Tony I am impressed by your obvious depth of knowledge, thanks for taking the time to elaborate. But why should we assume that just because we have not seen proof of it, it does not exist?
How can anyone say for certain that Earth, and all the other planets around our sun were not simply ejected from it, in an earlier phase of maybe volcanic activity in the life of the sun?
We might not have seen proof of that either, but now when we do the analysis of the system of Earth and sun, we see growing, traceable evidence that we have a fundamental, even existential misunderstanding of energy, which has to be put right, in order for our species to survive, and move on to an apparent next phase that we might notice resembles adulthood of any living thing, delivered from infancy, so is surely the correct outcome, rather than a baby in infancy that died at birth, because it never learned to draw the first breath after umbilical was cut.
The umbilical is our profit driven dependency on fuels of Earth for our energy.
To move onto the next phase, we have to change the way our economy works, from locking us into energy extracted from Earth, to energy donated from the sun, the limitless free energy of our environment.
To assist in the understanding of that, we have to set some hard and fast rules, some do's and dont's which everyone has to agree and work with, like a religion, which probably sounds to science like a red rag to a bull.
Even worse, those rules look identical to the ones traditionally set by religions, pragmatically interpreted in terms of energy.
It will probably pain many scientists to have to accept that there is a really good reason we were warned by religions not to fall too heavily into the ways of profit, and greed, usury, and so on.
It is because it is physically unsustainable, in terms of energy, and damaging to the soecies, after it has gone beyond a certain point.
So in these rules, we have to communicate that our consumption of the energy put to use on Earth by nature, if we did not exist, has to stop, Not just reduce, but stop, abruptly, like as if the umbilical has just been cut, because effectively, it really has. We can no longer safely consume any energy of Earth, without endangering all life on it, including us.
By energy of Earth I just mean the energy put to use on Earth by nature, as if we did not exist.
That has to include all stored forms of energy on Earth, including Kinetic, and Thermal, because by taking any of them, we change Earth in a way that always has detrimental effects, accumulating eventually to a hazard for all of life.
This is another part some scientists might again take exception with, that use of kinetic energy on Earth could turn out to have far more devastating effects than any we've seen from use of fossil fuels, because actually, when we do the non profit survival analysis, it looks like use of that energy is irreplaceable, unlike use of fossil fuels, none of the damage done by use of planetary kinetic energy is repairable.
If we change our orbital trajectory around the sun, say by something like Geo-Engineering, as currently suggested by some scientists, no doubt driven by the obvious existence of VC investor hype, looking to throw their money at anything sounding remotely like saving the world by science whilst making a tidy profit, changing the reflectivity of Earth would absolutely result in a change of one of the forces involved in maintaining the equilibrium of our orbit around the sun.
Specifically, our orbit would be broken, outwards, by the increased solar pressure on Earth.
I've had scientists disagree with me on this point, claiming the change would be so small, it would make no difference. That looks like an assumption with no basis, in the face of mathematical fact, that even an infinitesimally small change would be quickly amplified many-fold by the square law of gravity reducing, according to our then increasing ditance from the sun.
In a frighteningly small time, within only a few revolutions, so a few years, we would be thrown out from the sun, no longer travelling around it, but away from it, directly.
So we should conclude Ge-Engineering would be a very big no-no.
Now the problem is, if we don't accept that the energy of the Earth, all energies on it, don't all come from the sun, these arguments start to fall apart, it no longer stacks up, if only some energies on Earth are sacred, so can't be touched, we need to be able to put them all in the sacred bag, and agree that none are to be touched, for very clear reasons.
From exoerience, that gets difficult when science alleges not all energies on Earth come from the sun, with actually no evidence to support that belief, other than it has never been disproven, if you see what I mean.
Sorry explaining these systemic considerations is long winded, it is much more efficient to do in modelling language, but not everyone speaks that lingo, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.