Posted by: graemebird | October 19, 2009

Energy Is Compression Part 2.

I’ve kept people waiting a long time for this new angle on energy. And I’ve only really scratched the surface. Sometimes its better to try and work things out for yourself though. Here is some rough notes that I’ll be using to turn this into a proper explanation later. You see the electrons and protons in an atom don’t have an accountant working to add up the charges and take a net charge.

An electron which is compressed utterly, and surrounded by protons, cannot express its charge further than those protons. I’m assuming that electrons are porous in some ways and protons are not. Hence when new matter is being created, and simpler lighter elements are being compressed into heavier elements, we are always running out of electrons. Compressed electrons are always getting surrounded and effectively lost in the process. So large bodies where this is happening are drawing electrons and electricity into them, via plasmas in the vast reaches of space.

The sun draws into it Birekeland currents. This implies new matter creation in the core of the sun, compressing and hiding electrons, and leaving an electron shortage. The shortage, draws in the Birkeland currents from outer space, the sun gets more massive. The electricity heats the Hydrogen in the Corona and the “surface”.

Wherever electricity is being drawn in, and we cannot account for where the electrons have disappeared to, we must assume new matter creation and the building of the higher elements.


This is why electricity is always homesick, as Hunter Thompson puts it. This is why electricity always seeks out earth. Nothing else can explain it. If the earth is neutral then why the ubiquitous current of electrons into it and where do they go to? If the Sun is neutral why the Birkeland currents and why doesn’t the implied net positive charge of the sun “right” itself?

The solution is that the electrons hidden and compressed inside the inner nucleus of an atom are neutralised as to the expression of their chargea. How could it be otherwise? Except in some sort of occult view of physics?

Electrons are naturally bigger than protons but more subject to compression. They are like a party of fattagram ghosts gone back in time to hunt for the poor Rudi Valentino. If he is running he may pass through him on account of their porousness. But if he loses his nerve they will have him surrounded and they will all squash up against them, compressing themselves where they meet eachother via their surface repulsion, but compressing themselves also against Rudi. This will mould their fat all out of shape.

But supposing there are many Rudis and as the Rudis all back away from the outside fattograms they are pushing against compressed fattograms behind them. No-one can hear the compressed fattograms screaming after some time. Their characteristics cannot be manifested on the outside world. Here is the interlocking and countervailing forces that don’t reach that I was talking about in the earlier thread. The fact of many more electrons being locked away in the nucleus. The outer electrons don’t take these electrons into account as they push against the protons. They cannot notice their charge. Forces simply don’t tend to reach in the first instance.

Obviously this is no completed essay. But those of you who are interested have something here to ponder. And the take home story is that if we can save science from the cult of stolen money financing, then the human race need never be short of energy. Since where there are “neutrons” there is compression to be tapped. Since “neutrons” imply the existence of many more compressed electrons than anyone has ever suspected. And where there is compression there is useful energy to be recruited.

((((Simplified working model of the atom. We will assume that electrons are porous at speed, fat and capable of compression. Many more electrons then there is thought to be. Protons form the outer shell, else why would they determine the basic nature of the element? Electrons porous to many things. Will be penetrated at high speed. Neutrons are not on the outer level of nucleus. Else explain why they don’t effect which element the atom belongs to? Essentially there is no such thing as a neutron. Where neutrons exist there is protons and compressed electrons locked in as compressed and countervailing forces. The nature of matter is essentially vastly more static then we have been lead to believe. Where there are neutrons there will be useful energy.

Electrons porous to certain effects but not protons. Protons surrounding compressed electrons WILL NOT LET THEIR CHARGE manifest on the outside. Electrons pass continuously into the ground for the purpose of new matter creation. New matter creation involves the continual compressing of electrons within the nucleus. Surrounding them with protons wherein their charge cannot be manifested outside the nucleus. This is the setting up of opposing forces I was referring to. This explains the constant seeking of electricity for earth, the voltage difference between your head and feet, and the magnetic field.

The entire planet comprises an electric current going down to the centre of the earth. And electric current, not via a single wire, but going down at every square metre on the surface of the earth. This is where all the electrons are dissapearing. Also in the case of the sun. The Birkeland currents travelling across space and going into the sun, implies new matter creation in the sun since the compression of electrons in the nucleus of atoms leaves the situation many electrons short, hence the attraction of new electrons always into both the sun and into the earth.

