Sunday, November 8, 2015

What is Radiation?

Radiation is a concept usually defined as moving outward in all directions from a source object. In physics, the word is used and defined differently in different contexts. For example a stone of Uranium-238 decays and radiates alpha particles, that is helium nuclei. Helium atoms successively assume two or more locations further and further away from the stone in all directions.

Radiation In context of light think is a little more tricky. Think of radiation as that which an atom does. An atom radiates. How an atom does this is as of now not clearly explained, though it is rigorously described using mathematics, for example the inverse square law of light, and perhaps quantum mechanics.

When we try to explain radiation one obvious question is how or why does a simple atom, say an H atom radiate in all possible directions??? And what is it that mediates this radiation??? The answer seems to be given in an assumption, namely the assumption that all the H atoms of the Universe are interconnected by a fundamental subatomic object that mediates light and gravity, and constitutes them all.  This fundamental object has singular properties, and this assumption helps to answer the question of why an atom radiates in all possible directions in an inverse square regime.  The atom taps into and works these fundamental subatomic objects in the act of radiation.

Ask yourself, where does light begin and where does it end???. . . . The answer is that is always begins and ends at the atom. If say in one direction there was a deprivation of Hydrogen atoms, then an atom wouldn't be able to "radiate". It seems that at least from a point of view in our location all the atoms of the Universe are spread out more or less evenly in all directions in a sort of imaginary sphere. Because of this an atom is able to radiate because it has a fundamental subatomic object connected to all possible atoms of the Universe. But if we travel far out to the last galaxy and last atom in any given direction, perhaps those atoms could not 'radiate' as the atoms at our location do. As Gaede brilliantly speculated in his book, Why God Doesn't Exist, the atoms at the edge of the Universe would be misshapen. And they would only consummate emission events in a one direction, not all directions. And perhaps these atoms emit in exotic atomic electron transitions.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Proton Made From Three Quarks is a White Lie

From Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's
What is a Proton, Anyway?

You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarksand one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all.

This is a useful piece of information even if one doesn't necessarily agree with the notion of isolated particle balls whizzing around and colliding with each other which seems to be the only way particle physicists want to present their ideas. Even in this article Strassler literally draws a picture with symbols to represent the proton!!!! And he thinks this helps???

Matt Strassler's illustration of the Proton.  Is he kidding?? 

Even if we take the above quote at face value the questions are

Where do all these zillions of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs come from?
What are their forms and other properties???
What is their relation to all other protons and neutrons of the Universe?
Do they just appear out of thin space???

Maybe they are threads, like life lines ending on all other protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'center point' is so complex. . . The atom is a centralization, a permanent bundle of gazillions of these fundamental objects with unique properties. These fundamental objects are literally fed from every single other atom of the Universe so that there is a perfect continuity and interconnection between all.  Even Pope Francis said in his recent encyclical, Laudato Si:

It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation.

If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would instantaneously influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. And it uses these inherent constituents as axles of atomic motion.  This is to some degree unpredictable. And its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there.  Just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location.  When the threads are all bunched and crunched together, superposing to a critical maximum number we have a degeneracy reaction, a push. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

Modern physicists tend to think too much in an isolated vacuum.  If the atom were isolated from all others perhaps motion would be impossible.  Modern physics is also lost in abstractions.  Look again at the picture above.  We don't need equations of motion, differential geometry, or symbols to understand and appreciate the complexity of the proton and neutron.  As enough data is fed in everyday to last until the Sun explodes, all we need do at this point is stand back and think about it. . .

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Light Emission: Strength by Numbers

In spite of its heuristic value, however, the hypothesis of light quanta, which is quite irreconcilable with so-called interference phenomena, is not able to throw light on the nature of radiation. I need only recall that these interference phenomena constitute our only means of investigating the properties of radiation and therefore of assigning any closer meaning to the frequency which in Einstein’s theory fixes the magnitude of the light-quantum. (Niehls Bohr, 1922 Nobel Speech)

One possibility in this direction is to regard, classically, an electron as the end of a single Faraday line of force. The electric field in this picture from discrete Faraday lines of force, which are to be treated as physical things, like strings. One has then to develop a dynamics for such a string like structure, and quantize it.... In such a theory a bare electron would be inconceivable, since one cannot imagine the end of a piece of string without having the string. ---Paul Dirac, Bombay Lectures (1955) 
the electron and proton are not really independent, but just two manifestations of one elementary particle. ---Paul Dirac, (1930)

The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real. --- Richard Feynman, From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, p. 70 
Everything is still vague and unclear to me, but it seems as if the electrons will no more move on orbits ---Heisenberg in a letter to Pauli after conceiving Matrix Mechanics, June 9th 1925


I enjoy to think about the atom, how it is constituted and how it works. So I offer a little brainstorm. I've said in the past that light (like gravity) generates strength by numbers and I want to try and divulge what I mean by this. Please note this is a very simple and idealized explanation. Honest to goodness this is just a conceptual baby step. But I think this could be a key concept that could be developed and utilized universally from emission spectra and across the electromagnetic spectrum; radio to gamma.

I invite you to use your imagination when reading this . . .

Star Model

Call the atomic model I will be using Star Model. This model is more physical and less mathematical. It is a modification of Gaede's atomic model. I give a basic introduction to it here:…/what-does-hydrogen-atom-lo…

The root assumption of Star Model is that the hydrogen atom is constituted by a set of fundamental objects that mediate light and gravity between all H atoms (or protons & neutrons). These fundamental objects converge from all other H atoms to the Universe so as to impart form to the H atom. Call these EM Ropes. In Star Model they are unique double threads with 0 wave amplitude (amplitude taken in a classic wave mechanics sense).

Torsion and Revolution

Lets just say that there are 10^100 H atoms (or protons and neutrons) of the Universe so there are 10^100 (-1) converging EM Ropes from which the H atom derives it's form. One set of threads straightens and converges at a tiny center point less than a femtometere in height and width to form the proton. Call these proton threads. Projecting out from the proton, orthogonal in a divergence is a set of electron threads. The electron threads are not a single thread but a double thread also set at 0 amplitude. Perhaps they are reverse twisted out from the proton by the converging action of the EM Ropes or by the proton. And we will just say that there are about half the number of electron threads as there are EM Ropes, so 10^50. For a 'normal' H atom the electron threads are picometers in length as opposed to the EM Ropes which tend to be inordinately long, since they interconnect all H atoms of the Universe.

The form and behavior of the electron threads and the EM Ropes is similar. They both torque along, signalling. If we stopped them we could almost think of the section between each signal as a link or link length hence when frequency increases, linklength decreases and vice versa. More importantly they have this majestic quantum quality not found in the macro world, in fact this quality underpins all macro-relations we conceive.  Call this quality superposition (not to be confused with how this word is used in mathematical circles). These EM Ropes and electron threads can superpose (that is occupy the same location) up to a critical abundance or maximum number that could be two times the number of H atoms in the Universe or more. So the converging EM Ropes superpose with the diverging electron threads at the H atom within the atomic radius. However one difference between an EM Rope and an electron thread is that an electron thread not only torques along but can also possibly revolve around the proton like a hand on a clock whereas an EM Rope is rooted at two ends by the proton. So if left alone electron threads of the H atom have two simultaneous motions

1. torsion signalling or torsion wave along (like a twisting rope)
2. revolution around the proton (like a hand on a clock)

Both of these actions could be kept track of using the concept of frequency. A single electron thread could be torquing at X Hz, and revolving the proton (360 degrees) at Y Hz. (Hz is event repeated per second)

Lets focus on motion # 2 for a moment. Since the electron threads ultimately derive their form from the EM Ropes which at least in our location, converge from all directions to an intersection point that is proton, the electron threads could possibly revolve [like a clock-hand ticking] around the proton in every imaginable plane or cross section, to keep them consistent motion with their specific mother EM Rope (from which they protrude in an orthogonally). So its like we take 10^50 hands on a clock revolving in every imaginable direction around the proton, but these double stranded hands are also in a double helical torque mode.

