How Electric Circuits Work, Really

This subject question spawned by an interesting discussion that took place online. What is interesting to us about his debate are the numbers of people involved and what fields of interest they represent. Even more salient is that not a single one of them ever asked if the manner of the thinking behind their relative and respective contexts close to unification. None of them do close and so it was interesting to us to watch the ensuing debate to see if anyone of them might also stub their toe on the truth. Here is an interesting point to ponder recursively:

What Albert Einstein created beginning in 1905 was a model of how the universe worked that is absolutely 100% logically correct and confirmed experimentally, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification. Why? Exactly because of several conspiring factors, one being commission of LEEs. Another whole area comes from Systems Engineering logic principles. Something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. If we conduct a logically correct experiment, using logically correct methods to empirical standards, immersed in a logically correct model, then we are very likely to get logically correct results AND those results have more to do with the logical correctness with which we conducted all of that effort than the underlying systems excepting that the physical system supports the logical view of it. What we then need to do is ask if our logical system closes to unification and if it does not then there are aspects of the physical system underpinning all of that which have not been revealed as yet. Still yet other factors have to do with recognizing the implications of the abstractions employed in all of our efforts. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. That detail is important. When we recognize the importance of encapsulation in regard to our interpretative modeling, that recognition is even more important. What we need is a technological means to consider what we are currently thinking, uniquely juxtapose how the unified Universe would see the same set of circumstances and then present that entire arrangement for analytical scrutiny. In a nut shell that’s exactly what Elegant Reasonsim does. Through no fault of his Dr. Muller did not do that in his arguments. To be fair all this is completely new and is very likely unfamiliar to him. Civilization has yet to embrace any of this, but that does not diminish what it brings to the party. What is interesting about the different groups participating in this discussion are each, for the most part, logically correct from their particular precipice. However, the engineers are held professionally and legally liable by society.

The reason for this post is not to slight anyone, anywhere, who has participated in this discussion online and certainly not Dr. Derek Muller of the Veritasium channel on YouTube. Good job, by the way. We love your videos, even if they are entrenched in M1 thinking. Dr. Derek Muller, PhD, led off this discussion with the video immediately below. He holds credentials as a PhD in physics and using videos to teach science, and he is very good at doing that.  That’s not bad and we are not trying to say it is. What that means is he holds a PhD encapsulated by an M1 basis. We love his work and believe him to be a great guy. Here he does a great job of setting up this discussion but in doing so he crosses several lines we would not cross. One being commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). We should probably add that everyone commits them we just need to be aware we are and work to minimize or eliminate them. As you come to fully comprehend Elegant Reasonism the reasons behind this will become clear.

This article is not really about answering that question necessarily but setting up a discussion about mode shifting the answer to that question relative to and respective of the unified Universe.

Here is the video that started it all:

The video above spawned a plethora of subsequent videos from investigators around the world. Many of them either academics or professional electrical engineers. That montage of videos prompted Dr. Muller to produce and release a subsequent video to integrate experimental results into the mix of discussions taking place. We will point out here that we neither have the time nor resources to produce videos as well as his at the moment. Our videos are admittedly low budget in the extreme and producing videos is not our passion. We assume that is obvious to the most casual observer. At some point we will fix that, but for now it is what it is. His follow up video is:

In answer to your question Dr. Muller – No, we are not convinced. Nothing you have presented closes to unification.  For that reason we remain unconvinced. We mean  no disrespect when we say this, we simply use it to make a point about how truth is epsitemologically made manifest. Centrally at issue here is two fold. One is that Elegant Reasonsim joins the traditional epistemologies, each of which sources truth distinctly. In the case of Elegant Reasonsim truth is sought as a function of the unified Universe and others are statistically weighted realtive to and respective of the unified Universe. Another point might be being convinced you are correct due to success of empirical evidence suggesting logical correctness but in complete ignorance of the implications stemming from the hard cold fact that nothing in empirical status quo science circa 2022 closes to reflect the unified Universe. Worse than that most, if not all, current scientists do not understand the issues around why their perceptions of science do not accomplish unification. Two hard requirements of unification are the ability to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference and fully coupling all forces acting on those real objects. Another hard cold fact is that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and that is governed by a fairly famous formula needing no introduction here. One problem is practitioners don’t know what to do about these issues, certainly not in context of the question being asked here.