Other topic: Gravity as negative energy- A partial critique. The voodoo of exnihilo creation by saying that gravity is negative energy, hence if the two are created together thats alright in this mystic view. If only making things in the factory were that simple!!!!! Its Maths-mysticism.
Nonetheless energy can be dissapated. That energy is immortal is bullshit. And certainly gravity will help dissapate energy. But at the same time large gravitational bodies set up the context for new matter and energy within them.

To show that gravity will definitely dissipate energy set up 3D billiards example)))))))

Will be cleaned up into a proper thread at some later date.



  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Every public policy question all relates to one policy question. Can we grow free-er and with more autonomy, and still fend off the influence of the Chinese. Can we prevail against them in war, and withstand all their covert operation attempts, bombardment from their nuclear weapons, their soft power ability to influence us. And to expel their forces from our island, and defeat them if necessary.
    Thats the one issue that other issues ought to radiate out from.

    If we can design a refugee policy that help on this score then thats a good reason to take whoever will come here, as guest workers.

  2. Travis Bickle Says:
    October 20, 2009 at 11:12 am | Reply
    Can you do it for Mao and Stalin as well?

    Stalin’s on your side, Gra Gra. Everybody at Catallaxy says so. Your plan to enact mass-deportations to central Australia, and mass executions of public servants certainly has a ring of Stalinism to it. Your crackpot ideas about seasteading and the like, however, are more Kim Jong Il.

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Changes in GDP due to fiscal policy can be measured. We can measure what k actually is.”

    No you can’t. But thats not what you are trying to measure anyway. Fiscal policy is alleged to INCREASE total spending. But it just shifts it around. So its a lie. For an economy to progress a greater proportion of total sales revenue needs to be devoted to capital goods spending. Gross capital goods spending. That is all spending WITHIN business. Not consumption. Not government and consumer spending.

    Hence trying to figure out how fiscal policy has changed spending, so that GDP figures momentarily look bigger, is an utterly useless undertaking. Since we already know objectively that extra decific spending for purposes of alleged stimulation has done the economy harm. We know this objectively. And nothing we can hope to learn by the arbitrary figure of GDP can possibly add to or take away from THIS knowledge. This that we already know.

    See its important to

    1. Use your brain.

    2. Find the metric.

    Ask yourself, why if we want to know about the effects on SPENDING are we deciding to look at only part of spending. The part that we aren’t interested in if we want the economy to progress more quickly and get back on its feet, with everyone employed.

    So no you cannot just pick the wrong metric out of the air and get all RAINMAN on us. You must keep the logical inferences sound all the way through. No foolish inferences from arbitrary and flawed metrics. And no refusing to use the right metrics.

    Business receives TOTAL SALES REVENUE. Thats almost all spending save some financial markets gear that doesn’t in the first instance affect this quarters resource allocation. So we want to track what is done with the entirety of the sales revenue. And we find out what business is doing with it, and how much of that revenue is destined to be spent inside the business. Or to put it another way, in business-to-business spending. Or what Reisman calls Productive Expenditure. Elsewhere called Gross investment.

    Gross investment plus gross consumption gives us the totality of how those total sales revenues were allocated. If we want more employment and a faster progressing economy we want the greater proportion to be in gross investment. Not in gross consumption, which largely conforms to GDP. Thats what we don’t want. We want to know how the fiscal policy has shifted spending around …….. AND …… we want to know also if indeed (it won’t have done) if indeed fiscal policy has increased or decreased total sales revenues. Fiscal policy won’t have increased or decreased total sales revenue. But its something thats worth confirming just for the unexpected or to prove it to all the jackasses in the profession and in the Punditti.

    We cannot see any of this, if we choose to be idiotic about it Mark. GDP cannot tell you anything about where all this spending is going. It cannot. You might think it can but it cannot. Really it cannot.


    These idiots are still going. And still failing at analysis. Total failure. Their job was to focus in on what was important about what we know. This is a dark ages that stolen money education has brought us too. These dumb bastards had to go for the molten iron. They had to go with the molten iron, stay with the molten iron, and never let go of it until they had internalized all that this meant.

    But over at Prodeo they are basically fascists. And they will believe what they want to believe.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I tend to agree with badmofo re Indonesia.”

