RAND Corporation is Not Playing Fair
Medium is helping them to do this, and the outcome is potentially existential.
Today I came across a pro Geo-Engineering story by RAND Corporation
Here it is below:
Now I don’t know about anyone else, but I was not able to respond to this, which honestly is potentially a more destructive tech than even nuclear weapons.
I am saying this as a long practicing Systems Engineer, with in depth experience of satellite and space Systems, including orbital dynamics, as well as many other safety critical systems including the detailed safety and security considerations, for which I was often responsible. Now also having been working on the systemic Global Energy and climate problem for around 6 years, and as an Engineer who started out in the Electrical Power industry designing electrical power metering equipment 30 years ago, and I say hand in heart, with evidence, that an energy war is going on right now, between two very different kinds of physical energy, and I don’t mean the obvious fight happening in Eastern Europe
What is at stake, is literally the life or death of Earth.
Geo-Engineering has to lead to the latter.
Why can no-one respond to their obviously misinformed investor sales pitch? What kind of political campaign sets things so that only their word can be heard?
If I could respond to that post, this is what I would say:
The Main Safety Concern
Earth is on a very delicate orbital trajectory around the sun. That orbit is like a soliton wave, self perpetuating, perfectly formed by nature. The proof of its perfection is in its longevity, like all the other planets rotating around the sun, they’ve done this forever, as far as we are concerned.
We have never been able to replicate such an orbit, in all of the satellites and other orbital vehicles launched.
In all cases, propulsion, and the continuous burning of fuel on board is required in order to maintain orbits.
So a perfect orbit requiring neither of those things is something very special.
The forces involved in the orbit, in the case of Earth, are the gravity of the sun, the sun-centric centrifugal force, and solar pressure.
All of those have to be in perfect equilibrium, to maintain Earth balanced perfectly in orbit, like a football perfectly balanced on a wire.
Any change, in any one of those forces, with no corresponding change in any of the others, will upset the equilibrium.
Gravity changes as the square of the distance moved, caused by even a slight push. A milimeter moved becomes two, then four, eight, sixteen and so on, until it is km, then thousands of km, exponentially in time, we would be gone in only a few revolutions at most.
If the Earth falls inwards, then we spiral into the sun.
If the Earth falls outwards, then we are thrown out from the sun, in a straight line, after the sun’s gravity is lost altogether.
The solar pressure on Earth is something far more significant than is currently given credit to.
The reflectivity of Earth is dependent on the foliage of Earth, which absorbs a large amount of photons. This is the energy supplying all life on Earth.
That foliage turns towards the rising sun in the mornings, and follows it all day, tracking the sun until it sets in the evening, to maximise the amount of energy absorbed every day. The energy received by the foliage has to be transmitted to Earth via nutrients within each plant, saturating the area around each plant, such that more is absorbed by the foliage in the mornings than in the evenings.
So there is a permanent gradient in the solar pressure exerted across the face of the planet exposed to the sun, resulting in a motor effect, in the same direction as the planet rotates.
Reduction of the foliage has to correspond to a reduction in motor effect, which we might notice would be seen as the planet slowing down, with more foliage removed.
We see this in the need to insert leap seconds in nuclear clocks, to maintain synchronicity with the rotation of Earth.
The standard scientific explanation for this is that Earth is slowing down due to natural friction between moon and Earth.
But if that was the case, the change in relative revolutions would be seen only between moon and Earth, not between Earth and sun, as it is seen by change in time relative to nuclear clocks.
So another force is at work, as explained.
This gives some indication of the solar pressure. It is sufficient to influence the rotation of Earth, just by an imbalance from one side to the other, therefore it is more than sufficient to influence Earth’s knife-edge balanced orbit, by a gross change in Earth’s reflectivity, which by definition is what would be intended by Geo-Engineering.
There is a very long trusted warning in safety Engineering:
“If the worst outcome of the risk is unacceptable, don’t take the risk”.
When that warning is ignored, things like 737 Max, Grenfell, Chernobyl, Fukushima, the Beirut Explosion, and the covid vaccine fiasco happen, and lots of people die.
When it is ignored, it is always in the interests of profit.
What is the profit model of Geo-Engineering, if it isn’t to assure further energy by extraction, given no longer the option of solar, of course it is utility energy companies existing to profit from energy extraction who might think there is something to gain by Geo-Engineereing.
