Science, Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Politics

What is what and where, how, and when does it go?  These are the questions of science and metaphysics.  Philosophy asks why does it go?  Psychology asks is it all in your head?  And there is the ground for the Great Debate between four (technically psychology is a subset of the three) schools of thought on the nature of reality.

What we know so far from the New Science is that the universe is made of electrons of all the same size and mass which expand at a certain rate determined somehow, most likely through fourth dimensional etheric density changes in my version of the New Science.  None the less, what follows from that is the paradigm of reality that the majority will study in the future of science itself.

There will still be a massive debate with the old quantum school of thought called Standard Theory.  I personally have no interest right this second in personally debating anyone as my level of trust in my fellow humans is a bit dim at the moment and I'm not interested in being personal attacked for being right.  Some other people I know are in a similar dilemma about psychology and that part of the Truth.

Still the questions remain and there will be those who have the time necessary to attempt to solve the unanswered questions that the theories suggested pose.  My metaphysical writings have been removed from this website except for what was left in the philosophy of knowledge essay though that is mostly philosophy and defining boundaries between things which is the primary purpose one should study philosophy.

I will add a few thoughts in this essay about science now because I want to primarily.  I believe electrons are created and destroyed under certain conditions.  I believe that parallel dimensions (not the time traveling or multiple versions of the same universe ones) exist in some capacity but I'm not sure if they exist on the same infinity physical plain or are co-axial through the 4th dimension existing in different nodes within that dimension.  Not that it matters that much for the ultimate question of why does any of it matter?

Much of my metaphysical work attempted to answer that last question by saying the cosmos is a giant infinite grab bag of stuff where beings get more and more and more over time through the work they do in their lives but everything is more or less programmed into the system dependent on the consciousness to wake up and do what it needs to do to fulfill the promise of eternal life in the living moment of their existing one.  If it sounds tough, it is a bit.  You can't both stare into infinity and live on the ground floor for too long without infinity getting to becoming a problem.

At the same time knowing of the infinite is a self provable philosophical series of reasoning that says your stuck with the infinite stuff but more importantly the people who are there sharing (what's that word mean says the vast majority) eternity with you.  These people are here to stay no matter what their condition in this life.  The eternal connection exists but outside of their consciousness because of the condition of their lives.

With the idea of eternal infinite connection, gridwork as it should be called, comes the idea that we should be doing good to each other because that connection exists everywhere and in everyone.  The catch is that we have a right to withdraw if we are unacknowledged.  Rejection exists to prove the right of assertion and the right of me or you.  The boundary is based on the problem of full knowledge.

Full knowledge is the idea that one must truly fully recognize another person before the gates to a real relationship can be created.  This applies interestingly enough to the contents of science, metaphysics, and philosophy.  Treat your teachers with kindness or watch all the content disappear and you are the one now who must create you own gridmap through science, metaphysics, and philosophy.  I did it.  I've left probably 50% of my original essays up especially the science ones.  The rest are gone due to lack of support and attacks.  I did alot of work to get where I am in my understanding of the universe.  The response to free content is not to attack the one giving it.  And so it is gone.

The questions still remain.  But those subtle enough to pursue the great answers again will have to realize that there is a game that unfortunately trumps free inquiry.  That game is politics.

I will not go further into that information as it is simply too dangerous to actually explain how politics works with people in its psychology but I will describe a bit on how it works in general.  Simply put, with politics, the devil is in the details.  It is because of politics that the personal becomes the political.  Truth is attacked!  Why, you might ask?  Because politics is about keeping the balance of power and maintaining privilege over the all important access to resources such as free information.  Formalists run this world, even if they are not so great at protocol, logic, or law.  But they do know one thing much better than the majority, that is how to silence dissenting voices efficiently using force, manipulation, and countervailing opinion.

Can we see past that pattern of relating?  This is the great question of consciousness.  Will we become consciousness enough of the game to stop it before science, philosophy, and metaphysics are gone?  And the game doesn't stop there we could lose art, music, and journalism too for all three of these are ideally representing science (journalism), art (metaphyiscs), and music (philosophy).  The game could also get rid of mathematics.  Where nothing is sacred, nothing is safe.

Will we live in a world where free inquiry exists?  More importantly will we live in a world where people can exist free from the threats of global warming, nuclear proliferation, nuclear reactors, and thought police?  Can a consensus be built without the later?  Increasingly the answer seems to be no.  Everyone must have their thought police because the stakes are everything.

This is where we stand.  Universalism is a doctrine that is created out of the fusion of globalism and multiculturalism in all its variants.  Yet without a final judgement on the question about what about the rest of everyone that doesn't agree, it represents just another version of the endlessly reemerging political beast in another form.  For this to work there must be no separation between anyone and anyone else.  We are all each other.  There is no middle ground.

Time is against universalism as it has too few adherents for right now.  The opposite schools of thought are anti-universalist.  Nationalism in all its forms is an example.  But so to is parochialism, tribalism, racism, classicism, and various sundry religious and ideological groups,   The battle is between division and unification and division is winning.  No amount of dividing will result in a unification.  Yet to get to unification requires philosophy and a tiny bit of metaphysics added for clarity.

Science is held up by politics, and metaphysics and philosophy are held up by the lack of interest in refined explanations of being caused by real life on Earth.  Hunger is the great adversary of meaningful conversation.  Today it seems as through cell phones are the new great adversary.   None the less, this is as far as we've gotten with the problem of everything as it stands.

Tomorrows debates may be my own, but everyone will need to find out what it is that they are going to do to save themselves and the planet.  That's really what it all comes down to.  The planet must be saved.  The people must learn to save themselves.  Will anyone give a shit enough for the real processes to start or is everything just too damn complicated now?  The time to start doing this work was 20 years ago when it was going to be easy.   Procrastination further pushes us towards the planetary end game, the end of the human species itself.  We are getting close to the end.

Humanity does not have any time left to talk about timetables.  Action is the only thing that matters now.  We've been through the bullshit plan stage of the science of climate change.  It's a delay tactic to prevent action so someone can milk it into a paper asset creating device.  Is that the future of the Green Front?  I think not.  What sort of weirdness is this?  How does anyone of those people who signed onto another version of "money making" schemes sleep at night?  No conscience, no problem?  Apparently no one confronts the current environmental "leadership" with their failures.  We don't have time for this crap anymore.  The first thing serious people should do is clean up the left.  The right has no clue though they'll have to understand eventually.

That's the science of it funnily enough.  The science of political art if you will.  Let's just paint them off the canvas.  Get rid of the old leadership, they suck.  Been holding that in for awhile.  The results of a clean house will be great.  What we should do is simply keep firing leaders if they don't take action within a timeframe.  I'm an unreasonable man about this I'd just do all the actions myself without bothering to fire them and then send them a memo or something if they wanted me to advice them.  No what everyone needs to do is basically set a one week action timetable and just do it (and if no action in one week fire the whoever it is).  And once they have done it, keep doing it.  Do that till the world is on renewable energy, the nuclear stuff is all gone in the best way possible, the Amazon is a protected parkland in its entirety with full native rights guaranteed by an effective UN (or even the US can do it), and no fossil fuels are used ever again.  In addition we have to technologically revert the CO2 in the atmosphere back to something reasonable I've suggest 375 ppm, others have suggested 350 ppm.  Whatever works from those two options.

So that's an action oriented do it now anti-plan.  It's easy, you just keep firing the jerks in charge until you get non-jerk who do things.  You can tell their good because they do things and get things done.  There are no excuses.  You don't wait till the next election, you get your collective voice together and say now, now, now.  And after you are done saying now, you say now again.  And after they attack you, you keep saying now.  And after they deny you, you keep saying now.  Together say now.  Together say do it now.  You do this until they get it.  That's the whole "plan".  As you can see it's very simple and easy.  The rest is up to you.

The Alternative To Cosmic Ray Powered Stars

You can download a copy of this essay here to help spread the word.

The Alternative to Cosmic Ray Powered Stars

by Chris Freely

While creating the cosmic ray powered stars, galaxies, and universe model years ago I had to seriously consider alternative thoughts with regard to our current model, the fusion powered solar paradigm.  I considered the implications of expansion theory in this in order to complete the work began by Mark McCutcheon and to seriously consider whether there were any scenarios under which a universe could exist powered on hydrogen fusion as envisioned by our current ideas.

The model that I developed I called the Hydrogen Regeneration Hydrogen Fusion Universe was based on the idea that hydrogen, if it were possible to generate fusion energy from true proton-proton fusion, would be recycled in this type of universe.  While I ultimately rejected this idea for reasons described below, a basic overview will show the most plausible mechanisms in my understanding of Expansion Theory that might explain our current solar paradigms using the new theory.

In proton-proton fusion as it is currently envisioned through various steps in different types of main sequence stars, four protons combine to form a helium nucleus.  The difference in the mass of four hydrogen atoms and one helium atom is then assumed to be released in the form of energy through Einstein's E=MC^2 equation automatically liberating the energy.  A star is theoretically supported by the force of the fusion of protons that take place in the star's nucleus.  A balance then is created between the amount of fusion necessary to keep the star's current size and gravity which is constantly driving this process.  This is visioned as a dynamic equilibrium in current models.

The question must be asked, where does the energy to propel the liberated missing mass from the protons in the proton-proton fusion reactions come from?  In our current theories there is essentially no answer.  E=MC^2 automatically applies for some reason no one has clearly defined and that no one can clearly explain.  McCutcheon's expansion theory offers a plausible solution to this dilemma as physical mechanisms may exist plausibly in our current hypothetical realms of the possible.

Mark, in his book though, stuck with a similar Einstein idea that simply said once the electrons (the basic particle of matter in the universe of which everything including protons and neutrons are made in the new theory) are released from their nuclear confinement they automatically just expand at a massive rate (because they are already doing so anyway within the atom) and are thus liberated as free energy.  This is similar to Einstein's idea though with a graphical representation of liberated electron clusters flying through non-atomic space at the huge non nuclear natural expansion rate of the electron in that the electron automatically has this energy built into it somehow without having to account for it in any way.  I couldn't agree to the idea in total because it denies the fact that energy is carried by these electrons as a function of their relative motion, which in physics analysis is called vector motion.

In my own analysis I found that the idea that freely expanding electron clusters carried huge energy difficult to digest in light of the problem of vector motion which I wrote about extensively in the analysis.  Essentially, the problem is that energy is still energy.  When things move they have an inertia and that energy is conserved and vector motion needs to be conserved if things aren't going to get too weird.  Freely expanding electron clusters, in my estimation, simply cannot be ejected from the nucleus and be expected to carry a massive energy automatically.  I could not visual this idea at all as it failed logical tests in my own mind concerning the ideas of energy.  Of course I accepted the idea of the clusters expansion, just not the free energy lunch part of it.

The alternative to this is to construct a mechanism within the nucleus to account for energy as it is classically understood (more or less).  In our case we would have to construct a model of the proton that would allow for the energy to be liberated through a mechanism similar to that of a spring.  A metal spring stores physical energy and a spring represents the best analogy to something that may, once it's pent up structure is unhinged, release stored physical energy in a manner that is consistent with latent buildup of pressure in structure.  If the hydrogen atom is so constructed, then indeed it would be possible to make such a process work assuming the energy contained in the structure in sufficient once liberated to account for what is required for the solar fusion model to work.  I have suggested that deuterium and tritium as well as other proven energetically releasing atoms and isotopes have some pent up structural mechanism at work that when broken releases this stored pressure within their structure.

