Drug-Funded Capitalism?

Let us be crystal clear what a slump or depression is in this Capitalist World. It isn’t due to the policies of a particular government, but entirely due to the very nature of the Capitalist Economic System itself.

For, the basis of this economic system is the borrowing of Capital (that is Money) to initially finance new start-ups, but mostly to finance vital changes to the current state of companies to safeguard or improve their profitability in competition with their competitors. And, the people with that required Capital, also have their own agenda: they invest it to get annual dividends from the companies’ profits, or even make instant killings by selling the shares they own of a succeeding company.

But clearly, this presupposes two essential things.

First, there must be in existence sufficient well-heeled investors able and willing to supply the necessary Capital.

And second, there must be sufficient confidence that the investments involved will be capable of being paid back, along with a tidy stream of ample dividends throughout the duration of that loan.

Now, of course the very existence of the Capitalist System would only be possible if there existed sufficient wealthy individuals with the wherewithall to invest. And, that was true even before there were any capitalist enterprises to supply such amounts.

So, the original source of Capital was not yet available from within the system!

Historically, its amassing always had to involve some kind of large scale theft. War and booty was one source, but it meant that the financers were military rulers or monarchs, using the proceeds of their victorious wars.

Though, England’s route was originally by the taking over of Church properties by Henry VIII, and later by the financing of Privateers (Pirates) by monarchs like Elizabeth I. Licences were given to these Pirates to attack and capture vessels bringing the Spanish Monarchs’ booty back from South America.

Such sources were able to pump-prime the new system, which at that stage was mainly to do with trade and plantations in new colonies.

In addition, the rewarding of monarch’s supporters by selling ex monasteries to them at cut down rates, enabled a new Middle Class to appear and grow, rapidly becoming the main source of Capital for the new economic system.

So, capitalism could only work if such wealth reserves of the very rich were available for investment.

Now, that original means of delivering an incessant supply of such wealth could not be counted on forever, so a regular problem for Capitalism, during its regular and unavoidable collapses due to lack of Capital or even lack of confidence, had to be to find new sources of this essential component of a continuing Capitalist Economy.

For the system constantly requires new sources of Capital.

The most common one was the promise of vast gains from new as yet untapped resources, and an early example was what could be obtained easily islands in the Pacific Ocean – the so-called South Sea Bubble. But, such highly merited policies never survived for long, and Capitalism becomes a repeating cycle of booms and slumps, though always needing to find new promises of “inexhaustible wealth” to provide its essential life blood – Capital.

Now, a History of Capitalism would list all these boom-creators, as well as their following slumps when each was exhausted of its potential.

And, the lesson of the current 2008 slump has to be, “ Who had to be found prior to that collapse to fund Capitalism in the following stage?”

Surprisingly, the decision was to lend money in the form of mortgages to the very poor.

Yes, that is correct – they turned to those who would inevitably default on their payments at the first difficulty.

This started in the USA, where it was considered to be a guaranteed winner! And, the reason for this optimism was that the mortgage holders would, ultimately, fail to pay, and the properties would revert back to those who had lent the money. And, the lenders could then sell the property to some other poor family, by getting them their required mortgage.

Clearly, with each property being constantly returned to the lenders and resold, along with some repayments from each short term “owner”, the investment would quickly amass a great deal of income, while at the end of a long process they would end up owning the property once again.

And, the idea was agreed by all bankers and financiers to be a total winner. Everyone involved on their side was so convinced that they parcelled up large numbers of these situations into what they called certain winners, and sold them to Banks and investors worldwide (making an extra profit in that transaction too).

It should have been a new and lucrative “bubble”, except that as soon as it became clear what the intentions of the mortgage lenders were, the local communities took it on themselves to completely trash the properties after yet another poor incumbent had been kicked out.

So, instead of decades of profit, the lenders ended up losing both the properties and their means of getting continuous profits from them.

The losses went through the roof, not only in the USA, but also worldwide, for those who had bought into this “wonderful opportunity” to milk the poor.

After a very short time, and along with the vast sizes of outstanding loans all over the world by normal capitalist endeavours, the World Slump began!

But also, the poor could not be the place for the next necessary boom.

Where on earth could it come from?

Both present day Mexico, and the USA’s own history with the Mafia and De Lorean, is showing the way.

Investors, there, are choosing illegal drug cartels as the best places for their investments, and the result is that the whole country, including the government is descending into a culture based upon Drug Profits.

It is my contention that the next boom will be based upon Drugs.

What do you think?

Energy Retention within Atomic Electron Orbits

One question that hasn’t yet been adequately addressed in our developing Alternative Theory of the Atom, is just how essential is its inclusion of a Universal Substrate, which could not only easily absorb energy from an orbiting electron within the atom, but also, somehow, return it all, in full, to steadfastly maintain that orbit entirely undiminished. It is, indeed, an unavoidable question! For, the whole theory rests upon just how easily such a substrate absorbs and then propagates such energy.

