As mentioned in the last post, the continents were moved, but not by plate tectonics, which is a modern fantasy, or myth: It would have us believe the Earth is a precise natural machine which smoothly cycles the light crustal materials on the surface down into the denser material beneath through subduction, along a deep ocean trench for example, while at the same time bringing deeper material back up to the surface as molten magma, primarily along a spreading fault (as in the mid-Atlantic). It is nothing more than a crudely imagined conveyor belt system, which, according to expert scientists critical of the theory, the fundamental laws of physics applied to the known properties of earth materials denies; those materials are simply not up to the task, they do not work that way, on their own. In any event, whatever truth there may be in current plate tectonics theory, it was not responsible for the present shapes and positions of the continents on the Earth. This is my scientific claim, and I can prove it easily, so that anyone can understand. It is not hard science, it just requires being able to look at the Earth without the preconceived belief in currently accepted theory--and being able to honestly recognize design.
Seeing is believing; that is, it should be, but in modern science and contemporary thought it is not, to science's ultimate shame. Believers in modern earth science will not like what I am about to show here, and when confronted with the fact will dismiss it without the consideration science owes every observation of the natural world. Generations of earth scientists have utterly failed to notice what you are about to see, although it is a primary visual characteristic of the landmasses on the Earth. But I believe the ordinary person can appreciate it for what it is, without involved scientific analysis. For such people, I assure you that I have made the scientific analysis, and I dare any other honest and competent scientist to do the same. If you do, you will verify my claim by concluding the Earth was in fact re-formed to a great design.
We will begin by focusing our attention upon the east coasts of the continents; I'm going to show you a simple order, a precise (!) pattern to their positioning on the globe. And that pattern, remarkable as it is, is just one aspect out of many in the world design.
The above image shows the east coasts of Asia and of Africa/Arabia. The red lines drawn along these two coasts are great circles on the globe; they are undeviating in direction, the counterparts of straight lines on a flat surface. They show that both Asia, and Africa and Arabia, lie along lines that make the same angle with respect to the equator. That angle is 63.435 degrees. Note also that the Asian line crosses the equator at 120 degrees east longitude, while the line along Africa and Arabia crosses at 48 degrees east longitude, a separation of 72 degrees on the globe. Finally, note that the Asian line used here is right on the well-known "Rim of Fire", a line of volcanoes rimming the Pacific ocean along the east coast of the Asian continent; it is thus a physically exceptional line marking that coastline.
The eastern coasts of North America and of South America/Iberia (Spain) also are aligned with great circles at 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator. The line along South America/Iberia--crossing the equator at 24 degrees west longitude--is also 72 degrees to the west of the African line in the previous image, and North America--whose line crosses the equator at 96 degrees west longitude--is again just 72 degrees further west. Note that the east coast of Iberia serves to pin down the line along South America (which parallels its coast closely, and is neatly hooked by the curving southern tip of the continent). The North America line is also neatly pinned by the east coast of the Yucatan peninsula in Central America, and by the western end of Cuba; it passes directly over the eastern limits of Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod, marking the North American coastline.
All of the major continental landmasses are thus spread out with their east coasts precisely separated by 72 degrees from one another around the equator, and all of those coasts are angled by the same 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator. (A proper scientific analysis would estimate the uncertainty in both longitudinal position and in angle with respect to the equator; in every case, that uncertainty is just a few degrees and is small compared to all the possible positions the landmasses could have attained by chance alone.)
Finally, look at the larger islands in the Pacific ocean:
Yet a fifth line, again angled 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator and crossing the equator at 168 degrees west longitude, closely follows New Zealand in the south, the line of the principal Fiji islands further north, and bisects the Hawaiian islands even further north. This completes a full pattern of five such lines, strictly adhered to by major landmasses on the Earth.
For anyone open to honest recognition of non-chance, or designed, placement of the landmasses on the Earth, this should be a delightful discovery: The landmasses of the Earth are closely "parked", according to a strict, simple pattern on the globe. I will identify the name of that pattern below. For the hard scientist like myself, such an unexpected finding should be honestly confronted, and an analysis made of just how closely these landmasses follow the indicated pattern, and thus the probability that they could have achieved this close pattern by chance as opposed to design (and I would remind you, vain speculations as to the identity of the designers is irrelevant to such an analysis). I calculated that the probability is on the order of 1 in a million million (1,000,000,000,000) against chance placement of these landmasses. They were parked there by design.