Problem

The nature of the logic trap ensnaring all participants in this discussion has been so obfuscated by past logically correct experimental successes that they never even entertain how having accomplished unification might affect their discussions or technologies employed, much less the opportunities that might be left on the proverbial table.

Challenge

Most familiar with one facet of this discussion might expect us to weigh in on one side or the other, but what we must accomplish is facilitating them all to recognize the logical nature of the fundamental debate and to recognize implications of EIMs relative and respective contexts are made manifest. Only then may we effectively incite crticial situational awareness thinking EIM to EIM with the goal and objective of challenging them to mode shift this discussion into alignment with the unified Universe.

Alternatives

1. Capitulate to the logical correctness of the presenters
2. Mode Shift the entire discussion and debate in pages here
3. Offer a challenge that facilitates the entire group active in all facets of the discussion to mode shift the discussion from their point of view in order to maximize learning

Choice

3

Rationale

1. We must, to some degree, accomplish number 2 in order to accomplish number 3, therefore the latter is a more powerful choice in as much as it holds the potential to teach more people not just about Elegant Reasonism, but why status quo thinking does not close as well as what implications that may hold for civilization
2. Number 1 is a non-starter because we have already accomplished unification and the implications matter.
3. This particular discussion exercises Elegant Reasonsim and illuminates its strengths and capability to illustrate insight development in a fully compliant manner.
4. The existing User Library already has all the biographical material supporting the discussion and no incremental material is necessary

Next Steps

• Integrate the discussion beginning with this post.
• A video presentation of not more than 15-20 minutes would be ideal but SOLREI INC has neither the time or resources to produce it at this time.
• The work necessary to illuminate and illustrate this discussion is in line with management goals and objectives

Owner

Others as they deem appropriate to leverage to facilitate discussion, debate and learning. SOLREI INC to the degree that material content is inline with corporate goals and objectives. A series of webpages and posts have been in development for sometime. Some have been released, security has been dropped on others, and content integration from the original systems review is on going.

Mode Shifting The Investigation: Why Electric Circuits Work

What we can report in this post is a subset of on-going work to more fully mode shift this conversation. Quite a few historical names have been proffered by this or that person. We believe that most if not all of the biographical references were already in the User Library as well as copies of relevant work. Part of the issue here is that circa the time Dr. Muller released his second video, (above), it is not evident that any of the participants, including Dr. Muller, are aware of Elegant Reasonsim much less embrace it. We must at this juncture presume that they are also not aware of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) nor are they aware of the implications commission such errors have on their conclusions regarding what is or is not happening relative to and respective of their experimental experiences.  Dr. Richard P Feynman, circa 1950, pointed out some aspects of simultaneously logically correct explanations for the same experimental results which accommodates distinctions between the original video above and some of the response videos taking part in the broader discussion.

There is an erroneous assumption that many if not most make is that the fundamental context against which all mathematics operates is the same. Mathematics In Unification’s Wake does not make that erroneous assumption. The mechanics of the mathematics may be the same across all EIMs but the parameters against which it operates are almost certainly different EIM to EIM and for that reason new tools were needed within Elegant Reasonsim to deal with and cope with such distinctions and that requirement gave rise to Translation Matrices.

Question: Can your theory close to fully compliant requirements? Yes or No? If not, why not? Do you know why not or are you guessing? Is the reason it will not close scientific or philosophical?

There are many articles and pages on this site discussing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and the implications of committing them. One which we said we would cover later revolves round declaration that one is working directly with reality when in fact we are working with abstractions of it and we completely ignore systems engineering principles revolving around the use of abstractions. Information sciences has evolved a great deal since interferometer experiments of the late 1800s leading to thinking in 1905, but it is also salient to point out that the professional organization representing systems engineering was not formed until 1990. So, it is no great surprise that those early investigators had no clue about simultaneous logically correct views of the same physical system.  What Elegant Reasonsim seeks to do is reflect, not declare, reality. To that end we attempted to mode shift the classic Baloney Detection Kit.

P 1.0: Recognition

Recognizing the problem statement (above) might be characterized as everyone being blinded by the success of existing (e.g. status quo) models to the extent that no one ever asked if any aspect of any of those models closed to unification. The reason those questions were never asked is likely due to commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Recognizing what the problem is here it should be noted as having been obfuscated not only recently but for the last several thousand years in a broader sense. Humanity continues to struggle with recognizing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) must less implications of their commission of them. It is then no great surprise that penetrating LEEs Gate on the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart is important for all investigators participating in this discussion. It is also important for all investigators to remember that the concept of unification necessarily requires an integration of everything real to be characterized and reflected by every facet of every investigation. What that means is that credible evidence chains must link anchor points to concepts or constructs spanning the entire entanglement gradient and be valid in both the emergence and convergent vectors. To be clear, almost everyone on Earth commits LEEs pretty much every day. It’s how we cope with our surroundings.

