The Machine of the Mind And Your Liberation

Ideas matter.  Everything I have tried to develop in terms of expression has come through the disciplines of thought known as argument and philosophy.  Semantics are vital.  This realization matters for everyone not just linguists.  Words are power conveyed as vessels of meaning or as vessels of distortion.  The use of words as blunts instruments of will separates the propagandist from the seeker of knowledge who allows words to flow from him or her.  Power is a vessel of knowledge that is not complete. Words are a form of power.  Knowledge cannot be defined (see my essay on the philosophy of knowledge for additional details.)  All words are imperfect vessels because knowledge must expand.  Knowledge can never be used.  It is not a category of thing and as such is not an instrument.

These sorts of nuances seem meaningless to the primitive mind, the mind of savagery that is the dominant mode of what can in the least sense be called "thinking" for the vast majority of humanity at the current time.  Crudity has a price.  Inexactness exacts a toll.  The price is not paid right away because of the nature of our world, but it is present none the less.  Everyone is amused at their own cleverness for having gotten away with sloppiness.  Except that what they were doing was noticed by intelligences greater than their own.

Power flows from the mind.  Its every ebb and current flowing over the nature of life grasping and taking in the shape and form of creation.  A master is not interested in the shallow projection of drivel that spews forth daily from the cacophony of garbage we call the media except to smell it's abominable stench.  Wretched, imperfect thought is a thing of ghastly disorder.  What sort of world do we live in with a the sludge of chaotic mindlessness that passes for intelligent conversation being daily driven into the minds of the hapless citizen who is drained of all reason and possible understanding by the vile spew that goes forth from the villainous ramblers.

Now before you, reading this, think you are above this sort of ill wrought disturbance weaving because you are a high and mighty graduate of some prestigious run of the mill Ivy League mind farm, I should warn you right now I'm of the mind to give you piece of it.  You, sir or madam, are a sloppy thinker and I can break you for fun no matter what you think you know in the realm of thought.  I've been keeping my mind humming like the proper engine of enlightened destruction that is prepared waiting for it.  Just give me a reason and I will unleash the full weight of annihilation upon your hapless pitiful excuse for mindedness and mindfulness.  Chances are you know next to nothing.

You are all a bunch of goddamn bullshitters.  I have listened to every corner of the waking nightmare called the internet and the endless whiny shitfest of ill reason for most of my life and I have simply had enough.  And if you think that is crude, and that I am being a hypocrite, well then you have no idea the proper use of well placed curse words.  I suppose you'll want to debate me on what it means to be a hypocrite!   Fat chance pointdexter!  How about you tell me what it means, and I tell what is wrong with you and your definition?  Think that's unfair?  Can't handle it?  Go back to your safe space!

If you read my wonderful essay on that matter of the philosophy of knowledge you will discover an important and often overlooked fat fact.  How fat is this fact?  It's positively ginormous!   Thought is inherently destructive.  That's right!  Why, you might ask?  Because thought is designed to destroy that which proceeds it.  Always.  You can't design a thought that does not displace or otherwise disturb an existing thought.  Try putting two thought forms in the same room and you'll get war in no time over which thought form prevails.  Thoughts are very aggressive things by their nature.  They jump at you from the page and pounce down the streets of your safe quiet mind making all kinds of racket and demanding attention like little bees buzzing and grasping at you.  "Look at me!," they say.  Every thought demands individual and precise attention of your conscious because it wants attention.  Lots of it too.

Ever tried to create a plan that just got bigger and bigger and bigger the more you thought about till at some point it has taken over your whole life and you can't even find the time to breathe?  That's the war machine of your mind at work building the armories of thought it wishes to project forward into the world to cover it with your personal brand of black.  Your mind is assembly plant for mental projectiles that you are readying even now to walk into your boss's office to "quietly" ask him for a raise.  Yeah right!  He or she is already on to your bullshit game.  Smells like Susy wants to rule the world, but just doesn't want to admit it.  Get in line Susy, the rest of us were here first!

What does the damn machine want?  What are all these stupid thoughts for anyway?  At least partially it is to catalog our slavery and addiction to thought itself.  The very idea that you have to do anything in the morning is the first part of the lie you tell yourself every day to make yourself go through the same routine over and over just like the countless people just like you who do it for their whole lives never realizing there is a simply way out.

It begins simply as my teacher taught me.  It begins with the breath.  Seems like an odd place to start no?  What could the breath do that the mind could not, right?  But you see that is your mind tricking you back onto the treadmill to nowhere.  You could go down that road Neo, but you know where it leads.  Everyone on this planet needs to get off the brain train to nowhere.  It is destroying our world.

Ideas matter because without them we could not function as people or as a society.  Yet in the process of creating ideas we have created an unintended side effect which can be called intellectualizing the actualization of self.  This problem results in the loss of perspective of what matters and what is actually real.  The thought forms of the mind are no more than mental phantasms designed to drive us towards specific goals of existence.  But in this outwards expansion creating the goals, the root of our vital life force, the breath of life itself, have been discarded.  This is a tragedy because the breath is the true source of power behind the mind and the word.  You have to breathe in to get the air to form the words coming out of your mouth.  See the connection?  It is so much more than just that though.

When you consciously breath and touch and feel your every breath you connect to the real sensory you that is apart from the abstract mental you that exists to regulate your life. This abstract mental you controls your life because society has encouraged you to create this shell of a real person in order to function correctly.  This machine operates unconsciously for you as you go about your daily routines, however the constructed self image of you maintains another layer of illusion below the first layer.  My teacher discovered this unique bilayer in his research into our psychological makeup and I have found this teaching to be instrumental in understanding the nature of the illusion that keeps us enslaved. 

Freeing yourself is actually a rather lengthy process and first you have to understand why it is necessary for you to do so.  As a spirit you labor under the false sense of self that you have created in order to function in a less than ideal relationship to reality and to your true self or rather your higher self.  There is in fact a precise resonance that corresponds to each of these layers that is unique to each individual.

My position on the matter as far as readers of this essay are concerned is that conscious breath work is the first key practice of freeing your mind from the illusion of powerlessness that is created for you.  You think you're in power?  I beg to differ.  The difference between the ruler and the ruled is only in so much as the ruler grasps the power of consciousness greater than the follower.  Yet the conscious breath immediately inverts the power situation.  Breathing allows you to feel which opens up the intuition which allows you to see what is hidden by integrating with it.  With practice and discipline and a good emotional iq map it is possible to break down barriers to vertical ascension in position just from the point of view of your fat ego.  But the key of the process is to eliminate your vaunted sense of ambition itself.

Ambition is the cornerstone of the machine in the mind.  It is the driver of the wheels of enslavement.  It breaks the ruler and ruled alike because it is their enslaver.   A man or woman that is free of ambition is a free person.  This is not to be confused with pure desire which we call passion, but instead with the altered sense of priorities our society has created in us through the consumer culture but also through hierarchical polarization.

The mind as we understand it is ruled by projection.  First we begin with lack, the sense of valuelessness.  From here we find meaning in building security.  Yet because we lose the gift of the breath early in life due to forms of conditioning and perhaps just our own forgetting, we forget why we are building the security in the first place.  Our minds are largely handed to us by our parents and then by the schools we attend.  We are told what to think, not how to think.  When we learn how to think it is only after a long struggle with the conditioning of our very minds that we have been taught to turn against ourselves!  It is a lifelong struggle, the deconditioning of our minds.

We must examine, if we are to free ourselves, everything we believe about everything we know in order to ascertain the truth.  This includes the very nature of the ideas we have about the ideas we have.  In this the destructive nature of thought becomes very clear as stronger clearer thoughts begin to supplant and replace vaguer and weaker forms of thought.  Our society is going through this right now on a grand scale as older paradigm are coming under tremendous mental scrutiny breaking down the deception into its root elements and origins.  Make no mistake, we are the source of the error in the system.   No institution is sacred because we are the ones that built the machines of institutional mind control.  The institutions are irrelevant.  We should not talk of the state.  There is no state.  We should not talk of the church.  There is no church.  The revolution is entirely internal and yet has far greater and more profound consequences than any form of protest against any system.  There is no system.  You have lied to yourself!   If you call this anarchy, you are still lying to yourself!  If you call this nihilism, you are still lying to yourself!  Labels, labels, labels.  What should we call ourselves now?  Oh I know, the no-mind every-mind semi-virtual collective.  You see how clever it all is what we do now?  Forget the goddamn label and dump the stupid brand.  All of them!  Try breathing and feeling and remembering who you really are instead.  Turn the label making fabrication plant in your analytical pipeline off for good and start LISTENING.

At the end of institutional mind control there is a moment when you realize the ghastly error you have made your entire life.  As a systemic analyst I can only tell you the utter embarrassment of it all is simply beyond ridiculous.  Much of my life I tried to analyze the system driving at it every part and piece, it's every institution and hallowed principle, it's endless agents and factions.  On and on and on this went until one day I became utterly tired of the whole goddamn exercise.  I had mastered every form of political psychology known to man and understood the nuances of game theory down to the finest point only to realize that in my own breath and in the power of listening lay the answer to ending the very process I had set forth to destroy within myself from day one.  I had only made the error of projecting this idea out onto the collective in a vain effort to complete my almost meaningless superlative grand design education of the most sublime and subtle nature imaginable.  And standing there in the imagined hallowed halls of my own colossal mental palace of supreme majesty I threw it all down in harrowed realization of the futility of every manner of strategy and tactic I had devised and schemed over the course of a lifetime that felt like 30 lifetimes.  I had thought that much, I had felt that much.  And all of it would be a complete waste of time if I believed in any of it more than I believed in the power of my breath.  That is how much you have to believe in your senses in order to overcome the lie contained in your head.  Yet you have to listen to your own inner narrative until it breaks down under its own weight to get it.  This can be a rather lengthy process.

Every form of power imaginable is a vague and limited vision, the incomplete vision of a whole whose sum, greater than the parts, makes for a complete thought and that thought cannot be grasped by any means of projection or memorization.  It can only be known as a vessel of consciousness when pierced completely through and through by intuition whose primary vehicle of exploration is this breath because the breath moves the intuition.  The breath you can feel itself is not the whole of life, but it is the whole of you.  Yet breath is more than just your breath and my breath for we are all breathing in unison.  Without the breath, intuition becomes stale, and breaks down.  Female intuition is overrated because women do not practice the conscious breath.  Doing so rectifies this disbalance rather quickly.   Incidentally a man practicing conscious breath can out intuit the vast majority of women quite easily if they themselves are not engaged in this practice. 

Do you think it is possible to think yourself a woman or a man?  You are born what you are born, as any transexual person will tell you.  What you feel is what you are until you become something more.  Choice is based on desire which is based on you and who you choose to be.  The right of free choice shall not be infringed.  But all choice must return to the chooser, as it is intended to.   Anyone who says otherwise is infringing their darkness upon another.

The idea and point of this essay is that freeing your mind isn't necessary.  Your mind is already free.  It does it's job and that's wonderful.  You have to free yourself from identifying with the thoughts in your head, which incidentally is actually only part of your mind.  For convenience I have defined the concept lesser mind and greater mind in order to show you that this is not the end of mind or the emergence of a permanent no mindedness (which is impossible to sustain) but instead the breaking down of ignorance through applied reason, consciousness, and thoughtfulness.

Now before you go forth to offend the lesser minds of the universe with your new grand paradigm of 
the all knowing know nothing with all its trickster subtlety (I'm on to some of you people already you should be aware) you should note another vital and important lesson.  Listen before you argue.  This is because listening allows you to determine where the other person is coming from.  Also a wise person never wastes argument on people incapable of reasoning if they can actually determine what reasoning is and how to test for it.  Oh yeah, and about all that stuff I wrote apparently condescendingly at the beginning.  It's an attention getting gimmick to get you to the meat of the substance.  An old jedi mind trick if you will.  But if any of you punks think you can take me in a mind war, you'll know where to find me.  I'll be right here waiting for it and there's a really, really good chance I'll know you're coming.  Booyah!

The Science of Expanding Electrons

The main essay on this website goes into the new theory of physics that considers the question of the nature of matter itself built on the work of Mark McCutcheon and the classical physicists that mostly proceeded the quantum physics standard model.  While you may be inclined to dismiss this idea as crackpot junk science if you read the whole of Mark's case and fully understand my additions to the concept you will begin to have an inkling as to what the future of physics, chemistry, and biology is going to be like. 

Here is a summary of the basic framework of the new theory:

1.  All matter is made of electrons which are spheres expanding in three dimensional space.

2.  All electrons expand creating the basis for the "four forces" of the quantum standard model paradigm.  Gravity is the expansion of atoms, made of electrons, into the space around it creating the appearance of the force by those who are not educated in the matter (see McCutcheon's book for his detailed walkthrough).  The strong force is caused by the expansion of protons and neutrons, also made of electrons.  The weak force is caused by built up pressure inside certain nuclei that cause them to be unstable to the some part of their configuration being not compatible with the general internal expansion of the electron.  And of course electromagnetism itself is a direct product of the expanding electrons forming themselves into electron clusters (what we call photons) and rivers of electrons (free electricity such as sparks, lightening, etc).

3.  The expansion of the electron is based on certain laws or principles.  I have delved into several possibilities.

That's it!  Pretty easy to wrap your brain around I think.  There are of course a huge number of implications that are much, much more complex that I deal with in my main essay.  The science, though, is quite clean on the matter.

The Astrological Theory of Civilizational Themed Procession

Everyone likes a good plan, especially astrologers.  Most astrologers would more or less agree with the idea that when we come to this world we have chosen our birth chart or the circumstances surrounding our existence.  Now, I don't need to go into what is wrong with this idea too much to accept the hypothesis on a basic level.  I like order myself so I'll tip my hat to the idea as being at least partially true, reserving the counter argument for another time.

According to some astrologers and like minded meta-physicians there exists a procession of ages in which certain general themes are explored collectively as human beings.  The Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius for example.  Each age follows a certain theme.  In the Age of Pisces the theme was mystical spiritual ideas revolving around collective dreams such as Christianity or Islam.  In the Age of Aries, war and raw primal masculinity was the theme and the Roman Empire was an example of this.  Now the Age of Aquarius is supposed to be about consciousness, choice, freedom, and science among other things.

So if we are to believe in the procession of Ages as a marker of what we are generally supposed to be doing collectively through these themes, then why haven't we organized ourselves more completely around the idea?  Obviously we can say because the collective sleep of the Age of Pisces is not over yet and the Age of Aquarius hasn't quite kicked in.  I'm a man who likes clear themes I can relate to so I have agreed to the idea of these civilization themes and waves of change as expressed by most astrological thinkers.

I've had visions of the future ages in fact in my more pleasant moments looking at the coming Age of Aquarius time period and knowing it is full of challenges not mentioned by the fluffier version of New Age musing.  Technology is a major theme here, and also a pitfall.  The question of mastering technology, consciousness, science, and freedom is before humanity.  Also the Age of Aquarius seems to have us dealing with questions of identity and the right to choose who we really are.  I think there is alot that goes into that.  Our ride through the next 2200 years of Aquarian Age is going to be full of ups and downs.  Just like with the prior Ages also the expression of this new age will peak in a golden period and then decline towards the end of the Age just as we have witnessed in prior ages.  The decline of the church over the last 500 years is an example of this effect when the expression of the Age comes towards its end.

Ecological thinking and relation to the Earth is not actually technically an Aquarian theme, but one that belongs to the Earth signs and to a lesser extent the Water signs properly.  This return to the Earth consciousness is more properly an effect of the end of the Age of Pisces, but with Aquarius representing collective consciousness it is part of the general package of full consciousness of our existence as humans on Earth.  We certainly cannot separate the experience of connection to the Great Mother and Aquarius, the water bearer.  Strictly speaking however, Aquarius is a sign about friendship, not necessarily one of deep bonding.

