The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage

"Unified Climate Theory" III

2012-01-26T08:34:00.000-08:00

The tallbloke climate site appears to have warmly (and all too quickly) embraced the "Unified Climate Theory" of Nikolov and Zeller. Here I offer my physical understanding, and my reasons for rejecting that theory, even though it supports my Venus/Earth analysis, and appears, to many commenters, to extend my findings to other planetary bodies in the solar system.

Among the many comments at the tallbloke site, are the following:

Stephen Wilde wrote: "If temperature is set by pressure and solar input then in the end the effects of both volcanoes and GHGs [greenhouse gases, esp. carbon dioxide] must be neutral unless they affect total atmospheric mass."

and tallbloke wrote: "quite a lot of the Sun’s energy is directly absorbed in the atmosphere"

These observations basically follow from my Venus/Earth temperature comparison, and I have emphasized for more than a year, not only that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, depends only upon the planets' distances from the Sun, but also (and Nikolov & Zeller have not said this) that the atmosphere is fundamentally warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, as tallbloke seems to understand (although his statement is evasive about making my point, contenting himself with saying only "quite a lot" of the Sun's energy is directly absorbed).

Stephen Wilde is right about the effect of increased GHGs being neutral, that is neither warming nor cooling, because from my Venus/Earth analysis, the temperature at any given pressure in the troposphere depends only on its position within the lapse rate structure (physically, due to the weight of the atmosphere above, pressing down on that level) and the solar input. It does not depend upon the composition of the atmosphere (how much of GHGs there are), nor even upon the planetary albedo. It should be noted that every pressure level is receiving energy (during the daylight hours) by direct absorption of solar radiation (so we are not talking about a temperature lapse rate appearing spontaneously, out of nowhere, or from pressure differences alone, without energy input from the Sun--OR EVEN FROM VERTICAL CONVECTION, as defenders of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect claim; but, no matter how it is formed, it dominates over all other processes to govern the temperatures, because my Venus/Earth temperature comparison confirms the Standard Atmosphere, with its lapse rate, as the stable thermodynamic state of the atmosphere). Even before performing my simple analysis of Venus and Earth, I deduced from the most basic understanding of heat transfer, that GHGs cannot either trap heat or slow down its transport within the atmosphere; increasing their concentration in the atmosphere can only speed up heat transport, by providing a greater radiation path for it (in addition to whatever convection and conduction is going on). One of my blog readers insightfully likened the effect as that of a "lubricant" for heat transport, rather than a "furnace" producing more heat (or a refrigerator producing more cooling, for that matter). So increasing the amount of carbon dioxide neither warms nor cools, it only quickens the re-attainment of the physically dominant lapse rate structure, which the atmosphere is always trying to do.

But Wilde is not necessarily right about volcanoes having no effect, as my Venus/Earth comparison shows there is a further effect, within the clouds of Venus, and presumably in the clouds on other planets, amounting to about 5K cooling below the temperature predicted by the lapse rate structure itself. I found the same modest temperature effect (7K) for Titan (which has a particulate haze, rather than water-based clouds, throughout its troposphere), and pointed it out in my observations on the "Unified Climate Theory", here and here.

So there is good reason to think that Nikolov and Zeller's "Theory", which is really only an arbitrary fitting of planetary data to a (rather extreme) mathematical form of their own devising, is hiding a real, although modest (5-7K), physical effect--a cooling effect--upon the temperature inside clouds and haze alike.

More telling than the hiding of that clear physical effect by the "Unified Climate Theory", however, and indeed more outrageous, is the shape of their NTE function. They tried to give that function some physical support by comparing its shape to that of the Poisson formula for temperature as a function of pressure, but it should be noted (using their own Figure 5) that their NTE function WOULD APPEAR TO BE USELESS for calculating the surface temperature of 5 of the 8 planetary bodies they considered, as all of those 5 bodies (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, and Triton) have practically zero surface pressure, while their surface temperatures vary greatly (in other words, the NTE function is a vertical straight line, at a surface pressure of zero, in their Figure 5). Yet they claim, in their Table 1, perfect prediction of the surface temperatures of 2 of those 5 bodies (Mars and Europa), and near perfect prediction of another (Triton). It is my understanding, in the case of Mars, that its surface temperature varies widely, one would presume precisely because its pressure is so low, thus unstable. Even if their data and calculations are correct in this, this unphysical result explains the extreme form of their NTE function; and the extreme accuracy of their predicted temperatures cannot possibly be true. And sure enough, if one checks their values for the OBSERVED surface temperatures, one finds they claim to know every one of those temperatures to within 0.1K! I do not hesitate to call this delusionary.

So I reject the "Unified Climate Theory", as it now stands, just as I reject the consensus greenhouse effect, as unphysical and incompetent. There is no physical insight in it, that is not already in my Venus/Earth analysis.

A Second Response to the "Unified Climate Theory"

2012-01-24T18:19:00.000-08:00

The tallbloke climate website continues to resound with excited discussion of the "Unified Climate Theory" of Nikolov and Zeller, which I initially made a few basic observations on here.

One of the readers of my site, who uses the name "David Socrates" in blog comments, tried to alert the above tallbloke thread to my initial observations, with the intent of assuring a happy consensus for all concerned, as he thought the "Unified Climate Theory" was an important confirmation of my Venus/Earth findings, supposedly by extending them to a total of eight planetary bodies in the solar system. My seemingly reticent initial response to the new "theory" has apparently caused concern for those who see the possibility of a new skeptical consensus on the greenhouse effect.

David initially posted the following comment:

"Ned,
Before we get too carried away, I suggest that we should pause for a moment to read and carefully absorb today’s reponse from Harry Huffman to your N&Z paper. He has posted this on his own website at:

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/01/observation-on-unified-climate-theory.html

"First of all he shows, very eloquently in my opinion, that the grey body calculation that is at the heart of your ‘Nte’ ratio calculations for each planet (which generate the last line of data in your Table 4) is actually mathematically equivalent to his method of comparing the planetary temperatures directly without recourse to the concept of a ‘grey body’. He shows mathematically that both methods end up doing the same two things:
(1) They adjust for the relative amounts of the Sun’s energy that the planets receive (using the relative distances of the planets from the Sun and applying the inverse square law of electromagnetic radiation).
(2) They convert the adjusted energy values to their corresponding temperatures (using the standard Stefan-Boltzmann black body relationship).
So people will ask: what’s the difference? Well what Harry shows is that the additional parameters that you use, emissivity and albedo for your presumed grey body version of each planet are unnecessary. I suspected this when I first read your paper and now I have seen his exposition I am sure he is right.

"I would be interested to know whether you agree. If you do, I think this is good news, not bad. It simplifies your proposition considerably and avoids diversion into endless theoretical discussions about the significance of grey body (“atmosphere-less”) versions of each planet – evidently a fruitful source of confusion and disagreement.

"At the same time, I do not think that, if you were to adopt Harry’s simpler method of calculation for your planetary comparisons, this would negate your separate and, in my opinion, incredibly important finding that, hitherto, climate scientists have been using the wrong math when calculating the temperature difference between an atmosphere-less Earth (which is arguably a grey body) and its actual measured temperature, leading to a discrepancy between the two methods of calculation of no less than 100K! I think this is a very important result in its own right because it knocks the GHG warming theory on the head anyway, it being very difficult to see how the warmists can put such a huge additional difference down to the effect of GHGs.
So my positive thought is that there are now two separate arrows to our bow: Firstly an impossible temperature gap for the GHG theorists to bridge. Secondly, even if they try (and they will), some cast iron empirical planetary data and an empirical formula that provides no room for a GHG effect anyway."

After a follow-up comment by David, Ned Nikolov responded:

"David Socrates:

There is nothing to align between Hoffman’s ‘work’ and ours. He simply tried to express (cast) our gray-body temperature equation in terms of the conventional black-body model. This does not alter in any way the theoretical implications of our work regarding the effect of pressure on the surface thermal enhancement (ATE). Hoffman appears to have not even understood these theoretical implications, because he says he is surprised that pressure can alter the black-body temperature of a planet. Also, his mathematical simplification of our Eq. 6 only confuses the main point we tried to make in our reply paper, which is that one SHOULD NOT use the average absorbed radiation by a sphere to calculate the actual mean temperature of that sphere. The confusion arises from the fact that Hoffman’s modified black-body equation contains the therm (So/4), which is the AVERAGE radiation absorbed by a sphere … In summary, his ‘simplification’ only worsens the accuracy of our Eq. 8 in predicting planetary temperatures without providing any additional insight …"

David Socrates wrote me about this, asking for my response. I was of two minds about doing so, since, as tallbloke commented on my initial "Unified Climate Theory" article, there has been "more smoke and heat than clarity and light", in the past two weeks, on this subject, and my site is not about theoretical discussions, but about the simplest, most definitive facts, offering new knowledge, not ever more vain theorizing. With that last thought in mind, the following response to Nikolov is all fact.

First, my name is Harry Dale Huffman, not Hoffman.

Second, I am sure I never wrote, anywhere, that I am surprised "that pressure can alter the black-body temperature of a planet". Of course I thoroughly disagree with such a statement; it is simply inane, as my Venus/Earth analysis shows: 1) I used the Stefan-Boltzmann "blackbody equation" only implicitly, in the statement, "the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it". I didn't even have to bother with the explicit form of the formula in my analysis, as anyone can, and should, verify. 2) Implicit, of course, in my just-quoted statement is that the boundary of the "equivalent blackbody" must be drawn beyond the atmosphere, beyond all conduction and convection of heat (only radiation in and out, as through the little hole in the traditionally described "blackbody cavity"), so there is no possibility, no reason to even consider the idea, that "pressure can alter the blackbody temperature of a planet", in my Venus/Earth analysis. 3) My usage of the blackbody formula (which was not controversial, but taught as fact, when I was an undergraduate physics major, over 40 years ago) is confirmed by the results of my Venus/Earth analysis, which shows the OBSERVED Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is precisely explained by the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun, and by nothing else -- that is the amazing fact, not theory. 4) Of course, there is no pressure variable in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula (which is why I say it is inane to say, "pressure can alter the blackbody temperature" of a planet; 5) Finally, the Stefan-Boltzmann formula fundamentally deals with the INCIDENT radiation, NOT the ABSORBED radiation (and it is just a fact that So/4 is not the "average absorbed radiation", as Nikolov wrote, but is instead the mean value of the INCIDENT solar radiation (incident upon the atmosphere, from outside) normal to the surface, as determined by integrating So dA cos(angle of incidence) over the sunlit side of the planet, and dividing by the area of the sunlit hemisphere (thus the factor of "4" in the formula).

Third, whether Nikolov thinks it "confuses" his "main point" or not, it is a mathematical fact that the Tgb formula CAN be simplified as I showed, and the result of that simplification shows there is no need for a "gray body" temperature at all, when the same result is obtained using the simple blackbody temperature as I gave it. This is essentially (and I think obviously) due to the fact that Nikolov and Zeller used the same albedo and emissivity for the "gray body" temperature they associated with each planetary body. The ONLY variable from one body to the next, in their formula for Tgb, is the incident solar intensity, So. This means, as I explicitly showed, that one can use the simple blackbody formula I wrote in my post, instead of their Tgb, AND GET THE SAME ANSWER FOR THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET. So my simplification CANNOT WORSEN THE ANSWER TO BE OBTAINED BY THEIR FORMULAS, THEY SHOULD GET THE SAME ANSWER USING EITHER THE BLACKBODY TEMPERATURE AS I CALCULATED IT OR THEIR "UNIVERSAL GRAY BODY" TEMPERATURE -- which means (my final point, and see my initial "Unified Climate Theory" post) that, since I found a discrepancy of 7K in the predicted versus observed surface temperature on Titan, using my simple procedure, while Nikolov found perfect agreement between the predicted vs observed surface temperature for Titan, THEIR ANSWER IS UNACCOUNTABLY BETTER THAN IT SHOULD BE, as I duly noted in my previous post on the "Unified Climate Theory".