    Ok so supposing the minor point is debatable. It is a matter of degree isn’t it. I side with CL, you lean towards dummy. But we would say its a matter of degree. They have improved some one would imagine.

    But how about his overall argument. Look its pretty simple. Howard and them, being as they are locked into treaty obligations, and being as they know that law these days is fluid, had to act in pretty shocking fashion to a Norwegian ship. A good country. Not a human rights violator. Deserving of respect. We sent the SAS onto it. This is totally aggressive behaviour and humiliating to the blondies involved. Really rotten.

    Why did they do that. BECAUSE WE HAVE SIGNED AWAY SOVEREIGNTY. So we lack flexibility in crafting an ethical response to a foreign incursion. As soon as these refugees set foot on Australia, and even them being in Australian waters, sets forth a legion of obligations, that can be manipulated by an army of domestic lawyers.

    Well anyway I was mortified. I can remember earbashing people in a pub over it. But Ruddock and Howard were right. Because they were so decisive (ie brutal and unfair to Norwegians and children) that their strategy worked.

    The Labour party would not piss or get off the pot on this. They would not admit that the Howard and Ruddock strategy had worked.

    So dummy’s overall argument is just ridiculous. What Rudd has done is appalling. We could have them on a nice island like Nauru, where they could spread out a bit. Perhaps be allowed to walk along the beach. Now we have arm-twisted people who we want nothing to do with. You lie down with dogs you get up smelling of dogshit.

    There is simply no telling when and how we could be offending Indonesians. We don’t want to be asking these people favours for Pete’s sakes. This is so undimplomatic. This is spitting at Indonesians proper. Who are we to set up our own prison and detain people on the most densely populated Island in the world. Its a prison already.

    In Java, you even go into the bushes, with a bunch of bananas, and get your sunglasses stolen by a monkey, and you think you are alone except for you and a coterie of monkey negotiators, but there are people everywhere.

    Why set up a prison there? There is simply no defending Rudd on this matter. He has adopted the same policy but made it worse. Made it insane. Why swap the carefree open spaces of Nauru, where cool breezes come off the ocean, for the sweaty breeding pit of Java? How is the airconditioning going to be in where these people are detained. What will be the cubic metre volume per person?

    How can this idiot be defending Rudd on this matter? How could you possibly defend him? What is the argument?


    It must filibuster. Even if one hasn’t read the whole thread this dickhead must be substituting a filibuster for an argument.

    Or you Jason spell out to me what his major point is. You know I’m right. This jerk is on the filibuster. And he doesn’t have any other argument but that.

    20 Oct 09 at 5:40 pm
    Leave a Reply

  6. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Jarrah. Put your defense of the DDT holocaust in your own words. There is absolutely no use linking to May Berenbaum on this story. She didn’t come up with any evidence for an alternative history where the mass-killing of African children never happened. All she did was pretend that pro-DDT types were not interested in a multi-factorial approach to the problem. She just made that up. She’s a bit of a dummy really when all is said and done.

    Berenbaum’s argument was simply to jabber away pretending that if her opponents were in favour of the airforce, that meant they were against the navy. That was really the sum total of her contribution.

    This idiocy is easily refuted.

  7. “An electron which is compressed utterly, and surrounded by protons, cannot express its charge further than those protons. I’m assuming that electrons are porous in some ways and protons are not. Hence when new matter is being created, and simpler lighter elements are being compressed into heavier elements, we are always running out of electrons. Compressed electrons are always getting surrounded and effectively lost in the process. So large bodies where this is happening are drawing electrons and electricity into them, via plasmas in the vast reaches of space.

    The sun draws into it Birekeland currents. This implies new matter creation in the core of the sun, compressing and hiding electrons, and leaving an electron shortage. The shortage, draws in the Birkeland currents from outer space, the sun gets more massive. The electricity heats the Hydrogen in the Corona and the “surface”.

    Wherever electricity is being drawn in, and we cannot account for where the electrons have disappeared to, we must assume new matter creation and the building of the higher elements.”

    “You can’t prove this theory of yours.”




    So anyway fella. Tell me what YOUR theory is. And tell me if you think you can prove it.

  8. Logged moderated post.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Wow. That sounds like a great seminar!? I’m a bit stunned. Maybe its your account of it? But Samuel. As far as seminars go, with Australian economists? Did this one appear to be a step up in quality? Must be everyone lifting their game because they know Henry is going to show up.