It is my opinion that the Aquarian Civilization be rooted in Eastern Europe.  I read a very interesting book one day in a New Age store written by some fantastic metaphysical investigator.  His research had lead him to give the next 4 ages and say where their base of power and maximum expression would be.  Eastern Europe was the one for the Age of Aquarius.  For the Age of Capricorn it was North America and specifically the area of the United States.  For the Age of Sagittarius it was China.  And lastly, for the Age of Scorpio it was India.

This is interesting for the question of themes as the Age of Pisces has clearly been dominated by Western Europe.  That time period has passed and slowly Eastern Europe will become more dominant over the next 1000 years or so.  Clearly science and technology must be important to Eastern Europeans in order to make their civilization the new dominant force over this new period of human history.

For those looking for a return to total eco-spiritual values in the manner of a true ecological society run by women, I'm sorry to say that based on my own research and visions you will have to wait for the full maturation of this vision in the Age of Capricorn.  I believe Capricorn represents the order of nature and is less inclined the technology like Aquarius.  The Age of Capricorn I believe will see the rise of a Matriarchy throughout much of the world based in what is currently the United States of America.  This Matriarchy will overextend itself and fall just as all civilizations do and will be replaced by a great philosophical and learned society in the Age of Sagittarius, where the vision of knowledge will at last be available in a balanced perspective.  This civilization will be based in China ultimately where a church of knowledge will grow to become vast.

Eventually this civilization too will become old and its mistakes will undo it.  Then an Age of Scorpio will begin and its civilization theme will be one of deep intimacy with all things intense and wild followed by a period of deep and profound healing lead by deep mysterious spiritual masters.

There is a much to these visions and of course there are additional Ages beyond these.  What is critical in understanding these themes is that the general trend is suggested by the nature of the sign in question but also by the condition of the human spirit and what is necessary.  While I think the full ecospiritual vision dreamed of by those who wish a return to the Goddess culture of what existed before patriarchy will come during the Age of Capricorn, much of the lesser vision of this idea will be expressed during much of the Aquarian Age.  But to see the full extent of what that means requires waiting until the Age cycle is correct.  No worries, just letting some of you know that these things take time.

Obviously Earth can't wait 2200 years for us to get the ecological question right so this theme is demanded of our collective consciousness now.  We must save the planet, but living in spiritual communion with it is something that is beyond our current condition as a species.  For spiritual communion on a national scale I think we will be waiting till the Age of Capricorn for the most part.  That doesn't mean we can't find that communion on a smaller scale if that is what we wish for individually.  Just don't feel too bad about it if you can't save every single one of the precious creatures that you would like to. 

Now that we understand the basic themes of these processions, you may ask why should you care?  It's about the flow of time and being in that flow.  If you work against the current you will be overcome by it.  Wisdom has taught me to look for the trends ahead of time so that flowing with those trends is much easier.  I don't argue with the astrological ideas that I read for this reason.  I see them as the trends of the future that are preordained by a higher power than myself.  It is, in fact, the need of humanity that must create these currents to be interpreted by mystics, astrologers, and other students of the occult mysteries.  There are other needs as well not so understood revolving around the nature of the soul and what it needs to grow and become more.

While these legends are present, we must look to ourselves to find the answers to the question of our daily lives and existence.  Thus while greatness comes in the flow of life and the life of civilizations built by humans, the greatness of the simple moment will have to do for most on most days in most lives they live.  Such is the way of things until such a time as consciousness is sufficient for us to exist in a greater state of being.  Much work is there still to do to build this temple of love in this world.

Nationalism and Antinationalism: The Quest for Perfect Propaganda

Nationalism is hot news with the new president of the US for 2017.  It's a funny thing really.  What is nationalism exactly?  According to some it's a theory about the way the world works in which everyone is born into a certain tribe of people that they must choose above every other.  Oddly enough Jesus Christ advised precisely against supporting one's family/tribe/close ones over strangers describing it as hypocrisy.  Is nationalism hypocrisy then?  It's an interesting question to say the least.

Nationalism, according to anti-nationalists, as an idea seems to revolve around the concept that we must support a particular brand of support that excludes the idea of universal brotherhood/sisterhood and enables a particular group free reign to privilege over others.  But is even this actually true?  Can one be a nationalist and still be true to a higher faith in all of humanity?  Of course, you must realize, the answer must be yes that you can.

It is unwise to abandon the idea of nationalism simply because some people have associated it with negativity.  This in and of itself is propaganda.  I will not take sides on this issue because both "left" and "right" are guilty of propaganda.  Lies distort the truth until one losses all sense of what is real.  This is the sad state of affairs for many in our world and nation right now.

Nationalism must be looked at as an idea of loving one's nation.  Anything other than this concept is foreign to what is just and good about our experience in this regard.  Loving one's nation does not preclude loving those of other nations.  If nationalism is worth saving as an idea from the clutches of the negativity which has been built around it we must return to the true spirit of nationalism in order to understand the predicament we face as a nation.

The trouble with nationalism is that it is one form of identity in which one's must know one belongs to a particular order of people.  Tribalism leads to sectarianism, which leads to breakdown of nations.  There are those who would demand that no sectarianism or tribalism be possible.  Those who would deny such choice are also in the wrong.   Nationalism is alot like marriage in that we can be serial nationalists without too much trouble depending on how we feel about our nation.

The question leads us to the local issue of the moment here in the United States of America.  Are we still Americans?  Do we still believe in America, the nation?  This question is a matter of choice before the broad public.  Many on both the left and right may be willing to say they belong to new nations.  The emergent California succession movement is an example. Of course, it is not just the "left" that is the cause of secessionist rancor, there were not a few in Texas who were quite ready to jump ship if Hillary had been crowned president.  You see, Americans have grown sick of each other.

Yet a free people have a free choice.  There are many questions to be asked and many that need answering before people decide that the American experiment is over for them whether they are left, right, center, or something confused.  Even Pat Buchanan recently discussed this feeling in one of his essays asking if we can remain a united nation with the "culture war" as he describes it.  He seems to have grave doubts.

Yet inevitably the problem begins that America itself must be claimed.  The other side will always be the trying to steal the national soul or some other such baloney.  You see it's like a bad divorce where the parties start lying and hating each other and fighting over all their possessions including what they call themselves.  I'd like to think that in the quest for the perfect propaganda to justify our bad behavior we would be above such petty kindergarten name calling and other crap.  Sadly, I don't see that as the case on the nightly news with everyone grabbing for their piece of the holier than thou propaganda pie.

Now obviously right this instant those radical secessionists are a pitiful minority that are clearly not supported by the whole nation because after all, why would our nation break apart?  Don't we still love the good old U.S.A.?  Or have we lost it somehow in our pettiness and misunderstanding?  It's still to early to tell but the news hasn't been good, and I get that sinking sensation in my stomach that this is it.  We may be going our separate ways from here on out.   It's a scary thought.  I'm not sure anyone is ready for that.  But look at the "left" and look at the "right" and tell me where is the middle ground here?  The center cannot hold.  I wish I could say otherwise, but things look grim for our great nation.

Can a national greatness conservatism, presumably what the new president will try to implement as this has been the dream of a few of the conservative visionaries included among his advisors, work to bring this divided nation together?   I think the fault lines of the bigger picture will make this difficult to actualize.  For one there is a great anti-capitalism among the "left".  Capitalism and nationalism only work together if everyone is getting rich in some reasonable proportion of income ratios.  There will be those who would challenge the ascertains of our leader on various grounds in the media.  Yet if the media is silenced then the center cannot hold as such a thing goes against the very core of American culture.  It is a catch-22, an unwinnable situation.  The media must be allowed to speak clearly and freely on the issues. Political censorship would cause an unfixable breach in public trust that would spiral into an unstoppable crisis.   Yet the new president must be given a chance to demonstrate respect to the media institutions before he is declared anti-democratic by the left.

Yet things aren't all neat and clear and the media is guilty of many corruptions of its own.  It cannot hide behind the concept of freedom of the press for other mistakes it may have made.  These glaring omissions, which have been visible from the "right" side of the political spectrum for as long as I can remember leave the media at risk of being hammered due to its own hypocrisy, immorality, treachery, denial, greed, etc.  The problem is our new president is very astute at spotting the dark side in others and exposing it when it is in his interests.

One such glaring omission is that the concept of free speech we are familiar with, one that is totally free from censorship, is a relatively new concept in American history.  This was created by the Warren Court during the 1970's if my memory serves me correct.  I learned this from Pat Buchanan and a few other conservative writers that decency standards were not considered censorship until this radical "cultural revolution" emerged in the 70's from "liberal" "cultural marxists".   While I do not consider myself a leftist or rightist, I was actually sympathetic to the idea that decency standards are acceptable so long as political speech itself is not violated, though honestly I tend towards thinking that even certain types of political speech is questionable as well.  For instance, I would not defend the right to call for genocide and would argue anyone calling for genocide probably belongs somewhere where their speech doesn't cause harm to others.

So then if the media is willing to harm society in order to protect the extended media right to, say, put out nasty hard pornography, or justify radical ideologies the promote harm to others, then the media is corrupted and call be called on it.  This leaves the media with very little room to maneuver.  It leaves us all, actually, with every little room to maneuver.  To understand the nature of the injustice committed here is something rather vast and difficult to wrap one's brain around easily.

If everyone is guilty then no one has an argument.  Hypocrites have no moral grounds to justify their own grievances.  If they refuse to look at how they are destroying the nation themselves, they cannot claim anything in terms of nationalism.  This applies to both sides.  Militarism, on the right, has the same destructive effect.  The right cannot destroy the nation on the ground of militarism for the sake of, say, certain military industrial complex interests.  It is all quite visible to the left you know.  You can't hide your hypocrisy in their hypocrisy and claim you're an angel selling death to the children of the world.  The stench of evil here is quite clear.

Has America become evil?  Have we lost our way still in the quest for that perfect propaganda to hide our wretched hypocrisy so we don't have to look at our own personal shadow self sitting there lying and covering up our selfish loathing and dirty desires?  Perhaps we can blame the Mexicans for this or the "rednecks".  You see no matter what this bullshit is quite old already.

I must agree that women have gotten the worst end of it compared to men because they have been the weaker party.  I support the women of the world rising up taking up their place as men's equals and betters.  This is something good.  Surely a nationalism worth keeping will acknowledge this, but then where are we going with nationalism?

What is America?  Where is this thing now we call America?  Is it a nation of people or is it just the slaves of a distant far removed unaccountable agency of control in Washington?  These questions brought our current president to power, so they are most relevant to our predicament as a nation.  Perhaps some think that being ruled from a New York boardroom on Wall Street would be less odious and oppressive than Washington.  Does that honestly even sound remotely reasonable?   Something is rotten here and has been for a long, long time. It didn't just get this way in 2017.  It's been this way as long as I can remember.

Personally I don't like to serve any masters other than my own.  It's my preference for being free.  I still believe that this is a free country capable of making the right choices on these difficult questions ahead.  I can't honestly see the American people bowing down to dictators for much longer whether they live in this city or that city, whether they are left or right, female or male, corporate or governmental.  It goes against the spirit of the age of Aquarius thing that so few ever paid enough attention to makes sense of.  The American people are ruled by Aquarius if you believe in astrology as the national chart of the US has the moon (the people in a national chart) in Aquarius.  I personally find this a hopeful sign despite the fact that the American people are not really supported by the system which they live in.  Luckily for them, there is a catch!

You see national charts are built around entities.  The United States of America is the chart and is not the American people.  While it is best and wisest to stick with the system one has been born in, if that system should ever prove too oppressive it can be slowly withdrawn from.  In fact you can even be with it while you are withdrawing away from it.  I suggest everyone stop fighting about it.  Long live the United States of America!  Our great government deserves that doesn't it?  I'm not joking either or trying to play you!  I'm quite serious.  How many hundreds of years has it been here in all its glory.  Even if the leaders of this system have made mistakes managing it.  If we are going to go our separate ways into new nations, I personally am going to honor the nation I was born in.  I'm an American by birth.

Now all you would be secessionists out there I know your hearts.  I say to you love your government with all your heart, soul, and mind.  That's right, love big brother!  Do it.  Love the United States of America.  I do.  I can say I'm not a hypocrite in that.  It's all what's inside you see?  Love thine "enemy", remember?  And it's amazing what happens because we are not going to let our system of checks and balances die either.  Freedom is within my friends.  America is not an idea that can be destroyed.  It is not a nation than can be defeated.  With Love, all things are overcome.   Perhaps we can put our differences aside momentarily before some of us go our separate ways to find whatever nation it is that we belong to now.  But those who have mastered this thing will never, ever be anything other than citizens of the United States of America even if they now Californians, Texans, Nebraskans, Floridians, and who knows what.

I don't know what the future holds for us.  It is because it is the consent of the governed that defines all social contracts.  Choice cannot be removed from the equation.  Some call this anti-democratic because people must have a choice.  But choice is about the consent of individuals not about the will of the majority.  Never confuse democracy with being free.  They are two entirely different matters altogether.   Having said that the fate of the United States of America will be decided by the people of this nation of their own free choice in whatever manner they so choose.  No instrument of power will have any say in this matter except and in so much as it respect the rights of those people to self determination.  You can check Woodrow Wilson on that one.  It is self determination that cannot be undone.  I know what I have chosen in this regards is to honor the system I was born in fully and also to honor the choices of my fellow citizens in their quest for greater self actualization through whatever vehicles of consciousness they choose.  Let Love decide the matter at last so that you can all know yourselves more fully than ever before.

In the end all propaganda must fail.  All lies must be broken.  All untruths revealed to be nothing more that echoes.  We must all choose our fate and our destiny.  No man or woman can tell us what that is.  We are free nation.  We are free people.  That is what I know.  That is our spirit.  It is the spirit of the land of those who were here when this nation was built upon the bones of their ancestors.  And they are still a free people.  And their spirit and our spirit will be, at last, the same.  There are no words to describe this place we are headed to as a nation.  Many will be afraid.  Many will resist.  But the free spirit of our people will not be defeated.  Whether they are women fighting for freedom from misogyny or rape culture or men trying to work against forms of tyranny both great and small.  A free people does not need propaganda.  A free people is not for sale at any price.  We don't negotiate with pirates here.  Here we are sanctified by the darkness and the light.

Let this then be our rallying cry as we rise up against oppression great and small in all the things and people around us and above all in ourselves.  Let America be that shining beacon of terrible beauty yearning to breathe free again.  And it will as it must for that is the nature of us.  Let the other nations look on and let us teach them what is to be a free people with a free spirit.  Let the world marvel and understand.  The days of oppression are over.  We are now united in our resolution to throw off our chains and be liberated.  This is a NO day, a day of NON, where NOTHING treads forward but the echoes of choice.  We are united in our agreement right now that we must all be heard, felt, and seen in our day of sanctification that our grievances be aired fully and that our demands and desires be heard clearly and that our choices be honored to the core of all that we are.  America resolves to do this, I can feel it. Thus, I, Chris Freely, do honor this and allow it to be without resistance from me.  And if you are wise you would do likewise.  But remember to feel and breathe in case you may have forgotten in our days of darkness to come.

It will not be easy.  But, in the end, I promise you that whatever this dark time delivers it will eventually be worth the price that must be paid.  Honor your agreements and relations to remain honorable and honest.  Honor your self and your feelings of course.  This is collectively as well as individually.  And remember to love and do your duty to the best of your ability.

Breathe and be free,

Chris Freely

For Love of The Patriarchal Military Supersystem

The nature of the societies we live in can be named.  That's the wonder of words.  Like magic labeling something creates a conscious link between the form of the dark we feel to be present and the light of that mind that describes the situation.  While deep in thought the other idea I was able to name the nature of our "political" system on Earth.  Earth currently is a patriarchal military supersystem.

A patriarchy is a system run by men for those of you who need some basic education on this matter.  Men in patriarchies hold position in the command control hierarchy of the power elite through compulsive psychological projection of aggressive dominance.  This is natural in most animals due the facts of evolutionary biology (with obvious exceptions in certain insects and a few other examples).  However, this system, like all systems, is subject to periodic readjustments in consciousness to realign the power distribution because once the female of the species realizes her disadvantage she take certain actions to rebalance the equation.  This of course creates the anti-patriarchal consciousness of feminism which is of course a radical departure from balance itself.  But this reaction also creates the universal mean which is the source of the ultimate balanced solution to the patriarchal disbalance which began the disturbance in human consciousness creating the ideological beast itself, the patriarchal military super system.

Feminism, while not patriarchal, is still patri-form (that which resembles the primitive dominant father archetype) because it contains within it a radical attachment to hierarchical modes of relation.  It is also a very genderized ideology.  Hierarchy is a emergent property of masculine conflicts in nature to determine which male has mating rights within the male hierarchy (to what extent "rights" in animal societies can be said to exist in any formal manner whatsoever).  In so much as such a system is unconscious it is still natural as an emergent property of animal consciousness.  It is pristine in its primitiveness except for its rather grizzly side effects of destruction, and by extension in people, war and rape culture.  It is the realization of the horror that is the side effect of domination through brute consciousness that must ultimately cause the reduction of patriarchy in consciousness as a system and any unnatural emergent property reactions that is produces as a byproduct by sociological ideologicalization (such as radical feminism).

Balance is the nature of order.  Reactions are not the source of order, but ultimately derive from imbalances in perspective.  A complete perspective is required to resolve the complex permanently.  The anti-male and anti-female constructs are in fact useless negative reactions against reality that have no value.  Such extremism leads only to the expansion of the patriarchal military supersystem.  Even going so far as to be anti-patriarchal also feeds the system.  Patriarchy is a natural emergent property of a complex series of social necessities that drive its existence.  It cannot be destroyed by any external power because this will only fuel a new argument against the sectarian radicalism being presented.

Radicalism fuels sectarianism (which can be called factionalism) which fuels the military cycle of conflict.  The conflict originates because someone has decided someone else is the enemy and has effectively declared themselves anti-something which they have decided is dangerous or unnatural.  These series of steps are inevitable however so we cannot even judge the process of this judgement.  Every single piece of the consciousness that created the judgement is linked to every other single piece in a seamless whole that links the parts in final judgement.  It conclusion is inescapable and in fact that matter is doomed because of it.  This is then the the pronouncement of dooms of all the patriarchal mystery cults such as the prophets of the three major western religions.

While the doom is sealed, the contents of the doom is not specified as it cannot be.   Each of us has a choice to realize the value of existence in our search of the ultimate answer of the crisis in consciousness, that which my teacher describes as a separation from God, or our darkness.  This realization is individual and involves what is called a return to full consciousness, a waking from your personal nightmare a member of the patriarchal military supersystem cult or perhaps another type of cult as more than one variation exists.

To what extent it is valuable the idea of the patriarchal military supersystem is a universal concept of a fluid field of order that exists to determine how the resources of the world are divided between the factions of this grand illusion.  It is a supersystem because it has more than two nodes of power (every capital of every country and organization in the world is a node).  It is military because it's primary means of expression is hostile, aggressive, dominant, and ultimately destructive.  It, of course, cannot "win" over the alternative because it a system based on a world of archetypes whose opposites are contained in each other.  The inevitable doom of such a system is to fail because it cannot but fail.  Life is stronger that the illusion so ultimately all things must return to balance again.

To what extent the idea can be mastered, the concept of this system is an exercise in the great intellectual bullshit of our times, that which is called Game Theory.  For those familiar with systems analysis, the root of the problem is that in Game Theory everyone must be assigned an agenda and collusion towards the common good is almost a miraculous occurrence.   If we assume such a cynical view of the world that is based on misrepresentations of true motivations then we become a victim of our own analytical machine.  I was educated in that manner in political science, and practiced my Game Theory to perfection.  If we do in fact live in a patriarchal military supersystem it is not because it is ordained by nature (we are not animals) so thus it is because we choose to remain cultists to the creed of domination and subservience.  Such systems can never be at peace because attempts to redistribute power will consonantly be occurring.   Game theory thus can only have one plausible end, the end of the game itself as rational actors, i.e. thinking people, will eventually realize the futility of the sectarian process itself.

All secterian conflict must converge on a singular unity.  This is inevitable.  No amount of resistance can prevent this.  The reason is that order is derived from singularity of consciousness, what we call agreement.  Even when we agree to disagree we must still agree, do you see?

I am certainly encouraging reformists, I am one of them.  However, the process of reform must occur with a general understanding of how it is that resistance to the solution exists and must acknowledge the source of that resistance as being legitimate in consciousness.  How can it not be?  This is not, however, a call for universal forgiveness or tolerance of evil, but instead an open invitation to consider the possibility of universal peace from full acknowledgement of the legitimacy of perspective and full justice to all aggrieved parties.  How this justice emerges in consciousness is not the property of any one individual but instead is the understanding of what justice is and how it must come about.

No single person can define personal justice for anyone, no matter how great.  And all must be judged in the end to be redone and reforged anew to make that which must be more perfect with every age of our lives as humans.  Such a process is a master work of each individual understanding this deep resonance to the truth of our singularity in spirit.  We are one, but that is not so easy to experience as a simple mantra for we must be one with the pain in everyone in order to understand.  This is not an easy journey, but it is the source of true love in our souls.  Without this, we are lost, drifters through the ideological menagerie of our clever escapism.  Now, it is 2017 and we must awaken to this truth.  We are no longer safe in error for much pain will be unleashed until we truly learn who we really are..  And, of course, we will.

With Love and Knowledge,

Chris Freely

Normal and Your Children

Normal.  Its an odd looking word isn't it?  Seems innocuous on the surface.  So benign and non-threatening.  What everyone wants to be inside just like everyone else.  Right?  Except it's a lie, of course.  No one really wants to be like everyone else.  That's why we have heroes in life.  People we want to grow up to be like.  You know what's different about heroes?  They most definitely aren't normal.  Who really wants to be normal?

Which is what makes the whole normality movement the strangest thing I have ever encountered.  Why are parents trying to make their children normal?  Well that's just plain stupid!  If anyone ever actually had a real discussion about what "normal" means it would go right straight to the realization that what's normal for some is perfectly odd to others.  So why the obsession with normality among so many parents?

It's a form of control which can't be missed.  Why would anyone want to worship at the alter of normality?  Does normal mean right?  Does normal mean good?  Does normal really mean anything at all?  There are many, many words that are pure garbage.  Normal is one of them.  Using the word means you have no idea what the word means.  You can't, because how can anyone define normal for anyone else?  How can they really define normal for themselves?

Then there is the kissing cousin to normal, safe.  The other thing every parent wants their children to be.  Safe makes sense, but its a loaded word full of loaded meaning.  Loving your children does mean keeping them safe.  But safe from danger, not from growing.  That is the one thing you can't keep your children from experiencing.  Growth.  Growth is going to happen whether you like it or not, and it most certainly is going to happen outside that arbitrary box we call normal.

Safety is something I believe in.  Good parenting requires good instruction.  Those that listen become wiser.  Listening to your children is wiser than ignoring them like so many do out there.  Communication is the heart of the family.  If its missing then something is missing.  Your family is the center of your life.  When family isn't talking, something is wrong.  Family should always be talking and be in communication with each other.  That is the cornerstone of all our problems in the world.

You must talk to your children, not at them.  Normal is talking at your children.  Normal is control that isn't right.  Normal is shaming your children into conformity.  Normal is abusing your power as a parent.  Never use the term normal with human beings.  It is unwise.  It is also unwell. 

Musing On Old Theories and New Theories Of Matter and Consciousness

The nature of the universe is something that I have studied all my life.  In the course of my studies I came up with new ways of looking at the way things operate.  In high school I came up with an a set of principles that had to be true about matter as we thought we understood it through quantum physics.  This theory I called field theory.
It was my strongest opinion that matter had to be conscious.  This was implied in the quantum physics worldview that is still the only version of reality that most people know.  The reason was that charge could not operate in a vacuum as a condition.  Hypothetically, protons and electrons had to know they had entered the field of the polarity of the opposite in order to react to the change in conditions.
What this meant, when I created this idea, was that matter operated according to a set of rules. Those rules were based on interaction with fields that obviously had to surround particles in order for these properties to exist the way we understood them.  Those properties, of course, being the four forces of the standard model: electromagnetism, gravity, the weak force, and the strong force.  Up until I read Mark McCutcheon's The Final Theory I had these old ideas I came up with as my basic philosophy of how matter operated in the quantum physics paradigm. 
In my old theory a conscious matter particle would enter a field upon which a transformation would be induced in its operation which process I termed "boundary field conditions change".  When boundary field conditions change, the electron enters the sphere of influence of the proton and its actions change.  It does this because that it what it knows, that is its nature.  I used this theory to label the processes I was learning in chemistry, biology, and physics later on until I understood how to identify what was going on in any particular chemical or physical reaction. 
Another element I created was when boundary fields separated.  Obviously this is when an electron leaves an orbit for example.  The resulting process I called "boundary field separation" and the result of this was that the electron returned to its prior state of being not attracted.  This was because the electron would be pulled and distorted in the direction of the polarity when it entered the field of a positively charged nucleus, and that it would no longer be pulled and distorted.  I assumed the electron had something like a desire and that it had some sort of will since it did all these things.  The same with any other particle.  It never occurred to me to examine things past this level to think of a physical mechanism to explain the behavior of particles.  Perhaps it would have in time, but by luck I was lead to Mark McCutcheon's physical theory that fuses the four forces of nature.
Now, of course, with Mark McCutcheon's Final Theory all the rules changed and the concept of my old field theory must be discarded.  However, a new problem emerges that is just as perplexing which I began to address in my cosmogenesis notes in the post titled that in this blog which anyone can now download and read (if you can get past the somewhat unfinished nature of this business of coming up with new theories of everything that is very much evident in my notes).  The new problem in the new theory in terms of explanation is how does the electron, which I refer to in Cosmogenesis notes as the quantum electron, know how to interact with other electrons?  Where does it get its property from?  More properly these questions must be stated in the form; what is the nature of matter, where does it come from, how does it interact, and in what capacity does it do what it does?
For those of you who haven't read Mark's book, the summary in this regard to what he discovered and puts forward is that the electron is the fundamental particle of the universe.  Everything is made of electrons.  And what creates the four forces of nature is the expansion of these electrons into the space around them.  So if you take this theory to be true, several questions arise immediately to be addressed.  What is the electron precisely?
At the most basic level of our observation the electron is a three dimension sphere that expands.  How does this expansion work?  Mark brought up the idea that the electron expands into the space around it based on an idea he called primordial time that existed in a dimension that supports the laws of the expanding electron.  I believe he even postulated the idea that this could all be a matrix like computer program rather than what I would call a field universe (one built on transdimensional but natural fields to what extent natural can be defined as being not of intelligent design).  From my general analysis which is in the Cosmogenesis Notes PDF, I concluded that the electron had to expand in such away that accounted for its properties of mass.  Because the electron does not change its expansion rate in our physical universe as we can readily see from the properties of matter around us, I decided that the expansion had to be an accelerated expansion, meaning that the equation governing it must be in the form of a doubling in the electron size every exact interval of time which I called the universal time interval or uT for short.
This uT concept retained time as a basic property of the universe not related to the expansion of the electron.  Mark's concept is that all of what we experience as time is not real except for the expansion of the electron and as such he invented the concept of primordial time to try and explain how the electron was expanding as a serial sequence of events from outside the physical universe in a sort of cosmic law space that built the system we live in.  Now, of course there are plenty of pitfalls here for people to pick holes at either of our concepts.  I essentially decided I wasn't going to accept the idea of time as being completely unreal except for the electron's expansion.  This gets into a nasty debate about the nature of consciousness, which is what we use to measure time, and the true nature of consciousness, which gets us right back to the old chicken and egg question of what came first, the universe or consciousness?
What prevented me from accepting the idea of a primordial time directly was simple geometric thinking.  A sphere expanding at a steady rate will ALWAYS see a very rapid decline in the total amount of force it is exerting as far as I could tell in my own thought experiment when thinking about the electron and how fast it must be expanding.  The result would be a rapid and precipitous decline in the expansion pressure of the electron, which of course cannot be occurring.  This assumes, of course, that the electron can truly be said to have any true volume at all, which is another point of debate!  (I promise you this is just the beginning of these little issues).
We should return now to our analogy of a 3d sphere with some sort of 3d volume at least relative to other electrons in its universe expanding in 3d space.  We know that the expansion rate must be pretty high if we use our mathematical models to account for the force that keeps the nucleus together.  This means that the hypothetical volume of these spheres must be increasing at a really high rate.  What's more, every time the volume increases it must keep increasing at an increasing rate to maintain the same properties of pressure exerted.  This last point is the critical one and the reason I settled on an equation where the volume of the electron increases at a steady accelerated rate: V = 2(n(Ut)) where v is electron volume, n(Ut) is equal to the number of Ut intervals in time.
This universal time interval could be any amount hypothetically.  If the electron doubled its volume every 5 seconds it would be 5 seconds.  If the electron doubled its volume every .5 seconds, it would be .5 seconds. This doubling rate determines the properties of everything in the universe.
Now come the nasty philosophical questions.  What causes an accelerated expansion naturally and why?  The only means we know of doing this is to create a computer algorithm.  What is it that is exactly expanding?   The answer seems to be vibration in the form of a 3d sphere expanding from a hypothetical point at its center.  So then the electron is vibration.  Vibration in what, though?  This brings up the idea of space as ether in which these vibrations occur.  Ether is of course the old concept of metaphysicians and occultists to describe an invisible fluid and was considered possibly real by physicists until Einstein's concepts became widely accepted.  But this brings up more questions (See these little issues keep getting more common and bigger just like I said).  Is this ether 3rd or 4th dimensional fluid?  Before I get to ether there are several more concepts that need considering.
In the physical universe (at least) mass is the resistant property of accelerating matter, and energy is a transferable property of accelerating matter.   Energy, at a basic level is vibration.  Physical mass always has energy because it always has a relative motion in 3d space relative to all other mass.  Why does energy move mass?  Because mass is resistant to energy.  This is a vital point in understanding the way in which both electrons operate and all objects made of electrons, but also to consider the nature of what is actually happening to understand the relationship between matter, mass, energy, and motion. In analysis mass is separate from energy and transforms it through resistance, however the two are linked together 100% in the physical universe through the expanding electron.
The radical hypothesis presented here is that the accelerating expansion of the electron is what creates mass and energy as an emergent property of accelerated expansion itself.  This property, in this holistic concept of mass, is the reason that vector motion, the motion of atoms and objects, is transferred upon impact between objects, and by extension, electrons.  The conservation of vector motion is a major problem in thinking when considering expansion theory and acceleration.  Why is motion outside the electron conserved relative to the tremendous internal accelerated expansion (or is it?)?  Must we include additional properties of the electron/matter and definitions like force, power, or even substance to account for this?  More thought experiments here are required.
Returning to the idea of 4th dimensional ether or 4th dimensional etheric field, it was a concept I considered due to the nature of the universe and its properties.  Mark, in his book, describes the possibility of changes in the expansion rate of the electron which would change the properties of subatomic particles, atoms, gravity, etc.  The idea that the ether was what the electron was expanding into had to be considered.  I imagine the ether as a 4th dimensional field with properties of something like fluid, though what its properties are is highly speculative at this point other than that it is possible to hypothetically imagine.  Obviously the existence of a 4th dimensional ether encourages us to think of a 5th dimensional field and on up.
Now the properties of the electron's expansion into physical space as the only physical particle and that which all physical objects are made could be considered in light of something else that could hypothetically modulate the properties of this expansion in terms of the rate of expansion.  The property which I came up with first I called etheric density.  My hypothesis is that expansion is hypothetically infinite and the bounds of this infinite expansion should be modifiable based on the properties of whatever substance or field the expansion occurs in.  I did not go as far as to think that space itself was the ether, however, this is another hypothesis that may be considered.  Another hypothesis to consider is that the ether and any higher dimensional field beyond it may in fact be expanding itself.  This provides an interesting take on the concept of etheric density, as etheric expansion would create etheric density.
This leads us to traditional metaphysical concepts of the levels of creation.  An early attempt to synergize these concepts is available in the Thought, Idea, Mind, and Ego file which is available for download from this website on post entitled the same and Biology and Consciousness Field Theory (which is a process level analysis of reality entirely of my own) which is available for download also from another post by that title.  The concepts in Thought, Idea, Mind, and Ego I was influenced in considering from metaphysical writings in particular John Gordon's Egypt: Child of Atlantis (though I don't believe in the existence of Atlantis) who described the Egyptian systemology of the hierarchy of consciousness very well, and meditations on my teacher's ideas concerning our nature as human beings.  Any serious student of "new age" occult thought or students of eastern traditions of spirituality knows about the chakras and the hypothetical planes of being and this is where we return to Mark's theory to attempt to create a physical-metaphysical synthesis.
The concept of the etheric as a 4th dimensional field into which physical electrons expand, which itself possibly has an expansion rate, means that the spiritual concept of the etheric body has a new conceptual means by which it may be conceived in this model.  The hypothetical idea involves the concept of the ether as something akin to substance.  If this ether surrounds matter, then as matter expands it may create a wake, like a ship passing through the ocean, ahead of its expansion in the etheric.  This wake is a holistic impression on the etheric substance of the 4th dimensional field surrounding the 3rd dimensional plane.  
Similarly we must consider the idea that if the etheric is expanding itself, it must also create a wake in the 5th dimensional field surrounding it!  In New Age thought and other metaphysical schools this 5th dimensional level is called the astral.  From there the same or similar explanations can be used to create a working model of all the higher planes within the self and create a complete model of the human being in transdimensional space, and of course a generally complete model of any other being or phenomenon in the cosmos.  The current listed levels of consciousness worked with by New Age thinkers in their descriptions of higher planes are, in order of complexity and possibly dimensionality are physical, etheric, astral, mental, buddhic, atmic, and adi.   The concepts in John Gordon's book were more descriptive in terms of planes: physical, astral, mental, plane of the spiritual soul, spiritual, semidivine, and divine.
Attempting to isolate the planer constituents of experience in term of their actual derived processes is why I started working on the Thought, Idea, Mind, Ego file.  The most recent version of this idea map is actually in the Cosmogenesis Notes # 2 post and is available for download.
If you read the whole mess of ideas you will get a general picture of what the universal meta-analysis looks like.  You will see the complexity of the world we live in terms of attempting to define levels of experience (especially intellectually).  You will also note that if you continue the analysis logically that the number of hypothetical explanations for processes and how they operate should diminish considerably because the number of valid explanations becomes limited to the constraints of this new model which is based on evidence and observation of our reality.  Spiritual questions become constrained when considering plausible hypothesis of eternal soul development.  With higher planer systemology, however, the limits of what is possible becomes clearer (at least to me).
Somewhere along the way from simple expanding electrons in a physical universe constrained by a simple hypothetically and mathematically derived 4th dimensional field space we have arrived at a place where deeper questions of spiritual reality become valid again outside the scientific mainstream and outside the purely materialistic school of thought.  There are additional questions of the nature of the constraints upon matter and expansion of the electron itself.  I will elaborate upon this by beginning an analysis of Mark's concepts concerning the limits of physical properties of the expanding electron in the universe.
Mark's contention is that all electrons must have the same expansion rate in the universe because if they did not we would soon be looking at electrons the size of universes.  There are some hypothetical issues with this idea, though it does seem scientifically valid (I tend to agree with Mark).  However, being a devil's advocate at times, I propose that depending on the definitions Mark may not be correct and that different areas of the cosmos may have different expansion pressures and still occupy the same space.
I began to define this idea in the Dimensionality and Cosmogenesis file (though some of the ideas here as still quite crude) which again is downloadable under a post by the same title.  Thought Experiment: At a basic level it should be hypothetically possible for an expanding universe to be embedded in another expanding universe if the expanding ether forms a equalizing expansion pressure shell surrounding the universe with a different expansion rate. In my thought experiment, however, this only naturally worked one way where the universe with the higher expansion pressure and lower etheric density/etheric expansion was revolving around the universe with the lower expansion pressure and higher etheric density.  This model, which is the opposite of the one in the Dimensionality and Cosmogenesis file, would suggest that the etheric expansion into space would create a similar effect to gravitational orbits as described in Mark's Final Theory (you'll have to read Mark's book here, but basically physically expanding electrons create the gravity effect indirectly through the boundary of the atom expanding so that objects moving in a straight line end up moving in a curve around planets because planetary expansion (note this obviously applies to any object made of atoms, not just the giant ones)).
For those that read Mark's book the leap of logic here is probably manageable, but it involves alot of questions which is why this idea of universes with different expansion pressures revolving around each other is just that a hypothesis.  It can also be considered a model of higher dimensional interaction if no interaction is possible between two different universes with two different sets of electron expansion rates.  Hypothetically I had to bridge several difficult barriers in thinking to even suggest this idea, but hypothetically they must be considered in general.
First, the actual volume of the electron isn't technically proven 100%.  This is because the nature of space is not fully defined.  Space exists, but we don't know what it is exactly.  Also, we don't know the basis of the electron's expansion.  As such hypothetical relationships between these different elements of our not knowing must be bridged slowly and compared with evidence to see which one is true and which one is false.  In this regard even our spiritual ideas that I have presented here must still be considered hypothetical if we lack evidence (not withstanding any of our abilities to have dreams about events before they happen as many people have).  What this means is that we don't know enough to say what is really, really going on yet.
Returning to the idea of the problem of accelerated expansion that I mentioned earlier, the cause is indeterminate.  The possibility of complex relations must be considered between higher dimensional fields and ourselves.  Even creationist musings of some nature whether by more evolved beings than ourselves or by a classic deity cannot be discounted 100% as false even though reason and common sense say they are highly implausible.