That Nikolov responded so inanely and dismissively to David Socrates's polite query, raises the strongest danger signals in my mind. I stand by what I wrote in my first post, that his work is not a physical theory, but only an ad hoc model which he has arbitrarily constructed to fit the planetary data -- but it fits too well, in my present view, so that important physical effects, providing a modest but real 5-7K discrepancy (not only for the surface temperature of Titan, but within the cloud layer of Venus, as shown in my Venus/Earth comparison post), may be hidden by his mathematical modelling efforts. He needs at the very least to show his calculations for the surface temperatures he predicted, using the Ideal Gas Law as he claimed.

Observation on a "Unified Climate Theory"

2012-01-22T21:55:00.001-08:00

In the past week, a so-called "Unified Theory of Climate" has been excitedly debated on a number of climate blogs. The introductory paper can be found here. That theory has been compared by some to the procedure I used in my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which disproves the consensus "greenhouse effect". I want to make just a few simple observations here of the "Unified Theory of Climate", to distinguish my own, factual position, and my professional concern for physical cause and effect relationships, from that theory.

My blog is not about climate science per se, and my aim in my relatively few climate science posts has been to clearly point out the simplest, definitive evidence, which reveals an entrenched incompetence in the current, consensus theory, which is basically that of the supposed "greenhouse effect", claimed to cause an increase in the average global surface temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (supposedly due to mankind's ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels).

First, I do not claim to have a theory of climate, and I consider my Venus/Earth analysis to be a simple presentation of fact, not theory. While my mathematical procedure involved a usage of the Stefan-Boltzmann "blackbody" equation that seems to be widely derided by current climate scientists, it was a usage that was taught to me as fact in my earliest days as a university physics major (and which I physically understand as motivated by the traditional description of a blackbody as a cavity inside an object maintained at constant temperature, with only a small hole to allow radiation -- but neither convection nor conduction of heat -- to pass into and out of the cavity). And of course, the results of my Venus/Earth analysis, which are mathematically precise, confirm my usage as correct, and thus the fact I always thought it to be; in contrast to that clear confirmation, defenders of the "greenhouse effect" are not able to explain my amazingly simple finding -- that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, outside of the Venus cloud layer, is due only to the ratio of the planets' distances from the Sun, nothing else -- within their own theory. They are all reduced to dismissing it as a "coincidence"; and they don't even stop to realize that it is a "coincidence" piled upon even more unlikely coincidence, that I just "happened" to learn (at a well-respected university, the University of Colorado at Boulder) just the wrong physical "fact" that allowed me to effortlessly uncover that "coincidence", of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio being precisely and solely explained by the planets' distances from the Sun -- in perfect mimickry of a coherent physical reasoning that (in my scientific judgment) corrects and simplifies our understanding of basic atmospheric warming by the Sun.

In looking to apply my procedure more widely, by comparing temperatures in Earth's troposphere with temperatures in other planetary atmospheres, I found detailed temperature and pressure data on only one other body having pressures in the range of Earth's troposphere: the Saturn moon, Titan. The stipulation of that range of pressures is due to the fact (!) that for atmospheres equal to or greater than Earth's, the atmospheric mass is enough to impose a quite general hydrostatic condition, exemplified by a negative temperature lapse rate throughout the range of Earth tropospheric pressures. Scientists over many years developed the Standard Atmosphere model of our atmosphere, based upon the hydrostatic condition, and my Venus/Earth comparison confirmed that model as the stable state which the atmosphere is constantly trying to attain and maintain. This of course is directly counter to the modern idea of "runaway climate", which has enmeshed climate scientists in ever-more complicated "explanations" for the observations that continually challenge, rather than confirm, their theories.

I will not try to give a complete critique of the "Unified Theory of Climate", since I have not paid particular attention to the recent debates over it, nor given it any sustained study in the few days it has been in the climate news. In the following, I will assume the reader has the above-linked article relating the theory at hand, and is familiar with its basic contents.

The following illustration shows the basic equations developed in the theory.