    One quibble and one other comment.

    ” All cost-benefit analyses, all public-private partnership agreements should be made public. ”

    Right. If in the medium term we cannot get away from some “private-public-partnerships” (fascism and cronyism in economic life) yes by all means make every last bit of it, not concerning national security, transparent and at real time. But the sentiment ought always be expressed that we must get away from public-private-partnerships.

    “Presently if a person owns land which is rezoned by the Government and that increases the value of that land, the landowner gets a windfall gain. This gives landowners and developers a strong incentive to “provide incentives to” (that is to say: (schmooze, charm, bribe, corrupt, in all degrees and permutations) policy makers.”

    Bit of a paraphrase there. Well what a suprise? I’ve never thought of that at all. Never heard of this idea before. Its a sound medium term idea if done in the context of revenue negativity. No new charge ought to be introduced, under the naive and immoral basis of revenue neutrality. Since revenue is stealing and we can never be neutral to theft, or to the current level of it. All new proposals that involve changes in the way revenue is raised ought to be on the basis of revenue-negativity.

  9. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I SEZ:

    “Dude if you are Catholic can you brush up on your Aquinas proofs of the existence of God. You are going to have to try harder than everyone else to identify what idea you are trying to get across and write it clearly.”


    “Oh great now Bird is giving me bible studies lessons.”

    SO I SEZ:

    No actually I wasn’t. But you’ve certainly highlighted a need right there. Its pretty clear you are a Bible studies flunkie. If not a truant.

    F for logic, reading comprehension, dialectical rhetoric, and for Bible Studies as well.

    Straight F’s.

  10. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here is a case in point why economists must never ignore the science when it comes to policy issues. Why they must take a holistic approach, and get their head around the science. Why they can never segregate the science and why they must keep raking over it in their job as policy analysts.

    The government seems to think this “clean coal” business will cost them about 2.8 billion. That its basically just a cost of investment in technology and capital update. But carbon sequestration will cost more than 100 billion dollars. It will go on costing massive amounts ever year until such time, and beyond the time, when we have total saturation nuclear power.

    No technology can overcome the costs involved supposing that we are still using coal even a little bit. The costs cannot fall every year, except perhaps a tiny amount at first. The science tells us that “clean coal” is an inherently wasteful and expensive idea running massively counter to any valid notions of sustainability.

    21 Oct 09 at 4:44 pm
    Leave a Reply

  11. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    What are you talking about dummy? The question is to limit options or not to limit options. No gain can be made by limiting options. Thats the basic policy that is being put over on us. The cheapest electricity is nuclear in the wider scheme of things. But if the coal power station is already built, and the train tracks between it and the nearest operational coal mine and all the capital involved, its clearly a deadweight loss to limit options in any way. The coal would find a price to compete with the nuclear, even if the price of the coal, the mine, and everything else had to drop in order for the coal to do so, and even if all extant companies involved went bankrupt and had to sell to new entities. There is no way that the limiting of options in this way can ever be not a massive cost. And particularly as we need to power from coal to commission the nuclear plants in the first place.

    21 Oct 09 at 5:05 pm

  12. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Read the post again. You don’t have any understanding of economics Mark. I’ve already spelled it out for you. What can I do? Quote myself saying the same thing again.

    “…. even if all extant companies involved went bankrupt and had to sell AT CUT PRICE BANKFUPTCY PRICES to new entities…. ”

    Obviously limiting options is massively costly. You’ve got to remember Mark. Whereas neoclassical otherworldly models only contain production decisions, usually without any time factor involved….. In the real world we live one day at a time. We move forward into the future armed with only the capital goods we have right now. We don’t jump cut to a situation of saturation nuclear and then decide post hoc that nuclear is inherently cheaper. What happens is the coal and other hydrocarbons, have to keep us alive every day, while money is still being spent daily on maintenance of these coal plants and all the normal business expenses……

    … And on top of that the coal-energy and other existing energy sources has to stretch and expand enough to be putting all these new nuclear power stations into operation, to be imbedded in all the activities associated with mining more uranium, and the full spectrum of everything we want to get done. And of course it will have to stretch even more if we expect people in poorer countries to accumulate and use capital and become rich like us.

