Albert Einstein, Warren Buffet and Brad Guth

What's often wrong or at least misunderstood about my analogy of
utilizing the vast terrestrial abundance of clean renewable energy for
the likes of creating mass quantities of h2o2, is that I actually care
about the future and of our best efforts applied for salvaging our
badly failing environment for the greater good of all life, of which
there can not be such a warm and fuzzy future if it's controlled and/
or moderated by the sorted faith-based past that simply doesn't allow
the truth to exist. Whereas others of this anti-think-tank Usenet of
naysayism from hell are pretty much intent upon their focus as to
deploy as much of their spermware/****ware as they can muster, such as
their having recently shut down one of the GOOGLE Usenet sort by date
features (seems rather Einstein GOOGLE insider, doesn't it).

Even if merely 0.1% of Earth's surface were converted into hosting
those composite wind, solar PV and stirling towers that'll deliver a
continuous 40 kw per tower footprint square meter, whereas that's
worth 20,450 teraWatts, So ol and behold, it doesn't take all that
much of any rocket science wizard in order to figure out that the sun
itself as impacting upon our surface is the primary clean force of
energy to take advantage of, instead of fighting over fossil and
yellowcake fuel and subsequently having to deal with all the secondary
soot and toxic issues as well as we must keep stepping over all of
those dead bodies.

Here's my none-WorldFactBook revised terrestrial energy budget;

64,000 TW / direct global solar photon influx that gets through to the
surface

16,000 TW / currents, winds, tides, rivers and moon (could just as
easily become 32,000 TW)

8,000 TW / photosynthesis potential (total PV @12.5% eff, not
including Stirling options)

4,000 TW / potential of sustained geothermal energy draw w/o
foreseeable planet harm

-
24+ TW / humans + our industry (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)

100 TW / human industry 2100AD (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)

In addition to all of the above, there's also a great deal of nearby
space-based energy in addition to those Willie Moo SBLs that are solar
pumped:

The ongoing force of gravity that's always between our Earth/moon
orbital related process, whereas if such force were converted into
available surface joules of energy, and then into watt hour energy
= 7.2e23 w.h (7.2e11 TW)

If merely 0.0001% of that orbital gravity/tidal energy were getting
converted into those matters of contributing to our internal fluid
friction induced heating = 7,200 TW

In other words, if it were not for the energy contributed by our
physically dark and somewhat salty old moon, Earth would become
extensively iced over because our sun is simply not as bright and
toasty enough for sharing sufficient energy all by itself, especially
if mother Earth were any more reflective, as it was in those multiple
ice-age past times that were simply much worse off before Earth
obtained that moon.

According to others in their planetology field of expertise, Earth is
continually losing roughly 40 TW.h away from our geothermal core, and
otherwise humans have been converting fossil, bio/renewable and
yellowcake derived nuclear energy into contributing roughly 24 TW.h,
that's obviously directly contributing to our AGW before such energy
eventually leaves Earth, for a grand energy exit budget tally of 64
TW.h and growing. Of course with more nighttime cloud coverage is
exactly why less of that energy is leaving Earth.

Life in a sealed biosphere such as Earth, whereas only the bad stuff
remains within our environment for us frail humans and all other more
important life to deal with, whereas the squeaky clean energy that
wouldn't hurt a fly just keeps radiating away. Therefore, we humans
are in fact heating up our surface environment, but having more so
been contributing our energy byproducts of soot along with those pesky
toxic elements of CO2 and NOx like there's no tomorrow. What we badly
need is lots more energy that's squeaky clean and the most end-user
efficient without the all-inclusive end result generating soot or
those invisible byproducts of CO2 and NOx, of which this has been
doable if extracting the bulk of that new and improved energy from the
sun and our moon, avoiding those various other fossil or biofuel
alternatives that depend upon consuming such horrific volumes of our
mostly N2 and sooty water saturated atmosphere.

To argue against this logic is to show your true colors, as for being
in favor of greed, arrogance and insurmountable bigotry that's of more
faith-based ideology than not. To contribute on behalf of
constructively resolving such issues in the most affordable manner is
being humanly intelligent, along with having awareness and remorse for
those mistakes made and for keeping an honest focus towards taking
that grip upon the best of our talents and resources and driven in the
proper direction, instead of our being continually sequestered back
into the dark ages where only the rich get richer and the poor that
can't possibly get any poorer simply get dead (and apparently
especially dead if you're a Muslim sitting on an oily rock).

Excluding all of those extremely interesting but unavoidably spendy
off-world energy alternatives that are never as good for the all-
inclusive bottom line as projected by their promoters, we have upon or
within Earth more than what's necessary in order to safely manage our
clean energy future well past the 2100AD mark, that is if we can
manage to avoid WWIII, WWIV and WWV in order to end all such silly
wars because we've used up every last drop, m3 and/or tonne of fossil
and yellowcake reserves in the faith-based process of exterminating
one another.

If we are to go off-world for supplementing our future energy, as such
it'll have to be accomplished in a very big way, and eventually it'll
most likely have to include the relocation of our moon's orbit as
being moderated all the way out to the halo station-keeping realm of
Earth's L1, and in addition to those nifty Willie Moo SBLs, there will
have to be the fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS along with it's tethered
dipole element that'll reach to within 2r of Earth, so that proper
access to/from our moon becomes safe and affordably doable, and that's
not even to mention the absolutely terrific space based depot/gateway
potential of having such a zero gravity outpost at our disposal.
- Brad Guth -

If the likes of Warren Buffet, Millie Moo and myself can manage to
crank our a few spare teraWatts of clean energy, some of which going
into making the likes of h2o2 and aluminum, then lo and behold we're
saved from our highly bigoted selves, that is unless you folks have no
honest intentions of allowing yourself or others to being saved. BTW,
what would Albert Einstein have done in the very same energy fiasco
situation that we find ourselves stuck with? (perhaps He3 fusion ?)

The zero NOx hybrid Hummer at 100 empg, or the zippy hybrid GM Volt at
200 empg is entirely within technical spec as is. Unfortunately, this
naysay infested Usenet that's sequestered so deeply in their very own
naysay hell on Earth is currently in a no-win situation, whereas the
key to that forbidden city of such a wealth of surplus clean renewable
energy is apparently forever banished, as though somehow representing
the Antichrist. Go figure.

What's so often wrong or at least misunderstood about my deductive
analogy of our utilizing the vast terrestrial abundance of clean
renewable energy for the likes of creating mass quantities of h2o2 and
other energy storage products such a aluminum, is that I actually care
about the future and of our best efforts applied for salvaging our
badly failing environment for the greater good of all life, of which
there can not be such a warm and fuzzy future if it's controlled and/
or moderated by the sorted faith-based past that simply doesn't allow
the truth to exist. Whereas others of this anti-think-tank Usenet of
naysayism from hell are pretty much intent upon their focus as to
deploy as much of their Usenet spermware/****ware as they can muster,
such as their having recently shut down one of the GOOGLE Usenet "Sort
by reply / Sort by date" features (seems as though rather Einstein or
other Yid like GOOGLE insider, doesn't it, as why otherwise would all
of their topic replies as "Sort by date" fail to function, and it's
clearly of what Yids do best next to their remote PC/MAC terminating
via whatever internet browser back or side doors).

Even if merely 0.1% of Earth's surface were converted into hosting
those environment and people friendly composite wind, solar PV and
stirling towers that'll deliver a continuous 40 kw per tower footprint
square meter, whereas that alone is worth 20,450 teraWatts od squeaky
clean energy, So lo and behold, it doesn't actually take all that
much of any rocket science wizard in order to figure out that the sun
itself as impacting upon our badly polluted surface is the primary
clean force of energy to take advantage of, instead of having to
continually fight over fossil and yellowcake fuel and subsequently
having to deal with all of our secondary soot and toxic issues, as
well as we must keep stepping over all of those dead bodies is what
seems rather unnecessary.

Willie Moo's SBLs are clearly a spendy alternative of obtaining clean
energy, but at least technically doable as is. His terrestrial
alternatives are actually a whole lot more doable, as is.

The total worth of raw solar energy influx potential that's
continually impacting Earth and that of our sooty/polluted atmosphere
is worth 7.2e17 w.h or 720,000 TW.h, and by most any standard it's
rather clean energy, other than populated with loads of nasty UV b/c,
X-rays and even for having a few of its own halo CME gamma rays that
are not exactly human DNA friendly.

Down to Earth energy that doesn't suck or blow; here's my none-
WorldFactBook revised terrestrial energy budget;

64,000 TW / direct global solar photon influx that gets through to the
surface

16,000 TW / currents, winds, tides, rivers and moon (this conservative
amount could just as easily become worth 32,000 TW)

8,000 TW / photosynthesis potential (total PV @12.5% eff, not
including Stirling options, which without much effort could become
worthy of 16,000 TW)

4,000 TW / potential of sustained geothermal energy draw w/o
foreseeable planet harm could easily be pushed to extracting 8,000 TW.

