This drives me crazy and extreme confusion

[holtage]

Electron flow of capacitor (Note:it is ELECTROLYTIC capacitor)
1. Discharging capacitor
a) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit
b) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit

2. Charging capacitor
a) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit
b) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit

3. Is electron flow the opposite of current flow? (I am not sure although books states that it does, I don't believe in books but EXPERIMENT RESULTS, I have no safety in believing theory)

4. Is thinking in terms of current/electron flow is wrong, instead I should think in charge carrier/charge? (I... I... even don't know what I am asking, this shows that I am severely confused)

Comments of old hand in electronics urgently needed!

[TheoriaApophasis]

Electron flow of capacitor (Note:it is ELECTROLYTIC capacitor)
1. Discharging capacitor
a) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit
b) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit

2. Charging capacitor
a) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit
b) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit

3. Is electron flow the opposite of current flow? (I am not sure although books states that it does, I don't believe in books but EXPERIMENT RESULTS, I have no safety in believing theory)

4. Is thinking in terms of current/electron flow is wrong, instead I should think in charge carrier/charge? (I... I... even don't know what I am asking, this shows that I am severely confused)

Comments of old hand in electronics urgently needed!

i agree its crazy, since ELECTRONS DONT EXIST


learn what an electron REALLY is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvc5ns3eI7k




Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science.
“To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla
Article: “A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future” (Popular Science Monthly)

Electricity is utterly a mass-free phenomena, as mentioned by many including Dr. Wilhelm Reich in his “Cosmic Superimposition”. Mass has no logical or theoretical place in electrical units and all particle-based conceptions of it are impossible. There is no mass in T.E.M. (transverse electromagnetism).
Mother nature has never taken a course in math, algebra and she absolutely rejects the nonsense espoused by quantum. ‘She’ knows only about charge-discharge, spatial-counterspatial and centripetal-centrifugal spin as binary conjugates to charges and discharges. Gravity, electromagnetism and matter are all modalities of the Ether, of charges and spin. There are no negatively "charged" particles in this universe. Negative electricity discharges while positive electricity charges. The negative depolarizing force functions in the opposite manner and direction to the positive polarizing force. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, only discharges, nor are there negatively charged particles, further still not one iota of proof for same. Charge and discharge are antinomies, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are mutual and co-eternal principle conditions. The commonly held belief in nonsense such as the notion that electricity is a stream of rolling electron beads thru a conductor is one of the most insane conceptual reifications of the definition of discharge as held by so-called intelligent minds.
There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated thru the Ether. Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later.
Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of co-ordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’.
All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so-called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. ‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.
“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916
There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions.
“To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” – W. Russell
Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” – E. Dollard
With the introduction of the so-called ‘electron’ by Thomson and the supposed debunking of the Ether theory, the golden age of electrical discovery ended. Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower was demolished. His work and that of other Ether researchers fell into disrepute. They were relentlessly attacked by mainstream science, something that continues to this day. As a result, the days of Ether-driven, electrical discovery petered-out, finally ending around 1930. As a direct and intentional result of the academic physics theory, the methodology behind the brilliant inventiveness of previous generations was all but wiped out and replaced by an unproductive particle physics. This, from the cult of quantum, a fraudulent collusion and academic hubris-based pseudo-conspiracy based in “deep thinking insanity” designed by mathematical physics.

[Allcanadian]

@TA
To be honest I find most of your posts to be somewhat incoherent but I like this one. It had a nice flow to it, well referenced and the theme was consistent. My only critique would be leaving a double space between paragraphs because my eye's are going to hell...yes that late 40's thing is creeping up on me,lol.

I like to leave a double space or more between a train of thought as one jumps to another as well but yes usually I'm all over the place. In any case that was a nice post.

AC

[mikrovolt]

It is a very confusing. By studying electricity in nature we find terms such as moving charges and currents applied to an electrical universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQIl-JaUUc

[TheoriaApophasis]

It is a very confusing. By studying electricity in nature we find terms such as moving charges and currents applied to an electrical universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQIl-JaUUc

that video is trash from the "plasma universe" qwacks.


they have plasma on the brain.


I call it the 'cult of ionized gas'


someone else called them the "Fart Fraternity"

[Ernst]

Electron flow of capacitor (Note:it is ELECTROLYTIC capacitor)
1. Discharging capacitor
a) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit
b) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit

2. Charging capacitor
a) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit
b) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit

3. Is electron flow the opposite of current flow? (I am not sure although books states that it does, I don't believe in books but EXPERIMENT RESULTS, I have no safety in believing theory)

4. Is thinking in terms of current/electron flow is wrong, instead I should think in charge carrier/charge? (I... I... even don't know what I am asking, this shows that I am severely confused)

Comments of old hand in electronics urgently needed!

