Mode Shifting: Why electric circuits work
The original material that was the preamble here was transferred to a post on the subject with the post name @I00001. We are taking down the security on this particular post so others might get a sense of the detail developed in order to enable mode shifting.
NOTE: THIS PAGE REMAINS UNDER ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT. SO FOLLOW AND RETURN TO KEEP UP WITH INSIGHTS. WE WILL UPDATE THIS PAGE AS APPROPRIATE.
The question posed was Are You Not Convinced? Our answer remains:
No and Here’s Why
- The EIM used for the above discussions does not, nor can it, close to unification exactly because nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. Therefore the discussions undertaken above are logical in nature.
- While logically correct these discussions are not in context of the unified Universe but the context of the EIMs forming their basis. Something can be logically correct yet remain physically different.
- It is possible for there to be multiple simultaneously true ‘views’ of the same system. Obviously the engineers and others have valid views given that they build such electrical systems every day that work just fine. One group is bent on telling the other that they are right or wrong. That’s not the point. The point is the degree of logical correctness and whether or not any of it mode shifts into alignment with the unified Universe. That discussion requires integration of everything real.
Mode shifting this discussion requires driving root cause analysis systemically from the core constructs of EIMs all the way up to the higher ordered constructs at human scale.
Mode Shifting to Unification
The penetrating issue this page attempts to address is that none of the participants in the broader network discussion ever question whether or not their particular point of view closes to unification. Not one of them. They are so immersed and ensnared in status quo thinking that they don’t question the mechanisms at play constraining their thinking.
This insight is supported by, but not limited to, the propositions listed below:
- Proposition 0001: Gravity is a geometric function of matter not the medium in which it sits
- Proposition 0002: Albert Einstein, his theories and field equations are logically correct
FAQs surrounding this issue have their own page so they may be independently referenced from other discussions, investigations, and insights. Having said that, our work to date has been in other areas of astrophysics and physics, it was never about electronics. However, a preliminary review suggested that we could at least pull together enough material to get others to begin seeing what Elegant Reasonism is all about. From that perspective, the decision was to proceed developing this material to the extent our body of work with maybe a few quick updates could make a relevant contribution to the discussion. If people learn then we are happy.
Fodder for Illuminated Consideration
We would like to take this early opportunity to say that these insights are intended to be considered in a positive light to illuminate and illustrate the capabilities of Elegant Reasonism and they are not intended in any way to be either personal or derogatory to any individual or group whose insights were leveraged making these points. We believe that all parties acted in the best traditions of science and academic pursuit in the production relative to and respective of their individual/group created materials. Their production capabilities in most cases exceeded our own. So, our hats are off to them all and a hearty thank you is in order. We hope the discussion here helps to illustrate the path to the precipice of unification so others may readily engage the unified Universe.
Entrepreneurial thinking drives more change across the global economy than one might think. Albert Einstein, for example, was not a professor when he wrote his first papers. He was a researcher at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, Switzerland. For all the efforts to minimize that and tout his accomplishments within the academic domain, at that time, that is not where he operated. He was in affect to great effect an entrepreneur. Einstein was punished by the status quo thinkers at the time, presumably exactly because he was outside the community. It is an example case of the classic “not invented here” syndrome. Why do we characterize that epic accomplishment in that way? Simple, did you know that Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for any of his work on Relativity? Historically that is correct. He did receive that prize for his work on the Photoelectric Effect. Why would the most celebrated scientist be wisked into academic life and away from the patent office then given a prize many years after he had developed Relativity? Why? The simplest answer is denial within the status quo community. It takes a very long time to affect paradigm shifts. We expect the same set of circumstances to transpire around Elegant Reasonism. We knew this was going to be an uphill battle, but it is a battle worth fighting and civilization’s future may depend on winning not just that battle, but the war around the business of education in general.
Mode Shifting This Discussion
If we wanted to be through in mode shifting this discussion we would likely include M0 and employ both M4 and M6. However, there is neither the real estate nor time nor energy to do so here, now. In fact, we do not have enough time or real estate to fully mode shift this discussion to proper justice.
If one watches each of the above videos surrounding the various concepts and then conducts a systems review consistent with Elegant Reasonism process & methods, a proper Treatise will result in alignment with the unified Universe.
This particular area of investigation is limited and intended for example only, therefore it is not complete in any sense. A comprehensive systems review is now needed and required of civilization at large. Another area of related investigation is that of Antennas. The long wires articulated in video one above would also act as antennas and that subject is completely ignored in most if not all of the linked videos. The entire subject of Electrons cascading to Severance in EFPS1 in the articulated circuit is not discussed and should be.
Part of the recognition phase is a historical review. Such a review would encompass the various sources identified on our Acknowledgements page or available our User Library. Such a historical review would minimally include the historical investigators in the table below. Note that the User Library has an extensive biographical section with others who have also looked into this area. Also note, we listed these in alphabetical order by last name, but they could be in any order that makes sense to an investigative team.
The principle investigators here is not a complete list and certainly does not include recent general history or people. It is simply an effort to present original works that have been either directly or indirectly referenced in the above videos. While this list of materials includes those people it also does not include every work in the User Library nor of others whose work has not yet made it into the library yet. Everything here is a bit of a work in progress. Please bear with us.
Students and investigators should note that it is not fair to judge any of these historical references by modern information sciences standards. That would constitute ‘moving the goal post’ and is generally prohibited by Elegant Reasonism. The idea here is to present the thinking, at the time, by that original author. Where this specifically comes into affect is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs); which to make this point salient was first quantified by Susanne K Langer in 1948 and codified by SolREI INC. Another facet of unraveling historical points of view relative to requirements of unification are both logical and physical views in context both Systems Engineering and of LEEs. Subsequent to this contextual update in our thinking we are then required to employ critical situational awareness thinking that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different.
“We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.”, ~ Albert Einstein
- Guide to Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBok)
- Relativity, by Albert Einstein
- Philosophy In A New Key, by Susanne K Langer
- Matter and Motion, by James Clerk Maxwell
- Spacetime-Structure, by Erwin Schrodinger
- The Death of Schrodinger’s Cat
- The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, by S. W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis
- The Nature of Space and Time, by Stephen Hawking
Individual books may be referenced via the network in their entirety or by individual pages directly from our website. There is no need to download the material. Registered users may all share such links for discussion purposes. For example if you wish to refer to the discussion on Physical Properties in McGowen’s book: Elegant Reasonism, Discerning Patterns of Earth’s Emergence, 5th Edition simply click here. Simply add: /?fb3d-page=459 to the URL address back into our system and you can link any page of any book represented in that fashion. (This example links page 459 in that book.) Or we may want to reference exactly how Maxwell thought about elasticity. for example. We don’t just declare that’s how someone thought, we can show you in their own words in their own original works and we attempt where possible to do it in their native language. Such references are raw and unfiltered on purpose. In this way those historical authors/investigators may powerfully speak to us all very directly and across time.
|Historical Investigator||User Library eBook 1||User Library eBook 2||User Library eBook 3|
|Feynman, Richard P|
|Gauss, Carl Friedrich|