>> Yep.  Model.  As used means "simplify reality to the point we can 
>> deal with it"  Models are not all powerful.  Case in point:  The 
>> aerodynamic model that sez the bumblebee can't fly.  The bumblebee 
>> ignores the model and flys anyway....  Models are powerful tools, but 
>> they have their limitations...

>The bumblebee model you mention obviously is a bad model since the 
>theoretical results are inconsistent with the observed phenomenon, 
	They were good enough FOR SOME PURPOSES.  They predicted a/c nicely.

>whereas the earth resonance and lightning theory models of the earth 
>predict results that have been experimentally verified.
	In detail?  In ALL their predictions?  The most obvious, as i mentioned,
	was the width of the resonance: narrow/highQ for ASSumed perfect earth,
	same freq, broader/lowq for actual earth.  Has anyone measured the Q?

>I'm not saying that's actually how the earth really works,
	We know that it is not a particularly good conductor.  we know.

>but the model does seem to agree with reality.
	In some areas.  Never said optherwise.  But i am REAL reluctant to
	accept models that have known violations of reality in them.

>We do seem to agree on one thing though...I am a firm believer that we KNOW
>absolutely nothing about anything;
	I believe (i know) that we know a great deal about a great deal.  That
	is a lot less than knowing All about Everything.  We know more than
	Tesla did.  We have not stopped learning.   Whether we have made best
	use of that, or fully integrated it is another matter.

>we pick the models that fit the currently agreed upon facts and give us nice 
>equations, but we really don't know what's really going at even the 
>most basic level.
	We know a great deal more than that.  Especially int he specific areas
	we are discussing.  Its nto written up in P{{opular Science, or even
	Scientific American.  It goes int tech journals for the working

>I don't think that we're fundamentally disagreeing here.  Since I'm not 
>an RF power (or non-power) engineer, and I haven't seen any recent, 
>reputable research on the subject, I have no opinion about whether 
>actual power transmission via ELF excitation of the earth is practical or 
	My _opinion_ is that its not.  I could be wrong.

>I just stated that the earth resonances that Tesla observed are 
>generally agreed to be authentic and are consistent with Schumann's 
>earth-ionosphere cavity model (from the Corum's and A. Aidinejad in the 
>1986/1987 Tesla Journal from the Tesla Memorial Society, and others).
	Yep.  But consistient is not a yes/no thing.  It can be consistent in
	one/some ways and not consistent in others.  "we" (working
	professionals) know that the earth is not a perfect conductor, in bulk
	or on the surface.  Any model starting with that is at risk.