I bet the above answers are very helpful to some, so let me add to the confusion:
An electrolytic capacitor (like many others) consists of 2 conducting plates separated by an insulator. When you charge such a capacitor, you add negative charge to the negative plate and remove negative charge from the positive plate. (under most circumstances only negative charge, i.e. electrons move, in some cases positive charge, i.e. ions move)
When you discharge such a capacitor, you remove the excess negative charge from the negative plate and add negative charge to the positive plate until a neutral state is re-established.
Electricity and electrical effects were discovered long before the electron, so they just called one side positive and the other negative and since "positive" feels like an excess and "negative" like a shortage, they decided that an electric current flows from + to -, just as the wind blows from a high pressure region to a low pressure region. This is just a "model" they used to explain electrical phenomena.
Then the electron was discovered and it was found that it had a negative charge, this of course went against the existing "model", because electrons move from - to +. But to change the model would lead to even more confusion, so the model remained.
So now we have current moving from + to -, and actual charge from - to +.
Thinking in terms of current is useful in many instances but it has little reality. It is a model. A useful model in many occasions. Just like Bohr's model of an atom, with electrons spinning around a positive nucleus. There is very little reality in there, but in many cases it is a useful model and predicts the correct results in experiments.
Thinking in terms of electron flow is much like the previous, there is just slightly more reality in there.
Think about this:
an electric current always consists of 2 components: a magnetic component and an electrostatic component. Both are always present but in low voltage (<2000 Volt) the latter plays hardly any role.
When a current runs through a cable, where is the magnetic field?
Outside the cable, in the area surrounding the cable.
When a current runs through a cable, where is the electric field?
Outside the cable, in the area surrounding the cable. (no electric field inside a conductor)
So BOTH components of an electric current are taking place OUTSIDE of the cable. So the electric energy is conducted outside along the cable, not through the cable!
This energy flow pulls the electrons inside the wire forward, so the electron movements are NOT the cause of an electric current, they are an effect...

Won't take away your confusion, does it?


Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

throw a stone up in the air.....thats charge, dielectricity

it reaches a loss of inertia

stone falls back in your face...thats magnetism




no electrons involved




...............SKIP A STONE ACROSS THE WATER...

it hit the water and pulsates back and forth, skipping across the water.

thats electricity , electrical cycles


the stone loses inertia and FALL into the water..............it loses its dielectric component and sinks........magnetism....










push a heavy stone, smack it, kick it, it wont move dam**t

thats dielectric inertia (like found in Bismuth, or in a supercooled yttrium barium copper oxide disk).








stone is heavy, its comprised of a dielectric condensate created in enormous power centers like galactic jets.


dielectricity is CENTRIPETAL , INERTIAL, COUNTERSPATIAL, is seeking itself out for the smallest possible space

this is why "magnets" come together ,or "attract", magnetic attraction DOES NOT EXIST, it is all controlled by dielectric voidance, a move towards counterspace.

this is why magnets self-fold.

this is why a flat hard drive magnet, if you keep smashing it will eventually form the SMALLEST space possible, a tiny sharp and jagged little SPHERE

always.


rock falls off the cliff attracted to the enormous centripetal dielectricity contained of the earth and its countless atoms, we call it gravity.

rock crushes you . LOL









turning your radio, it draws current,.....thats like letting open a trap door of a box containing a pile of rock to loose their inertia in one direction, at the radio to power it and produce a signal


recharging the battery, using OTHER inertia from ANOTHER source to fill the box back up with a pile of rocks to be let loose again.





That rock in your face, thats the Ether.......no electrons required.

[holtage]

Seems very long

It takes time for me to digest what you reply. Tesla is everything. He must be correct. **** those Edison and the government, JP morgan. I reply to let you know I had read it.......Yes, electrons may be not exist.

[TheoriaApophasis]

..Yes, electrons may be not exist.

its an atomistic brain fahrt created by materialists to quantify what cannot be quantified, only qualified.



the "discharge particle" is a pure INSANE absurdity.


The waveform of supposed “electron” flow is the same waveform produced when you slam on the brakes. It’s a harmonic sine wave and the sound of energy dissipation. Electricity flows in the space between the wires. This has always been known by electrical engineers. For example, if you short out a major electrical circuit you will see the cables violently repel each other as the electromagnetic force tries to escape from the boundaries in which they are contained between the so-called bounding conductors. The power is between the conductive wires, not in them, nor are there electrons ‘beads’ bumping or flowing thru the ‘conductor’.

In general, the electrostatic potential, e, in Volt, renders the insulators hot, the magnetomotive force, i, in Ampere, renders the wires hot. Also, it is found that this heating increases with increasing frequency of the potential, e, or the M.M.F., i. It is here where the prevailing concept of the "electron" is to be found. Hence it is the motions of the so-called electrons that give rise to the energy loss in an electrical system. “Electrons” represent energy dissipation. However, the cult of quantum, and the ill informed fool all tell us that the ‘electron’ is a subatomic particle and charge carrier, and is that which conveys energy, this is complete irrational nonsense!