Because of electron degeneracy (only so many electron threads and EM Ropes can interface at a time), this revolving motion could be more complex, perhaps restricted in time lapses with increasing atomic number.  In other words, it may take longer or more work to get the electron threads of a heavy metal revolving, for example in a qualified metal conductor we might need to use a magnet and rotate it next to the lattice the free electron threads (not occupied in bonding) to rotate a little in one direction but perhaps not revolve. But here we are thinking of a simple Hydrogen atom.  So to revolve the electron threads perhaps we would need incident ultraviolet light at 13.7 electron volts.

Strength by Numbers

The main question I wanted to probe here is how can we possibly explain emission. Take red light for example. Red light is 4 x 10 ^ 14 Hz. How could the mediators of light possibly torsion wave @ 4 x 10 ^ 14 Hz??? I think the basic answer is in strength by numbers, specifically the number of diverging electron threads coming together to interface with a set of converging EM Ropes in a sort of critical anomaly where one can influence the other.

Lets just say that we have a set of EM Ropes converging from all the atoms of the Andromeda galaxy to help form an H atom in our solar system. There is an astronomical number of H atoms in Andromeda, maybe 10^70, so there as many EM Ropes converging at a single location to form every single H atom. These EM Ropes probably won't shift a whole lot. And lets just say that we have incident light to move the electron threads and that 4 x 10 ^ 14 electron threads come together from all different planes to align themselves with these same EM Ropes. At this moment, these electron threads are literally pointing rectilinearly at all the atoms of the Andromeda galaxy. Each electron thread is torquing at 1 Hz. As they all come into alignment each electron thread torques each of the superposing EM Ropes once. We can think of this dynamic relation where the electron threads act on the EM Ropes as charge, or electron, or wavefunction or quantum state vector or matrix or critical ethereal thread anomaly. It doesn't matter what one calls it, what matters is a basic explanation. Add up the torques consummated by our electron threads on our EM Ropes ending on Andromeda in a second and we have 4 x 10 ^ 14 torque events at a single location. And I think we could easily change the parameters so that we have only half the electron threads aligning and torquing the same number EM Ropes at 2 Hz and get the same results which is interesting.

Now since in a simple H atom left to itself the electron threads will continue to revolve around the proton like clockwork, we see that as the electron threads tick on there is transition. All of a sudden these same EM Ropes could drastically decrease in frequency of torquing. So its like they turn off for a split moment, only to turn on once again as another cascade of electron threads align over them and torque them again in accord with whatever incident light is happening on our atom. Now we can't discern this with our eyes, since these events happen so quickly, but others have discerned this in ideal quantum jump experiments done in the eighties using a microscope.

There are endless possible frequencies and patterns one could conceive. And each atom has its own pattern that matches with their emission spectrum in certain circumstances. Now when atoms come together in nuclear or chemical bonds, react in a bath of high frequency incident light from an external source or relate in electricity, the electron threads could come together to produce all sorts of frequencies on the EM Ropes. One can think that as two H atoms are being crushed together in a fusion all of a sudden there are twice the potential number of electron threads that could be interfacing with each other and the EM Ropes to enact more events per second until the electron threads stably organize themselves into Helium electronic configuration which is more complex.

In conclusion, atomic electron transition is a game of numbers.  

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

What Does a Hydrogen Atom Look Like?

If we could stop a hydrogen atom from moving and see it, I think it would look something like this mineral:
a radiating mass of slender crystals serve as a likeness to my supposed electron threads originating in the proton

From a tiny critically dense & central convergence point called proton countless subatomic objects, call them electron threads in a sort of double helical mode, emanate and diverge.

But this is only half of the picture. In the background and superposed or interfacing this H atom we would have gazillions of subatomic objects converging from all atoms of the Universe to impart form to our Hydrogen atom.  Call these EM Ropes (picture two below). These EM Ropes mediate light and gravity between all atoms.  A set number of these EM Ropes are fundamental to each and every H atom, so that the H atom constantly assumes it's form from them:

For each Hydrogen atom there is a set # of EM Ropes converging to form the proton (the # of H atoms ((or protons and neutrons)) of the Universe minus 1), and set # of electron threads emanating and diverging from the proton. These objects have unique qualities, one of which is that they are able to occupy the same location (called superposition, interfacing, etc.). From here each location surrounding the proton has a whole number of EM Ropes and electron threads superposing at any given time.

In other words we have integers of threads in superposing alignment. Integer multiples are essential to quantum mechanics. Once we set the H atom in motion there are infinite possibilities of how the EM Ropes and electron threads can align to consummate light events, especially if we have atomic collisions. The electron threads have more freedom to move around the proton since they are not connected at two ends. So in addition to turning CW or CCW along their lengths, they can revolve around the proton like hands on a clock. In opposition the EM Ropes are always rooted in at least two protons (or neutrons), so they will shift a little less dramatically as the atom moves. These subatomic objects act like fingers tapping into and torquing one another CW or CCW.

I think the best way to think of electron is not an object, but as dynamic concept of the threads converging to form the proton and the threads diverging from the proton threads . . . influencing one another. Perhaps there is a critical # of EM Ropes and electron threads which must align in order for them to influence one another and so trigger a light events, i.e. two stranded threads in a torsion wave. When the atom gets disturbed by high frequencies or collisions perhaps electron threads may bunch up and outnumber the EM Ropes or vice versa at any given location or quadrant around the proton. Electron happens at any possible locations around the proton. In addition we would have extraneous EM Ropes interconnecting other atoms crossing through our H atom, and even extraneous electron threads from other atoms when they get close to our H atom.

The atom is a double star like pattern or texture of DNA like threads, converging to proton and diverging from proton. And light (or radiation) ultimately generates strength, that is higher and higher frequency, by numbers, numbers of electron threads and EM Ropes aligning around the proton.

How the proton stays held together in a consistent form as it constantly reforms itself by the EM Ropes while it takes on two or more locations is to me inexplicable. How the proton even forms the electron threads is also a bit of a mystery to me. What can I say?

One the one hand the interior of a proton is a dynamic place, with things [threads] moving around. On the other hand all protons of everywhere and everywhen behave exactly the same way. (Wilczek, The Lightness of Being, p. 44, brackets mine)

I dont know. But if someone asked me to model and explain the Hydrogen atom, the above is more or less what I would present to them. Call this model Hairy Head, or Star Model.  It is a modification of Bill Gaede's Hydrogen atom which I think is great just don't like the jump roping magnetic threads. This is not perfect and I might have blind spots in my thought but this is at least something.

