Beam Weapons

~THere, a turn of the century Westinghouse factory showingthe winding of rotating and stationary armatures for electricpower systems.The "energetics" of the development of the productiveprocess ought to become clear in light of this comparisonof economic processes to the general case of Riemannianmanifolds."Energy," from the standpoint of a negentropic continuousmanifold, is a reflection of negentropy. Energy is aphenomenon which reflects the going-over of a manifoldfrom order n to order n + 1. In respect to the transformationsleading away from order n, the phenomena ofenergy correspond roughly to our image of "energy ofthe system" in ordinary thermodynamics. However, thegoing-over from order n to order n + 1 is itself expressedas comparable to the ratio of "free energy" to "energy ofthe system": power, work, technology.This analogy is more than an analogy; it is key to thethermodynamic correlatives of rising values for potentialrelative population-density in the development of societythrough advances in productive technology. There is acoherence between the fact that negenltropy has a "purelygeometric" content in a Riemannian manifold, and that itcorrelates with an adducible "geometric" content foradvances in the technological division of productive labor.If the universe is governed by the togos, as the Nicenedoctrine prescribes the ordering of evolutionary developmentof the universe under continuing creation, thenthe principle of negentropy is the expression of that lawfulprocess of continuing creation. Moreover, not only doesthis principle order changes in the universe, from relativelylower to relatively higher orders, but the veryexistence of a previously created order depends upon theefficiency of that same negentropic principle.That observation must raise hackles among the intellectualheirs of the Jesuit-directed French Enlightenment, the"materialists." Yet, this was the basis for Kepler's establishmentof modern mathematical physics. Agreed, IsaacNewton and others attempted to ridicule Kepler on thisaccount, and that aspect of Kepler's work is generallyeither suppressed or referred to only by fraudulent, ridiculinggossip today. It happens that Newton's attack onKepler is key to the manifest incompetence of Newton'sphysics relative to many matters including the behavior ofJupiter and Saturn, whereas Kepler's work remains validprecisely because of that fundamental feature ridiculed byNewton et al.It is a simple mathematical fact, as we have indicatedthe proof of that fact here, that unless our universe werenegentropic, our universe could not exist. No amount ofJesuitical sophistry, no amount of appeal to the ignorantprejudices of uneducated common sense, can push asidethe efficient truth of that elementary fact.This is the persisting issue of method and philosophicalworld outlook between the geometricians and algebraicistssince Kepler and earlier.Axiomatic algebra takes as self-evident the notions ofquantity and simple number (for example, Kronecker)peculiar to an ignorant, naive perception of the discretemanifold of visual space per se. The argument of Russelland Whitehead, in the Principia, for example, carries thealgebraicists' argument to an obscenely nominalist, radicalextreme. 12 To the geometrician, the integers arise in physicsonly as topological singularities, as determined featuresof the continuous manifold whose image is projected inthe appearance of the discrete manifold of visible space.Magnitude is necessarily a subsumed feature of thosemetrical features of a negentropic continuous manifoldwhich make possible the necessary association of efficientcasuality with the object-shadows of the discrete manifold,and make necessary the metrical characteristics of negentropictransformations witnessed in terms of reference ofvisible space.The idea that "energy" must be an ontologically selfevidentparticularity, and associated with fixed, scalarmagnitude, is not only a crude algebraicist's error ofassumption, but is contrary to the fundamental principlesof any universe which could actually exist."Hold that piece of chalk, Professor Algebraicist! Theformulations you are about to elaborate have embeddedin them what you logical positivists yourselves have fanaticallyinsisted to be the 'hereditary features' of certainFUSION November 1982 23