Now, what is this pattern? It is part of a dodecahedral arrangement on the surface of the globe. Consider first a regular dodecahedron, circumscribed by a globe:
Each facet of the dodecahedron is a regular pentagon. An axis from the center of the globe through each facet of the circumscribed dodecahedron is like a polar axis with its own "equator"; in the above image, for example, the axis emerging in the middle of the North Atlantic would have an associated "equator" that is in fact the line along the eastern coast of Africa/Arabia in the pattern we brought out above. The same is true of the lines we identified above along the east coasts of the other landmasses; the "equator" for the axis emerging in the center of the above image of the globe--on Egypt, not far from the Giza pyramids of ancient fame--is the line of the "Rim of Fire" alongside Asia. The latitude at which these lateral axes emerge from the globe is 26.565 degrees, which makes the angle of the lines along the eastern coasts of the landmasses precisely 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator, as earlier stated. The Earth was anciently believed--as a "sacred truth", not a scientific fact--to be formed according to a dodecahedron. So this demonstration confirms the ancient, esoteric religious tradition.
Plate tectonics is simply disproved by this readily verified observation of the dodecahedral pattern obeyed by the eastern coastlines of the major landmasses of the Earth. QED and hold onto your hats, ladies and gentlemen. I told you before, the Once and Future Paradigm is back.
you say the continents "lie along lines," but these lines look very arbitrarily drawn -- what is their exact definition (a definition that anyone can use to determine the angles to 5 significant places)?
ReplyDeleteGood Morning, margolin,
ReplyDeleteOne must distinguish between the exact definition of the lines (which are actually great circles on the sphere), and how well the eastern coasts of the continents lie along those exact lines. As I discussed in the next to last paragraph of this post, the lines are those of a dodecahedral pattern, and I illustrated how that pattern is derived from a circumscribed regular dodecahedron, with one face centered on the north pole of the earth globe. In my following post, "Challenge to Science II", I showed how the longitudinal positions of the lines are defined, or precisely fixed, by showing that one of them marks the mapped position of the ecliptic on the celestial sphere as seen from Earth, in that which I call the Great Mapping of the celestial sphere onto the Earth globe.
So the lines are not arbitrary, but defined from the Great Mapping, and their pattern is mathematically precise, that is exact. For the scientist, the question becomes, how well do the eastern coasts follow, or "lie along", that exact pattern of lines? There is no exact answer to that question, since the coasts are not themselves precisely straight, nevertheless a good scientist can conservatively but closely estimate the maximum deviation of the general line of a coast with one of those exactly defined dodecahedral lines, in both angle with respect to the equator and in longitudinal position. I have done that myself, and found that the probability of all those eastern coasts following that pattern AS CLOSELY AS THEY DO by chance alone is substantially less than 1 in a million million (ten to the twelfth power). Consensus science already agrees with me that the continents were moved over the globe, but to think they were moved, by chance alone, over hundreds of millions of years, into this precise pattern (precisely indicated by the Great Mapping I discovered), which the ancients were informed of as a "sacred truth" passed down by the "gods", is to ignore the plainest and most overwhelming of evidence, simply because current science has established as unquestionable dogma that there can be no actual, intentional design in the real world. Of course, I have the advantage over my readers of knowing much more about the great design, and that it explains ALL of the so-called "ancient mysteries". I can only give you glimpses of the vast synthesis that is provided by the great design I found, of which the Great Mapping is only a part. I encourage you to read the following "Challenge" posts in the series, especially "Challenge to Science III". I realize it sounds overwhelming to anyone unused to the ideas involved, which is why I have tried to take the explanation a step at a time, while also being open about the true scale and provenance of the design. The best way to reassure my readers is to simply say, my posts here barely scrape the surface, presenting only the simplest, clearest evidence proving my claims of the great design, not the vast store of ancient testimony that confirms it over and over, along every line of study and in every ancient tradition I have yet followed. It all points to the same great design, of the "gods" of myth and legend.
ok, i have read parts II and III of your argument. but I still don't see how the red lines in the maps above are defined. what algorithm have you used to draw them -- especially, to determine the relevant angle to 5 significant places?
ReplyDeleteto be more specific, given a coastline C defined on a sphere as a function of latitude T and longitude G:
C(T,G)
what is the formula(s) for the lines, as a function of T and G (or variables that are precisely related to them) you claim all form a certain angle with respect to the equator?
thanks.
margolin,
ReplyDeleteMy answer runs a little too long for one comment, so I will divide it into two comments, this and the following one.