As we get to fusion the number of these EM Ropes and electron threads increases in whole numbers.  In fusion electron threads bunch together and organize into well defined groups around the nucleus.  Electron threads are also responsible for chemical bonds. They interlace with electron threads of adjacent atoms in a bond. And these electron threads are also in part responsible for electricity.  In a current through a lattice imagine them as acting like in a domino effect or (a cascade), from one atom to the next, shifting and superposing in the direction of the current, so that on one side of each atom in the lattice we have a dominant concentration of electron threads acting to torque the next set of electron threads & EM Ropes in line.  

But to return to my point above, if we are using counting and integer representations in physics we at least consider that we are counting OBJECTS. Right?

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Electron Quotes!!!

Have fun parsing this wild list. . . 

* "The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real." --- Richard Feynman, From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, p. 70

* "Everything is still vague and unclear to me, but it seems as if the electrons will no more move on orbits" ---Heisenberg in a letter to Pauli after conceiving Matrix Mechanics, June 9th 1925

* "There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave ... in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way... — Richard P. Feynman 'Probability abd Uncertainty—the Quantum Mechanical View of Nature', the sixth of his Messenger Lectures (1964), Cornell ------ (I wonder if he intended that pun)

* "… we may think on an electron as always being surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons. If the electron is violently accelerated by some external means, some of this cloud may be shaken loose and given enough energy to become real photons" ---Frank Shu, The Physical Universe, 1982

* "One possibility in this direction is to regard, classically, an electron as the end of a single Faraday line of force. The electric field in this picture from discrete Faraday lines of force, which are to be treated as physical things, like strings. One has then to develop a dynamics for such a string like structure, and quantize it.... In such a theory a bare electron would be inconceivable, since one cannot imagine the end of a piece of string without having the string.  ---Paul Dirac, Bombay Lectures (1955)

* "the electron and proton are not really independent, but just two manifestations of one elementary particle." ---Paul Dirac, (1930)   

* "There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list." — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature Of The Physical World (1928), 290

* "For most practical purposes, an electron is a structure-less particle that possesses an intrinsic angular momentum, or spin." ---Frank Wilczek, What is an Electron?

* "Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter. Freeman Dyson showed that the imperviousness of solid matter is due to quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion as had been previously assumed." (Wiki Quote, Electron Degeneracy Pressure, citing three of Freeman Dyson's papers)

* "The inner equilibrium of an extended electron becomes . . . an insoluble puzzle from the point of view of electrodynamics.  I hold this puzzle (and the questions related to it) to be a stochastic problem. . . The electrons are not only indivisible physically, but also geometrically.  They have no extension in space at all [so they are a concept???].  Inner forces between the elements of an electron do not exist because such elements are not available.  The electromagnetic interpretation of the mass is thus eliminated."---Yakov Frenkel, 1925

* "As advertising always convinces the sponsor even more than the public, the scientists have become sold, and remain sold, on the idea that they have the key to the Absolute, and that nothing will do for Mr. Average Citizen but to stuff himself full of electrons." — Anthony Standen, In Science is a Sacred Cow (1950), 26. 

* "Firm support has been found for the assertion that electricity occurs at thousands of points where we at most conjectured that it was present. Innumerable electrical particles oscillate in every flame and light source. We can in fact assume that every heat source is filled with electrons which will continue to oscillate ceaselessly and indefinitely. All these electrons leave their impression on the emitted rays." ---Pieter Zeeman, 'Light Radiation in a Magnetic Field', Nobel Lecture, 2 May 1903.)

* "It is structure that we look for whenever we try to understand anything. All science is built upon this search; we investigate how the cell is built of reticular material, cytoplasm, chromosomes; how crystals aggregate; how atoms are fastened together; how electrons constitute a chemical bond between atoms. We like to understand, and to explain, observed facts in terms of structure. A chemist who understands why a diamond has certain properties, or why nylon or hemoglobin have other properties, because of the different ways their atoms are arranged, may ask questions that a geologist would not think of' formulating, unless he had been similarly trained in this way of thinking about the world." — Linus Pauling
‘The Place of Chemistry In the Integration of the Sciences’, Main Currents in Modern Thought (1950), 7, 110. 

* "Most American homes have alternating current, which means that the electricty goes in one direction for a while, then goes in the other direction. This prevents harmful electron buildup in the wires." — Dave Barry, In The Taming of the Screw: How to Sidestep Several Million Homeowner's Problems (1983), 12

* "The chemist in America has in general been content with what I have called a loafer electron theory. He has imagined the electrons sitting around on dry goods boxes at every corner [viz. the cubic atom], ready to shake hands with, or hold on to similar loafer electrons in other atoms." — Robert Andrews Millikan, 'Atomism in Modern Physics', Journal of the Chemical Society (1924), 1411.

* "The energy of a covalent bond is largely the energy of resonance of two electrons between two atoms. The examination of the form of the resonance integral shows that the resonance energy increases in magnitude with increase in the overlapping of the two atomic orbitals involved in the formation of the bond, the word ‘overlapping” signifying the extent to which regions in space in which the two orbital wave functions have large values coincide... Consequently it is expected that of two orbitals in an atom the one which can overlap more with an orbital of another atom will form the stronger bond with that atom, and, moreover, the bond formed by a given orbital will tend to lie in that direction in which the orbital is concentrated." — Linus Pauling, Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals (1939), 76.

* "There can never be two or more equivalent electrons in an atom, for which in a strong field the values of all the quantum numbers n, k1, k2 and m are the same. If an electron is present, for which these quantum numbers (in an external field) have definite values, then this state is ‘occupied.’ — Wolfgang Pauli

* "[The chemical bond] First, it is related to the disposition of two electrons (remember, no one has ever seen an electron!): next, these electrons have their spins pointing in opposite directions (remember, no one can ever measure the spin of a particular electron!): then, the spatial distribution of these electrons is described analytically with some degree of precision (remember, there is no way of distinguishing experimentally the density distribution of one electron from another!): concepts like hybridization, covalent and ionic structures, resonance, all appear, not one of which corresponds to anything that is directly measurable. These concepts make a chemical bond seem so real, so life-like, that I can almost see it. Then I wake with a shock to the realization that a chemical bond does not exist; it is a figment of the imagination that we have invented, and no more real than the square root of - 1." --- — Charles Alfred Coulson, Quoted in his obituary, Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society 1974, 20, 96

* “Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

* "Electrons are the final realities of matter, electricity then the material of which the atoms of our elements are constructed. . . But what is electricity itself?  Light ether in a certain state . . . the light ether is thus the universal primary matter." ---Richard Ehrenfeld, (German chemist and historian of science), 1906

* "the electron is to simple of a thing for the question of the laws governing its structure to arise." ---Paul Dirac, Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons, 1938 

* Mists
where the electron behaves and misbehaves as it will,
where the forces tie themselves up into knots of atoms
and come untied;

of mistiness complicated into knots and clots that barge about
and bump on one another and explode into more mist, or don't,
mist of energy most scientific -
But give us gods!

