| Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001
13:05:20 -0600
Thanks for the kind
words.
In my view, the
problem with the "debate" on global warming is that it's really a debate
about model results. The models in use are not adequate to use for a
decision, and those using them as a decisive thing are in error (in my
opinion). Another factor that is not in those models, as you point out,
is the effect of the actual weather engineering (massively) that has
been ongoing for some decades, particularly since July 1975. So trying
to "fit" or "use" a model without accounting for a very substantial
variable, obviously will not adequately do the job.
Now that said, it
means we can't trust the models (for either yes or no) and we have to
take a "what's physically happening, how much, where, etc." view of the
pieces of the puzzle. And there, at least there is excellent evidence
that something quite unique is happening. The South polar regions are
showing quite substantial melting, as are the glaciers etc. mostly all
over.
In short, in the
absence of exact modelability, we have to use the old "intelligence
method" of indicators. There, one posits a thesis, and then looks for
indicators. When one gets, say, seven major indicators in agreement
with the thesis, then that thesis is very probably true. Just now, I
would tend to agree with the environmentalists, if I take this approach
and disregard the totally inadequate modeling results. So it needs a
more thorough discussion from the "indicators and their probability"
viewpoint, rather than from the "model says this and model says that"
viewpoint.
Just now, the fringes
of both viewpoints -- global warming yes and global warming no -- have
taken up dogmatic positions, and left reason behind.
The other thing is not
to just argue interminably about it, but do something very concrete
about it, assuming that global warming is occurring and that it is
largely due to the unburned hydrocarbons (note I said ASSUMING). In
that case, rapid development and deployment of electrical power systems
taking their energy directly from the active vacuum will first alleviate
and then largely correct the problem.
Sadly, neither the
scientific community, the environmental activists, the Department of
Energy, the Universities, or the great National Laboratories have any
funded, well-staffed projects ongoing in the vacuum energy area -- even
though every electrical circuit and electrical grid line ever built is
and always has been powered by EM energy extracted directly from the
vacuum.
Lee and Yang were
awarded the Nobel Prize in 1957 for their prediction of broken symmetry,
including the broken symmetry of opposite charges -- such as on the two
ends of a dipole. Broken symmetry rigorously means that the source
dipole, once forcibly formed in the generator or battery, then extracts
EM energy from the vacuum in virtual photon form, transduces it into
real EM observable energy, and pours it out of the terminals of the
generator or battery, filling space around the external conductors and
circuit attached. Until the scientific and environmental communities
really comprehend what the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in
1957 means for what powers an electrical power system and electrical
circuit, we are doomed to see the same tired old destruction of the
biosphere and its pollution, by the present massive assault to get fuels
for burning to heat water to make steam to turn the turbines that rotate
the shaft of the generators, so they can transduce their input shaft
energy to internal magnetic field energy, so that the internal magnetic
field energy can be dissipated upon the internal charges, forcing them
apart to form that source dipole.
Sadly, no university
in the United States teaches what really powers an electrical circuit.
The standard U(1) electrodynamics the electrical power engineers take,
already assumes that the electrical system is in an inert vacuum and in
a flat spacetime. The first of those two totally erroneous assumptions
has been falsified in particle physics for about a half century, and the
second has been falsified by general relativity for nearly a century.
So if we do have
global warming (judging from the indicators), then the resulting cause
-- burning all those hydrocarbons just to get electrical power --
doesn't even have to be done.
But first we have to
re-orient electrical engineering and expand it to include the
supersystem -- consisting of three interacting parts: (1) the system and
its dynamics, under the assumption of an inert vacuum and flat
spacetime, (2) the local active vacuum and its dynamics, and (3) the
local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics. All three components
of the supersystem continuously interact with each other.
So engineers whose
model arbitrarily destroys the other two components of the supersystem,
have unwittingly destroyed any net interaction between the system and
its active environment. If we built windmills the way they build power
systems, we would build the windmills inside a closed barn, so no free
wind from the environment could blow on it. Then we would have to crank
the windmill ourselves, all the while waxing eloquent on the state of
our science and technology.
Not the way to build a
windmill, and not the way to build electrical power systems whose
ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit guarantees that the
system itself enforces the Lorentz symmetry condition, negating any
inputs from the active local vacuum and the active curvatures of local
spacetime.
So long as we do that,
at least we will continue to produce massive indicators of global
warming, continue to vastly pollute the environment including both the
oceans and the atmosphere, kill off species, etc.
And that is very sad,
because the cost of a single major powerplant would solve the problem
for the rest of time. It's an eminent doable.
But first we have to
change the additional mindset that classical equilibrium thermodynamics
applies universally. That simply is not so, as proven by the
waterwheel, windmill, sailboat, kite, etc. In an open system far from
equilibrium, one can have a system which outputs more energy than the
operator himself has to input, and can even have a system that is
"self-powering" for both itself and its load -- it just takes all the
energy from its active environment.
The thermodynamics of
open systems far from equilibrium, and thus free to receive and use net
energy from their active environment, already clearly shows us that
COP>1.0 is permitted. First we have to muzzle that vocal and strident
minority that always objects to COP>1.0 systems as being perpetual
motion machines and against the second law of classical (equilibrium)
thermodynamics. Those fellows just need to read the literature and
discover that classical equilibrium thermodynamics and its infamous
second law do not even apply to systems far from equilibrium with their
active environment.
Meanwhile, all our
electrical power engineers are taught to use a crippled electrodynamics
model that deliberately discards (arbitrarily) the active environment of
every electrical power system. And they are taught to use the closed
current loop to insure that the system itself self-enforces the Lorentz
condition, thereby self-destroying and negating any extra energy input
from the external active environment.
To paraphrase Nikola
Tesla, it continues to be one of the most inexplicable aberrations of
the scientific mind that has ever been recorded in history.
But until that
fearsome scientific and engineering mindset is finally broken, we will
continue to have models that are quite incapable of dealing with the
problem of whether or not there is global warming. Best approach would
just be to quit arguing and get on with developing clean electrical
power systems that do not destroy their source dipoles (with the
resulting input of energy from the vacuum) faster than they power their
loads.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|