The correct bias in science is always towards natural explanations and explanations of non-interference as much as they can be conceived.  This means that we must first search for every avenue of a natural explanation for what we observe before we turn to either supernatural or intelligent manipulation of the cosmos.  My early works, if you read them, may seem to be very much in favor of the idea of intelligent manipulation at times,  however, the way I envisioned this was in terms of a spiritual reality within ourselves that saw before its own incarnation what is was creating.  Today, while I still believe in the precognition of higher dimensional states of consciousness a prioii to the incarnation of our beings in the physical universe, I do not consider it likely that the operation of planetary bodies are in fact consciously directed.  However, I don't know for sure, it just seems that the mechanisms would be difficult to conceive and highly unnecessary.  In other words, I doubt in intelligent design by mode of interference in nature from a transdimensional being as such a process has no purpose.  The only exception to this idea is the creation of the universe itself, which would make sense, however, we must first rule out nature as the answer.
What is nature though?  We study the laws of nature, but we don't know 100% what nature is.  In my Principles file (my most current and developed body of notes) which, again, can be downloaded from the post titled Principles: The Philosophy of Knowledge and Extended Topics, I discuss this complex issue briefly.  I propose the philosophical notion that is the basis of the answer that nature has no limits, but evolves within them.  We experience nature, but life is itself beyond definition.
Knowing this we come to a difficult question.  Is it possible for nature to define itself?  If the answer is yes, then we may consider consciousness the emergent property of a system, nature, which requires an agent to examine its existence.  This is a common spiritual hypothesis among many thinkers.  However, if the answer is no, then we must ask what is it that defines nature herself?
If we go back to the simple fact of the expanding physical electron, we see the basis for all of nature we see outside ourselves.  But does the physical electron define our consciousness?  Does it define our reality internal to our experience as human beings living in a physical universe made of these expanding electrons?  Or is it in fact part of something bigger?  Is it part of a holistic field of consciousness whose parts cannot be understood outside the whole experience?  It is this hypothesis of the holistic field of consciousness that deals with transdimensional field theory and the nature of the universe as an internal subjective experience of learning and evolving.
In the imagination we can create any possibility with enough information and enough power.   Our computers prove this.  We can create any universe with any type of physics imaginable so long as it is internally consistent.  While the universe we live is may be highly controlled and regulated by the invisible rules that govern its existence, our spirits certainly yearn for more possibilities.  Perhaps we are all gluttons for choice, but such is the nature of desire and will.  I believe it is the spirit of desiring more that I expanded on Mark's theory into the nature of a more interesting Cosmos than the one we read about in our books, as fascinating as that quantum universe was.
The new cosmology is birth from the intersection between expansion theory and the imagination.  In all its possibilities it must give birth to a new science that is built on a new quest to find the ultimate answers for a new generation of scientists and thinkers.  I submitted in Cosmogenesis Notes #1 the suggestion that our stellar model is incorrect.  Why?  For one because the basis for the mechanism seems faulty.  The erroneous interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the basis for the concept of quantum tunneling and the basis for Heisenberg's principle is the old quantum model of the atom where the electron is a probability cloud surrounding the nucleus.  Mark shows this model to be utterly false and demonstrates that the electron is a solid particle that bounces off the expanding nucleus which creates the false notion of a probability cloud in extended analysis only if one assumes that a probability cloud can exist anywhere outside the human imagination.  Physicality does not work that way, even if you are drunk.
What this means is that to break past the Coulomb barrier (another idea in physics that needs reexamining in light of Mark's expansion theory) an old style proton had to jump over the barrier caused by what was once considered polarity.  Since it was (and is) widely believed protons repelled other protons based on charge rather than expansion, this Coulomb barrier was the imaginary resistance the proton had to overcome to fuse with another proton and go from being hydrogen to be deuterium when the 2nd proton decayed into a neutron upon fusion.  The only known mechanism that made this possible hypothetically was the probability cloud hypothesis of Heisenberg (The Uncertainty Principle) in combination with Schrodinger's Wave Equation.  Somehow, by probability, the proton acquired (from where they don't say) the energy to overcome the barrier.  This is how it was hypothesized that the Sun could get its power from H-H fusion.  But no amount of laboratory science ever made basic one proton hydrogen ever fuse less than 2-3 billion degrees or so.
The idea that was suggested here was that protons under massive pressure inside the star would be able to "jump" this barrier through what appears to be random chance at what was guesstimated as the actual internal temperature of the Sun which was 15 million degrees (common knowledge in our 2016 world almost).  However, we can see immediately that assumptions built on assumptions don't prove anything.  We have never replicated these conditions.  When we do use nuclear power in fusion we do not attempt to fuse hydrogen and hydrogen but rather the rare isotopes deuterium and tritium which have 1 and 2 neutrons respectively.   This may be because H-H fusion cannot occur at a liberation of energy at all.  If this is true, then the case of H-H fusion powering stars falls flat on its face.  An analysis of what I believe is actually going on is elaborated in the Appendix (1).
A simple summary is that the current theory of physics states that because there is a mass difference between 4 basic hydrogens and helium, the difference in mass, when the hydrogens are fused, converted to energy using Einstein's equation E=MC^2 accounts for the creation of energy.  However, this is also an unproven hypothesis and Einstein's equation has been shown to be a forgery by Mark McCutcheon's simple mathematical analysis.  Logically the definition of energy here isn't even valid which is something Mark addresses as well.  Tesla, apparently, may have realized some of this but didn't elaborate in detail merely stating that Einstein was a mathematical charlatan in general.
Mark's alternative hypothesis, which is where I depart from some of his original conclusions, is that if electrons are freed from the internal atomic realm and expand in the atomic realm they are automatically converted into light by means of the incredible internal expansion of the electron.  However, this ignores a few problems of which the most egregious is the ignoring of vector motion and the ignoring the fact the universe if teeming with protons and other nuclei seemingly stripped of their electrons in the form of cosmic rays that aren't converted to light.  Even plasma states on Earth in labs may disprove this idea of Mark's that it simply takes removing protons/neutrons/other subatomic particles from the inner atomic realm to create light instantaneously as a function of expansion pressure.  The jury is still out on that one for some more nasty thought experiments.  I suspect many of you are past the point where your brains might already be full after all I just said.
From here the hypothesis is that electrons must still obey vector motion and that energy isn't simply the conversion of inner expansion pressure to light/energy effect in the real world because motion imparted to objects still have a real world energy effect.  If this hypothesis is true for whatever reason, say the hypothesis of the conservation of vector motion in accelerated expansion theory (that's the version where the electron expansion is hypothetical volumetric doubling based on a universal time mentioned earlier) due to other properties undefined (see discussion somewhere above mentioning force, power, and substance) of the electron/matter/mass in general.
Going along these lines we get, finally, as a lover of astronomy, to the fun part: new theories of how stars, planets, galaxies, on up work.  The first and primary idea presented in the absence of a fusion model of stars is a new model.  If one is familiar with the Electrical Universe alternative theory to the standard quantum model, one has a beginning of understanding this new hypothesis.  In the Electrical Universe stars are powered by charge externally from currents.  Obviously, Mark's theory makes the concept of charge irrelevant so this theory may be discarded partially.  Also, the amount of currents available in the known local universe (the heliosphere current sheet for instance) when measured by our current science come out to be woefully inadequate in terms of the power transfer necessary to fuel the Sun's massive 4X10^26 watts of power output.
There is, however, an alternative plausible source of power, oddly enough suggested by Nicola Tesla indirectly years ago(which he either didn't get the mechanism for or just didn't say anything about it).  The hypothesis involves the examination of the nature of magnetic fields.  Mark demonstrates that magnetic fields are in fact constructed of expanding electrons that are wrapped around their originating body; they are essentially outer extensions of electron sheets within the body of the object in which they are embedded and originating from.
Magnetic fields are physical extensions of electron sheets either in the subatomic realm or from the electrons floating about in electrical fields above the atoms bouncing electron shell
If this magnetic field is bombarded externally by something that imparts pressure and energy into the field, then the result is a transfer of energy from the magnetic object, light, or, most significantly for our analysis, cosmic rays to the magnetic field, and by extension, the star/planet/other body in which is it embedded.  A cosmic ray is a nucleus of an atom moving at very high speeds through physical 3d space.  The amount of cosmic rays is extraordinary.  And the amount of hypothetically available energy imparted through cosmic rays into a magnetic field is determined by its size and its ability to absorb the energy of the impact of these rays through resistance.  Hypothetically a magnetic field could also get energy from resistance to other magnetic fields, light (made of electron clusters again in Mark's theory), and other small subatomic electron clusters (What Mark calls what we currently call subatomic particles).  
In order to calculate the amount of cosmic ray flux, the amount of cosmic rays passing a particular area per second, bombarding the outer magnetic field of the Sun we need only check online. We find out that the cosmic ray flux on Earth at sea level is something like 1 GeV/square cm/sec from numerous sources online.   To determine the cosmic ray flux in space around Earth we multiply by about 50 because the Earth blocks out the rest from atmosphere and magnetic fields, a figure I read on a NASA website I believe.  Additional proof is found in this article that states the cosmic ray flux near Earth that matches this figure exactly. Here we only have the cosmic ray flux up for particles above 200 - 300 MeV because the rest is long since blocked out by the Sun's massive magnetic field as indicated by this rather complex scientific paper on the subject..  In order to get the actual total potential you must account for the whole flux bombarding the outer magnetic shell of the magnetic field of the Sun.  
The first mathematical step is to determine the amount of particles in the primary range we are using to calculate the flux which is about 2 GeV - 200 MeV approximately.  Because of the deflection of a large number of particles before they even reach Earth we must use the Voyager 1/2 data to increase the flux estimate just for particles in this range of energy which this website and graph show is at least approximately 500%.  The next step is to prove the amount of flux estimate the range of energies in the remaining cosmic ray bands.  
The general rule I read on this website for calculating estimated cosmic ray energy flux is that for every factor of 10x energy downward you must increase the amount of total particles by 50 so that the general increase in amount of energy available is 5 fold per every decrease in power of each individual cosmic ray of 10 times.  As a general example if the amount of energy flux for particles from 2 GeV to 200 Mev is 5 GeV/square cm/sec then the amount for particles from 200 MeV to 20 MeV is 25 GeV/square cm/sec. This is true down to a certain level, below which it is untrue.  It appears to be true at least down to the level of 1.5 MeV as indicated by the Voyager 1 data from its cosmic ray subsystem as indicated here.  The amount indicated in the data is little over half the amount required, but because of intervening magnetic fields between Voyager and the true open interstellar space (if such a thing even exists) this is easily accounted for because of the "low energy" nature of cosmic rays at that energy level as they are easily deflected by magnetic fields. 
What is the end of the analysis to determine the amount of energy hypothetically available to convert to power the Sun or any other star or any other celestial body?  The outer boundary of the Sun's magnetic field and its surface area must be determined and the flux of cosmic rays must be determined to see if the energy is equal to or greater than the Sun's output which is 4X10^26 watts for which I used the Voyager 1 data of the heliopause out to 121 AU (distance from Earth to Sun x 121), also a very conservative approach.  You also must take into account that the Sun's magnetic field has a tail that may be increase the surface area as much as 10X and plausible interactions between neighboring discovered bubble magnetic fields as they may feed energy into the Sun's field which would increase the possible surface area outwards.  However, every time I ran the calculation it turned out that more than enough energy was available to power the Sun from the cosmic ray flux bombarding its outer magnetic field assuming that the 5 fold increase in available energy was true down to about 200 KeV and that the remaining cosmic rays below 200 KeV contributed double the total energy of those that level of energy (a conservative estimate). 