Look then
where the father of all things swims in a mist of atoms
electrons and energies, quantums and relativities
mists, wreathing mists,
like a wild swan, or a goose, whose honk goes through my bladder. 
---D.H. Lawrence poem titled Give Us Gods

last but not least:

* "So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle, and a wave; it is ideally simple, and unimaginably complex; it is precisely understood, and utterly mysterious; it is rigid, and subject to creative disassembly. No single answer does justice to
reality." ---Frank Wilczek, From What is an Electron?, 2013

After reading this we might as well make electron synonymous with God.


* "The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other words it's crap. ---(Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926)

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Why c squared in Einstein's equation?

The c squared factor in Einstein's equation can be interpreted in a few different ways . . .

Establishing a Basis of Interpretation and Physical Context

First, one has to establish a physical context in order to understand what Einstein's equation describes and all its implications. And what better place to start than at the atom, say a simple hydrogen atom, the building block of visible matter? The hydrogen atom will be our basis of interpreting Einstein's equation and we will see that Einie's equation serves as a sweeping schematic of the H atom's form which can be refined by reason and imagination.

Energy, in Einie's equation is the hydrogen atom's capacity to do work. Its a sort of raw potential equation, prior to taking motion into consideration. A H atom's potential to do work is proportional to it's mass and velocity of light squared. Mass and c2 coupled on the right side of the equation hints toward an assumption that the invisible (dark) subatomic objects that mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms of the Universe are one and the same. Furthermore, the H atom takes on its form from these invisible subatomic objects, all of which converge from none other than all other H atoms of the Universe. And logically the next assumption is that these set of dark subatomic objects interconnect all atoms of the Universe (and/or all protons and neutrons).

One could imagine a hydrogen atom as a bundle of gazillions of these subatomic objects converging and superposing from all the atoms of the Universe and imparting form to it at a central location which is the atom. Gaede called this subatomic object the EM Rope. Imagine an inordinately long double stranded threads indissolubly connecting all atoms. It is the presence of these gazillions upon gazillions of EM Ropes converging into a central bundle we call atom (or proton/neutron) that gives the H atom its enormous potential to do work, especially in a nuclear reaction. These dark subatomic objects impart form to the Hydrogen atom, and so the atom and these subatomic objects are somewhat the same and yet there is an inequality since in order to build a Hydrogen atom we need as many as these subatomic objects coming together as there are Hydrogen atoms in the Universe.

An atom has the ability to tap into the EM Ropes, or work it and are worked by it, by various means, for example in a nuclear reaction, a chemical reaction, in atomic electron transitions, etc. In these sort of mysterious and ethereal phenomena, the atom taps into the very set of subatomic objects from which it derives its form. And all of these subatomic objects keep a single H atom in tension with all other atoms of the Universe and this is called inertial mass. Gravity/Inertia is tension of these supposed dark subatomic objects. Light (or radiation) is torsion of these same invisible subatomic objects which a. converge to impart form to the H atom, and b. interconnect all H atoms (or protons and neutrons) of the Universe.

This subatomic object has some unique properties not associated with macro-objects, but it still obey's Newton's third law, or rather we can use Newton's third law to describe this object. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The subatomic objects that interconnect all atoms, impart form to them and mediate both light and gravity obey Newton's law. So when an atom taps into these or acts, the EM Rope has an equal and opposite reaction always toward at least two atoms of the Universe. Thus the square factor. This is how light is able to retrace its path so to speak. Its almost like strumming a chord and the chord reacts in both directions where it ends on at least two atoms. The c2 concept is a to and from idea. Bidirectional.

Newton's Third Law:  action, equal and opposite reaction is the easiest way to understand the c squared concept in Einstein's equation. If the atom at one location torques a set of superposing EM Ropes, it would seem that the EM Ropes would be signalling in two directions, say N & S along the double stranded threads. The threads are signalling in two directions.  Some of the EM Ropes will end and transform into the atom that enacted the light event, and others will end at other atoms.  The light event will react back through the atom that enacted as well as end on other atoms. If at different locations of the atoms the torsion events are happening at different frequencies, perhaps the highest at any given time is the set of superposing EM Ropes that will cause the recoil.  Einstein said, 

Outgoing radiation in the form of spherical waves does not exist [he meant does not happen]. During the elementary process of radiative loss, the molecule suffers a recoil of magnitude hv/c in a direction which is only determined by ‘chance’, according to the present state of the theory." (On Quantum Theory of Radiation)

Radiative loss, could just refer to any location of the atom that suddenly increases its frequency of light events along the superposing set of EM Ropes aligned at that location. The chance is just an illusion. I think the chance has to do with the number of EM Ropes and my supposed electron threads in an aligned superposition around the atom, and this will always increase or decrease in accord with extraneous EM Ropes and motion and realignment of electron threads. No one has the ability to count them so we use quantum jump concepts as well as the almighty random variable and statistics. But I think light, like gravity, is a strength by numbers relation.  

Another way to think of it is that by assumption that all that atoms of the Universe are connected and formed by these subatomic objects . . . light behavior constantly acts through the H atom, equally, from opposite directions, and this may in someway help maintain its structural integrity. Or the H atom can signal equally in opposite directions via the mediators. This implies that light or radiation is always working to and from all atoms. Structurally, this further implies that an H atom derives its form from one and the same set of objects that mediate light between all atoms, and these same objects also maintain mass, and are also involved in what we call gravity. An atom constantly tapping into these subatomic objects keeps a constant action/reaction tension between all atoms that is basically inertial mass, and is exponentially increased in gravity when we model objects like Sun & Earth at close distances. But it would seem that all the atoms of the Universe are inseparably connected via the mediator of light and gravity. There is a perfect, profound, balanced and consistent connection and activity happening between them all.  I guess we can say that God made all atoms well, perfect, symmetrical, clear, and Einstein's equation can be used to describe this.  

Another way to interpret c2 is to say that the H atom has an ability to emit and absorb at a characteristic range of frequencies. In either emission or absorption the atom is simply relaying along our subatomic objects in two different directions pending emission or absorption.

Bidirectional, Diametrical, Two-Way

c2 is diametrical . . . two-way.

The direction of light phenomenon if we can even put it that way, regardless of location, is diametrical (or bi-directional). It is "aimed" at the source atom as well as the target atom since when the EM Ropes are tapped into they signal in a polar manner.  Light happens in two possible directions: to or from every atom of the Universe. There are always two or more atoms involved in light and gravity. Tapping into a single mediator (our EM Rope, or subatomic object) always influences at least two atoms. Thus the squared factor.

There is no preferred direction of light, like in silly CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) interpretations. Light begins and ends at at least two atoms. And the atom is constantly signalling atoms and being signaled to by atoms via the mediators of light interconnecting all of them.

Einstein's equation is probably the most refined and simple equation in history. It is an all-encompassing, advanced and abstract way to describe an H atom, but it needs some fundamental assumptions and traced objects to understand. Unfortunately most people spit out nonsense about energy converting into matter or mass . . . in other words:  concepts converting into concepts. They haven't a clue what they are talking about.  There can be no explanation without appealing to something.  
A theory, explanation, or manifestation is built upon objects: that which have form. These objects perform causal relations with other objects.

At Least Two Atoms . . .

When we talk of this invisible subatomic object that mediates light . . . when acted upon by the atom, two atoms will always be induced to motion. The signalling atom as well as the receiving atom.