  13. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Right. Its a shame. And its a shame that they want to use it as a revenue raiser, though they plead the disgraceful “revenue neutrality.” Since to get better use of massive capital investment, and to get more economic activity, we need to put a price on congestion.

    We had a test a while back. The NSW government jacked up the price of peak-time use of the harbour bridge. They said it was to send a price signal. It sent a message alright. Like punching someone in the eye is sending a message. The price differential was not anything that would lead to rostering changes. It was just a steal. If you do things on the basis of revenue negativity you could have made the bridge free at all times when to do so would not impede traffic. You could iterate the prices every week by up to 1% for each time slot.

    You see if you are willing to engage in mass-sackings of taxeaters, then you can do these things. Take away registration costs. Take away off-peak bridge crossing costs and reduce train prices for people willing to roster for either the early or the late working slot.

    And surely you are right that these systems will be used to snoop. Its a shame that we cannot trust these people and that they seem to hate other people getting around with a good set of wheels. Its a shame that they are all Sado-Pigouvians.

    The biggest reason its a shame is because we need massively differential infrastructure pricing to help change our city country layout in the long run to make us survivable against extended nuclear war.

    Thats just a fact.

    And in fact the rise of the big cities would appear to be inherently counter-economic just from a solid logistical point of view.

  14. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Actually we need to go into this a great deal. We’ve got to break out of this dichotomy.

    We should acknowledge that we don’t trust the advocates, or at least the people they would hand-ball the idea to. To analyse this we would have to split it into three or four angles.

    I’m not going to side with anyone in Treasury over this. We ought to go in for how things ought to be run. And set aside for the moment what we expect they might do with it.

    In nuclear war we are doomed if most of our people are living in big cities. Which means our liberty is lost as a done deal if we can be subjected to nuclear intimidation combined with diplomatic schmoozing. This may come as a shock. But it happens to be true. There is no cost-effective way to slowly morph from the danger we are in now to a different and more survivable layout.

    People might say that this isn’t a consideration. But its the most important consideration. Costs of changing the basic layout vis a vis the city country balance are massive via either compulsion or subsidy. Only revenue-negative morphing of price signals over many decades can do this at net gain when viewed from what we might take to be the current policy glide-path.

    I must urge everyone to show some intellectual discipline therefore. And take this nuclear war/nuclear intimidation/nuclearised regime influence to the absolute forefront of this debate and never let it slip from being the main consideration.

  15. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I’ve seen I-bank research indicating that nuclear has a lower range of cost possibilities than does coal.

    I don’t see how I was talking about “limiting options”.”

    Of course you don’t see it. Why would you? My second-last explanation is still in moderation last I looked. But consider this. Price signals run forwards and backwards through the production chain. The best extant school of economics is actually extremist about this. Since they emphasise prices working backwards from the consumer. Like if we all become Amish than the price of a diamond mine will crash. The Classical British school didn’t think marginally. But their angle was a productive one also. Either way one has to consider price movements changing with spending flows but also going from the consumer backwards, and from the early stages of production forward.

    I don’t want to be too controversial here. It matters not that over the longest haul nuclear would appear to be inherently cheaper. Thats irrelevant. If all the coal mines and electricity plants were put under pressure from global competition from nuclear plants, still for a long time, under any capitalist system, the price of coal and of coal mines, for that matter, would fall to match the competition. The volume of coal use would peak and then fall. But coal would be price competitive for a long time, since the capital goods would be already there, and only be needing to be maintained and updated a relatively small amount. Whereas the nuclear plants have to be built anew.

    Hence the limiting of options is always a disaster. And this energy deprivation will likely be a worse disaster than the centralization of malarial control policy.

    I know you don’t understand. But you and others better start understanding.

  16. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    But Philomena? You would rob the local churches of the talent of all these female lay-preachers. And surely the lay-preacher can keep in close contact with the flock and serve as a barrier to maintain the majestic distance of the accredited male official.

    As Aaron spoke for the near mute Moses and gave him gravitas in doing so. And Moses himself spoke for some mysterious entity in his tent, or on the mountain, or one time in a bush that burned continually and yet did not get consumed in its own flames. And that entity spake for thee alone, so thats four layers right there, contributing to your glorious persona.

    You miss the richness and subtlety of the tradition. You would, by your naivete drain away a great deal of the magic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: