Posted by: graemebird | October 19, 2009

Energy Is Compression.

That is to say Energy, stored in useful form, that we humans can access is a form of compression. Gravitational potential energy may be an exception to this. And then again maybe not. More about this later. First a few initial thoughts. We have to start over with Physics. Some of the most basic rules turn out to be quite wrong. And its pretty hard to get ones head to shift.

INITIAL THOUGHTS. (Some of these are posts from Catallaxy).

There are two teak wood planks in space forming a cross. Where they are held together, it is with strong glue. Much of the basic building blocks of reality entire in this visage alone.

Taking the lead from the majestic and leggy Philomena I have decided to try and show how most of reality can be conceputalised from as little as two opposing forces. In her words love and strife (Philomena being extremely feminine). Perhaps she was smuggling through the Chinese concepts yin and yang via a Greek Trojan Horse. We will see how we go with push and pull. But first we must look at latent versions of these two.

Here I draw heavily on what little I know of the two different systems of Gaede and Neal Adams. With extrapolations from myself. Most of which will likely prove redundant or opposed to the source inspirations.

Suppose we show up in space and several of us aided in our movements by all sorts of micro-rocketry. We attempt to pry the two pieces of wood apart and sometimes to push them together in the hope that they may snap. But always without adding any movement to the situation. We are unsuccessful in our attempts.


But there is a difference here between latent push and pull where on the one hand we have this adhesion that isn’t being put to the test. And on the other hand the wood exhibits a force at its surface, as if it wants to maintain its form. But neither the push force nor the pull force, once brought into action TRAVEL. The push and pull forces have no reach. I would say that this is the case with virtually all forces in the universe in the first instance.

Where pull is concerned I follow Gaeda and his orthogonal ropes. Ropes of ying and yang rapping around eachother like on a clothes line. Largely if not wholly porous to anything passing through them laterally. In the way that Birkeland currents travel through space in this rap-around way and yet we would likely pass through these currents seamlessly if we were travelling in a lateral direction to them in our spaceship.

Students of basic mechanics may tell us that all pull is really push in disguise. And that when we lassoo someone and pull her towards us the rope is really pushing her from behind. We may break this down another way on another day. Into push adhesion and compression. But for now push and pull will do. And I’m saying that when there is the force of pull at a distance this implies orthogonal ropes. For the most part forces don’t “travel”. They don’t work at a distance. For them to work at anything much of a distance would imply occult powers.

Now just to lay a bit of shorthand on this. Here are a few items I want you to contemplate.

Under my system (Gaeda and or Adams are not to be held responsible.)

1. Acceleration due to PUSH is proof of prior compression.

2. Energy and matter are not convertible one to the other. In fact there is no such separate entity as energy.

3. The creation of new matter over time is obviously less miraculous and easier to justify then the creation of all matter instantaneously. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

4. The creation of matter over time ought not, even at this humble stage, be thought to be more than 1% miraculous. Since 99% of what is going on is the setting up of countervailing push and pull arrangements, many of them latent, and many of them involving static-compression. Almost all of the behaviours we have for seemingly solid material or liquid or gaseous material for that matter, can be explained by myriad arrangements of interlocking push and pull setups. Adhesion, repulsion (of a sort that does not “reach) either totally latent, or involving compression …. well this is basically all thats needed to manifest everything that we see and know of.

5. We can imagine that in the middle of moons, planets and stars we have the following characterisitcs. High pressure. Extreme heat. Powerful electrical currents. Which also implies monstrous forces of magnetism. I ask you. What else is needed than the above to set up the myriad countervailing, interlocked, overlayed forces of push and pull that we take to be matter?

6. Note that looking at the mainstream paradigm, the most efficient energy conversion that we know of, or at least that I know of, comes from the air compressor, wherein you haven’t had enough time to lose the heat of the compressed air, and then you convert it back to work. You can get efficiencies of above 90% using this system.

7. I would say that ALL instances of what the mainstream consider to be POTENTIAL ENERGY involve countervailing forces. And the only serious useful energy storage implies compression of one sort or another.

8. Just think for a minute about the foolishness or at least strangeness of the photonic view of light. Somehow we let loose a photon. And what does this photon do? It starts acting like young Forrest Gump. Running flat out in a straight line at high speed. Or perhaps in waves. They cannot make up their mind. “Where are you going Forrest?” Where are you going little photon? Are you angry? Are you lost?

Its really all very silly when you think about it.

Consider the proposition that things tend to maximum disorder. Entropy. Tepid soup. This CANNOT be the whole story.

In fact this proposition must be dismissed. Perhaps it is the case for normal matter. Who knows. But even if so the universe is made mostly out of plasma’s. It is manifest that things do not tend towards maximum disorder. The proposition has to be limited in some way or dumped. Its doesn’t pass the empirical test.

Consider the idea that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Again. Empirical evidence refutes this. The matter is here. End of story.

Consider the proposition that energy can neither be created or destroyed except by way of transmutation between energy and matter. You’d be surprised how little evidence there is for any of this. There is no need to set the proof bar so low on account of the cult of personality. This proposition deserves the folded arms approach.

Most of this jive has to go.

I think the simplistic idea that mass and energy are equivalent and interconvertible has to go. Although I could contradict myself to some extent later. Its more the idea that they can neither be created nor destroyed that seems to be wrong.

Here I’ll give you an example. Suppose we have a super-sturdy and ultra-light material and out of it we contruct a stairway to heaven. But we put this stairway on a body without much of an atmosphere. We put it on the moon.

As I climb this stairway I am gaining in potential energy. Is net mass being created? Am I or the moon getting more massive as a result? Of course I’m burning calories. But thats all accounted for. The increase in potential energy is something else again. Supposedly explained by more mass.

Jump-cut to the situation between the moon and the earth. The moon is slowly getting further away from the earth. This is seen as a loss of potential energy. And some folks put it down to the tides. So getting higher is LOSING potential energy. Is it losing mass? Whereas if I climb these stairs am I gaining mass? Because I’m supposed to be gaining potential energy.

Now consider the point at which if I climb any further I go into geosynchronous orbit? So here I had piled on all this potential energy, and I take a few steps more and its all gone again? Where is the mass all gone?

I pull myself down to the point where I can again drop to the surface of the moon. This has taken extra calories to reel myself back in, in this manner. This is all counter to this notion that energy and mass are never lost or gained but only converted one to the other.

In fact BOTH ENERGY AND MASS ARE SET UP BY LOCKING IN COUNTERVAILING FORCES. That and that alone is what they have in common. Its utterly simplistic to claim that they convert directly one to the other and neither is lost nor gained.

I go down to where its unambiguous that I can now fall straight to the moons surface. I jump off, rapidly gaining speed. Check my watch. Think about my girls and then reorient myself such that I am heading straight down with clenched fists.

I blast a bit of a crater in the moon and get up and straighten my tie and comb my hair. Brush off my black suit a little. The accountants come out in their space suits and start calculating where all the energy came and went and what it meant for the conservation of mass and energy. They will do their best and fudge the figures around. But there is no such conservation to be presumed in every last situation. Because setting up mass and energy involves the interlocking of countervailing forces, and where gravity isn’t involved compression of some sort or other must be.




  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “It’s truly shocking isn’t it. Some people simply aren’t cut out for blogging as they don’t have the talent or the temperament.”

    So sayeth Shiny-Joe Lamcambria.

    Would the acceptance of any and all refugees in a three year on, three year off, guest worker program lead to:

    1. Greater capital goods per “citizen incumbent” and a faster rate of capital goods update?

    2. More capital goods per person in total as well as a faster rate of capital goods update.

    3. A greater volume of living space per person?

    4. A disproportionately greater volume of living space per person such that rentals fell constantly in real terms?

    5. Such a disproportionate greater volume of high rise living space per person THAT EVEN LAND PRICES FELL IN REAL TERMS?

    6. A situation where transport costs per person and per mile driven or (riding a train etc) fell in real terms (even if the costs became more and more skewed to the congestion tax, and particularly the congestion tax in large cities).

    7. Increase the rate at which we paid off all our debts in total?

    The answer in all seven cases under current policy would be hell no. But policy can be altered so that we can make it the case that the answer is yes to all of the above questions. But people have got to be serious about it. I don’t see anyone talking about pulling out of treaty obligations, fixing our legal system to make it more originalist, setting up a two-tier tax and welfare system, mass-sackings of taxeaters, and so forth.

    So people are not serious about helping these refugees. We could take them all and be better of for it. We could have everyone better off. But the people advocating taking them all will not agree that the necessary changes be made.

    We can and therefore we should alter policy for the hypothetical outcome described. Its the ethical and self-interested thing to do and our survival may well depend on it. After all we will one day have to successfully repel and attempted Chinese mainlander invasion no doubt. We can put refugees in jail when they’ve done little thats ethically wrong. We can bring them all and let them make our country more like a third world country. Or we can use economic science to let them all come for at least a guest worker style setup, and we can contruct our policy to be to the advantage of all the incumbents and the refugees too.

    So why don’t we.

    Whenever I mention even one of the policy changes necessary it would simply be out of the question.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: