limits of reason and the limits of the reasoner, issues of lack,
and so on. yet, the question of 'what if' remains, and also, 'why'. and
while the inaccuracy of this questioning may be apparent, this is the
area where i remain stuck as to how electricity and electromagnetism
function, in the most basic conceptual way. in terms of how it all fits
and works together. say, how the atom relates to the circuitboard.
to me this is incomprehensible, or, at the very least, very primitive
in its understanding of electricity. why are these the limits that
exist?
and further, what if they are not actually limits, and instead, walls or
boundaries that have been constructed, to keep/hide certain views
of what exists, as it may be so radically different from this approach.
so, overall, it would be to wonder and question if there was this
event called 'electricity' -- what if this was somehow related to this
aetheric medium, in terms of a vacuum/medium connection. and
that it is the existing approach which limits this possibility? and
what if this model of the 'electron' as the standard approach is
limiting questioning or exploring this possibility. what does it mean,
if anything? how can any questions like these even be asked, if
this is not a question in terms of those doing the science, nor of
how very large technical systems are currently developing, etc.
so, while wildly all over the place, this is about questioning these
dynamics and maybe to the point of displaying massive ignorance
of the most basic knowledge of how these dynamics work. yet it is
seemingly worthwhile to at least question the possibility, when there
is a void, gap, or nothingness, which is the answer that now exists,
instead. what if. what if this was about reasoning and common sense
and it was true that, with the right geometry, this could be opened
up...