At least two atoms are always influenced by a light event. Of course in reality this is multiplied gazillions of times over because these mediators converge and superpose at the atom and in addition there are extraneous mediators of light which begin and end on other atoms, crisscrossing and superposing through the source atom. So if an atom consummates a light event it is possible that gazillions of pairs of atoms are influenced across the Universe. Because if you tap into that mediators it will act in a polar manner, inducing motion along it in opposite directions to where it ends on atoms which could be located at the edge of the Universe. All this is further illustrated in the inverse square law of light.

There is a rich interpretive potential in c squared concept. It also teaches us that light is impossible without two or more atoms.

Why Does a Hydrogen Atom have an Enormous Capacity to Do Work?

Many have wondered about this.

I've written about this here in the past but my thoughts are all scattered. Suffice to say that it is the presence of gazillions upon gazillions of EM Ropes converging from all the other atoms of the Universe into a central fiber bundle, a single object that we call atom (or proton/neutron) and in a single location that gives the H atom its enormous potential to do work, especially in a nuclear reaction.

In a nuclear reaction we have twice the number of these subatomic objects all vying for a single location. It seems that only so many can overlap, crisscross or superpose in a sort of critical thread density. So when two H atoms are forced together to their 'convergence points' an event happens that perhaps taps into every single one of these subatomic objects wherein chemical reactions or atomic electron transitions perhaps less are tapped in an the event that is less volatile. But in a nuclear reaction we might have the action/reaction for an astronomical number of these subatomic objects in a single event.

Two atoms crushed together at a single location means two times the # of these subatomic objects in shock, all acting upon one another in a moment, and this causes a reaction along the EM Ropes which will disturb every surrounding atom since all atoms of the Universe are of course inherently constituted by these subatomic objects that also mediate light as well as gravity.

It would be well to reread famous quotes from Heisenberg and Feynman who sort of flirted with these ideas.  In so many words:

"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry." ---(Richard Feynaman, The Character of Physical Law) 
"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." ---(From "Introductory" in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 10.)

Above we have some simple explanations and descriptions leaving some details out, but there is enormous potential in the H atom or a proton and/or neutron because of its fundamental and indissoluble connection to all other atoms of the Universe which each supply it with an EM Rope so that it can assume its form. If you see an H atom through all the atoms of the Universe then you see its potential.

And this is the 'miracle' of an H atom, as well as the genius hiding in Einstein's equation . Very abstract and lofty but IMPOSSIBLE to even begin to unravel without the assumption that all H atoms are somehow interconnected by an inordinately long subatomic object with unique properties and behaviors.  With each successive location the atom assumes, it mysteriously reforms itself out of these subatomic objects, so that it's form remains consistent even as these subatomic objects are always shifting, adjusting, held together, and so on so that:

One the one hand the interior of a proton is a dynamic place, with things [threads] moving around. On the other hand all protons of everywhere and everywhen behave exactly the same way. (Wilczek, The Lightness of Being, p. 44, brackets mine)

Wednesday, October 14, 2015


Monoculture: use of land for growing one type of crop which results in desertification and disruption of a local ecosystem. Monoculture is a secret destroyer of not only the soil, native plants and animals, but also of human civilizations.

Geoff Lawton, a master of permaculture has an inspired three minute video teaching about monoculture:

Today, monoculture, specifically corn monoculture spreading across the landmasses is a perfect set up for a world wide famine. What else can I possibly say?

And monoculture is not only prevalent in agriculture but also in the sterilized societal relations imposed on us by bank, state, and corporation, the same of which most freely hold onto it. Cultural diversity, uniqueness, symbiotic human relationships, niche creativity, original thinking, small farms, fine arts, artisanship, unbiased and unconventional education, decentralization, independence, and so on are discouraged and ultimately crushed. The human spirit dies like the soil beneath the cloned corn terraformer bathed in toxic sludge. . .  Monoculture forever. . .

Agricultural monoculture is a powerful symbol and reflection of our human spirit in our age.  

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The Charter of Cyrus the Great

October 29th is the day Cyrus is commemorated

At my deeds Marduk, the great lord, rejoiced and to me, Kourosh (Cyrus), the king who worshiped him, and to Camboujiyah (Cambyases), my son, the offspring of (my) loins, and to all my troops he graciously gave his blessing, and in good spirit before him we glorified exceedingly his high divinity. All the kings who sat in throne rooms, throughout the four quarters, from the Upper to the Lower Sea, those who dwelt in ..................., all the kings of the West Country, who dwelt in tents, brought me their heavy tribute and kissed my feet in Babylon. From ... to the cities of Ashur, Susa, Agade and Eshnuna, the cities of Zamban, Meurnu, Der as far as the region of the land of Gutium, the holy cities beyond the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been in ruins over a long period, the gods whose abode is in the midst of them, I returned to their places and housed them in lasting abodes. I gathered together all their inhabitations and restored (to them) their dwellings. The gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabounids had, to the anger of the lord of the gods, brought into Babylon. I, at the bidding of Marduk, the great lord, made to dwell in peace in their habitations, delightful abodes. May all the gods whom I have placed within their sanctuaries address a daily prayer in my favour before Bel and Nabu, that my days may be long, and may they say to Marduk my lord, "May Kourosh (Cyrus) the King, who reveres thee, and Camboujiyah (Cambyases) his son ..."

. . .

Now that I put the crown of kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of (Ahura) Mazda, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them until I am alive. From now on, till (Ahura) Mazda grants me the kingdom favor, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign. Until I am the king of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions, I never let anyone oppress any others, and if it occurs , I will take his or her right back and penalize the oppressor. And until I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. Until I am alive, I prevent unpaid, forced labor. To day, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights. No one could be penalized for his or her relatives' faults. I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over. I implore to (Ahura) Mazda to make me succeed in fulfilling my obligations to the nations of Iran (Persia), Babylon, and the ones of the four directions.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Quote from Foodopoly: The Battle over the Future of Food by Wenonah Hauter

Chapter 1 Get those Boys off the Farm (first few pages)

Although most consumers-eaters-view food first and foremost as the sustenance necessary for life, Big Business thinks of our kitchens and stomach as profit centers. The unwavering determination by the leaders of a handful of powerful multinational corporations to concentrate ownership and control of the food production and delivery systems has created unprecedented consolidation down the entire food chain. Food and agricultural products have been reduced to a form of currency on income statements that cause a rise or fall of quarterly profits. The worth of these products is measured on the return on investment, or as an opportunity for mergers or acquisitions, that drive the strategy of the parent company. Their value is described in a Wall Street-speak of deals, synergies, diversification, and "blockbluster game changers."

Even hedge funds, those poorly regulated firms that played a role in causing the recent financial crises, have become some of the largest investors in food companies, farmland, and agricultural products. These firms invest the money of high-wealth individuals and institutions into broad segments of the economy-including food and agriculture. They have speculated in food commodity markets (contributing to price spikes in corn and soybeans) and bought restaurant chains (Dunkin Donuts), and are buying up farmland in the United States and developing world. A private investment company even owns Niman Ranch, the firm that pioneered producing pork more sustainably.