The Math For This Analysis

Approximate Surface Area of Solar Magnetic Field in square cm
Radius - 121 A.U. = 1.81 X 10^15 cm 
Surface Area = 4 * 3.14 * 1.81 X 10^15 cm ^ 2 =  4.115 X 10^31 square cm

Flux per square cm
1 GeV/sec/square cm - sea level cosmic ray flux on Earth
1 GeV/sec/square cm X 50 = 50 GeV/sec/square cm - cosmic ray flux in space near Earth
50 GeV/sec/square cm  X 5 = 250 GeV/sec/square cm - cosmic ray flux at edge of solar magnetic field for cosmic ray range of 2 GeV-200 GeV
250 GeV/sec/square cm X 5 X 5 X 5 = 31520 GeV/sec/square cm = cosmic ray flux at edge of solar magentic field for cosmic ray range of 2 GeV - 200 KeV
31520 GeV/sec/square cm X 2 = 62500 GeV/sec/square cm = cosmic ray flux with 2 x more cosmic ray flux from range 200 KeV to 1KeV
62500 GeV/sec/square cm = 1.001 X 10^-5 joules/sec/square cm = 1.001 X 10^-5 watts/square cm

Total Cosmic Ray Energy Available For Conversion To Solar Power
(1.001 X 10^-5 watts/square cm) (4.115 X 10^31 square cm) = 4.11 X 10^26 watts 
We can reach this final number, which as you can see is the amount required to power the Sun, in several ways.  If the amounts of cosmic rays at the lower end or at any point in the analysis aren't available, then the power could come from the Sun's extended magnetic heliotail which could potentially add as much as 10 X to the surface area required.  We could also increase the surface area of the magnetic field outwards in our analysis by assuming that the bubble magnetic fields surrounding the heliopause are able to transmit the energy they absorb to the solar magnetic field through whatever means we can conceive (pressure, direct energy transfer through magnetic field lines overlapping, etc).  Some study of the nature of magnetic field energy transfer may be required here to determine the exact nature of this transfer and how it might occur.
Not only is it apparently true that the cosmic ray flux bombarding the sun's magnetic field is equal to or greater than the Sun's actual output, but in addition, this is also true of the energy being released by the gas giant planets Jupiter and Saturn if we use the solar ray flux from the Sun instead of the cosmic ray flux in the case of the Sun.  It may even be shown that the amount of energy that Earth emits seems to suggest our own planet's magnetic field is converting mostly solar rays in Earth's case to Earth's natural internal heat.  Do the math, and you will see the rather startling relationship.
So if it is true that cosmic rays bombard the magnetic field of planets and stars and the energy impact of these rays as well as possible other galactic magnetic field transfer into the planet or star's magnetic field then how is the energy transferred to the core of the Sun?  The hypothetical answer is physically through pressure directly right to the core in some fashion where it can be released through some sort of magnetic re-connection or other hypothetical mechanism of which I suggested a couple in Cosmogenesis Notes #1. 
The cosmic ray powered universe is very different from the one we learn about in standard physics class, but does bare a decent resemblance to the Electrical Universe model because in both models planets and stars divide by fission just like cells in what we call novas and supernovas.  The mechanisms are different however between the Electrical Universe model and the cosmic ray powered universe.  In the cosmic ray powered universe what occurs is one of several possible causes.  If magnetic fields become too large relative to the underlying mass of a star the result is that the electrical field of the star becomes heated to a very great degree.  At a certain level of energy it is possible that the field would simply overload due to the amount of energy being utilized similar to any electrical overload.  Perhaps a massive charged energy buildup accompanies this.  If necessary an even more powerful process described below could be responsible for novas and supernovas.
The existence of hypothetical matter in the core of stars made of ultra-dense matter is highly plausible in the new model.  This ultra-dense matter would be in the form of very high level transuranium atoms that would only be stable under high pressures inside stellar cores.  If this pressure were removed because the above layers melted due to the massive energy of a huge heated electrical field supported by a massive magnetic field then at some point a massive fission explosion would occur blowing the stellar core in two possibly depending on what layers melted and where they were located. 
At first this may appear to be a very exotic explanation.  However, there is so much strange and unusual events that occur in space news that confirm that supernovas and novas occur in very different ways from what is expected in current stellar models.  In fact, if one looks for discrepancies in theory vs. observation there are quite a few.  What about hyper dense matter?  We already see examples of that in standard theory in the form of degenerate matter, what white dwarves are supposedly made of, and neutronium, the ultra hyper dense theoretical substance that makes up the hypothetical neutron stars.  Between this ridiculous density of 1 billion tons per teaspoon and the heaviest metal we now know there is quite a range of possible transuranium atoms that could potentially fit and be stable under extreme pressures. We are talking about a very, very big periodic table under high pressures here.
Let's return a bit to Mark's contentions in the Final Theory again to see some very interesting facts he points out as a result of his theory.  The most interesting I found was the idea he suggested that since gravity is no longer a force that holds objects together through some invisible force pulling them towards each other then gravity is determined by the size of the object, not its mass because of the expansion of the electron being the cause of gravity again.  What this does in astronomy is nothing short of amazing.  The resulting conclusion we must draw is that we do not know the mass of any body in the universe by measuring it's gravity.  The Sun could have a neutron star at its core (I don't believe this, but as an example) and we wouldn't know it from the gravity.  In fact, because gravity is not determined by mass, but by size then the theories of black hole gravity and neutron star gravity are utterly false.  While superdense bodies made of ultra dense matter is possible, they would not exhibit any gravitational effect different from a similar body of the same size made of styrafoam.
When I was considering the stellar model in light of the new theory this concept of ultra-dense cores that were gravitationally undetectable was rather tantalizing.  Our concepts of stars and planets would have to be thoroughly re-imagined to account for this possibility.  However, during my general thinking meditation about how stars, planets, and "black holes" would work in a magnetic field powered solar model I found that the ideas flowed rather smoothly.  
The new stellar model is built upon the idea of the external powering of systems except where they have stored sufficient energy from the external power source to power themselves for a certain duration.  Our Sun then is powered by the rest of the galaxy primarily in the form of cosmic rays from other high driving force stars (driving force in this case is the energy that pushes cosmic rays out from the surface of a star) and natural synchrotron radiation sources such as large galactic magnetic fields or what we call "black holes"/"neutron stars".  In this model the ultimate source of energy is always external to the system in question whether it is a planet, star, "neutron star", "black hole", galaxy, galaxy cluster, and on up the scalar chain of possible systems.  
The first realization we come to is the idea that a system in a cosmic void is in big trouble.  If there is no source of external energy in a void, then a system that is crossing it will soon begin to suffer from a lack of external energy.  The result is that the system will begin to use up its internal stores of energy at a rapid pace.  If the system is to survive it must make it out of the void as fast as possible before its stores of internal energy are used up.  We will return to this idea soon, an idea I refer to as void evaporation.  
Considering again the origin of planets and stars, the idea must be considered that some or most planets and birthed from stars.  However, it is impossible for this to always be true for all planets because the known mechanism of planetary condensation would create what I refer to as dirt planets, planets at low "normal" density that form from gas clouds and collisions between asteroids as described in our current model.  The question would arise at some point, "is Earth a dirt planet or a planet with a hyperdense core ejected from another planet?"  The answer could only be determined by discovering the true mass within Earth's planetary inner solid core.  So far, not enough evidence is available, and we cannot determine this by gravity as described in McCutcheon's initial foray into expansion theory.
A planet with a hyperdense core would be an interesting beast.  As would a star.  What would happen over time if the planetary or stellar magnetic field was bombarded by solar rays, cosmic rays, and magnetic field pressure from external magnetic field smacking into it?  The amount of energy in the field would continually increase so long as the pressure remained constant or increasing.  The star or planet would gradually increase the amount of energy it contained so that the star would become brighter and the planet would become more and more geologically active.  This would not always be the case depending on many, many factors, but this general trend would be true.  