So, within the atom, there is seemingly a damaging contradiction, which, if it isn’t adequately explained away, will most certainly torpedo the entire Theory.

Indeed, any prior suggestion of such a substrate, in the prior history of science, was always finally dismissed, not only because it was never detected, but also because its absence seemed essential to guarantee the stability of the atom (among other similar arguments).

The intermediary for both holding and paying back any lost energy (in our new theory) was assumed to be a whole series of caused vortices, created within this substrate actually inside the atom. For, though such features, as seem unavoidable and yet essential in those circumstances, would at the same time appear to be impossible in straightforward linear sequences of movements within an unbounded substrate, the special case, within the atom, was considered to be significantly different.

And, to confirm this exception, the brilliant Experiments by Yves Couder et al with silicone oil and vibrations alone - delivering his celebrated “Walkers”, seemed to confirm that such maintaining phenomena were, indeed, possible, given the necessary conditions. The persisting stability of Couder’s Walkers seemed to be achieved by interacting vibrations that via both resonances and recursion produced the seemingly inexplicable and resolutely stable Walkers. And, as Couder also delivered “quantized orbits” of these Walkers at the macro level, the implications, of these discoveries, for the micro level clearly demanded to be addressed too.

Quantised orbits performed by "walkers"

NOTE: It also must be mentioned here that the assumption of a Universal Substrate (and its detailed definition) devised by the author of this paper, has already fully explained all the anomalies of the Double Slit Experiments, without any recourse, whatsoever, to Copenhagen, as well as full explanations of Electromagnetic Propagation, and even both Pair Production and Pair Annihilation too.

And, all these were made possible by the assumption and description of an undetectable, but real, substrate of particles.

The key question, of course, had to be about what precise kind of energy would be involved in these “within-atom” transactions. For, the units of the proposed substrate, could both hold and pass on energy to and from their atom’s internal orbits, but could also be moved bodily, thus involving Kinetic Energy as an alternative.

Clearly, if the units of the substrate are to be disturbed from a relatively static arrangement via shearing/contact effects caused by a moving particle (the orbiting electron), then, it would seem most likely that Kinetic Energy from the orbiting electron would be transferred to become Kinetic Energy of substrate units in the usual vortex forms.

Now, if this is correct, the integrity of the orbit will be breached, and, the only way that such lost energy could escape, permanently, from the atom, would be if the caused vortices gave up their acquired Kinetic Energy to either similar translational movements or even vortex-like movements to other sets of substrate units.

Now, with vortices occurring in the usual way, in a liquid like water, for example, that is the only transfer that can happen and such spin-off systems of vortices carry such gained-energy away, and these then ultimately dissociate as vortex-forms and become mere disturbances of the molecules of the liquid involved.

Cymatic vortices

But, here we are considering a very different substrate, which is not at all like molecular water.

The units are very much smaller than molecules or even individual atoms. And, as they don’t move about to any extent but more or less remain where they are, the means of energy transfer away from the cause is not available by mere translational movements.

So. Let us attempt to determine what could be possible in this special case.

First we can take another well known situation, where, say, an electron is moving through a substrate in a straight line, there can be no doubt that because of that movement the caused disturbances, including what energy they have absorbed from the electron, will be left behind and lost to that electron forever. Ultimately that energy would be dissipated through the substrate and be unrecoverable as a whole.

But, within the atom the situation is certain to be very different, for the causing electron is maintained within the atom and constantly returns to re-encounter the vortices it caused earlier, and will do this repeatedly, and at a whole array of vortices all around the orbit. And, on such re-encounters of the electron and such a vortices, there would be the possibility of both transfers back, as well as further transfers out between vortices and the orbiting electron.

Now, though this is indisputable, it doesn’t mean that all the lost energy will be return. So, most scientists would still not accept the maintenance of the orbit by such means.

Until, that is Yves Couder’s Walker experiments achieved the impossible via Resonances and Recursion and established Fixed, Quantised Orbits of his Walkers. Clearly, these effects PLUS energy taken in from the substrate generally was, somehow, able to establish and maintain those orbits.

Indeed, elsewhere in other studies, it has been established, by this theorist, that such a Universal Substrate is certain to constantly act as both Sump for waste energy, and Source for energy when demanded by such processes as Resonance.

Now, exactly how, and by what modes of energy retention, the substrate units acted in this case, isn’t yet absolutely clear, but it is obvious that a significant recursive pay back or even a resonant external topping up could indeed occur.

For more information on this theory please read The Atom & The Substrate on Shape Journal.

Where Should and Where Does Real Power Reside?

Michael Coldwell - Westminister (2011)

Democracy is always claimed to deliver effective rule both for and by the people. But, that, of course, such is never the actual case.