Hedge funds have been big propoenents of grabbing land--they have bought farmland worldwide--to capitalize on expectations of profitability from the catastrophic impacts of climate change on agriculture. The dramatic increase in the price of land in the U.S. Midwest over the past few years has led the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City to warn about the crash that could result from a farmland bubble. The U.S. Senate's Agriculture Committee Warns that "distortions in financial markets" will catch the country by surprise again.

This financialization of food and farming has wreaked havoc on the natural world. The long list of consequences of industrialized agriculture includes the polluting of lakes, rivers, streams and marine ecosystems with agrochemicals, excess fertilizer, and animal waste. Nutrient runoff (nitrogen and phosphorus) from row crops and animal factory farms, on of the foremost causes of the conditions that starve waterways and the ocean of oxygen, is creating massive dead areas of the ocean, such as one at the mouth of the Mississippi River the size of the state of New Jersey. Planting and irrigating row crops has caused serious erosion, as irrigation and rainwater was the topsoil away at the rate of 1.3 billion tons per year. And as soil scientists are fond of saying, "No soil, no life."

The relentless drive for profit by agribusiness has had long-lasting and negative effects on all aspects of society. Public health has been sacrificed on a diet of heavily advertised processed foods that are high in calories and low in nutrients, resulting in consumers who are overweight and poorly nourished. Obesity affects 35 percent of adults and 17 percent of children in the U.S., and causes a range of health problems from heart disease to diabetes. And while many Americans are overfed and dieting, one is six Americans frequently goes hungry.

No segment of society has been more affected by agribusiness and its allies in government over the past sixty years than farmers. After World War II, farmers became the target of subtle but ruthless policies aimed at reducing their numbers, thereby creating a large and cheap labor pool. In more recent times, federal policy has been focused on reducing the number of farms as labor has been replaced by capital and technology. . . . (shows numbers)

The struggle to eke out a living has intensified each decade since 1950, because farmers have been locked into a system of low crop prices, borrowed capital, large debt, high land prices, and a weak safety net. Unchecked corporate mergers and acquisitions have increased the economic pressure, since fewer farms are competing to sell the seeds, equipment, and supplies that farmers use everyday. At the same time they have fewer choices where to sell their products. A handful of agribusiness and food industry multinational corporations stand between the farmers who produce the food and the more than 300 million people who consume it in the United States.

Consolidation at the top of the food chain has affected every segment below, including farming. Large-scale industrial operations comprising only 12 percent of U.S. farms make up 88 percent of the value of farm production. Family farming stands on the edge of extinction; most small and medium sized farms are dependent on off-farm income for survival.

The loss of farms has caused a rural bloodletting, leaving rural towns and countries forlorn . . . .

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Economic Insights from 97% Owned Documentary

Below are quotes mined out of the documentary called 97% Owned.

 I don't agree with their proposed solutions.  To be honest I don't think there are any solutions to our current economic problems. These sort of problems are radical and systemic.  And they have to do with values as well as goals of each and every person, all of which are different. If economy literally means household management and Earth with all its organic and inorganic objects is our home and we depend on them, this should give us some insight as to how we should conduct our economic affairs.

Anyway, I think these are useful quotes to get oneself acquainted with the current economic system in the West.  The current system is a mighty fine example of how the future generations should not think and live:

It's basically an accounting trick . . . Banks create money. They don't lend it . . . when a bank gives out what is called a loan, it basically pretends that you have deposited the money . . . it has to invent the liability . . . this is how money supply is created. (Professor Richard Werner) 
. . . by far the largest role in creating money is played by the banking sector . . . When banks make loans they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed the money. (Paul Tucker-Deputy Governor of the Bank of England) 
money is the center of economy . . . if you don't understand where it comes from and who creates it . . . and when it gets created then how could you understand the entire economy? 
When the vast majority of money that we use now is not cash but electronic money, then whoever is creating the electronic money is getting the proceeds of creating that money. and obviously creating electronic money is much more profitable than creating cash, because you don't have any production cost at all. So while we've got 18 billion over the course of the decade from creating cash, the banks have actually created 1.2 trillion pounds. 
Banks create money whenever they extend credit, buy existing assets, or make payments on their own account, which mostly involves expanding their assets. When a bank buys securities such as a Corporate or Government bond it adds the bond to its assets and increases the company's bank deposits by the corresponding amount. New commercial bank money enters circulation when people spend credit that has been granted to them by the banks 
The issue with banks creating money. . . the two main issues. First the fact that create this money when they make loans. So it guarantees that we have to borrow all our money from the banks. . . . The reason that everyone is in debt now is not because we have been recklessly borrowing. We haven't borrowed all this money from an army of pensioners who have been saving up all their lives. Money in the current system is debt, is created only when banks make loans. So the only way, in the current system, the only way that we can have money for economy, for business and trade is if we borrowed it from all the banks. The second big problem with bank creating money is that they always have the incentive to create more. They create more money if they issue a loan, they get the bonuses, and the commissions and the incentives to lend as much as possible. 
One of the reasons we find it difficult to understand the banking system and credit creation . . . We leave school without any money, and we go and get a job working as an apprentice to a plumber. We work really hard all month, and at the end of the month somebody puts money into our bank. And so for us the logic is you work, and then you get money and savings. In reality you would have never got that job if credit hadn't been created in the first instance. Its a really important conceptual misunderstanding. 
Money doesn't come out of economic activity. A lot of people I've met kind of assume if you've got people, if you've got businesses, you got people doing things, that somehow money emerges out of the process of people doing things, and making things, and growing things, selling things, producing things . . . it emerges, and its not, you have to put it in. 
You know its a paradox under the current system. If we the public go into further debt that is going to put more money into the economy, and we are going to have a boom. And when you have a boom, it is easier to borrow, and so people get into more debt. And eventually this cycle continues. It gets easier and easier to get into debt until some people get over-indebted and they default, they can't repay their mortgage. That's what happens . . . and it brings a wave of defaults which ripple across the entire economy. Banks go insolvent, then we are into financial crises, And then the banks stop lending, and they were excessively lending in the boom, and they stopped lending and that makes the recession even worse. People lose their jobs and then they become even more dependent on debt just to survive basically. You know we have a system where we have to borrow in order to have an economy. We have to be in debt to the banks. And that guarantees massive profit for the banks

Friday, September 25, 2015

Joel Salatin Quote on Redemptive Farming

This is admirable quote from Joel and he backs up his words with action on Polyface Farm:
Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian ethic as articulated in Biblical writings has been wrested by many on the religious right into almost a militaristic, manipulative dominion mandate. With humankind at the pinnacle and virtually free - even encouraged - to change whatever can be changed, this view pay short shrift to the overriding theme of ancient scripture, which is one of loving stewardship, respect toward established creation patterns, and ultimate regeneration and redemption.

That the earth is not perfect is quite apparent. But when God created, He pronounced it all good and placed Adam and Eve in a garden of communion and choice. After the fall - sin - the earth changed. After the flood of Noah, recorded in Genesis chapter 6, it changed even more. What the radical environmentalists don't understand is that in this changed state, every volcano, earthquake, flood, fire, tsunami, has not left the earth in its best condition. While the earth as created is resilient indeed, it is far from being as efficient at soil building and solar conversion into decomposable biomass as it could with some informed human participation.