From what we know of Earth, the amount of volcanism on Earth has declined in general, however this does not mean that it will continue to do so.  More information is required.  
What would happen as a star's magnetic field energy increased?  Unless there is a source of additional matter, mass loss would slightly reduce the amount of matter within the star.   There are two plausible sources of new matter that could be considered as a source for this matter.  The first is obvious, a star could collide with another body to increase its mass such as absorbing a planet or colliding with another star.  The 2nd, which is less obvious, is the possibility of a star absorbing mass through a process of matter subduction.   
What is the hypothesis of matter subduction?  Because in Mark McCutcheon's expansion theory every form of matter including magnetic fields are made of the same basic particle, the electron, a hypothesis must be suggested that under some state of magnetic "vibration" normal physical matter such as protons or cosmic rays might be subducted into the magnetic field of planets, stars, or any conceivable magnetic system or object.  What this would do is to cause the proton or other matter particle(s) in question to "disappear" into the magnetic field that surrounds them and of course transfer any energy it has to the field in question as well.  Certain conditions would have to be true and a very long thought experiment along with a clear model and evidence supporting is required to verify if this is even possible.  But if it is, then we have a source of matter replenishment for large scale systems such as stars that does not require them to absorb more matter in the form of collisions with other celestial bodies.
A 3rd possible source of matter in this system is highly implausible, but again should be considered.  This possibility is for the creation of matter from motion or energy under certain conditions, what I refer to as a type of field copy hypothesis.  This would envision the universe as a sort of "free energy" "perpetual motion machine" however and implies a different ruleset than what we would consider thermodynamically correct.  It also must be fully flushed out as a theoretical framework, but because it sounds "too good to be true", the idea must be considered highly unlikely. Because the full nature of the electron is not known, however, it must be examined as a distant possibility.  In such a hypothetical system, matter and energy are a byproduct of motion and as such they are automatically created as time progresses in nature.  
Returning to our basic scientific model of the new the planet/stellar idea, as a star's magnetic field expands under magnetic field bombardment from external sources, even if there is low mass loss except when the star absorbs another object, the magnetic field is going to become stronger and larger.  The hypothetical mechanism here is the speed of the electrons in the magnetic field, and by extension the electrical field inside the star.  The electrons will move faster and faster and thus the amount of energy in the star will increase.  The star's magnetic field will expand allowing for more energy to enter from outside as the larger the surface area of the field the more energy it is collecting if all other processes are equal.  The star becomes brighter as a result.  This process can continue so long as the star is stable.
When a star becomes unstable it is because it can no longer support the massive magnetic field that it has generated either because there is an absolute size the magnetic field can reach before the amount of energy causes a type of overload or because the heat of the star's internal environment has melted too much of its outer core exposing hyperdense matter underneath to too low of a pressure resulting in a fission reaction that goes critical.
Hyperdense matter can only be stable under great pressures in nature based on what we know about radioactivity and heave elements.  We see that radioactive rates of decay do vary based on external pressure in this article and there is other evidence that this is true.
When a star goes critical it produces either a nova or a supernova.  Current observations of nova and supernova show that they do not follow the conventional models in their intensity, longevity, and in other ways varying considerably in scope.  This will lend credence to the concept that not only can novas/supernovas occur at any range of energy levels, but that many of the smaller explosions do not even get registered at all.
What do I mean here?  If the key property of an overload of a magnetic field powered star or planet is the mass underlying the system core and the critical explosion is caused by some combination of magnetic field overload and a fission explosion caused by hyperdense matter exposure to lower external pressures then this would occur at any range of possible power levels depending on the underlying system's nature.  It means that hypothetically Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, or Uranus could explode tomorrow if it had a relatively small core and it suddenly reached it's critical state.  This is, of course, highly implausible, however because we can't tell what stage of stability the core of any particular system is in, until we know more about the signs of unstable cores then any planet or star could go critical.  Since every planet in the system appears stable we can assume that none of them is about to go critical.
In order to determine whether a system is near its absolute maximum carrying capacity as a magnetic field bearing celestial object, we must find out the rule-set upon which this is based.  In my original analysis, which I have long since lost since I conducted it about six years ago just in my own in my mind with internet sources as a guide, I loosely estimated (and this is a very loose estimate based upon alot of assumptions looking at supernova explosions) that there was a ratio of luminosity of a nova/supernova to underlying mass that should be able to determine the true mass of the underlying core AFTER it went supernova/nova.  The figure I came up with was about 160,000 L (L = 1 solar luminosity or 4 X 10^26 watts, remember that figure from earlier in our analysis?), which again is just a really loose guesstimate.  The real figure could be higher or lower, more probably higher.  
We're quite hypothetical at this point of the analysis, but the 160,000 L figure was based on the amount of luminosity what we consider a current solar mass would put out as a nova if it went critical.   If the theory of cosmic ray powered stars is true and the mechanism by which an overload happens is mostly magnetic field overload based on mass to magnetic field ratio then the built up energy of a Sun like star as conceived by our current stellar models without a hyperdense core (or a "dirt star") when it goes nova would simply puff up and then collapse into a dense object like a "white dwarf" just as the conventional theory sort of suggests.  But this assumes that the star is exactly formed in the manner described by current solar models which is a star that is created from a contracting gas cloud and has no hyperdense core at its center.  
So if the Sun was such a star hypothetically reaching the end of its life it would puff out to 160,000 L which is 160,000 times its current luminosity .  Its magnetic field would then have been dissipated and it would shrink down into a planetary size ball because it no longer would have the magnetic field to absorb the external cosmic ray and magnetic field pressure coming from the rest of the galaxy.  
This is obvious not what I think is going to happen to the Sun.  There is no signs of instability that we would expect if such a thing was happening, but the possibility of stars forming from gas clouds in this new model still exists and this is what we might expect if such a "dirt star" were to form and live out its life in such a way. 
If you continue this analysis you will notice that what I have just said indicates that most stars in our galaxy are much, much more massive than we currently think possible because of these hyper-dense cores.  The 160,000 L figure if applied to large supernova would suggest that the star in question would be over half a million solar masses according to what we think about what the Sun weighs currently.  But such a star would be among the largest in the galaxy assuming it gives a 100 billion L at maximum luminosity of a supernova.  Also, this figure shouldn't be all that amazing considering that current astrophysics places some galactic core "black holes" at 10 billion solar masses.  
As we extend our new model further we see that hyperdense cores are what makes big, hot massive stars possible and keeps them stable.  It also makes quasars possible and could keep them stable, though evidence on quasars isn't complete to really truly define them correctly or even determine if they exist at all.  The closest quasar is something like 2.4 billion light years from here and the lack of a one close by may indicate quasars may not be anything other than optical illusions caused by misreading of redshift distances as suggested by some Electrical Universe proponents.  However, active galactic nuclei are real and many exist closeby.  More evidence is needed to establish whether or not quasars exist at all.  The new theory suggests they are possible, but they would be rare features of very large core galaxies.
Dealing with the new stellar model creates a big headache for anyone trying to retool the universe according to the new concept of magnetic field powered stars.  The current interpretations of the hertzsprung-russell diagram presents the biggest challenge encountered.  In the current theory stars burn out their core hydrogen then jump off the main sequence to the giant or supergiant branch and then burn out their nuclear fuel turning into white dwarfs or exploding in supernova turning into neutron stars and black holes depending on how much mass they have and what type of nuclear fuel they can burn up in their cores according to standard astrophysics models.
The Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram of 22,000 Nearby Stars - The Bane of Alternative Theories As This Is What Must Be Explained
In addition to explaining the standard hertzsprung-russell diagram of star magnitude and size, a successful alternative theory must overcome the hurdle of what has been discovered in terms of variations on the standard diagram explained in various ways by conventional astronomy such as the fact that globular cluster and open cluster hertzsprung-russell diagrams vary considerably from the "normal" galactic diagrams.  
In the magnetic field powered star theory, the explanation for difference in solar output comes from the fact that as a stellar magnetic field grows the star itself increases in luminosity so it moves towards the upper left branch of the diagram or towards the blue end of what is called the main sequence which is the main band in the diagram above.  However, hypothetically if we think about the way stars are observed in the sky, the star could also evolve towards the giant branch as well.  What we tend to observe as astronomers is that nearly all O and B stars occur in tight groups which are generally referred to as open clusters, but the vast majority of giant stars occur by themselves in normal star density stellar space.  
What this suggests is that O and B stars as well as their supergiant cousins are stars that are very ancient and very massive in their internal core hyperdensity.  It has generally been noticed that giants and supergiants are generally unstable suggesting that these are stars who are reaching their magnetic field limits and are closer to going critical.  Massive stars wouldn't have this problem because their hyperdense cores can take so much more external cosmic ray/magnetic field flux, so they would stay on the main sequence because they are much more stable at higher levels of magnetic field bombardment.  
Why would they tend to gather in groups?  The hypothesis here is an already existing massive star would, when undergoing a binary fission through nova/supernova process, would fission to create large stars instead of small ones.  In addition, another hypothesis of stellar creation must be considered, the multiple binary fission of large "black holes" ejected from the central galactic "black hole" or similar such very large objects.  In summary, large massive stars come from other large massive stars and from "black holes" so they tend to hang around each other. 
So then what's a "black hole"?  The answer is that it is most likely another giant stellar object who puts out most of its energy outside the visible range in the form of x-rays, gamma - rays, and cosmic rays.  From this point forward we will refer to "black holes" as dark quasar to differentiate them from the theory of black holes as suggested by quantum physics which we debunked with Mark McCutcheon's help at the beginning of this discussion.  
Returning to the analysis of star groups we can now explain the hertzsprung-russell diagram of globular clusters and open clusters with what is called their turnoff point from the main sequence.  The reason these groups of stars have a turnoff point that is truncated is that we are witnessing the exact stellar development of a particular group of stars whose largest members are only so large and have not achieved the hyperdense core mass required to become any larger than they are.
 Open Cluster Turnoff Point for Two Open Clusters
If you see the diagram above you see that the turnoff point for both these two open clusters is very well defined.  Stars in our magnetic field powered star concept would begin their development down on the right hand and depending on how much the mass in their cores were would proceed to develop in the direction of the turnoff, turning towards the giant branch when they began to reach the limits of their magnetic field core mass ratio.  The cluster doesn't have stars larger than the turnoff except maybe a few of the outliers to the upper left because the largest stars in this group do not have the core mass required to support higher levels of luminosity acquired from the magnetic field pressure of external cosmic rays and magnetic fields.
What about stars down in the red dwarf - k dwarf  (what we currently call low mass main sequence stars) range?  If a star has relatively low amounts of hyperdense matter, it may not reach the magnetic field size required for it to become a giant, instead a low mass star with relatively low levels of hyperdense mass would simply become a regular A,F, G-class star (which was probably unstable) as its final stage and then puff out to 160,000 L times its solar mass when it was done and it reached its magnetic field mass ratio limit.  We would hardly even notice this it would occur so rarely and someone would only see a brief temporary star show up and disappear.  Who would even notice something like this against the background of hundreds of millions of stars visible from Earth?
What happens when our magnetic field powered stars collapse after their magnetic fields have been blown out by nova/supernova?  Sometimes, but not always they would have split in two, but in either case they are likely to not be dead in the way we think of stars today.  A "white dwarf" is not a dead star!  It's just a core that needs time to come back to life again.  How would this happen?
White dwarfs would be composed of ultradense matter (oddly enough just like today) except the matter would be far denser the closer we got to the core.  Because there is still radioactive hyperdense metals in the core, heat would still be generated.  Over time, that heat will begin the process of melting.  Hyderdense elements, in addition, could begin to slowly fission releasing less dense matter above them.  This would result in a slow process whereby the star begins to regenerate itself through melting, release of lighter elements from fission, and other processes.  Given a sufficient time all that is required for it to start serious regrowth is to get its magnetic field active again sufficient to support the process of capturing energy again from cosmic rays and external magnetic fields.  How does it do this?
The main process in magnetic field expansion of star size objects is massive plasma envelope that surrounds the nucleus of the star.  Once a star possessed this, it would again be capable of generating the size of magnetic field it needed to fuel its continued growth.  This creates the idea of a solar cycle whereby a star goes to completion, novas or supernovas, returns to the basic "white dwarf" configuration, and then slowly regenerates its outer shell through release of lighter elements from nuclear decay of hyderdense matter and heavy radioactive metals.  
What we can envision is a planetary stellar cycle which goes through the classical four elements.  Beginning as a quiescent cold white dwarf slowly the star core decays slowly releasing enough matter to have an atmosphere again becoming a liquid covered white dwarf looking something like a small gas giant like Neptune or Uranus.  Unless you had exact magnetic field and mass readings it would be difficult to tell at a distance what the object was at the core.  Then as the process continued over presumable a very long time perhaps billions of years the core would continue to decay and the old star now looks like a typical gas giant like Jupiter.  The star continues this development over a long course of time until it is brown dwarf and then again on the main sequence as a red dwarf.
This process is very likely to vary considerably based on the mass of hyperdense core leftover after the nova/supernova.  Very large stars may restart as what we call "neutron stars", though they certainly wouldn't be 15 km across.  There more investigation needed on the claims of 15 km across neutron stars.  We can't see objects the size of Earth at these distances yet astronomers claim to see 15 km wide stars whose boundaries cannot be determined at this range.  In any case, the larger the original star, the more likely that it starts its assent back to its maximum power somewhere other than at the baseline of being a "white dwarf".  What this means is that it is conceivable for a very large star that it is possible that it blows of its magnetic field and starts its new lifecycle as something as large as a g-type main sequence star like our Sun.  It all depends on how large the core is and how much mass it contains.
Galaxies are powered externally by cosmic rays and external magnetic fields as well.  All of the power of the galaxy is centered on its giant central dark quasar (remember this is what we call a supermassive galactic black hole in current astrophysics).  Think of the amount of power available to a galactic magnetic field.  The field is ridiculously enormous!  All this energy is cored to the central body in the galaxy.  The central dark quasar must be immense and contain immense amounts of hyperdense matter.  If it puts out most of its energy as cosmic rays, the central black hole feeds the galaxy just as the galaxy gets its power from external sources like the entire local supercluster.  In a infinite universe the scales have no limit to how large they can go.
Globular clusters can be explained in the new theory as either an ejected dark quasar core that divided through binary fission or one whose galaxy was stripped by the larger galaxy and also divided by binary fission.  Either theory works but the 1st theory requires a quasar like process as current theories describe in order to account for the force of projection necessary to expel such a large core from the central dark quasar.  Another hypothesis is that the globular clusters have just slowly developed on their own orbiting the galaxy slowly growing on their own.  Also the current theory of these clusters being the cores of galaxies that have been mostly stripped of their stars is probably the most likely hypothesis in general.
If stars become planets as at the end of their normal lives , don't planets become stars.  Yes, in the new concept they do.  Over time a planet would also reach its critical limit, explode, go back to its own baseline of development and start over.  Assuming it wasn't absorbed by another system by crashing into it, it would just keep on developing.  Earth could be just another gas giant that blew out its outer magnetic fields and is now quietly building up its magnetic field or it could be a dirt planet that formed from asteroids crashing into each other and gas condensing from a "pre-planetary" nebula. We don't know what's at the Earth's core to tell us.  
All this comes down to the idea that a planet or star evolves larger and larger each growth cycle it completes.  Over time hypothetically as each grand planetary/stellar cycle is completed, so long as the general amount of available external cosmic rays and magnetic fields didn't go down, the star or planet would in general though not every time start its next cycle with slightly more matter in its hyperdense core than last time.  Over a very long time scale the celestial objects would continually grow in general, but again not in every case every time.  This process would slowly grow the inner hyperdense core.  The main exception to this rule is if the system was thrown into a void where cosmic ray pressure or external magnetic fields were insufficient in which case the system would tend to evaporate over time in the process called void evaporation unless it was successfully able to cross the void before it ran out of internal energy stored in the hyperdense core in the form of hyperdense radioactive elements again.  
As a review we are analyzing two elements of the lives of planets, stars, neutron stars, and dark quasars here: the short term life cycle going from a starting point in the form of being birthed from a binary fission from another star or planet in a nova/supernova or having just reduced its power by nova/supernova until the next nova/supernova and the long term life cycle which continues each time this process is completed with the restart of the cycle until the day the celestial body either evaporates in a void or collides with a larger body thus ending its cycle of growth.  Each short term cycle completes and in general assuming external energy is available in the form of cosmic rays and external magnetic fields the hyperdense core grows more massive with each cycle.  This occurs either because of planetary/stellar collisions that add mass to the core most likely during its expansion into a giant/supergiant or because of matter subduction where the magnetic field is absorbing mass from its surroundings. 
As we observe a star in its day to day, year to year normal operations, a star's magnetic field would also respond to changes in its cosmic ray and external magnetic field environment.  This is short term planetary/stellar magnetic field change.  In general if the external cosmic ray and magnetic field environment became poorer, the field would respond by expanding outwards over time.  Proof for this process can be found in this article.  This will very quickly match the absorption of energy required to continue the star or planets energy "consumption" from cosmic rays or external magnetic fields.  External cosmic ray and magnetic conditions vary in the short term depending on surrounding stars and types of space environment.
Different space environments in a galaxy could consist of a magnetic field/cosmic ray conveyor belt for stars passing through them and for cosmic rays as they move from one region of space to another empowering regional galactic magnetic fields as they move around.  A hypothesis to consider is the idea that in general the denser the medium through which a celestial body is passing through, the more the energy is contained in the form of magnetic fields instead of cosmic rays.  Regions of space that are molecular clouds or cold neutral medium are denser than areas that are warm neutral medium or hot neutral medium.  The former would tend to have more energy to be absorbed from magnetic fields, the later in the form of more cosmic ray pressure.  This is purely hypothetical, but whatever the case, a star passing areas with more available external energy sources in this form will see its magnetic field shrink temporarily while if it enters an area with less pressure will tend to see its magnetic field expand.  The general hypothesis is that more energy is available in denser mediums because they are better able to store energy since cosmic rays would be slowed down passing through such mediums making them sort of like cosmic battery parks as the energies would transfer to the local gas cloud magnetic field.  These would be difficult to detect as even the Voyager probes could not detect magnetic field changes until they passed through them in areas of space that would be considered highly visible to detection.  
Another similar process happens when a star enters a void.  The star's magnetic field expands as far as it can in order to gather as much energy as it can.  However, if it cannot find enough, the star should begin to lose energy slowly as the radioactive hyperdense core will continue to decay releasing energy.  Eventually even a core explosion is hypothetically possible if magnetic field pressure assists in some way in stabilizing hyperdense cores.  In order to understand the process better thought experiments have to carried out considering the relationship between the magnetic field supporting plasma surrounding the hyperdense core, the hyperdense core and how it responds to the magnetic field of its own star, and what allows for continual stability of the hyperdense core under various conditions.  So hypothetically a hyperdense core could explode either at the end of a short term stellar cycle or during a trip through a void.  The former is more likely than the later, but until the relationships are fully understood either must be considered possible.
Lets deal with time scales here.  What appears clear is that stars live a great deal longer in this idea that in our current models.  It is generally estimated that the Sun has slowly increased in strength over the course of its lifetime based on what we know.  This is not by much, but the increase suggests a gradual growing process of the magnetic field as a result of a slight excess of cosmic ray and external magnetic field flux.  This excess I figured had to be very small but sufficient that the Sun would increase its luminosity to perhaps like current fusion star models suggest which is around 10% per billion years.  We don't really have enough data to say.  Perhaps the process is even slower, but the idea that ancient Earth was hotter than today in general is supported by the fossil record but can be generally completely accounted for by CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  More studies are required to find out for sure, and examination of other stars might reveal more.
So in hypothetical territory let's say ever 10 billion years or so a star's luminosity doubles.  We can calculate the required cosmic ray and magnetic field flux to have this be true.  Over time it keeps doubling until it reaches critical mass and exits along the giant branch from the main sequence until its magnetic field reaches critical and it novas or supernovas.  We know the amount of time it takes for a star's luminosity to double can't be very fast in our solar neighborhood because Earth's incoming solar radiation hasn't been apparently much lower in the past.  Maybe even the 10 billion year timetable is too short.  
The number of times a star or planet could successfully double its luminosity would determine the length of the full short term cycle of a star or planet's life cycle.  Say each doubling took 10 billion years and a star could double 20 times before reaching critical magnetic field to core mass ratio, then each short cycle in the star's life would take about 200 billion years to complete.  That is alot of time, and shows how different the new model is from the current one in terms of how old celestial objects are.
When a star goes nova and releases some its core mass creating a planet nearby, the planet increases the potential of a star to gather mass temporarily as long as the planet is reaborbed into its parent star when that star becomes a giant or supergiant.  The presence of large numbers of large superjupiters close to stars discovered recently supports the theory that this happens quite frequently.  A planet would generally start close to a star unless it was a very large core overload explosion and then be pushed out slowly by the star's radiant pressure from the light and solar cosmic rays it emits.  How does the planet increase the potential for a star to gather mass?  Because, the planet, moving away from the parent star, has a chance to sweep up other bodies that the star might have captured into its gravitational expansion and then when the star goes giant and supergiant the planet again is pulled back into the star.  In this way many solar systems can be seen as extended parts of their parent star that will be reabsorbed by that star when it reaches its expanded phases at the end of the short phase of the solar lifecycle.  This hypothesis can be called planetary swarm mass capture re-absorption.  This all would also be true of smaller stars ejected from larger stars being in close proximity to them.  
Let's talk about another topic, galaxy evolution. Galaxies merge and galaxies break apart in the new model similar to the way stars from other stars and planets and then crash into them as well.  There is a continual process in the cosmos in our new model of celestial bodies and systems colliding and merging and also dividing and separating.  The model for galactic separation involves the dark quasar's light phase if such a phase exists.  A quasar then is a galaxy in the process of being about to divide.  Another possibility is that the massive gamma-ray bursters hypothetically discovered by current astrophysics are supermassive supernova of dark quasars at the core of galaxies who have just had a binary fission into two dark quasars while going through a magnetic field collapse core overload.  
Two dark quasars would generally push each other apart through radiating x-ray, gamma-ray, and cosmic rays resulting in the slow division of the galaxy in many ways like a dividing cell in biology.  Another possibility is that the force of the supermassive gamma-ray burst supernova propels the smaller part of the dark quasar that is expelled during a core overload explosion out into the outer regions of the galaxy resulting in a big mess as stars adjust to the new gravitational regime.  
Our new model is looking more complete the more we think about it.  Its a bit odd at first and many questions exist.  Some inconsistencies may be present, but the general ideas are all here.  Stars and planets are powered externally by cosmic rays and external magnetic fields.  They grow in the short term by expanding their magnetic field through cosmic ray bombardment and external magnetic field interaction with their magnetic field.  They absorb mass through either collisions or through subduction of matter particles into their magnetic field.  They grow until they reach critical mass and then explode often in a binary fission that produces a new planet or star.  Sometimes they may expel some of their matter midway through a cycle if the conditions are right as possibly suggested by hot jupiters because a temporarily minor core instability has developed from normal changes to their cores.  
Each short cycle ends in a return to the baseline system with a minimum magnetic field and a dense core usually in the form of a hot rocky planet like body like a white dwarf, but generally increasing in mass and energy output each cycle as more and more matter is added to the core through collisions or subduction.  Eventually the star may live so long that it grows into a dark quasar and hosts its own galaxy.  If not, it "dies" in a collision with another star or dark quasar or evaporates in a void if it is flung out into the depth of space beyond galaxies and cannot find a new galactic home before it runs out of hyperdense core fuel.
Galaxies can be any size conceivable as the central dark quasar has no limit on its own size.  As we explore the extended cosmos we may find larger and larger systems the more we look.  In our area of the universe there may even be a super core for the local space out to 10 billion light years.  At the center is likely a truly gargantuan galaxy with a truly gargantuan central dark quasar.  The idea of our local cosmos having a core of sorts has recently been supported by new evidence as this wikipedia page demonstrates clearly.  It can be easily hypothesized that the more we explore the larger the structures that we find will be.  If this is an infinite physical universe, then this has no limits.  
A few more odd realizations of what this new model could mean closer to home.  If most celestial objects are created by binary fission it is entirely plausible that the Moon was created by an ejection event from the Earth during a magnetic field overload of some kind.  The current hypothesis is that the Moon was kicked out by a Mars size body that impacted Earth and sent some of the debris into orbit which eventually condensed into our Moon.  Again, we don't have enough evidence to support either theory yet.  There is also the old "dirt planet" "dirt moon" hypothesis that the Earth and the Moon condensed from a planetary nebula of some sort around the Sun, perhaps when the Sun was moving through a molecular cloud.  Once again, data and investigation through observation and reasoning will reveal which of these hypothesis is most likely.
If the Earth was created from a planetary fission event, Jupiter or Saturn are the likely parents of Earth, not the Sun as it would tend to release a Jupiter or Saturn size body on binary fission core overload.  If this is the case, how did Earth get to its present orbit in the solar system?  A weird hypothesis in this regard was the Jupiter may have been the central star of the solar system before the Sun reached its current size.  The Sun, during such an earlier phase in the Solar System, would have been a slightly smaller star.  This sort of trade in roles is possible between different stars in different life cycle phases.  Another interesting feature of the new model that is quite intriguing.  If this is true than Jupiter would have undergone a core overload at some point and is now back to being a gas giant perhaps passing through another phase between its last core overload and now.  
If this is true then we would expect some sort of evidence in the form of differential radioactive isotopes on the surface of different planets of our solar system.  The planets surfaces would essentially have different ages.  The only possible reason they wouldn't in this model is if their surfaces were melted by Jupiter's core overload during which time a nova would have engulfed the surfaces of the inner solar system (which of course would look very different than today as everything would be rotating around a solar Jupiter instead of the Sun).  This possibility may be considered as having happened about 4.6 billion years ago approximately.  This interesting speculation is unlikely though, as Jupiter would probably have taken longer to get back to being a gas giant, but shouldn't be completely ruled out just yet.  Incidently the theory that Earth was birthed from a gas giant was one I read the from the Electrical Universe proponent Velikovsky who proposed the Earth being birthed from Saturn.  
As you can see, there is no big bang in this model.  The cosmos is likely a very, very large place if not infinite, but the systems in it basically grow slowly and contract periodically.  Where did all this come from?  What is the ultimate source for our cosmos?  Transdimensional theory, if you remember from the beginning of this essay, is the where we must turn to to consider what the nature of the system is at a higher levels of purpose, nature, and being.  But a few paradoxes need resolving first.  The first is a very perplexing problem that can be referred to as the infinite physical cosmos external energy source paradox.  