It gives the appearance of key decisions being made by the mechanism of elections, yet, if none of the allowed candidates are intending to perform a dedicated service to the people, what then is such an election actually about?

And, what else will determine the positions of elected candidates? Will any at all reflect the real requirements of the majority of the population?

Or, will they all be members of various powerful groups, aiming for state-power to act in favour of their own decided positions? Indeed, will they merely carry out what they (as privileged groups) think is best for their own interests?

Clearly, no ordinary citizen could have anything like the same rights and privileges as the members of these groups.

For, he or she couldn’t just decide to stand, and be accepted as a candidate. The whole process is so big, and completely separated from ordinary people, that to join the election as a candidate would be both too difficult and too expensive, and would confer NO rights or resources to propagate your position to the electorate via the media.

Only those with enough wealth and power can get such privileges.

And, as even Local Authorities now are increasingly forced by financial constraints to dance to the instructions from Central Government, no real independent local route to political activity and publicity exists.

Let us be clear, no matter what interest groups form and agitate for particular policies, they have absolutely no power to do anything about it.

There were such groups, not so long ago, that could, indeed, do so: they were called Trades Unions, and they could en masse withdraw their labour to affect decisions, with regard to their members rights, conditions and remuneration. But, increasingly, in the decades since Margaret Thatcher, the Unions have been rapidly emasculated in pursuing that sole, powerful right of Working People, the Strike!

Now, it gets more and more difficult as the governments pass laws against such rights.

Yet, many years ago in a large European country, the people were in revolt against a World War and dictatorial central power, and they invented their own answer. Wherever they lived, and whatever their job, and even where they lived, they began to form Councils, or as they termed them in their own language – Soviets.

These were never allocated from on high and handed down – ready-made by those above. On the contrary, they were totally devised from below, and differed markedly, depending upon circumstances.

But, everyone was allowed to speak, and decisions were made by simple majority votes. Anyone elected within the Council to do particular jobs, were both elected to do it, and also mandated to carry out actions on a whole series of issues, and trusted to act, as the electors would desire, if other issues arose.

Yet, any mounting disagreement with what such an appointee was doing, would allow instant recall, and an elected replacement by another allowed, if a set threshold were surpassed by those against the actions of the erring incumbent. There was never a carte blanche to such people: they had to act in the interests of the majority of their electors.

Now, this isn’t what Stalin did, later on, in Russia! For he decided from the top-down what Soviets were and what they could and couldn't do. But, what the people had done in their own Soviets, whether they were workers or soldiers or peasants, was designed to always reflect their demands.

A Key Event occurred in 1917, for, by the usual top-down methods, those in charge had organised a statewide Constituent Assembly (a Parliament), at exactly the same time as the people were gathering in their own countrywide Congress of Soviets. Both claimed sovereignty and were sitting simultaneously.

Who would actually win power?

The Bolsheviks had attained leadership of the congress of Soviets, and simultaneously stormed the Winter Palace where the government were sitting, and immediately arrested the whole Provisional Government. At the Congress of Soviets, Lenin stepped onto the rostrum and stated, quite calmly, “We shall now construct the Socialist Order!”

We're on Facebook

Selling books and joining Facebook whatever next... Don't worry we're not selling out to the man! Hopefully we'll reach out to some new people and get some interesting discussions going on our new Facebook page Shape Forum.

The Atom and the Substrate (book for sale!)

A limited edition, high quality print version of my Atom and Substrate work is now available to buy through Blurb books.

What if space isn't really empty? What if the entire universe is actually full of many different types of particles that we can't detect, even inside the atom itself? Jim Schofield's controversial new theory postulates that such a substrate exists and that its presence can explain the propagation of light through space, magnetism and even gravity. This publication is a print-to-order edition of the Shape Journal, compiling Special Issues 36 & 37 in one book.

The Atom and the Substrate by Jim Schofield | Make Your Own Book

Buy the book

The Significance of a Substrate (...and more generally of a context)

David Moore - Light pattern, camera in motion (1948)

We always, as a first approximation, ignore the effects of any underlying substrate, particularly when dealing with dynamical situations of clearly existent and visible entities “moving through space”.

Yet, this is, actually, an absolutely necessary assumption, as, without any real understanding of such an all-pervading context, we just have to simplify to even begin the attempt to understand. And the theories and models that we do manage to develop, in this way, can indeed suffice in many situations, while forming a relatively sound basis for further improvements too.

But, also, as our own abilities and consequent requirements develop, we must, inevitably, start to include more developed concepts of the evident substrate in our models and theories, when our initial efforts clearly fail to deliver.

The omission of substrates certainly simplifies the relations we can find and extract, but we must never forget that in employing such methods we are also both simplifying and idealising the real situation which we are trying to understand, by considering only both the most obvious, and the easiest-to-deal-with aspects of a much more complex situation.