While it is true that the story of human civilization generally maps a rape and pillage course, desertification and destruction are not inherent in the human-earth relationship. Why have humans been endowed with such a large brain and opposing thumbs? Is it to be the most efficient rapist and pillager of our ecological womb? Or could it just be that a benevolent, though holy, Creator has placed us here to caress, massage, and heal a creation reeling under post-Edenic fallen conditions?

I suggest that building redemption into the earth is our Judeo-Christian mandate. That means we study creation patterns and templates and we adhere to a healing and forgiving model. As farmers, then, we should be hydrating the land rather than depleting aquifers and rivers. We should be enhancing genetics rather than making them more fragile through routine vaccination and pharmaceuticals. We should be capturing and leveraging carbon rather than using it up and throwing it away. We should be building soil rather than destroying it. We should build complex relational symbiosis rather than mono-speciated outside-dependent systems.

Farming should nest gently into the landscape rather than dominating it. We should use less energy rather than more energy and food systems should be net producers of energy rather than net extractors. Our farmscapes should become aesthetically and aromatically sensually romantic places, where kindergarteners love to visit and play. They should welcome people of all ages rather than hide behind "No Trespassing" signs and hazardous materials suits. If the earth is anything, it's a loving partner, not a subdued enemy. Ultimately, the physical creation is a visceral object lesson of divine and spiritual truth. That means we want farms that illustrate forgiveness, beauty, relationships, and vigor.
--- Joel Salatin, from interview by Karen Pendergrass Fri, 18 Oct 2013

Economic, Agrarian and Ecosystem Brainstorms for Post-Empire

It is sometimes said that the family is the building block of society, but what could we imagine is the building block to a healthy economy???  In theory, maybe the family farm unit.  And what better way to decentralize than to establish as many family farms as possible across a landmass?  I can't think of any other fruitful way to fight against monopolization.  And I think governments, corporations, and banks understand this better than anyone.  It is so difficult for a small family farm to make it.  The former understands that if people have land, capital, a regenerative means to support themselves, one cannot control them let alone profit off of them.  A multitude of family farm units balances power.

In an ideal agrarian world, if one decided not to farm (which is perfectly legit) one still has to keep close ties with a family farmer. One has to relate to the farmer.  They would be the ones who feed you and it is only natural that you would want them to thrive and produce healthy food so that you could stay sane and accomplish your work in whatever field you choose.  Or if a group wants to establish a city, that city should take responsibility and establish as well as sustain its own farm in a regenerative manner.    

In an ideal world I think there would be as many family owned farms as possible.  A host of small farmscapes, all carefully planned out over generations with sparkling rustic local life.  A rustic culture.  One that would be rich as in the past, but perhaps taking on new and thrilling directions never imagined.  A rustic culture has great value.  Just think of all the melodies famous classical composer drew from the so called peasants.  But these family farm units would have freedom to operate without regulation or tax.  If they want to pledge to a king for protection or some other purpose, they could, but these trusts would only be temporary, not to mention fair.  Children should not have to be born into political systems that when coming of age they are forced to participate in.  They are their own kings. And there are many. They would have enlightened concepts, decent technology, etc. With modern advances and enlightened ideas like those found in permaculture design and holistic management . . . farming doesn't have to be such drudgery like it may have been in the past.  It is still hard work; takes dedication, patience and brilliance.  But perhaps this is not the sort of slavery one finds in the modern post-industrial workplace.  Furthermore, enlightened techniques could help the planet (as well as humans) heal. 

I also imagine (in this ideal world) that well established farmers, who have nothing to lose and value the health of society would help younger people get started.  I mean one can only have so many plants, timber and animals on a relatively small plot of land. Overdensity induces infertility and isn't good for all involved.  Its good to get animals, a polyculture of plants, not to mention people spread out.  It would make sense in the long run to donate some animals to those who could use them to establish themselves, and also freely exchange ideas, take on the young as farming apprentices, and so on.  It would be imperative that young couples who want to establish a farm be honored and equipped with the necessary skills, some land, a few animals, seeds, tools, and so on. A wise man would see value in this not necessarily for himself but for posterity.  The community would take a vested interest because it is no small secret that civilization is based on farming and maintenance of ecosystems.  I would like to think that a wise society would place inestimable value in Earth, soil, air, water, and food.

And this brings me to my next idea.  Some families could assume the role of ecosystem stewards in a land plot which they are allotted and to keep in the family or bequeath to whoever they see fit. Instead of focusing more on farming these resident stewards could take charge of an acreage in order to ensure that it is functioning optimally in connection with its ecosystem and the entire Earth. Perhaps they would own a few animals for sustenance, or even hunt to help control population, however the community would see the value of their work and donate to them what they need or they be provided with some credit or means of exchange without interest. This way they could buy necessities and live in frugal comfort.  They could even build tree-houses or live in the sides of mountains if they want because there wouldn't be any bureaucracy.  This is sort of in line with the economic Insights of John D. Liu found in his What If We Change Documentaries.  And they would be endowed with the necessary skills and tools to manage an ecosystem.  

Of course greed is out of the picture in this ideal conception.     

A host of viable and vibrant family farm units as well as family ecosystem maintainers balances power in society.  Does this make sense?  I think so.  Natural farm products and Mother Earth itself serves as the fundamental basis of economy with technologies and other services proceeding from these.  Is this more or less reasonable?  Maybe in a wise world.  My purpose is that I'm starting to look beyond the U.S. empire.  The empire will eventually die.  If anyone thinks that we are just going to keep on our merry way cheating Mother Nature and each other, then well perhaps this isn't for you.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

"The less we ask of Caesar . . . "

“The less we ask of Caesar, the less we will have to render to Caesar.”

--- Saint Hilary of Poitiers. A Frenchie saint from 4th century.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Pope St. John XXIII On the Structure of the Farm Unit

In his encyclical, Pope John XXIII understands and promotes the importance of family farms not "mega-farms" or literally hellish factory farms.  If only he could have seen the elegance and success of the small permaculture homesteads, their ethics and other smaller enterprises using wise techniques such as holistic management.

From Mater et Magistra:

The Structure of the Farm Unit

142. It is not possible to determine a priori what the structure of farm life should be, since rural conditions vary so much from place to place and from country to country throughout the world. But if we hold to a human and Christian concept of man and the family, we are bound to consider as an ideal that form of enterprise which is modelled on the basis of a community of persons working together for the advancement of their mutual interests in accordance with the principles of justice and Christian teaching. We are bound above all to consider as an ideal the kind of farm which is owned and managed by the family. Every effort must be made in the prevailing circumstances to give effective encouragement to farming enterprises of this nature.

143. But if the family farm is not to go bankrupt it must make enough money to keep the family in reasonable comfort. To ensure this, farmers must be given up-to-date instruction on the latest methods of cultivation, and the assistance of experts must be put at their disposal. They should also form a flourishing system of cooperative undertakings, and organize themselves professionally to take an effective part in public life, both on the administrative and the political level.
The Self-Advancement of the Farming Community

144. We are convinced that the farming community must take an active part in its own economic advancement, social progress and cultural betterment. Those who live on the land can hardly fail to appreciate the nobility of the work they are called upon to do. They are living in close harmony with Nature—the majestic temple of Creation. Their work has to do with the life of plants and animals, a life that is inexhaustible in its expression, inflexible in its laws, rich in allusions to God the Creator and Provider. They produce food for the support of human life, and the raw materials of industry in ever richer supply.
Vocation and Mission

149. In the work on the farm the human personality finds every incentive for self-expression, self-development and spiritual growth. It is a work, therefore, which should be thought of as a vocation, a God-given mission, an answer to God's call to actuate His providential, saving plan in history. It should be thought of, finally, as a noble task, undertaken with a view to raising oneself and others to a higher degree of civilization.