You are trying to over-constrain the problem of finding the probability that the eastern coasts all conform to a dodecahedral pattern as closely as they in fact do. It is the red lines, as you refer to them, that are precisely defined (and a good geometer can verify for you that the lines as I have given them constitute a strict dodecahedral pattern on the sphere), it is merely a matter (for an experienced mathematical scientist) to estimate how closely one can say each of those coasts follows one of those precisely-defined lines, with a stated uncertainty. I do not expect non-scientists to know how to do that, quantitatively and dispassionately, but even non-scientists can see from my illustrations that the indicated coasts do indeed follow the dodecahedral pattern. It is, scientifically, an exercise in quantifying JUST HOW WELL each of the red lines marks the general line of each associated coast (or, actually, a series of coasts in line, such as North America and the Yucatan peninsula, South America and the Iberian peninsula, Africa and the tip of Arabia, the Asian "Rim of Fire" and the Macassar strait on the equator, and New Zealand, Fiji and the Hawaiian islands) -- in quantifying the uncertainty of each such association. An exact answer cannot be given, since the coasts are not absolutely straight, but even a non-scientist can see that, generally, most of the coasts involved lie along lines that have a similar angle with respect to the equator as does the nearest dodecahedral line, to within a few degrees, and that also cross the equator at about the same longitude as does the nearest dodecahedral line, again to within just a few degrees.
margolin, part 2,
ReplyDeleteHere is an example calculation: If the coasts were positioned by chance alone, as by so-called plate tectonics, the angular placement of a given coast could be anywhere from 0 up to 90 degrees away from the angle (63.435 degrees) of one of the dodecahedral lines, so if one is able to say, for example, that the general angle of a particular coast differs by at most only 4 degrees from 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator, then the probability is only 4/90 that the coast was positioned so by chance alone. Similarly, if one is able to say that the general line of a given coast intersects the equator within, again say 4 degrees, of the longitude at which the nearest dodecahedral line intersects the equator, the probability of that happening by chance is just 4/36, because the dodecahedral lines intersect the equator 72 degrees apart, so a coastline must always be within 36 degrees of the nearest dodecahedral line. If major landmasses followed each of the five dodecahedral lines to the same average uncertainty (4/90 in angle, 4/36 in longitude), the probability that any one of the five red lines was so closely followed, by chance alone, would be 4/90 times 4/36, or approximately 0.00494 (about 1 in 200); and the probability that ALL FIVE of the red lines would be as closely followed, by chance alone, would be 0.00494 to the fifth power, or about 3 in a million million. In actuality, some of the coastal lines can be pinned down substantially closer than within 4 degrees, and in my professional judgment, the actual overall probability of chance placement of all those coasts is less than 1 in a million million. I invite others with the necessary math and physics background to try their hand at this exercise. But know, in the end, that the designed layout of the landmasses is thoroughly well-proved even without my uncovering of the dodecahedral pattern and this probability argument for its physical reality; it is merely the easiest for non-scientists and scientists alike to see and appreciate, and it is definitive scientific proof, on its own, of a design in the layout of the landmasses (if one will honestly, dispassionately, abide by the strict judgment of probability, properly applied).
i'm simply asking: what methodology did you use to determine the positions of the red lines? what algorithm, an objective procedure than anyone can reproduce?
ReplyDeleteit must have been something precise, if you're able to determine their angle w.r.t. the equator to one part in 10^5.
margolin,
ReplyDeleteWe don't seem to be communicating well. It is clear to me that you have no experience with solid geometry, in particular the geometry of the five regular solids (cube, tetrahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron) of ancient tradition and perennial mathematical interest. (Don't be upset, even most scientists shy determinedly away from the subject; that's one big reason why no one discovered the design before me.) If you had, you would have realized, as soon as I identified the pattern of the red lines as dodecahedral, that the mathematics of the dodecahedron is exact. I will not derive the geometry of the dodecahedron here, to prove to you what I wrote under that illustration, including "The latitude at which these lateral axes emerge from the globe is 26.565 degrees, which makes the angle of the lines along the eastern coasts of the landmasses precisely 63.435 degrees". I will only repeat that the geometry of the dodecahedron is, not just precise, but exact mathematics, and I could have given that angle to 10 or 20 places if I thought it necessary. I only gave it to 3 significant figures (after the decimal point) in order to indicate that it IS precisely defined. If it helps, you can round off the angle to the nearest whole number, and just call it 63 degrees, since the general angle of the coasts cannot be pinned down to less than 1 degree. In short, while the red lines are exactly defined, they are being compared with coastlines whose general line cannot be precisely defined, but can be VISUALLY COMPARED with the red lines, and the uncertainty of each coast line, in angle and longitude, quantified (that is, one can determine visually that a given coast line follows the dodecahedral line, +/- a small variation in angle, and +/- a small variation in longitude, as I indicated in my last response). If you are determined to make such a quantitative visual comparison yourself, just remember that each red line in the illustrations here is to be compared with a series of coastlines, as I discussed in my last response to you (that is, not just North America, but North America plus the Yucatan peninsula, and so on). This will be my last response to you on this question, because I think you (and probably even most long-experienced scientists, I am beginning to see) need a full course of study to get the hang of it.