In this thought experiment we see that the cosmos is infinite and that the infinite becomes its own source.  This immediately enters into the fallacy of magical thinking as this is basically the perpetual motion machine.  The thought begins with the idea that because the cosmos is infinite, more energy is always available from the next level above in the infinite series of "layers" between here and infinity.  This idea is sort of the ultimate cosmic free lunch.  We can balance this idea by suggesting that the cosmos is in balance in infinity so that energy does come from everywhere in the form of cosmic rays and light and that it just sort of flows around the cosmos creating periodic shortages in some parts and periodic booms in others.   
This doesn't seem on the surface to be too much of a problem with our easy solution, however, we never address whether or not the infinite paradox could in fact be valid as a source of external power as the opposite is impossible to prove through serial logic.  We have to come up with a theory of the infinite in order to framework our infinite cosmic concept and apply additional rational limits to the idea to make it sensible.  Otherwise we are left with the free lunch problem that is obviously ridiculous.  
 The problem in the analysis doesn't come from this, but from another at first seemingly unrelated problem in metaphysics.  That problem is the problem of soul growth.  Before I get to that area of analysis, however, I want to return to the model of the atom and go into chemistry because what's greatest about our new expanding electron model is that it offers a new way of seeing chemistry and biological processes rooted in chemistry that could potentially offer major cures to diseases down the line.  That is more important and so I will cover these concepts now.
Atomic Orbitals As Currently Envisioned by Standard Chemistry Theory Presumably Through Extensions of Schrodinger's Wave Equation Which Cannot Be Used As Predictive Tools In Light Of The New Electron Expansion Theory
The property of differential atomic bonds must be considered.  Based on expansion theory electrons expand and bounce off the expanding nucleus which is also made of electrons.  If neutrons consist of expanding electrons why isn't the number of neutrons important in determining the chemical nature of the atom?  Why do isotopes exist and yet their chemical properties are often nearly indistinguishable from one another?
The explanation must be that protons are the only subatomic particles that create the structure of the nucleus from which bouncing electrons create the electron cloud surrounding it.  Protons are responsible for nearly all chemical properties of the vast majority of atoms, while neutrons are not responsible for almost any of them but add mass to the nucleus.  If electrons are bouncing off the nucleus, this means that neutrons cannot contribute their true electrons (of which they are made) to the expanding nucleus or they would have an effect on the chemical properties of an element. So neutrons must exist in a manner that makes them "invisible" to the bouncing electrons.  
My first solution was to consider the possibility that neutrons existed not as solid particles in the nucleus but as fields similar to magnetic fields and this hypothesis can be called the neutron nuclear magnetic field hypothesis.  My second thought was that if neutrons formed a shell whose size was determined by the protons in some fashion, then the electrons would be bouncing off the neutron shell whose size was determined somehow by the protons, though this system I couldn't work out quite in my head as to how such a system would work.  My third and final thought was the idea that protons could form the outer shell of the nucleus with neutrons inside them where their mass/volume would not affect the electron clouds bouncing off the nucleus. This is the idea which makes the most sense in terms of the physical consistency with what we know so far and this hypothesis can be called the proton nuclear shell hypothesis.  There is also the consideration of exotic explanations such as the idea that the neutron is a energy phantom of internal processes inside the atom, though more analysis would be required to ascertain its exact nature.
Another part of the theory of new chemistry revolves around explaining the differential properties between atoms that we learn in modern chemistry without expansion theory.  We know certain atoms are more electronegative than others.  We know that the right side of the periodic table has elements that tend to absorb electrons, while the left side metals tend to give electrons.  The new physical theory of chemistry suggests a plausible explanation.
Firstly, if different atomic nucleus's had different sizes it would account for the different properties very clearly.  A large atomic nucleus would have a higher nuclear expansion pressure and would tend to push electrons away.   So metals should generally have larger nucleuses as they tend to donate electrons.  Non-metals then must have smaller nucleuses and the differential between the expansion pressure of metals and that of non-metals must be explained by the fact the metals push their electrons towards the non-metals once these atom specific electron clouds overlap.  In this concept, the larger the nucleus, the more expansion pressure exists in the atomic envelope surrounding the nucleus because a larger nucleus expands with greater force than a smaller one.  The nucleus is doubling every uT interval, so a larger nucleus doubles in the same time a smaller one does, creating more pressure because of its larger expansion area.  This is related to the concept Mark mentions for larger planets having larger gravitational expansion based on their volume, not their mass.  This means that the reason alkaline metals give their electrons up so easily is their nucleus's are volumetrically larger than other atoms so they literally push their electrons out of their envelope due to the higher pressure within from the volumetrically larger expanding nucleus.  So fluorine, oxygen, chlorine and other electronegative halogens and non metals are so because their relatively small nucleus's do not create as much pressure in their atomic envelope, which means electrons easily enter them because there is less resistance.  
Additionally the new model of the atom would have to take into account some interesting facts concerning isotopes.  There is a small chemical difference between isotopes with one major general exception, hydrogen's three isotopes.  Deuterium and tritium are said to be somewhat different in the way they chemically react to basic protium which is single proton hydrogen.  Deuterium and tritium each have one and two neutrons respectively.  Both are said to have generally stronger bonds than ordinary hydrogen.  With a complete suite of properties to compare deuterium and tritium we could find the physical changes in the nucleus that corresponds to the chemical properties observed.  
This would also be the easiest starting point in our thought experiment about the nature of the neutron - proton relationship within the atom as hydrogen is the simplest atom known.  
A major problem exists with the definition of the electron in our current particle physics models that must be addressed.  The electron that our scientists call the electron is not the electron of the expansion theory.  Our current particles we call electrons are understood as having a mass - 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg. However, this must be wrong in expansion theory if we examine the entire breath of the theory.  Electrons compose clusters which make up light packets.  If their mass was so high, then photons (electron clusters in light) would weigh a significant amount more than they do, and would consequently have a much higher energy.  Using Plank's and Einstein's equations a photon of 500 nm wavelength (blue-green in color) has a mass of 4.417 X 10^-36 kg, which is over 200,000 times smaller than the mass of the official electron.  The same light frequency, if we use the quanta as the basis particle of the light cluster/photon uses up approximately 1.5 million protons per second to maintain (see mass of true electron in Appendix).  This means it would take 12 billion years for a mole of protons (about 1 gram of mass) to be used up generating this wavelength of light using the quantum, the true electron, as the basic particle (see later discussion concerning the mass of the true electron).  
If we use the current particle physics electron on the other hand, assuming an equivalence of one electron mass to one quanta we get that the same mole will last about .003 seconds, or in one second the weakest light of 500 nm would use 325 grams of matter.  This clearly cannot be the case.  The same light would require, continuing this analysis, over 10 million kilograms, or 10,000 tons to shine for one year.  If this were the case, then shining a flashlight using only one weakest possible beam of light should vaporize the entire flashlight into light in a about 3 or 4 seconds.  Clearly, that does not happen.  The photons, thus, cannot be made of electrons which are much, much more massive than them, which is how we understand them currently, but photons can be made of quanta without any of issues for the larger subatomic particle we now call the electron.  This means that the particle described in contemporary science particle experiments called the electron is not in fact McCutcheon's electron, which I have referred to as the true electron to avoid confusion.  The current particle we call the electron must in fact be another particle made of true electrons that is stable in its configuration, much as protons and neutrons.  We must also now rename the electron to avoid confusion with the true electron, but first its true particle nature and properties must be explored to contextualize our new understanding of the old electron and its part in the subatomic zoo of particles (electron clusters) made of true electrons.
Concerning the electron as we know it today, it may be that the electron is a ball of true electrons consisting of the whole amount of true electrons bouncing off the nucleus either completely or within what is called a shell.  A shell may or may not be a separate shell (in reference to standard chemical orbital theory) above the nucleus but only an amount of true electrons that can be expelled from a true electron envelope by nuclear expansion or true electron cluster impact successfully and remain stable as a cluster outside the nucleus.  This would mean, if this is the case, that there is some connection between the mass of the electron, the number of true electrons involved, and the discoveries of quantum physics with regard to the quantum condition and the angular momentum connection to the mass of the current electron (as used by Bohr in his equation).  
McCutcheon's definition of electron clusters doesn't add up completely.  If the quantum is a single electron, it should have a unit of MASS, not a unit of impulse as implied by Plank's equation E = hv.  Based on his description of electron clusters, the amount of energy to create smaller electron clusters is not reflected in mass/energy ratio of the higher ends of the EM spectrum.  If a large electron cluster and a small electron cluster pass the same point at the speed of light, the larger electron cluster should have more energy than the small one assuming they are moving at the same speed.  The wavelength would increase, but the amount of mass passing a given point of space at the same time would remain the same or would decrease if we use basic geometry.  This is the opposite of what we should expect if the smaller clusters are at the high end of the spectrum.  There is something that is obviously missing here.  The problem may be with the way we interpret the E=hv experiment itself or that Mark's may have been mistaken about which electron clusters of light were larger as explained later.
Mark's ideas about light being composed of electron clusters is correct when we see that the quanta is in fact the true electron, which is the basic particle of all matter and of light photons.  I believe that all matter is composed of these true electrons, and I believe these true electrons are expanding at a fixed accelerating rate.  I also believe it is possible to ascertain the nature of the true electron from what we know about physical constants so far including Plank's constant.  
I have found the mass of the true electron using Einstein's (which still applies to light itself as a measure of its energy and matter content) and Plank's equations.  This mass is approximately 7.3622 X 10-51 Kg.  Using Einstein's and Plank's equations it is possible to calculate the mass of each true electron cluster/spiral (photon) which composes an individual true electron clusters of EM radiation from the Terahertz band up (the boundary between true electron clusters (photons) and true electron bands of microwave/radio band radiation from Mark's description of EM radiation) through the high end gamma rays.  Incidentally, this means that a single true electron travelling at the speed of light, if impacting another electron or an object at rest, would impart 6.626 X 10-34 joules of energy.  All of this however, must still be reexamined because we need a perfect understanding of all these properties first.
The application of these equations using mass as an indicator of the true electron show that Mark may have been mistaken when he assumed the gamma ray end of the spectrum contained smaller true electron clusters than the lower end of the spectrum.  This is based on the fact that as light travels at the speed of light when it is released from a source (from the point of view of the source) then if a given photon has a higher energy, then it must have higher mass in order to account for the energy being higher.  It has been well established through plank's equation that gamma and x-rays have higher energies individually than EM radiation lower down on the EM spectrum.  The one explanation that can be accepted given our current understanding of physics is that the clusters at the high end are larger or that they are possibly not clusters but in fact twists on a corkscrew shaped stream of electrons or that the clusters are not actually physically touching (cannot physically touch/can overlap) so that more of them can be compressed into a single stream from a source.  The larger clusters may not actually be physically in contact with one another and thus can be squeezed tighter together.  A third possibility is that the clusters are all the same size and that they pass a given point in larger numbers because they are not physically touching or can potentially overlap without disruption.  In any case the energy and mass constraints of the system must not be violated and only studies can determine which of these possibilities is real.  It would be possible, with the large body of already existing data, to perhaps determine this without any additional new experiments on light.  
After examining Plank's experiment I concluded that Plank makes a fundamental error similar to the way Mark describes Einstein and Newton making errors in their equation which is by insertion of an assumption into the equation as mathematical fact.  This assumption is the existence of an actual wavelength.  Mark demonstrates in his model and theory that wavelength is meaningless when measuring subatomic electrons or electron clusters because length is only useful in the atomic realm when measuring objects made of atoms.  Mark himself states that electron clusters that make up light are in fact subatomic structures by definition and as such their relative size in the physical is meaningless.
The result of this analysis is that the concept of wavelength has no meaning when applied to light.  Logically, the old science assumed that light was similar to radio waves and that it was propagated through the ether proposed in that time period.  This is the mental environment that classical physics existed in and the reason that Plank assumed that wavelength existed.  As a result the original black body radiation equation was stated in the form e = hv = hc/λ where h is plank's constant, v is frequency, and λ is wavelength.  But, wavelength here is assumed as waves propagating in ether (the old concept of ether, which is similar though not exactly the same as the one promoted earlier in this essay) which Mark shows can only apply to microwave and radiowave bands of electrons expanding outwards from a electrical field generating source in the macroatomic realm of molecules and larger.  
If we make this mathematical shift in Plank's equation then plank's constant itself must be changed because it is no longer true that e = hv = hc/λ as you will get two different units for h without the wavelength.  However, the resulting idea causes changes the way in which we can interpret this new situation.  The first realization is that frequency is no longer a number of electron clusters passing per second, hence it is no longer light's frequency.  It is actually the number of electrons that is passing per second, because h, the quanta, is the electron moving at the speed of light specifically.  
Only two possible interpretations now exist for the concept of light that can be considered.  The first is that light is electron clusters moving at the speed of light in a classical physics manner expanding in the atomic realm with conservation of vector motion (my general thinking on the matter) or that light is electron clusters expanding in the atomic realm without classical motion in classical vector physics solely through expansion pressure which is Mark's concept.  
The two different ways of looking at this expanding electron concept come down to which fits the data better.  Right now, I'm obviously partial to my interpretation, but because the data says to me the larger electron clusters must be larger the closer one gets to the gamma ray end of the EM spectrum.  If we have, in fact, eliminated wavelength as a function of the size of electron clusters because Plank was originally in error including wavelength as a assumption (incidentally Mark's original thinking was that wavelength was a measure of how large the electron clusters were), we are left with the startling conclusion that electron clusters are probably larger at the higher end of the EM spectrum and that we can drop our ideas about electron clusters being spirals while preserving the whole electron cluster model by inverting the size ratios of the non banded EM spectrum (that which is above mid Terra-hertz range).  
Expanding now on the difference between light as moving through expansion solely or light moving in a classical manner with vector motion conserved through properties of matter/expanding electrons.  The model of physicality is the issue as partially mentioned earlier when dealing with possible properties of matter and the electron specifically.  In a mathematically expanding model of the electron it may be possible that Mark is correct, but even here we would need to run a computer simulation to see how the effects work in order to be sure.  For the most part substantiation of properties could be feature of physicality that is non-mathematical.  The issue comes down to one of abstraction versus reality.  Mark's expanding electron clusters based solely on mathematical expansion may only be valid in abstract thinking.  The electron may not be abstract and as such may have properties of a field depending on whether fields are part of the complete picture.  This is what I refer to as holistic field theory, and it is the basis of a complex view of reality where systems exist that are whole with properties that are defined as extensions of universal logic.  Mark's idea of a purely mathematical system of expanding electrons, while elegant and simple, needs to be proven in a simulation and that simulation must match our observations.  Another issue regarding true electron clusters is the manner they are ejected from electrical fields as light by atoms.  Mark believes that the ejection occurs in the gaps between atoms.  While this analogy may work in the case of metals and electrical current in a wire, there are problems with the idea as it applies to ionized gases because the gaps between the molecules of these gases would not be the same size.  It seems likely that the atoms themselves may in fact eject the true electrons (in the form of clusters/spirals) from the true electron envelope surrounding the nucleus.  
When a true electron or a true electron cluster strikes a nucleus, it imparts momentum and energy into the true electron envelope that surrounds the nucleus.  The result is that the envelope may expand because vector motion is conserved inside the envelope when it is transferred from a bombarding outer source into the envelope itself.  The phenomenon would be equivalent to heating gas and the gas expanding because of the additional energy contained in the gas system.  
Returning just momentarily to astronomy to consider redshift and the Doppler effect. Redshift and blueshift on local scales are still due to the fact that if the source of electromagnetic radiation is moving towards or away from you, the number of clusters per second that pass a given point at any one instance would be altered either by having more clusters per second, increasing the apparent wavelength, or by having fewer clusters, decreasing the apparent wavelength.  Long distance red shift could still be caused by Mark's idea that electron clusters passing through magnetic fields and matter may be gaining/losing mass and increasing/decreasing in size or perhaps losing speed.  This idea has actually been around for awhile and has been suggested by other opponents of the Big Bang Theory.  Indeed, light does not have to travel at the speed of light according to this interpretation of electron expansion theory.  It could conceivably travel at any speed.  Light moving slower would have a lower wavelength, while light moving faster would have a longer wavelength because the number of clusters that pass per second would be higher regardless of the size of the clusters.  We must assume that it is still the wavelength based on the number of clusters per second that determines the frequency rather than their size.  
Below the level of protons exist many different true electron clusters of smaller and smaller sizes that are not incorporated into different light beams in light clusters/spirals.  Currently science has the concept of a tiny particle called a neutrino which can pass through huge amounts of matter without interacting with it.  While the neutrino itself is probably not the neutrino we currently think it is in the standard model, small true electron clusters hurled at tremendous speed would have a certain degree of penetrative power either directly or through secondary, tertiary, etc. clusters created by impact with a wall or deep object.  While it is questionable if a small true electron cluster of this nature could pass through miles upon miles of lead as it is alleged, it could very conceivably pass through a few hundred feet if it has sufficient energy on impact, or if it arrived in large waves/groups.  
During Supernova 1987A, neutrino detectors detected a huge spike of neutrinos through secondary decay (secondary particles created upon impact) in large underground water tanks.  It would be expected that in the event of a tremendous number of small true electron clusters arriving en masse from a supernova, for instance, that they could indeed create such an effect as passing through several hundred feet of concrete and causing such a mass release of secondary decay particles.  These tanks do also detect other decay events, though some scientists have questioned whether these are in fact neutrinos as the stand model describes and not some radioactive byproduct of the surrounding ground and walls.  During the arrival of the energetic true electron clusters from Supernova 1987A, there was most definitely a penetration into the water tanks secondary rays caused by the arrival of these particles.  According to current stellar models, neutrinos, in fact, represent 99%+ of a supernova's energy output.
While the current models are questionable in so many regards, the idea that much of the energy of such an explosion could be released in the form of clusters of true electrons that would not be identified as light, but instead as freely expanding true electrons outside the framework of recognizable light beams or normal EM radiation because they would not exist as a stream but as individual true electron clusters expelled from a core explosion of a electromagnetic and/or nuclear variety must be considered as a possible explanation of the existence of what we call neutrinos  Such neutrinos would be in all manner of sizes from 1 true electron all the way up to perhaps the size of a proton (though this would qualify them as a cosmic ray at this size) and thus would have a large range of masses and energy.  They would still be absorbed by a sufficiently thick slab of matter that would likely be far less than the amount currently assumed.  These true electron clusters that we may call non-photon sub-proton true electron clusters would be very important in determining invisible fluxes of energy in the Cosmos because they would be present just about everywhere and could alter the equations of magnetic field absorption of cosmic rays if they are responsible for transferring large amounts of energy into magnetic fields.  These largely invisible type of true electron clusters are certainly part of the general energy-matter flux of the cosmos.  
The final topic in our general science roundup is possible future technology.  The same process of electrical and magnetic field alteration of matter in stars and planets under sufficient magnetic field stress can be applied in a laboratory.  It is likely that matter can be copied or transformed under the right magnetic and electrical field stress.  Magnetic field and electrical field streams are composed of the same electrons as all matter.  If we have sufficient electrons in a group we have a proton, if we have a great deal more we end up with an atom.  Electrons in a magnetic field sheet are same as electrons in a electric current which are the same as the ones in atoms (if they are true electrons according to the new definition).  This means that if we are able to condense a sheet or current into a sphere of a proton and successfully eject it from the electrical/magnetic field, we have manufactured a proton from an electrical or magnetic field.  
In a similar manner could we potentially form an atom or even molecule from a electro-magnetic mold at the proper "frequency"/current/voltage (inner magnetic or electrical field)  by molding the shape of an atom (using the atom) against the background of the current/magnetic field and cutting out an exact shape in the perfect conditions (true electron for true electron)  We could even add matter to atoms to change them from one type to another.  Of course, this is all hypothetical with a great deal more knowledge than we currently have.
Thus, under the right conditions, and with sufficient energy, we could indeed convert lead to gold if we understand the new science completely.  We could also make more of any elemental substance we required simply by finding the magnetic field stress combined with a proper electrical current of the right voltage and amperage to remove true electrons from the electrical or magnetic stream and store it in the elemental crystal lattice.  This would obviously take a great deal of energy and would likely be very destructive in terms of the amount of energy released when a stream of electrons going the speed of light is brought to an abrupt halt inside a crystal lattice.  It is likely this process will be very slow in growing elements in any appreciable amounts (at first at least), but it could very likely be used to prove certain theories concerning the development of stellar cores.  This process, however, could be made to work if there is a way to recycle at least some of the energy released into the crystal lattice when the stream condenses out of it.  
If we could reliably use this approach to create any element, we would have no need to mine asteroids or dig further into the Earth in search of fresh metals.  Our current supplies of many metals are estimated to begin running out in just 30 years.  Finding a easy solution to this shortage may simply be a matter of building sufficient renewable energy resources and build the necessary machinery to replicate any element that we may require.  Do we have the science and the models yet?  No, but in the next 20 years as computer science advances and new scientists come forward to work on this problems, this solution to our material shortage may become viable.  It is certainly worth a look into.
According to our current theories it is impossible to go faster than light.  According to both electron expansion theory and the derived science we have been describing, faster than light travel is very much possible.  Several new ideas concerning potential energy storage technologies emerge within the context of the new science.  
Our current technologies are limited to the periodic table as we know it as well as electro-magnetism as we know it.  The highest densities obtainable according to our current ideas is only a little more than what is available in the Earth's crust.  Under higher pressure, possibly both electromagnetic and gravitic pressure, elements such as Uranium can become stable, and elements higher in the periodic table can also enter into the realm of stability.  According to the best guesstimate of what our current science knows the highest possible density will be neutron star matter level density under normal conditions, though higher levels may be possible.  This means that elements should exist with larger and larger nucleuses up to near neutron star density.  It also means that matter can be compressed to much higher densities under sufficient pressure.  It is this hyper dense matter that exists at the core of stars and planets that can be manufactured in a laboratory under the proper conditions and could allow us to power starships that could reach other stars relatively quickly.
Just as a star or planet can possibly manufacture new elemental matter and condense matter in its core through electrical and magnetic activity under cosmic ray bombardment pressure, so too can such a miniature scale system be used to recreate this process in a laboratory.  The same processes that work in planets and stars can work to create ultra dense matter preferably in a laboratory on the far side of the Moon using either particle accelerators to bombard magnetic fields, electrical currents, or magnetic field pressure.  All this is required is a complete model of the proposed electro-magnetic alterations involved and an equipped lab to do the work.  Of course, safety issues need to be a priority here as the dangers of a core overload of hyperdense transuranium metals would make the Fukushima disaster look like a picnic by comparison.  Perhaps the experiments can be conducted in the future in space far, far way from our delicate planet (like as far away as another planet if necessary) as these technologies would be spaceship technologies for the future.  
Ultra dense matter, if it is in metallic form, will serve as sort of a ultra fission material that could be used in starships as a reactor similar to a radioscopic thermoelectric generator, but much, much more powerful.  Another possibility is that the reaction could be controlled in a manner like a star or planet so that in a controlled environment where the magnetic field of the reactor core is kept stable by it being embedded in a much larger expanded electromagnetic field created by a plasma fluid, then by modulating the magnetic field power could be drawn from the electrical field in the reactor core itself.  This would be in a similar manner to our new stellar model which shows  in the event cosmic ray bombardment lowers, stellar magnetic fields expand and begin drawing energy from the electrical fields in the core of the star, which in turn draws matter out of the core which emits energy mostly through radioactive decay.  
Such elemental matter in a reactor core would have to be kept stable with continual electrical and magnetic field pressure to prevent it from exploding with a much, much greater force than an atomic bomb.  Also when modulating the core, it would be very important to know exactly how much modulation of the larger plasma matrix field would be safe to prevent a reactor core overload.  After all, we would be playing with the same force that is likely responsible for some nova and supernova somewhere in the cosmos.  As such the science for developing this technology will have to wait until we can safely contain it and until we have a sufficiently great clean energy resource for generating the power to create this system.  I have called the hypothetical engine system derived from this technology a Magnetically Stabilized Micro Stellar Core Fission Reactor Engine (MSMSCFRE).
For a safer, more stable means to power propulsion, hyper dense crystals of ordinary substances made of several atoms, such as quartz, which be designed and created in a lab that would be sufficiently dense that it could be used to store light or perhaps electrical energy in its hyper dense lattice.  The crystal would then be etched as it is created as a pathway to release this energy (if it is in the form of light) slowly from the core.  The long term goal of such a project would be to create crystals such as this that would weight 100's or 1000's of times the normal density that could hold and contain additional energy in a small volume.  Because these crystals would not be explosive in the same way that a very heavy element would be, they would be relatively safe to outside a stabilizing magnetic and/or electrical field.  The hypothetical engine system designed from this type of reactor would be called a Hyper Dense Light Storage Crystal Reactor Engine (HDLSCRE) or a Hyper Dense Crystal Capacitor Reactor Engine (HDCCRE) if electricity is stored instead of light.  
A third hypothetical idea is to use the property of spin, which is probably the safest and easiest way to store energy as long as the spin does not tear apart the core.  We see spin in "neutron stars" we call pulsars holding together incredibly powerful magnetic fields at a distance.  Using physical spin and containing a core with magnetic fields and various safety features may be the best physical way to store energy as spin can hypothetically be much faster than the speed of light.  If you run the analysis for the likely properties of "neutron stars" (as envisioned according to the Cosmogenesis #1 file such that neutron stars are actually about the size of white dwarves or slightly bigger except composed of much higher density hyperdense matter) then doing the math the speed of the pulsar spin would exceed the speed of light by quite a bit.  Could we use ordinary matter instead of hyperdense matter for safety purposes for such a system?  It would depend on how well that matter held up under such immense pressure.  The answer is probably not for very, very high rates of speed.  But down the line we could potentially use the property of spin to add much more energy to a system at the limits of what could be created in terms of density such as one we would refer to as solid neutronium (neutron star matter).  Such a system is far, far into the future of our potential technology of course.  
The property of spin though offers the best avenue to attempt to design systems at our current technological level I believe even with ordinary density matter.  In addition, other types of energy storage systems can be envisioned using magnetic field properties of electron speed internal to the magnetic field.  Speed stores energy, it's as simple as that.  And if we are getting into deep space we are going to need it one day.