Quote of the Day On Subsidiary

…it is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. So, too, it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies. Inasmuch as every social activity should, by its very nature, prove a help to members of the body social, it should never destroy or absorb them (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, §79).

Practical Distributism: Distributism or Capitalism: Two Ways to Work - Par...

Practical Distributism: Distributism or Capitalism: Two Ways to Work - Par...: by Thomas Storck When human beings engage in economic activity they engage with other people. Even a gardener cultivating his own sma...

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Quote of the Day On the Conundrum of 'Regulatory' Institutions

"Regulatory" institutions provide a bit of a conundrum.

Instead of having competing quality and certification businesses selling their services to producers so they can market their products faster we have one, centralized, monopolistic institution that has little or no competition. Whereas in the former scenario things like bribery or conflicts of interest (a revolving door between top echelon members of certifiers/producers) would instantly destroy the reputation and bankrupt the certifying company, in the latter you've virtually guaranteed rampant bribery, a revolving door, and an institution that is not really concerned about reputation because it has no competition.

In other words, ironically, this attempt to "regulate industry" has actually led to massive de-regulation of industry. Only the market and competition can regulate quality. Instead now you have an institution that empowers large corporations by helping to push through the legislation they want to cripple their competition and by giving them endless special exemptions.

In short, the FDA acts to remove normal market liabilities from major corporations thereby allowing them to do basically whatever they want. As an added bonus you have people trained to blindly believe FDA recommendations so instead of thinking for themselves they have placed their trust in an organization that has no interest in their health or safety and every interest in ignoring it at the behest of those corporations that we were all supposed to be protected from.

That's why I laugh when "democratic socialists" scream about big corporations and call for big government to regulate them. They're clearly thinking in very abstract terms which are completely divorced from practical reality.

---David Robinson

Interview with the lunatic farmer Joel Salatin -- Health & Wellness --

Salatin is not only a genius accomplished farmer, he is one of the greatest living Americans.  See his virtuoso insights in this interview:

Interview with the lunatic farmer Joel Salatin -- Health & Wellness --

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Excellent, Perfect, Virtuous Advice of Pope Francis to Theologians

Taken from his video message to Second International Congress of Theology, September 3rd 2015:

“The anniversary of the Faculty of Theology celebrates the coming to maturity of a particular Church. It celebrates life, history, the faith of the People of God journeying on earth and in search of 'understanding' and 'truth' from their own positions. … It seems to me of great importance to link this event with the 50th anniversary of the Closing of Vatican Council II. There exists no isolated particular Church that can be said to be the owner and sole interpreter of the reality and the work of the Spirit. No community has a monopoly over interpretation or inculturation just as, on the other hand, there is no universal Church that turns away from, ignores or neglects the local situation”.

“And this leads us to assume that it is not the same to be a Christian … in India, in Canada, or in Rome. Therefore, one of the main tasks of the theologian is to discern and to reflect on what it means to be a Christian today, in the 'here and now'. How does that original source manage to irrigate these lands today, and to make itself visible and liveable? … To meet this challenge, we must overcome two possible temptations: first, condemning everything: … assuming 'everything was better in the past', seeking refuge in conservatism or fundamentalism, or conversely, consecrating everything, disavowing everything that does not have a 'new flavour', relativising all the wisdom accumulated in our rich ecclesial heritage. The path to overcoming these temptations lies in reflection, discernment, and taking both the ecclesiastical tradition and current reality very seriously, placing them in dialogue with one another”.

“Not infrequently an opposition between theology and pastoral ministry emerges, as if they were two opposite, separate realities that had nothing to do with each other. We not infrequently identify doctrine with conservatism and antiquity; and on the contrary, we tend to think of pastoral ministry in terms of adaptation, reduction, accommodation. As if they had nothing to do with each other. A false opposition is generated between theology and pastoral ministry, between Christian reflection and Christian life. … The attempt to overcome this divorce between theology and pastoral ministry, between faith and life, was indeed one of the main contributions of Vatican Council II”.

“I cannot overlook the words of John XXIII in the Council's opening discourse, when he said 'The substance of the ancient doctrine of the depositum fidei is one thing; and the way in which it is presented is another'. We must turn again ... to the arduous task of distinguishing the living message from the form of its transmission, from the cultural elements in which it is codified at a given time”.

“Do not allow the exercise of discernment to lead to a betrayal of the content of the message. The lack of this theological exercise detrimental to the mission we are invited to perform. Doctrine is not a closed, private system deprived of dynamics able to raise questions and doubts. On the contrary, Christian doctrine has a face, a body, flesh; He is called Jesus Christ and it is His Life that is offered from generation to generation to all men and in all places”.

The questions our people pose, their anguish, their quarrels, their dreams, their struggles, their concerns all have hermeneutical value we cannot ignore if we are to take seriously the principal of incarnation. … Our formulations of faith were born of dialogue, encounter, comparison and contact with different cultures, communities and nations in situations calling for greater reflection on matters not previously clarified. For Christians, something becomes suspicious when we no longer admit the need for it to be criticized by others. People and their specific conflicts, their peripheries, are not optional, but rather necessary for a better understanding of faith. Therefore it is important to ask whom we are thinking of when we engage in theology. Let us not forget that the Holy Spirit in a praying people is the subject of theology. A theology that is not born of this would offer something beautiful but not real”.

“In this regard, I would like to explain three features of the identity of the theologian:

1. The theologian is primarily a son of his people. He cannot and does not wish to ignore them. He knows his people, their language, their roots, their histories, their tradition. He is a man who learns to appreciate what he has received as a sign of God's presence because he knows that faith does not belong to him. This leads him to recognize that the Christian people among whom he was born have a theological sense that he cannot ignore.

2. The theologian is a believer. The theologian is someone who has experience of Jesus Christ and has discovered he cannot live without Him. ... The theologian knows that he cannot live without the object / subject of his love, and devotes his life to sharing this with his brothers.

3. The theologian is a prophet. One of the greatest challenges in today's world is not merely the ease with which it is possible to dispense with God; socially it has taken a step further. The current crisis pivots on the inability of people to believe in anything beyond themselves. ... This creates a rift in personal and social identities. This new situation gives rise to a process of alienation, owing to a lack of past and therefore of future. The theologian is thus a prophet, as he keeps alive an awareness of the past and the invitation that comes from the future. He is a able to denounce any alienating form as he intuits, reflecting on the river of Tradition he has received from the Church, the hope to which we are called”.

“Therefore, there is only one way of practicing theology: on one's knees. It is not merely the pious act of prayer before then thinking of theology. It is a dynamic reality of thought and prayer. Practicing theology on one's knees means encouraging thought when praying and prayer when thinking”.