There are at least three Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) involved in any similar investigation; M1, M2, and M5; the latter closing to unification in compliance with Elegant Reasonism Rules.

The associated abstraction inventory is a great deal more extensive than one might otherwise assume and the more full list is beyond available real estate for this post. However, a few are obvious and include, but are not limited to (in alphabetical order) and are listed below. There are many 2nd order abstractions such as stress, tension, and others not listed but in a fully compliant treatment would need integration in to any comprehensive treatise aligned with the unified Universe.

• Action (see associated Action Principles of EMCS01)
• Architectures (of mass)
• The Electric Constant (vacuum permittivity)
• Electricity
• Electron
• Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) {Relevant Recognized}
  • M0: Newtonian
  • M1: Modern Variant Mass
  • M2: Einsteinian Invariant Mass
  • M4: M5 emulating M0, M1, or M2
  • M5: The Emergence Model’s Logical View
• Energy
• Entanglement
• Fields
• Geometry
  • Common Geometric Basis for all real objects in all reference frames
  • Full geometric coupling of all forces on all real material particles in all reference frames
• Indexing
• Interface (including definitions, triggers, boundaries, thickness concepts, constructs, and architectures)
• Interferometers (instrument for measuring the speed of light)
• Knot Theory (e.g. topological and mapping sciences of geometric mathematics)
• Light (e.g. photon velocity, architecture, composition, associated energy, etc.)
• Magnetism
• The Magnetic Constant (vacuum permeability) (EMCS01: Concept 0399)
• Manifold
• Mass
• Most Basic Particles (MBPs)
• Permittivity of Space
• Photon
• Planck Units
• Poynting Vectors
• Relationship patterns between all abstractions across all EIMs
• Severance
• Space
• Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), especially conversant in multiple simultaneously logically correct views of the same physical reality (see Feynman video above)
• Tensor Mathematics (mathematics of matrices and dimensions)
• Time
• Vectors

The challenge (stated above) is exacerbated by the fact that each EIM employed by any given investigation establishes fundamental foundational interpretative context for individuals beholden to that particular EIM. The more vested any given individual is to any particular EIM, the more likely that person will have to affect paradigm shifts to great effect in order to perceive justification for insights being developed through the process and epistemologically integrated into treatise. Affecting such paradigm shifts very likely means individuals may have to transition through industry standard stages of grief in order to effectively gain the precipice where they may perceive and engage the unified Universe. If they do not do this then they may not even penetrate LEEs Gate on the PDCF. And there in lay the line crossed in this discussion (e.g. commission of Langer Epistemology Errors).

Biographical Historical Review

• Aldini, Giovanni
• Ampere, Andre-Marie
• Edison, Thomas
• Einstein, Albert *
• Faraday, Michael
• Feynman, Richard P.
• Franklin, Benjamin
• Heaviside, Oliver
• Heizenberg, Werner
• Hertz, Heinrich Rudolph
• Hubble, Edwin Powell
• Langer, Susanne K *
• Maxwell, James Cleark
• Oersted, Hans-Christian
• Ohm, Georg Simon
• Okun, Lev B *
• Poynting, John Henry
• Schrodinger, Erwin
• Tesla, Nikola

There are likely others but their omission here is not intended as any slight to their contributions. There may be others in the User Library and if they are not there then it may simply be that we have not yet integrated their work or it may mean our original systems review did not touch on their work relative to our original objectives.

* Denotes a contributor acknowledged with a dedicated pag for their contributions to accomplishing unification. Others are listed on our general acknowledgments page.

P 2.0 Illumination

Illumination means that you have completed each area of associated Translation Matrices and can effectively mode shift Paradigms Of Interest/Nature (POI/N) EIM to EIM and back again. Once you are able to accomplish this basic capability you will almost certainly begin to gain insights into the unified Universe over old paradigms and capabiities. Truly insightful capability will come later during analysis.

Q: Rhetorically – are the arguments you making logical (e.g. virtual)? Are you committing Langer Epistemology Errors? Can you penetrate LEEs Gate?