“Maxwell’s discovery of a factor of proportionality between dielectricity and magnetism led to his theory of conjugate pair of inductions, dielectric and magnetic, in union, propagating at the velocity of light through the ‘Luminiferous Ether’. Hence, electro-magnetic waves in free space, unbounded by gross physical matter, mass free energy. This propagation is within the dielectric, or Etheric, medium itself. It is free of so-called “charge carriers” (electrons), a mass-less form of electricity. This concept had a very powerful impact upon the scientific and philosophical thoughts of Maxwell’s era. So here begins the notion of “wireless”, the transmission of electricity without wires or other guiding structures.” – E. Dollard

“There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” – E. Dollard

“This gaseous Ether is the seat of electrical phenomena through the process of its polarization. This polarization gives rise to induction, which then gives rise to stored energy. Tesla gives a good presentation of his Ether ideas in his “Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency.” Mentioned previously, the Planck, Q, as the primary dimensional relation defining the “Polarized Ether”, this as an “Atom of Electricity”. It is however, from the views of J.J. Thomson, the Coulomb, psi, the total dielectric induction is the primary dimension defining the “Polarized Ether”. The lawyer like skill of today’s theoretical physicist (Pharisee) has erased this understanding from human memory, it is henceforth sealed by the Mystic Idol of Albert Einstein. If Einstein says no, then it is impossible. What a nice little package.” – E. Dollard

“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings

“Electrons as a separate, distinct entity…doesn’t really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a ‘field’.” - Dr. Steve Biller
“Here we will dispel the "electronics nerd" concept that a capacitor stores "electrons" in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this "charged" set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other uncharged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates.” – E. Dollard

Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.

“The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a so-called electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot.

Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard

You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their “force lines” is the “flow of electrons”; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance. There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not “electrons”, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving ‘electrons’; the ‘electron’ is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; ‘electrons’ do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.

[Allcanadian]

@TA
That was once again a very nice post however I am very biased in this respect as my primary area of research has always been electrostatics. I should also mention I dislike the term electrostatics which is absurd once it is actually understood.

As such my perception and understanding has always been very much different that the "electricians" of today. So I would agree the common perception of electricity is a fabrication, a prostitution of the facts taught by misguided people and outdated textbooks.

What I find hard to understand is how so many can claim to be an expert in the field of "electricity" and yet not see that the whole of the premise is riddled with inconsistencies that cannot be resolved. Thus it requires a certain degree of faith that someone somewhere must know what their talking about. They must buy into it without question because when we do start asking the right questions it implodes in on itself before our very eyes.

I have read a few more of your posts and have come to believe we may be seeing the same picture. Different terminology, a slightly different perspective but the theme is consistent. Exciting times and I have found there is hardly a need to connect the dots as they just seem to fall into place all on their own.

Keep up the good work.

AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

@TA
That was once again a very nice post however I am very biased in this respect as my primary area of research has always been electrostatics. I should also mention I dislike the term electrostatics which is absurd once it is actually understood.
AC

electrostatics is an absurd term, agreed.

Pure Ether-inertia however even that is insufficient.

I know the curve dielectricity follows, its 1/Phi^-3


Dielectricity is the power/charge the 'pedal to the metal'

magnetism is the air resistance in that inertia
likewise the friction between rubber and road
likewise the 'exhaust' (spatial vectorization)


Never is there one without the other.

how to get dielectricity? Focused torque by application of another field(s) to cause its appearance.


The Ether posits itself by itself of itself as necessitated attribute of/consubstantial to its Principle just as Light posits itself in and by illumination, a necessitated attribute indifferentiate from its Principle..... but HUMANS can only cause it to be posited by USING an ALREADY PRESENT Ether modality to cause it to appear or focus its perturbation.

What I find hard to understand is how so many can claim to be an expert in the field of "electricity"AC

Id call a 80 year old coot electrician an "expert in electricity"

however 99.9999% of the time such a person is a TOTAL IDIOT in what IT "is", .......the theory etc. etc. etc.


such a person is just a moron, an ape who is skilled at:

1. not getting electrocuted
2. running wires like a monkey.







