tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post618823663950293311..comments2024-03-28T09:40:46.354-07:00Comments on The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage: A Challenge to Earth ScientistsHarry Dale Huffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-51272338064696265102012-02-18T13:29:40.064-08:002012-02-18T13:29:40.064-08:00Stephen,
To answer your unwritten question, so yo...Stephen,<br /><br />To 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.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-48264225006424538742012-02-18T13:13:54.785-08:002012-02-18T13:13:54.785-08:00Good Afternoon, Stephen,
No, any such supposed in...Good Afternoon, Stephen,<br /><br />No, 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.)<br /><br />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, <a href="http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2009/06/time-for-sign.html" rel="nofollow">"Time For a Sign"</a> (where you will find links to their original papers, as well as my "Independent Confirmation" article).<br /><br />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.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-43200648144649180352012-02-18T08:59:09.356-08:002012-02-18T08:59:09.356-08:00Could the natural internal convective patterns of ...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 ?<br /><br />Presumably 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 ?Stephen Wildehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07357171106480483956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-67297782181896270262012-01-04T16:38:26.986-08:002012-01-04T16:38:26.986-08:00margolin,
I got your latest comment, but it is cl...margolin,<br /><br />I 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).Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-16421851821723449632011-12-26T17:48:26.410-08:002011-12-26T17:48:26.410-08:00margolin,
We don't seem to be communicating w...margolin,<br /><br />We 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.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-33149437690425286962011-12-26T11:53:09.459-08:002011-12-26T11:53:09.459-08:00i'm simply asking: what methodology did you us...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? <br /><br />it must have been something precise, if you're able to determine their angle w.r.t. the equator to one part in 10^5.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-85037077062231814282011-12-25T07:36:17.331-08:002011-12-25T07:36:17.331-08:00margolin, part 2,
Here is an example calculation:...margolin, part 2,<br /><br />Here 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).Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-28162833860444278372011-12-25T07:31:10.723-08:002011-12-25T07:31:10.723-08:00margolin,
My answer runs a little too long for on...margolin,<br /><br />My answer runs a little too long for one comment, so I will divide it into two comments, this and the following one.<br /><br />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.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-66378132846221427132011-12-24T17:54:00.402-08:002011-12-24T17:54:00.402-08:00ok, i have read parts II and III of your argument....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? <br /><br />to be more specific, given a coastline C defined on a sphere as a function of latitude T and longitude G: <br /><br />C(T,G) <br /><br />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?<br /><br />thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-5616046892599616552011-12-23T05:38:49.933-08:002011-12-23T05:38:49.933-08:00Good Morning, margolin,
One must distinguish betw...Good Morning, margolin,<br /><br />One 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.<br /><br />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.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-54908635362328126942011-12-22T20:50:51.962-08:002011-12-22T20:50:51.962-08:00you say the continents "lie along lines,"...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)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com