In such a system, an energy storing mechanism would have to be constructed to account for why energy was stored in hydrogen in the first place.  The mechanism I decided on was cosmic ray bombardment of the heavy nuclei of deep space and old stellar cores.  These cosmic rays could reintroduce energy into what are (in current theory) considered to be energy poor nucleuses (from the point of view of current fusion theory), especially Iron and Cobalt which are considered in current theory to be the least energetic nucleuses for nuclear fusion (or fission for that matter).  Again, that all has to do with the amount of mass in the nucleus as measured relative to other nucleusus in the current E=MC^2 standard model paradigm.  But for our purposes what we are looking for as students of the new Expansion Theory is how hydrogen gets its extra energy that allows it to expel it's "energy per nucleon" into light in the form of electron clusters as the new theory states that light consists of.

This is explained hypothetically by the idea that cosmic rays impart changes in structure to the proton when they impact these large nucleusus in deep space breaking them apart and recharging the universal supply of hydrogen that gets used up in our current model by stars.  In a universe without a big bang you have to explain how it is that everything hasn't quite ended given the fact that all the hydrogen is constantly being used up.  So, obviously, over time, the cosmic rays have to reintroduce the energy back into the equation by evaporating large white dwarves and other old dead stellar cores in our current model slowly converting back into the original material that we currently think of as being the most important for energy generation.  That is, of course, hydrogen.

So we have a plausible physical mechanism of energy storage in hydrogen and a cycle that accounts for what we observe in the universe without resulting in any big bang shenanigans.  However, the problem now is the problem of the lack of a real physical model of the atom.  We don't have one yet.  And in addition, the bigger problem is that protons, as we understand them now, are just too simple of a structure to be structured in a way that suggests they could possibly store energy through a complex mechanism that allows for such a hypothetical pressure storage whether spring like or not.  The more complex deuterium and tritium don't have this problem.  And that creates a big pickle for the nuclear powered fusion model in the new Expansion Theory paradigm.

While I envisioned a proton as being made of huge numbers of electrons as described in my core essay, an idea strongly supported by existing physical experiments primarily Max Plank's, the simple number of electrons still isn't sufficient to account for the complexity suggested.  There is no current evidence of a complex hydrogen nucleus that suggest it could possibly store energy in such a manner.  Now, of course, no one has had to look for one yet, but still it would require a huge amount of research and thinking to suggest where we could go from here with this idea.  It goes against everything we think we know so far in that hydrogen is the simple nucleus consisting of a single proton and an single electron "probability" cloud.  Where would it hide a mechanism for the mechanical storage of energy?  Deuterium and tritium have at least a neutron or two and a proton that could overlap accounting for the stored energy, but what about the lowly proton? 

In this idea we consider the classical case for energy again as known physics suggests.  Energy is motion and vector motion is conserved so that energy outside the boundary of the expanding electron is real in this world.  It doesn't diminish so the universe is a mechanical machine made of expanding electrons and the ever present vector motion of these very electrons that are the carriers of this motion and are the transformers of it in space (again my core essay goes into the physical descriptions in great detail and what would properly be described as the physical philosophy of expanding matter and energy).

In order to support the idea of standard fusion in the new model mechanical energy must be stored in the hydrogen atom to account for the energy necessary to support stars as they are currently envisioned in the fusion model of stars.  No physical proof of these support structures exists.  No physical model exists.  No explanation that is based on real physics exist.  Our current stellar theories are a fantasy.  They have no basis in real science.  They have never been proven through extensive observation.  Constant new evidence is being discovered which discounts what is claimed in the finer points of current stellar theory.  And more new evidence will come to light exposing the weaknesses in current theory with each passing year.

Yet cosmic ray powered stars have a support mechanism that I have described vividly in complete physical detail down to a great extent.  That is a fact.

For those who wish to try and salvage the only thing that is possibly even remotely salvageable from convention cosmology, the fusion powered model of the star, I have given you all the tools necessary to find what it is you must be looking for.  Good luck.  And it would be delightful if you gave me some credit when you start down your thought experiments.  I was there first pointing you in the right direction.  May the best theory win in the light of the evidence of science.