margolin,
ReplyDeleteI got your latest comment, but it is clear now that the difficulty of communicating with you is that you simply won't listen to anything I try to explain to you. I cut you off from commenting on my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" page, after that became clear there, and it is now utterly clear to me here. I will take no more comments from you, on any post of mine, unless and until I see you are honestly trying to understand. You only show yourself to be incapable of dispassionate scientific discourse, and I won't waste any more time on you. And that goes for anyone else who would pretend not to understand what I have patiently tried to make utterly clear, because I have had non-scientists, without any substantial mathematical background, write to me to tell me it is clear even to them. It is a matter of religiously-held faith in current earth science theory (all of it revolving around plate tectonics as the central linchpin) that keeps you and so many others from honestly and properly confronting the simplest and most overwhelming disproof of that theory. And this is just the tiniest portion of what I have uncovered, and verified, about the world design of the "gods". What I have shown in this post is simply a fact that the scientific community refuses to honestly face. You and that community are failing the test of confronting revolutionary new scientific knowledge, for which future scientists will judge this time harshly (as we judge the many religious tyrannies throughout history).
Could the natural internal convective patterns of the Earth give rise to multiple convective cells that would give rise to a dodecahedral pattern on the surface ?
ReplyDeletePresumably it has not always so since the continents haved moved around in the past so are you suggesting that we have now arrived at a completed design that will not change further in the future ?
Good Afternoon, Stephen,
ReplyDeleteNo, any such supposed internal convective patterns would have to already obey the dodecahedral pattern I have brought out, so first of all, hypothesizing them would not change the argument for design. Second, only the eastern coasts of the continents precisely obey the dodecahedral pattern, so your hypothesis immediately requires further hypotheses to explain that. And third, if you study the consensus theory of plate tectonics, you will find the continents did not move as if subject to such an internal convective cell pattern--so there is no independent evidence for making such an hypothesis--but apparently literally wandered all over the globe, and indeed repeatedly came together and broke apart again, generally not according to any clear pattern. (And fourth, but beyond the scope of the simple demonstration in this article, the design is already well proved by an overwhelming array of independent evidence, from ancient testimonies which precisely describe the forms wrought in the design, so that they are revealed, and verified--with the certainty of the tiniest puzzle pieces precisely fitted into the overall, entirely coherent picture--as the original "sacred images" of mankind, worldwide.)
However, and most importantly for my claims, one small group of scientists have written two papers, on the supposed breakup of the one-time supercontinents Laurasia and Gondwana (before all the landmasses supposedly came together again, much later, to form the single continent of Pangea), in which they found evidence that the breakup was in the form of a strict, truncated icosahedral tesselation. I have written about that, as independent scientific confirmation of the dodecahedral pattern I found in the Great Design, in the blog post, "Time For a Sign" (where you will find links to their original papers, as well as my "Independent Confirmation" article).
I see no reason to make claims about whether the world design I found is finished or not; it served, as all of my research has so far revealed, as the single, objective motivation for all of man's earliest, and still-lasting, religious obsessions--and indeed his strongest intellectual stimulations and greatest endeavors--and in that context it was clearly presented as a finished product of the "gods"--the divine teachings, as it were, for all mankind. The main period over which the actual physical re-formation occurred, according to my research, is roughly between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago (with the "disappearance" of Atlantis c. 9600 BC being one of the last factually well-supported deeds, of large land movement). The design also reveals the former orientation of the solar system (and of the Earth's orbit), with related evidence suggesting at least a further 15,000 years in that orientation, before our current one.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your unwritten question, so you don't have to ask it again: Whether or not the continents still move according to current consensus beliefs, it doesn't matter to the fact of the design, as my research has revealed it. Of course, the movements now claimed for the various "tectonic plates" are small enough that the design would not be broken up for many thousands of years yet. The "gods" were not "God", so there is no reason to wonder why they would make a world design that would not last forever; it only needs to last long enough for man to learn all of its lessons, before moving on himself. So think of this world only as mankind's nursery, whatever the future holds.