I want such a person to WIRE MY HOUSE.

but NOT to tell me a SINGLE DAMN THING about what "IT" is





“What Tesla accomplished is the greatest discovery in mankind. The transmission lines you see everywhere, along the roads in every
place you go, these allows us to have a giant drive shaft that we can take rotary motion from like a massive turbine plant and convey it
thru an electromagnetic structure that operates with reflected waves and time frames. This work just like a drive shaft, it bounces back
and forth, twists, and rotates. But you can stand outside and look at those thick power lines that go down any public street and in the
space between those lines, the energy there is the energy of a giant railroad locomotive moving at 95% of the speed of light down the
space between those wires, and there is no evidence that anything at all is happening except that the wires are slightly pushed apart
and warm. So it’s a type of drive shaft that exists in another dimension. Then you put the synchronous machine on the other end (of
that power line) and you couple out of that (electrical) drive shaft like a transmission and you have rotary force again. These things
(rotary Tesla generators) are no more than stamped iron in patterns. By making this special arch form and its influences on the
formative forces in the Ether …Tesla’s invention is the most powerful arch form the human race has ever conceived.” – Eric P
Dollard

[Hrothgar]

to clarify

Electron flow of capacitor (Note:it is ELECTROLYTIC capacitor)
1. Discharging capacitor
a) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit
b) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit

2. Charging capacitor
a) Electrons flows from + to - outward/along the circuit
b) Electron flows from - to + outward/along the circuit

3. Is electron flow the opposite of current flow? (I am not sure although books states that it does, I don't believe in books but EXPERIMENT RESULTS, I have no safety in believing theory)

4. Is thinking in terms of current/electron flow is wrong, instead I should think in charge carrier/charge? (I... I... even don't know what I am asking, this shows that I am severely confused)

Comments of old hand in electronics urgently needed!

To keep the wordy narcissists at bay I'll simply describe what a capacitor this way. It stores pressure much like a balloon does. in electrical systems a regulated and consistent flow is desired. Work is gained by controlled release of the pressure and capacitors can act as temporary storehouses for that pressure so that negative consequences of pressure shortages or spikes can be avoided (or for extra stored power as in the case of the capacitor in your washing machine). Now to answer your specific question about flow routing. If you take a balloon and stuff it through its open end you can still blow it up even though it is inside-out. The same goes for the capacitor, you can charge it in either direction. Capacitors can also be used as heat free resistors in AC circuits due to impedance factors but that is another story.

Think of wattage as a bolt/screw, the angle of the thread is the voltage and turning the head of the bolt is current. If the angle of your thread is steep you loose tork but you travel a greater distance per turn. Pure current with no voltage can be imagined as a nail, turning it will not push it forward, but turning it will meet with no resistance.

The whole current vs electron thing is trash, Just remember that as backward as it seems - goes to + and relegate current to meaning amperage.


I hope this has cleared the waters per say.

[Allcanadian]

@Hrothgar

The whole current vs electron thing is trash, Just remember that as backward as it seems - goes to + and relegate current to meaning amperage.

The analogy I use is that the negative (-) terminal has a high charge density and the positive(+) terminal a low charge density. Equal and opposite, the high does not move towards low but ambient conditions. The negative above ambient the positive below ambient centered around the zero point(ambient) which is neither high nor low.

As such I see nothing backwards about it, however thinking electrons must magically flow from positive into negative is of course the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

@Hrothgar
As such I see nothing backwards about it, however thinking electrons must magically flow from positive into negative is of course the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
AC

positive and negative have no meaning. All works by pressure mediation like fluid dynamics

One couples off concentrated inertia in a battery or as created by moving field(s) just like a transmission couples out power.

Charge is either lost in the null fulcrum of its creation or lost in mechanical or other forms of work.

One might incorrectly assert that houses and trees which are being sucked into the cone of a tornado are attracted by the air itself, the wind, rather than by the motion of the wind.

There are no negative charges or "discharges" only directed or forced pressure mediations one couples out of or thru.



the opposite of inertia isnt rest, .....its movement


we think the opposite of MOVEMENT as per a human is obviously rest, but as per dielectricity, the opposite of dielectric inertia is MOVEMENT, WORK, ACTION.


As per the dielectric, the Ether, its innate unperturbed (usually) inertia IN TERMINATION is movement, is WORK, is ACTION, is POLARIZATION (= action/ movement).



unlike empirical objects moving we declare they "have inertia" and "RESIST REST".... the dielectric inertia of the Ether IS REST, ...to couple INTO or OUT of that is WORK, is ACTION, is MOTION, is MOVEMENT etc etc.

any examples? One can imagine a stretched rubber band, a membrane of the Ether, at rest, cutting it creates movement, action, work.


How simplex, but nobody grasps it.


Just as Tesla said that ENERGY from matter was BS, he was right. ALL components of an atomic bomb are still present AFTER the explosion. Some inertia is lost in beta and gamma, however the entire blast is nothing more than taking a trillion trillion trillion tightly wound pocket-watches and smashing them and letting their "springs" fly loose creating hell and havoc.

There is NO matter to energy conversion, only a loss of the stable inertial in and of the atoms themselves.

[Allcanadian]

@TA
I didn't think you would let that one slide through,lol, and after I thought to state this is just a rough analogy. We have to learn how to walk before we can run and I think many are looking for very simple examples they can relate to. That's my theory anyways.

AC