1. A hypothetical mechanism can be constructed to account for what might happen when two protons (hydrogen nuclei) collide in nuclear fusion.  The energy of the motion becomes locked into the structure of the new deuterium nucleus that is created in the high energy impact.  One plausible hypothesis is that the impact creates a double nucleus with one shell of electrons on the outside and one shell on the inside.  Because of this rearrangement, the pent up motion of the collision is stored within the structure of this double shell in the form of expanding electrons bouncing between the inner shell (neutron ?) and the outer shell (proton ?).  This energy can be liberated in fusion of deuterium or tritium, but not basic hydrogen as it has no stored motion until the impact creates the new physical configuration whereby motion can be stored in this manner as structural rearrangement of pressure in this complex manner.  Obviously more thought has to go into the idea in order to get a better grasp of the exact workings of this model or plausible other models.
This inner shell for neutrons and outer shell for protons would explain why protons are only important in determining the atom's primary chemical characteristics as the neutrons would be inside the shell of protons and so have no impact on the electron cloud bouncing off the nucleus.  Now the exception would be that because the hydrogen atom is very small, the change in the nucleus from a single proton to double the size with a proton and neutron would provide some change in chemical properties.

Mass of Proton is 1.672621637(83)×10−27 kg
Mass of True Electron is approximately 7.3622 X 10-51 Kg.
Number of True Electrons per Proton is approximately 2.2719 X 10 23