- the all-inclusive human demand that adding AGW insult to injury -

24+ TW / humans + our industry (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)

100 TW / human+industry 2100AD (extracted from fossil, renewable
and nuclear)

On behalf of off-world resources of clean and renewable energy,
there's a great deal of nearby space-based energy that's clearly in
addition to those Willie Moo SBLs that are solar pumped for all
they're worth:

In addition there's a warm and fuzzy dosage of IR moonshine, as
well as an ongoing force of orbit gravity that's always existing
as our Earth/moon orbital related process, whereas if such a force
were converted into available surface joules of energy, and then
into watt hour energy = 7.2e23 w.h (7.2e11 TW)

If merely 0.0001% of that orbital gravity/tidal energy were getting
converted into those matters of having been contributing into our
atmospheric, surface and of those toasty internal fluids as friction
induced heating = 7,200 TW or roughly speaking 1% of the solar energy
influx.

In other words, if it were not for the energy contributed by our
physically dark and somewhat salty old moon, Earth would become
extensively iced over because, our sun alone is simply not as bright
and toasty enough for sharing sufficient energy all by itself,
especially if mother Earth were any more reflective, as it had to have
been in those multiple ice-age past times that were simply of much
worse off cycles before Earth obtained that moon.

According to others in their planetology field of expertise, Earth is
continually losing roughly 40 TW.h away from our geothermal core, and
otherwise humans have been converting fossil, bio/renewable and
yellowcake derived nuclear energy into contributing roughly 24 TW.h,
that's obviously directly contributing to our AGW before such energy
eventually leaves Earth, for a grand energy exit budget tally of 64
TW.h and growing. Of course along with more atmospheric suspended h2o
and subsequently nighttime cloud coverage is exactly why less of that
energy is leaving Earth.

Life in a sealed biosphere such as Earth, whereas only the bad stuff
remains within our environment for us frail humans and all other more
important life to deal with, whereas the squeaky clean energy that
wouldn't hurt a fly just keeps radiating away. Therefore, we humans
are in fact heating up our surface environment, but having more so
been contributing our energy byproducts of soot along with those pesky
toxic elements of CO2 and NOx like there's no tomorrow. Of what we
badly need is lots more energy that's squeaky clean and the most end-
user efficient usage without the all-inclusive end result that's
currently generating soot plus those invisible but toxic byproducts of
CO2 and NOx, of which this has been doable if extracting the bulk of
that new and improved energy from the sun and our moon, as much as
possible avoiding those various other fossil or biofuel alternatives
that depend upon their having to consume such horrific volumes of our
mostly N2 and sooty water saturated atmosphere.

To argue against this logic is to show your true colors, as for being
in favor of greed, arrogance and insurmountable bigotry that's of more
faith-based ideology than not. Whereas to contribute on behalf of
constructively resolving such issues in the most affordable manner is
being humanly intelligent, along with having good awareness and
remorse for those unfortunate mistakes made in the past, and otherwise
for keeping an honest focus towards taking that new and improved grip
upon the best of our talents and resources as driven in the proper
direction, instead of our being continually faith-based sequestered
back into them dark ages where only the rich get richer and the poor
that can't possibly get any poorer simply get dead (and apparently
especially dead if you're a Muslim sitting on an oily rock).

Excluding all of those extremely interesting but unavoidably spendy
off-world energy alternatives that are never as good for the all-
inclusive bottom line as hyped by their promoters, we have upon or
within Earth more than what's necessary in order to safely manage our
clean energy future well past the 2100AD mark, that is if we can
manage to avoid WWIII, WWIV and WWV in order to end all such silly
wars because we've used up every last drop, m3 and/or tonne of fossil
and yellowcake reserves in the faith-based process of exterminating
one another.

If we are to effectively go off-world for supplementing our future
energy, as such it'll have to be accomplished in a very big way, and
eventually it'll most likely have to include the highly beneficial
aspects of obtaining a little badly needed solar shade and moderating
the gravity tidal energy influx via relocation of our moon's orbit, as
for being sent all the way out to the halo station-keeping realm of
Earth's L1, and that's in addition to whatever nifty Willie Moo GSO
SBLs, as there will also have to be the fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS
along with it's tethered dipole element that'll reach such monster
SBLs if need be to within 2r of Earth, and also offering the one and
only proper access to/from our moon that'll become the only humanly
safe and affordably doable alternative, and that's not even to mention
the absolutely terrific space based CM/ISS habitat of that depot/
gateway potential, that's afforded by having such a nearby worthy do-
everything best via zero gravity outpost, as so affordably and
accessibly at our disposal.