The Real Energy War
Right now, the UK public, and the public in every developed country, are putting to use large quantities of solar energy.
This is the positive energy mentioned.
It is mathematically positive, because it adds to Earth, unlike any other form of energy used to date.
And it is unmetered.
Yet it converted to business done, lives lived, lives saved, and even the environment saved, by reducing the total load on, and thus the environmental impact of extracted energy.
The electrical utilities this year in UK lost some £50Bn of business due to that business effectively transferring to consumers themselves, equipped with their own community and domestic solar.
Since 2005, the total amount lost by the utilities electrical business due to this relentlessly ramping up injection of positive energy, literally physically pushing back the negative energy generated by utilities generating power by extraction, is around £457Bn.
I show how this is calculated, using authentic UK government data in the story below:
It is likely a similar story in every developed country.
Technically, what an installed meter does, to record energy “Pushed back into the grid”, (When a consumer is producing more than they are using), is to make it go backwards. This is why their records show less and less consumed (And therefore less produced by utilities companies), the meter simply subtracts units it previously measured as being delivered. Add to this that less is delivered, during times when the solar consumer is only partially self sufficient.
Now the effects of this positive energy on economy are almost intangible, and largely unrealised, because not a penny of money has been issued, to support this business of a large portion of the public generating their own energy.
Note that in the presence of reduced utilities energy consumption, less money-as-debt has also been issued, since less fuel is purchased, less business has been done on the part of utilities energy supply.
And yet the public are being asked to pay £50Bn to cover the “black hole”, with actually less money in circulation.
This is because in accounting terms, and in scientific terms, the energy should have been mathematically signed. Positive energy subtracted from negative energy gives the correct total business done, therefore the correct amount of money that should have been issued, and further, that some of that money issued should be a credit to the public, not the other way round.
Let’s say that instead of heating their homes, that positive energy went to generating green hydrogen, which was added to fuel stocks in markets.
What money would need to be issued to reflect that product added to the market?
The answer is the money lost by the utilities energy companies, and it makes no difference if the positive energy was added to commodities as fuel stocks, or if it just was used to heat folk’s homes, either way it was put to economic use, and therefore should have money issued on it.
Now, because money was not issued on that most valuable of product being put to use, money is becoming increasingly less representative of actual product being put to use, which is a violation of the Austrian Economic principle, that money issue should balance with production.
Hence the real, physical reason we see inflation.
For the first time ever, it is being driven by nature.
That inflation, as things are, can only get much, much worse, until either the money becomes completely worthless, or until this error is put right, honestly, the only way it can be, by issue of the money needed to reflect the actual positive energy product put to use.
Since there is no labor of extraction associated with positive energy, the money has to be issued for free, indicated as representing positive energy, which will spell the almost immediate end of extracted energy.
Equipped with the money needed to do so, money which again represents solid product, therefore money which will not deflate in value, folk will quickly finish the job of going completely solar powered, by putting in as much infrastructure complete with hydrogen backup, in and around their homes and businesses as can possibly be put, so as to maximise the future solar stipend, which, all things being equal, will amount to some £250Bn per year, not including any extras that might be generated by production of green hydrogen as an automatic by-product of hydrogen backup, which conceivably would quickly power all EVs converted to HEVs by replacing their toxic batteries with hydrogen fuel cells.
This will make us energy independent, and very very strong, in world markets, with a list of other benefits, literally way too long to mention.
This is the real energy war going on, the war between mathematically positive and negative energy, and the bad guys are not playing fair.
Not fair at all.
I mean honestly, anyone with any logic, or basic instinct other than for profit, even a five year old, would say bad idea to put a shield up against the sun, the only source of positive energy, supplying all life that ever existed on Earth.
Reading all the (Crazy?) stories in Medium about the Nibiru dark planet, long lost ancient technologies, and us maybe being descendents of ancient aliens, anyone might start to think we were indeed created and genetically programed to do one job, using profit as our main logic blinding instrument, to deliver a new replacement planet to our makers on a plate.
Do we really want to do that, to maybe get back to an environment where our white skins will no longer be burned by the natural energy of the sun?
Of course that has to be rubbish, of course, of course, of course.
