# True Math: Part 2 Space and Space Counters

Eric Dollard brilliantly simplifies the complexities within electrical engineering in his book ‘A Common Language For Electrical Engineering’. In it Eric throughly dismantles hundreds of mind parasites that have infected the fields of mathematics, science, and engineering for centuries. One of the biggest parasites relates to the dimension of space. Most people in the planet have been infected by this parasite. Eric explains, x, y, z are not 1D, 2D, and 3D, they are simply coordinates within the single dimensions of space, ‘there is only 1 dimension of space, SPACE!’ I am going to attempt to remove the few parasites that he missed, as well as the original parasite that got us in this mess in the first place, fractions and decimals.

Energy in its most arch-typical form is embodied in the phenomenon of Electricity, but what is Electricity? Now our wheels even more stuck in the mud! But we have important clues, namely that of polarity, not plus or minus so much but more like male or female. This thought follows from Goethe to Tesla and Steinmetz. Thus Electricity, in order to manifest, a UNION must develop. This is the union of the “male”, or projective, and “multiplied by” the “female”, or receptive. Hereby, the male is the dielectric field in counterspace (of per centimeters), and the magnetic field or female in space (of centimeters squared). Space in c.m. squared is what you pay for in “real estate”, counterspace in per c.m. is the space between the lines on a ruler, or between molecules in a crystal.

‘A Common Language For Electrical Engineering’ – Eric P Dollard – Transmission 1 page 3 [underline and bold emphasis mine]

The concept of Dollards counterspace becomes much simpler to picture in the brain when the words ‘counter’ and ‘space’ are swapped. It shouldn’t be called ‘counterspace’ it should be called ‘spacecounter’, because thats what it represents. It is the smallest unit of measurement. ‘Space’ equates to the number of ‘spacecounters’. Spacecounters PER cm is the PERimeter of the enclosing SQUARE of total SPACE(A number greater than or equal to 1 spacecounter). ‘Spacecounter per cm’ is the smallest unit of measurement for the ‘space in cm squared’. In other words, the PERimeter of the SPACE containing multiple(or 1) SPACECOUNTERS is the smallest unit of measurement for the AREA of the SPACE SQUARED. Squared is literal, it literally means draw a square. See demonstration of this concept at end of article.

For the Electricity extant between a pair of wires in your lamp cord, the closer the wires, the more capacitance, and thus the more Dielectricity. Conversely, for the same cord, the farther apart the wires, the more inductance and thus the more Magnetism. Therefore it is seen that the smaller the space (the more counterspace) the more Dielectricity that can be stored, and conversely the larger the space between the wires (the more real estate) the more Magnetism that can be stored. Very simple, do not let your mind make it any more complicated than that!

‘A Common Language For Electrical Engineering’ – Eric P Dollard – Transmission 1 page 3 [underline and bold emphasis mine]

The underlined statement is a 100% correct statement but it is unnecessarily complex and not intuitive(albeit a hundred times more intuitive than how it is taught in modern science). When a layperson reads the underlined text they think, ‘how can there be more of something the smaller the space gets? That doesn’t make any sense.’ Switch counterspace to spacecounter to get ‘…the smaller the space (the more counterspace the smaller the spacecounter required [so technically usually more ‘spacecounters’ but really its just a smaller base unit of measurement]) the more Dielectricity precise and therefore smaller dielectric grid squares of magnetism… the larger the space between the wires (the more real estate the larger the spacecounter needed [so technically usually less ‘spacecounters’ but really its just a larger base unit of measurement]) the more Magnetism less precise and therefore larger dielectric grid squares of magnetism…’

In the previous transmission it was shown that the electric induction, bound between the wires of a lamp cord, was the union of two distinct fields of induction, the dielectric in counterspace, and the magnetic in space. These fields consist of discrete lines of force. Thus these lines exist as individual units or quanta of inductive force. Both fields exert mechanical force upon the bounding system of socalled “conductors”. These mechanical forces, those of the dielectric, and those of the magnetic, exert actions so as to increase their coefficients of induction, that is the dielectric “capacitance”, and the magnetic “inductance” are increased. Hereby, the dielectric field draws the conductors nearer to each other, increasing the counterspace. Conversely the magnetic field pushes the conductors away from each other, increasing the space. Hereby we may say that the dielectric field is contractive, and the
magnetic field is expansive. Hence the resulting electric field of the union produces a resultant force upon the bounding conductors. This resultant force thus may be expansive, null, or contractive, depending upon the relative densities of the dielectric and the magnetic force fields respectively.

‘A Common Language For Electrical Engineering’ – Eric P Dollard – Transmission 2 page 6 [underline and bold emphasis mine]

Once again a 100% correct and valid assessment, but also unnecessarily complex and somewhat unintuitive(albeit a thousand times simpler than modern sciences ‘quantum’ nonsense). To simplify, swap counter with space in the word ‘counterspace’ to make ‘spacecounter’. Instead of the first underlined it can be more simply stated ‘union of two distinct fields of induction, the dielectric in counterspace grid square size of magnetism measured in spacecounter, and the total in space number of dielectric grid squares of magnetism in space.

So far I think the concept of space and counterspace in its basic form is established. Counterspace, as that space between the lines on a ruler is an apt descriptive analog. A ruler divided in millimeters has less counterspace than a ruler divided in nanometers. This is obvious. (think in terms of capillary action)

‘A Common Language For Electrical Engineering’ – Eric P Dollard – Transmission 2 page 8 [underline and bold emphasis mine]

Switch counterspace with ‘spacecounter’, things become much more simple. The underlined becomes “Counterspace Spacecounter, as that space between the lines on a ruler the smallest single unit of measurement(or precision) is an apt descriptive analog. A ruler divided in millimeters has less counterspace than a ruler divided in nanometers a larger spacecounter(therefore less spaces to count…) than when a ruler is divided in nanometers(therefore more spaces to count…).” Counterspace to spacecounter is a huge improvement and will help facilitate the complete removal of fractions and decimals from everything in existence.

The necessity of fractions and decimals within math, science, and engineering is zero, nada, none. Fractions and decimals must be purged, they parasitically infected the human mind and consciousness thousands of years ago, and have drastically stalled the human race, moreso than any other factor imo. All math that seemingly requires fractions and decimals use low precision measurement units (large spacecounters), instead of fractions and decimals they should simply use higher precision measurement units(smaller spacecounters).

Floating point aka fractions and decimals are 100% unecessary.

NOTE: I will be periodically updating part 2 with newer versions as I slowly work my way through ‘A Common Language For Electrical Engineering’ by Eric P Dollard and other various books that accurately define units of measurement.

1. Pete Campbell
1. spellsoftruth