Too bad thise sorry Usenet and most every other internet forum of
physics and science is so badly skewed into the nearest status quo
toilet, of their being in such profound naysayism denial of their
denial, and without so much as a speck of remorse at that.
- Brad Guth -

On Aug 18, 3:36 am, BradGuth wrote:
It seems that Albert Einstein, Warren Buffett and myself are pretty
much stuck with using those regular laws of physics, and otherwise
having to make due with the best available science, in order to
deductively interpret on behalf of dealing with whatever such
physics and science has to offer.

Unfortunately, if the likes of Einstein or Buffett were to author a
given Usenet topic that's within their vast expertise, as such their
own kind would stalk and summarily naysay most anything they had to
offer, especially if such a topic implied anything but an inert off-
world whatever, much less would others of their own kind so much as
contribute a constructive thought or God forbid share any positive
actions on their behalf, or much less share an honest thought for the
greater common good of salvaging our badly failing environment.

Of course, this physics and science stuff is why our gamma and Xray
saturated moon is every bit as bad if not much worse off upon our
frail human DNA than anything within our Van Allen belts, at the same
time it's also the best reason why other intelligent life can exist/
coexist upon a newish planet such as Venus.

Perhaps the few and far between honest souls of Usenet that are not of
the usual topic/author stalking and naysay bashing kind, should like
to reconsider the consequences of such willful actions as imposed by
their own swarm of naysayism, as taken against all of humanity and
otherwise intended to banish or simply foil those terrestrial and
cosmic truths at all cost.

Remember that our frail human terrestrial existence is but a drop of
water within the vast cosmic well of extremely complex life, whereas
this badly polluted and over populated Earth will eventually continuse
to once again exist without humanity. Therefore instead of our being a
mainstream status quo stick in the mud, why not revise the past and
present, and thereby allow an honest future to emerge, so that all of
us will eventually benefit from the good intentions of those few that
are willing to lead as well as share and share alike.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

Perhaps there's a few lost souls out there in Usenet naysay land that
are capable of thinking a little outside the box. If so, I could use
your help.

BTW; do you think the likes of Einstein and Buffett would have given
Mother Nature the finger?
- Brad Guth -

On Sep 21, 4:51 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:36 wrote:





It seems that Albert Einstein, Warren Buffett and myself are pretty
much stuck with using those regular laws of physics, and otherwise
having to make due with the best available science, in order to
deductively interpret on behalf of dealing with whatever such
physics and science has to offer.

Unfortunately, if the likes of Einstein or Buffett were to author a
given Usenet topic that's within their vast expertise, as such their
own kind would stalk and summarily naysay most anything they had to
offer, especially if such a topic implied anything but an inert off-
world whatever, much less would others of their own kind so much as
contribute a constructive thought or God forbid share any positive
actions on their behalf, or much less share an honest thought for the
greater common good of salvaging our badly failing environment.

Of course, this physics and science stuff is why our gamma and Xray
saturated moon is every bit as bad if not much worse off upon our
frail human DNA than anything within our Van Allen belts, at the same
time it's also the best reason why other intelligent life can exist/
coexist upon a newish planet such as Venus.

Perhaps the few and far between honest souls of Usenet that are not of
the usual topic/author stalking and naysay bashing kind, should like
to reconsider the consequences of such willful actions as imposed by
their own swarm of naysayism, as taken against all of humanity and
otherwise intended to banish or simply foil those terrestrial and
cosmic truths at all cost.

Remember that our frail human terrestrial existence is but a drop of
water within the vast cosmic well of extremely complex life, whereas
this badly polluted and over populated Earth will eventually continuse
to once again exist without humanity. Therefore instead of our being a
mainstream status quo stick in the mud, why not revise the past and
present, and thereby allow an honest future to emerge, so that all of
us will eventually benefit from the good intentions of those few that
are willing to lead as well as share and share alike.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

Perhaps there's a few lost souls out there in Usenet naysay land that
are capable of thinking a little outside the box. If so, I could use
your help.

BTW; do you think the likes of Einstein and Buffett would have given
Mother Nature the finger?

I should have added Willie Moo or William Mook into this topic,
because he too has been using the regular laws of physics and the best
available science, as well as for going off-world with it.
- Brad Guth -