Fields must be declared, explicitly. Assumptions as to their constituents should not be made. Another interesting phenomena investigators should be keenly aware of mode shifting any topic but this one in particular is that the answers to the standard root cause analysis questions may change EIM to EIM. What is interesting about this, for example, is that what you originally thought was the answer to a why question may turn out to be the answer to a what happens question and the answer to why in a mode shifted context becomes intrinsic to an EIM which happens to close. Newton’s laws are an example of this phenomena. What happens under those laws is fairly common knowledge. Why they are true is a completely different case. Under M1 those answers must explore the spacetime-mass interface in order to come to any relevant conclusion. One should also very carefully consider issues that might ordinarily be set aside under one EIM but not another. Such cases are clues about the logical nature of the issues being discussed.

P 3.0 Analysis

Comprehensive analysis means you can effectively navigate the utility process and the process decision checkpoint flowchart. That means you have effectively completed associated Translation Matrices and have insights relative to and respective of the unified Universe.

The complete analysis in this particular case means complete juxtaposition of M1, M2, and M5, potentially employing M4 in order to surround and illustrate various POI/N in order to illuminate the logical nature of some constructs in order to effectively enable mode shifting.

P 3.9 Treatise Development

Development of an effective treatise on this topic will require a more complete understanding of the architectures of mass than humanity currently possesses. Although SOLREI INC believes there is a great deal we can learn by individual investigators in various domains of discourse, for example the field of Antenna Design.

Key Analytical Insights

• The constant ‘c’ mode shifts from the speed of light to the concept of Severance under M5. The velocity stays the same but why it is true is different. Under M5 the speed of light is a product of the system producing it whereas under M1 it is a product of dimensional limitation. Those limits under M5 are dismantled. Rapidity is as a result redefined and becomes the cosmological determinate for velocity. (See EMCS01)
• Because dimensional limitations regarding velocity are dismantled under M5 we note that Severance associated with architectures become the limiting factor and that is a discussion about structures within architectures and their ability to instantiate force. Photons are emitted from electrons due to centripetal force and exactly because the Fundamental Entanglement Function is limited by Severance that velocity is always the same in local systems (because all local systems are some configuration of the same MBPs).
• This means that in Dr. Muller’s videos his point about 1/c being the answer mode shifts to mean the reciprocal of Severance.

Final Treatise

The final treatise on this subject has yet to be written by anyone; although we are working on it (click the title of this section). We are and will continue to integrate content from our original systems review as fast as we are able given available resources and time constraints. There is a great deal to do here. However, it is already clear that the original question ‘why electric circuits work’ is a great deal more complex than anyone previously held. The various arguments online spawned by Dr. Muller’s original video are logically correct arguments based on particular points of view in context of abstractions deployed. It should be obvious that electrical engineers are professionally liable for their creations, designs, and applied constructs. That makes them the leading beneficiaries to these types of discussions and insights. Academic discussions about logically correct views are interesting but we need to understand the implications of their logical correctness. Albert Einstein was absolutely 100% logially correct in the body of his work, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe.

Understanding the logical nature of these discussions and developing deeper insights relative to and respective of the unified Universe will indeed provide greater linkage across all architectures of mass, most especially those instantiating coupling within and across reference frames. We are working to increase the depth and coverage of these ideas in the content we have yet to bring online. We look forward to completing the basic foundation here in the coming months and years it may take to get that done.

Electrical circuits work is instantiated by the intrinsic action of the respective and relative architectures of mass instantiating the forces they are designed to deliver. Thermodynamics is essentially the transmission of action across those systems per unit area. If one wishes to use that action to generate heat in the filament of a light bulb then that’s what it does. A larger analysis is being developed for our subscribers and will bring together historical references and needed insights to better mode shift these issues into alignment with the unified Universe. In the mean time, be careful where you put your action. Electricity is not something to play with. We hope you enjoyed this brief article and had some fun as well.

A special note of thanks to Dr. Muller not just for these videos but the body of his work is exposing science to millions around the world and we are grateful for that. As you become more and more familiar with Elegant Reasonism, we look forward to your mode shifted insights into the unified Universe. We are reasonably certain they will be informative and enjoyable. Our hat is off to you sir!

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #KnotTheory #Electricity #SolREI #Studios #Electromagnetism #ElectricField #MagneticField #Einstein #Maxwell #Poynting