NOTE: before we go any further, it must be emphasized that ignoring the possible presence of a substrate, severely distorts the way we deal with certain important phenomena.

The Propagation of Electromagnetic Energy though Space, the idea of Action-at-a-Distance, and a whole further set of phenomena, such as Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations, all make no sense at all without the presence of some sort of universal substrate. And, theorists simply abandon the attempt to understand, and are instead satisfied with a useable description only – indeed, they replace all causative explanations by purely mathematical descriptions – namely Equations.

No initial efforts, applied to entities moving through the air, for example, have to include the effects of that substrate (as friction for example), and they are never included, initially. Using only a dynamical model, and then making adjustments, based upon results, will take us a long way to our objective, without involving the effects of the substrate.

But, if and when, an actual substrate is, itself, affected by the passage of such a moving body, and then reacts back upon that moving body (or another one closely following behind) then the consequent vortices and the recursive feedback cannot be ignored, and our conceptions, theories and models have to be developed upon a very different level.

So, our first inclusion of substrate effects will undoubtedly be a negative/frictional addition.

But, further studies also show that created vortices can significantly aid by enhancing the speed of following bodies, which is clearly a positive additional effect upon that movement.

What is also slowly becoming clear is, at yet another higher level, where energy caused by the motion of a body (particularly an oscillation) can be communicated via a substrate to another quite separate body, elsewhere, and with ongoing vibrations of the source, this transference of energy to the receiving body is termed Resonance.

Berenice Abbott - The Exposure of Standing Waves 

So, considering this involvement of the substrate somewhat further, we can encounter a situation where communicating resonant energy, along with a returning recursive effect reaching back to the original causing source, and then interacting with it, will change it significantly.

Now, where such things can happen is certainly not common in everyday experiences, but they do occur. And, in investigating such an actual case, the French physicist, Yves Couder, arranged a set up consisting only of a single substance, silicone oil, to be set in motion by the falling of a single drop of the very same substance, and in carefully tuned circumstances a wholly new and stable entity, termed the Walker, was created.

Now, this was a remarkable discovery, for what was achieved was totally inexplicable by the usual means, but, clearly, both Resonance and Recursion were involved.

Though this was a highly controlled experiment, no one could call it complex: it consisted of a single substance in the form of a substrate and an incident drop, along with an applied vibration – and absolutely nothing else!

Why had it never been observed before, and what was involved in how we considered such phenomena, and, even now, somehow prevented us from being able to explain what was going on?

The answer to this latter question is clearly crucial. And, this is because, what was preventing an explanation was a rarely admitted, but universally applied principle, termed the Principle of Plurality.

It is, certainly, this Principle, which makes the driving forces of Reality to be the entirely separable and unchanging Laws of Nature, which are said to cause all observed phenomena by merely summing together without any mutual transformations ever occurring. And, let’s be clear, it is the very basis of Analysis itself, where we attempt to find all the Natural Laws involved, and then explain the phenomenon solely in terms of those Laws - as unchanging components.

But, such a stance is almost never true!

And, the alternative Principle of Holism assumes, on the contrary, that the direct opposite is always the case, indeed, “Everything always affects everything else and changes it, so that nothing is eternal!” Clearly, if this is so, our methodology, for many, many centuries, has been quite definitely pluralistic, and certainly misleading us in literally every single case to some extent, at least, and, has survived, in spite of its inadequacies, by both the simplifying and idealising all of what we find.

Indeed, as was clear from the outset of this paper, we just cannot investigate actual Reality-as-is, because it doesn’t behave in a directly explicable way. So, to make situations amenable, we subscribe to the Principle of Plurality, as the basis of all complexity, and actually achieve a local, organised and maintained situation that conforms to Plurality - and then study that. To achieve this, we isolate, filter and constrain a locality, where the phenomenon we are interested in occurs, and, it is optimised to reveal just ONE of the involved, supposedly, “separable components”, while this “ideal” situation is maintained constantly, throughout our investigations.

This idealisation works because, by trial and error, experimenters finally adjust the context until a single targeted component is acting almost alone, and so can be displayed, observed and quantified to deliver its own, idealised Natural Law. But, in then assuming that the seemingly eternal Law will, in that farmed environment, remain exactly the same in all contexts is a myth.

With such a belief, it “became possible” to display and extract all the assumed-to-be, “unchanging Laws” contributing to a given real world situation, and analyse it into its “constituent Natural Laws”.

Clearly, we never actually crack any situation in totally unfettered Reality, but instead investigate and indeed “crack” a whole series of highly transformed and maintained idealised Domains. And, this means that whatever we do find, can only ever be applied in the very same artificial conditions in which they were discovered.

Postscript:

Two new Special Issues of the SHAPE Journal are now available on this subject by the physicist and philosopher Jim Schofield. The first is entitled The Substrate, and the second The Atom.