Geoengineering

By contrast only one of the 24 seemingly coincidental "nuclear" accidents was on (and one very near) the (local) syzygy date (expected 1.6). The above post indicates that roughly 10% of serious, primarily "nuclear" accidents, are due to syzygy.

Ancient sailors seldom survived serious accidents far out at sea. Most of the serious accidents known to them, were collisions and groundings, in harbors. They negotiated harbors by day. Barring storms, accidents were likeliest at low tide (shallow, narrow channel) and on sunny days (glare reducing visibility of the sea bottom or of other ships). At low tide on a sunny day, the moon will be easily visible near the horizon, recently set, or soon to rise. A moon straight overhead and near the sun is often missed. So, sailors might well attribute malevolence to the moon (Circe = moon goddess?), thousands of years before the Newtonian theory of tides. The nuclear accident data suggest that Newtonian gravity is not the only force through which the moon affects human devices.

People demand explanations for nuclear accidents. If engineers don't provide explanations, they are replaced by engineers who do. Hitherto none of the explanations involved the lunar phase. So, they were not complete.

Recommendation: within 24 hours of full or new moon, avoid procedures involving radioactive material. Within 48 hours, maintain nuclear reactors in their customary mode.

Joe, I started this thread and discovered that my proposition was far-fetched.

Please report on findings of local aether drift if you can. In another thread in the appropriate category.

This message board is extremely excellent. Let's all keep order and readibility.

Elling

If people want to respond to my posts on this thread, I think they should do it on this thread.

I've been keeping something to myself for the duration of this thread. Now that its exchanges have slowed, you may as well know about that "academic point", a sort of SF dystopic scenario:

The only way humans could engineer such extremely energetic processes would be catastrophically, by engineering huge, super huge impacts, by doing the opposite of those proposals to secure Earth against asteroidal impact.

Instead of nudging asteroids on near-Earth collision courses away from the Earth, we could nudge them into collision courses designed to produce impacts that would ultimately, via the "inscripition", depression, uplift and other effects outlined in my ebook at www.nodrift.com , produce a more habitable world.

Of course the immediate and intermediate effects would be an additional, enormous problem needing additional enormous work, not least international diplomacy, a sort of "nightmare" SF scenario that only makes sense in a less peaceful world than the one we inhabit today, where there'd be considerations of minimising "collateral damage" for one's "own kind" and so on.

Peter,

Now that you've spilled the beans better be on the lookout for black helicopters and Asian looking men in black suits.

JR

Thanks, JR,
I'm used to coming up with awesome or otherwise shocking ideas . . . My last science boss got used to saying to me "Don't mention it to anyone else!". Too used . . .?!?! It is important to know also that I have good Physics intuition . . .

When that intuition was somehow lost track of and I found myself "out in the cold", I started to wonder if that boss ever passed some of my ideas on . . . Some would have been useful to the kinds of shadowy groups you alluded to. Practical ideas . . . Ideas that were too practical!!!!

So it is not surprising that I've had lots of associated worries too, especially when my only outlet became the Internet . . . by which time I'd decided that it's best to just "put it out there", let ideas develop online, the sooner the better. There's no better alternative. I still believe this . . .

It would be insane to keep awesome ideas to oneself, and there are no other organisations more suitable than the Internet, in its great early days, because of oligarchism (Michels). All organisations inevitably betray their founders and the people they are set up to serve, in three distinct ways first described by Michels, a Canadian.

I refer to such worries as a "Galilean crisis" at www.nodrift.com , Volume 5, papers 5.5-5.6, referring to this ebook's awesome Continental Drift Contradictions (CDC), awesome ideas of papers 5.1, 5.8 . . . I imagined Galileo must have felt similarly tormented by Church opposition to his Helio-centrism . . .