While in other papers and investigations I have used the High-low to reference various phenomena, it’s value has many uses. The High-Low begins with and initial number set:
The upper part of the “High” is depicted as a count of the “spaces-apart” from one number to the next. “1” has no space-apart from itself to itself and is therefore zero spaces apart to differentiate it from identically counting with an identical set underneath the initial number set.
1 to 2 is one space apart. 1 to 3 is two spaces apart and so on to the end to the right. (Eq 2)
The lower half of the High is the Low, which runs in the opposite direction to the High, beginning with 6. Now we have the “High-Low” underneath the initial number set.
Various anomalies are associated to the High-Low, however here our concerned with them. (Eq 3)
Zero indicates the value of nothing, neutrality or cancellation. Zero as it is concerned with in particle physics is a simple identity equation, which reveals neutrality; neither dominant one over the other.(Eq 4)
Therefore it follows logically that when 0 = + 1 – 1, + 1 – 1 = 0 . . .
Let zero be absent from the number set, removed. The following raises a peculiar question as to why the nature of zero is present. (Eq 5)
As can be seen (+1 – 1) equate to zero regardless of it’s presence. Initially, then, we can assume that zero is unreal or imaginary with respect to value-based subjects, because even though the number set appears equilibrated by the presence of zero, it’s removal does not indicate that it is required to equilibrate both the positive and negative assignments of both sides of the number set. Where in it absence, the remaining numbers neutralize to create zero. Assuming that + 1 – 1 = 0, the presence of zero in a number set (representing energy accommodated in automated space (time) and/ or neutral space (time) with the possibility of an exotic space (time) similar to negative energy densities), would not zero be canceled by it’s parallel counterparts (+1 – 1) on either side of 0? i.e. …+ 1 <-- --> 0 <-- --> -1…
The second anomaly in this odd paradox, is the apparent fact that assuming zero is indeed absent and substituted by the presence of (+1 – 1), the positive and negative values on either side appear to nullify half of their opposing counterparts of (+2 – 2).
The second anomaly in this odd paradox, is the apparent fact that assuming zero is indeed absent and substituted by the presence of (+1 – 1), the positive and negative values on either side appear to nullify half of their opposing counterparts of (+2 – 2). The reasoning behind this is illustrated as follows:
Assume we have an initial number set as in 1). and 2). We have, then, the embodiment of zero regardless of weather or not zero is referred to or is expressed as (+1 – 1) Generally is such an oddity originating from +1 – 1 = 0 is debunked as being negligible, then we might define weather zero indicates cancellation or weather +1 – 1 indicates neutrality.
Where is the line drawn? Certainly is cannot be all cancellation because that would not make sense in light of it’s presence in the numbers set and it’s pals on either side of zero. Irrespective of what it could be, by definition, the positive and negative values of what is supposedly defined as zero on either of it’s situated position, becomes canceled with respect to it’s opponents – crumbling the notion of what exactly zero is and it’s purpose aside from it’s definition underpinned in values which originate from measurements based in manual energy establishments in automated space (time), and of which according to Peter Lynds has no tangible base because there is no measurement for static time.
So even in assuming that zero is present in the initial set, zero, by definition, is not only the cancellation between +1 – 1, but also undergoes infinite cancellations; these after or while +1 –1 cancels. (Eq 6)
In other words, in the absence of zero +1 – 1 becomes 0, and then or while +1 – 1 becomes zero, +2 – 2 becomes zero as do all other numbers. Assuming a chain-reaction…
Thus to the left of positive one (+1) and to the left of zero is negative one (-1). (Eq 7)
Ideally like charges repel and opposites attract.
But these polarities usu. transpire between magnetic phenomena and their associated relationships with electric phenomena (Faraday). Would not this also apply to zero or positions with respect to space (time)? Assuming zero to be present, the positive and negative sides of zero of what equates to zero are equal and opposite to the positive and negative components on either side of the “present” zero are equal and opposite and therefore the first half of zero that consists of +1 will cancel-out by the negative component outside of this zero, while simultaneously the secondary half of – 1 also consisting of zero would as well be canceled by it’s opposing counterpart of +1 on the outside of zero too. Generally +2 – 2 are present. (Eq 8)
With zero absent, +1 – 1 cancels and zero again? Or possible continued cancellation of +1 – 1, + 2 – 2… etc? (Eq 9)
What remains is a paradox. Is +1 – 1 transmogrifying into zero, compensating for the absence of zero, or is infinite cancellation occurring with the absence of zero?
The paradox with respect to automated space (time) and value-based number systems, which do not relate to energy and material subtractions. (Such as those when a loss ends in nothing left, cessation, potential energy, values and bets that end with nothing).
(Compare automation to manually-based energies) which, continues again on either side of +1 – 1and the other numbers producing a chain-reaction of self-cancellations pertaining to either side in opposition to the newly formed zero evident by +1 – 1 in the set. Thus it appears that value-based numbers are misinterpreted, at least here.
Thus after the first cancellation of zero (Assuming it is actually present in the first place), comprising the embodiment of +1 – 1, this zero is it’s opposites, leaving …+ 2 + 1 – 1 – 2.
Each higher number above +1 – 1 cancels + 2 – 2 by half leaving +1 – 1. From either side of +1 –1, +2 – 2 is evident and here + 2 canceled by – 1 leaving +1. While – 2 is canceled by + 1 leaving –1.
The initial paradox is that either 0 as the embodiment of +1 – 1 is it, itself zero, or that +1 – 1 is indeed zero. + 3 – 3 do not remain as do all other higher numbers existing throughout the set, but are transmogrified into lower numbers as cancellations go outward add infinitum. (Eq 10)
In the absence of energy where space (time) is zero? (Eq 11)
Is cancellation evident therefore of automation? If so then there is no such thing as nothingness, zero does not exist.