The theory puts forth a relationship between 1) the surface temperature (Ts) of a planet or moon with an atmosphere, 2) the temperature (Tgb) of a so-called "gray body" reference body, at the same distance from the Sun as the planet or moon, but having no atmosphere, and 3) the surface pressure of the planet or moon being considered. The first equation above gives the definition of Tgb, according to the authors of the Unified Climate Theory (Nikolov and Zeller).

My first observation is that the equation for Tgb can be immediately simplified. This simplification is shown in the second and third lines above. The equation contains two physical parameters (the "gray body" albedo αgb, and the emissivity ε) which are in fact the same for all of the planetary bodies considered by the authors. The factor containing these parameters, which is thus a constant, can be taken out from under the fourth-root expression containing the incident solar intensity S0. Also, the parameter added to S0 -- cs -- is a constant, which is so much smaller than S0 for all of the planetary bodies considered, that it can be removed entirely, as shown in the third line above.

This simplification allows us to see that the use of a "gray body" temperature, involving the albedo and emissivity of the planetary body, is irrelevant to the theory as presented, for the same value of albedo is used for all the bodies considered in the paper, and the same emissivity. The only variable parameter is the incident solar intensity, which depends upon the distance from the Sun. (σ, of course, is just the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, a fundamental physical constant.) The fourth line above shows the definition for the temperature of a "blackbody", and thus reveals that the "gray body" temperature is just a constant times that blackbody temperature. So all consideration of possible real variations in albedo and emissivity are in fact dropped out of the theory at this point.

The fifth line above shows the empirical, ad hoc relation found by the authors to hold across all the bodies they consider in their paper. The sixth line shows that this relationship can be obtained by using a blackbody temperature (with no albedo or emissivity correction) instead of the author's gray body temperature. The indicated ratio of temperatures, which they denote as NTE, is just multiplied by a constant (about 0.554, for the values of albedo and emissivity they use). In their theory as presented, the surface temperature can be recovered from the calculated value of NTE as Tgb times NTE; but we see we can equivalently use the blackbody temperature with an NTE that is the constant γ times their NTE function.

Either way, it should be emphasized that the functional form of NTE is not motivated by any physics, but simply by an arbitrary fitting of the planetary data to that functional form. To me, the theory stops being a physical theory at this point, and is just an arbitrary mathematical model.

Nevertheless, it appears to give good results -- which is itself a problem, because, by using the blackbody temperature, as just indicated above, I would expect them to get the same results as my procedure for comparing Venus and Earth, and they do not. When my procedure, which calls for comparing the Standard Atmosphere Earth temperature at a given pressure with the temperature in another atmosphere at the same pressure, is applied to the surface of Titan (using a slightly different surface pressure I found, 1,452 mb, rather than their indicated 1,467 mb), I obtained a predicted Titan surface temperature of 99.9K, or approximately 100K, whereas the true surface temperature was 93.2K, or nearly 7K lower than my procedure predicts. But Nikolov and Zeller, the authors of this theory, claim no error at all (93.7K predicted, versus 93.7K true surface temperature). I obtained the Titan data here.

The physical data they use differs from my (limited) data, by 1 or 2% in some cases. I have just mentioned the slightly different values they used for the surface pressure and surface temperature of Titan. Their value for the surface pressure of Earth is some 2.4% lower than that given in the Standard Atmosphere, which I used, and it doesn't seem to be due to their using a slightly different surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere equations. (They write that the surface temperature of the Earth is 287.4K, while the Standard Atmosphere, for nearly a century, has consistently used 288.15K.) So I wonder if they have effectively calculated their own version of the Standard Atmosphere rather than the presently official 1976 American Standard Atmosphere, and if so, on what basis did they see fit to do that on their own. The thought arises -- and I can only bring it forth, not as a suspicion but only a logical possibility -- that they might have done so, inadvertently or otherwise, to make the data more exactly fit their theory. I would not bring up the possibility, except that, as I already noted, their theory is not entirely a physical one, as my Venus/Earth comparison is physically reasoned -- using only known facts (or once-known, when I was a student) -- but accomplished through arbitrary mathematical modelling of a "best fit" function. Again, this is just my dispassionate consideration, not an accusation or insinuation of dishonesty on their part.

"There are more things..."

2012-01-19T05:08:00.000-08:00

A small example of the largely vain public debates about "proper" science today is provided at wattsupwiththat.com, focusing upon one individual who rants about climate change, against the "deniers", in the media. The scientific skeptics of the climate "consensus" are outraged that they should be wrongly linked with "creationists" by that individual, and others. Here is my view on the matter:

It doesn't matter what subject you exclude from "proper scientific discussion", the mere fact that you do so means you need to first learn one thing above all else, if you even hope to become a true scientist, someday:

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio."

There are even objective and compelling reasons behind the ancient belief that the world was flat (no, it is not literally, physically true, but as a cogent metaphor, for an anciently-organized and literally overwhelming system, of physical facts (!), hidden for all of recorded history behind the misdirected concreteness of ancient myth and other earliest religious dogma, there is a world -- even a universe -- of understanding behind it).

Until you learn Shakespeare's immortal warning, above, once and for all, you are only a child, playing childish games in the nursery. As Isaac Newton famously said of himself:

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

I have learned enough to actually swim in that (literally) great ocean -- where no one, scientist or not, has ever swum before. And you can too, if you forsake petty squabbling about what is "proper" to investigate scientifically, and determinedly seek the truth -- physical, mental, or spiritual -- wherever it leads.

An Inevitable, Unavoidable "Learning Moment"

2012-01-17T05:39:00.000-08:00

I received a comment this morning on my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" page, the point of which was reaffirmed by a brouhaha at WUWT (wattsupwiththat). Instead of submitting a comment there, I offer the following here:

This is just another "learning moment" (an emotional clash of character and personality) due to the entrenched incompetence in climate science (and beyond), which has the proponents on either side of the "greenhouse" debate merely repeating themselves ad nauseam (i.e., to the point of mutual disgust). That incompetence is really just the following of (rickety, shaky, wrong-headed) theory over experimental fact.

The fact is, there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The lapse rate rules over the radiation transfer theory, not because it is more "fundamental", but because it fits the facts of two planetary atmospheres. The radiative transfer theory, which allows the consensus greenhouse effect, is simply wrong in its application to the atmosphere, according to those facts; it misses the real thermodynamics of the atmosphere entirely. And those who look closely at it find that it violates the laws of thermodynamics, quite apparently because it misuses the blackbody concept. When Willis Eschenbach says (on the above-linked WUWT site), "As a result of absorbing that energy [so-called backradiation] from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs", he doesn't see (and believers in the greenhouse effect refuse to see) his words are nonsense. A commenter to my blog known as "truthseeker" just directed my attention this morning to an article containing this statement: "GHG theory postulates back-radiation from cold atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the surface, heating it more. This violates Second Law of thermodynamics (energy can only be transferred from hot to cold bodies), leading to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of thermodynamics (energy conservation), and the impossible perpetual motion machine AGW promoters need to cause eternal global warming." I replied to truthseeker, "He is saying that the energy imparted by the 'backradiation' is re-emitted by the surface at a higher temperature, the temperature of the surface. He is right, this is an obvious error in the consensus theory, which consensus scientists refuse to understand. To me, the most obvious and fundamental violation is that of the conservation of energy, which I pointed out in my blog post, 'Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria'."

There is no way out of this mess until each defender of the consensus greenhouse effect comes to realize that he/she is simply wrong about it. And there is the rub: the belief of the overriding majority of scientists is wrong, and MUST be overthrown, by scientists themselves and using a proper scientific understanding of the most basic physics.

Continuing Vain Climate Debates

2011-12-26T08:48:00.000-08:00

The blogosphere continues to waste time on vain, incompetent climate debate on the part of non-experts, due to the failure of "expert" climate science, most recently on the WUWT site. The three most pernicious and most basic misunderstandings that plague such debates, especially among the consensus "experts", as brought to light by my Venus/Earth comparison, are:

1) Equating the "greenhouse effect" with the atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation. The latter is a physical reality, but the former is an hypothesis. When believers (and that is the only proper term for them, "believers") in the greenhouse effect go through their calculation that purports to prove that the "greenhouse effect" is responsible for warming the surface by 33°C, above what it would otherwise be, they are really (and rather obviously) arguing that the PRESENCE OF AN ATMOSPHERE is responsible for that added surface warming. But the real question is, and always has been, how is the atmosphere warmed, not how is the surface warmed by the Sun and THEN how does the surface warm the atmosphere? The unquestioned assumption of the latter question is what drives the nearly universal belief that planetary albedo affects the atmospheric temperature, which greenhouse believers use to incompetently dismiss my definitive factual findings.

2) Believing (again that word) that the atmosphere is warmed by heat from a warmed planetary surface, rather than by direct absorption of radiation from the Sun. This, in spite of the fact that even among consensus climate scientists, it is generally understood that at least 15% of the incident solar radiation is directly absorbed by the atmosphere. So, when pressed, they will admit that the atmosphere is partly warmed by direct absorption of solar radiation, and partly by heat from the surface (by both surface-emitted radiation and by convection and conduction). And so the complications begin to multiply for them, and for anyone trying to follow their explanations. The only reason they believe that the surface warms the atmosphere is because it is warmer than the atmosphere, so heat must flow upward from the surface and they cannot imagine that upward heat flow does not further warm the atmosphere. And they are right, in a limited sense: Heat from the surface can and does warm a part of the atmosphere -- but only transiently and locally (as within a temporary, rising column of warm air, or within a few meters of a "hot spot" surface, such as a fire or urban pavement). They fail to keep in mind that the general atmospheric temperature gradient, from surface to top of troposphere, is well explained by the vertical pressure distribution due to the weight of the atmosphere itself (in the governing hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere, the pressure at a given altitude is due to the weight of the atmosphere above that altitude, and the temperature necessarily increases with the pressure). There is no need to hypothesize a general atmospheric warming by surface heating, but it is an ingrained, unquestioned belief today among most scientists, and thus among their followers. And of course, my Venus/Earth comparison now makes it obvious that the atmosphere is fundamentally warmed ONLY by DIRECT absorption of incident solar radiation, specifically a portion of the infrared solar radiation (and the same portion, for both Earth and Venus). Since the visible portion of the Sun's radiation is not responsible for warming the atmosphere, the fact that Venus reflects 70% of the visible light from the Sun while Earth reflects only 30%, makes no difference in the warming of their atmospheres, and thus there is no albedo effect in the observed Venus/Earth temperature ratio, in my simple comparison.

3) Believing that the surface of the Earth is a blackbody. In the words of (for example) Raymond Pierrrehumbert, "The ground below the atmosphere emits as an ideal blackbody, characterized by the Planck function B." This belief underpins the radiative transfer theory and those who interpret the spectra of radiation emitted upwards from the top of the tropopause as "proof" of the greenhouse effect. The fact is, those spectra merely show the PRESENCE of water vapor, carbon dioxide and the other infrared-active gases in the atmosphere, and measured variations of those spectra over time can show the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- but they do NOT show increased atmospheric warming due to the increase in carbon dioxide, that is merely an unsupported assumption (particularly during the periods, such as 1940-1970 and the last decade or so, when the carbon dioxide has increased substantially, but the global average surface temperature has not increased at all, or even gone down, so that the assumption is not just unsupported, but positively invalidated). The question everyone should ask themselves is, is there any reason to believe that upward heat transport (including by absorption and emission of "upwelling" infrared radiation), along a temperature gradient governed solely by the hydrostatic distribution of pressure, will actually further heat the atmosphere; currently, in the present childish "scientific" debates, almost everyone laughs and says, "of course", but the real, factual answer, again provided by my Venus/Earth comparison, is "NO". In the absence of a change in the intensity of incident solar radiation, the temperatures at the top and bottom of the troposphere are held constant (as indicated by the empirically-determined Standard Atmosphere, which is confirmed by my Venus/Earth analysis), and increasing carbon dioxide or water vapor can only increase the efficiency, or speed, with which local temperature variations are dissipated by heat transfer, both vertically and around the planet (the temperature on Venus's dark side is just as hot as on the sunlit side, due, I claim, to the nearly pure carbon dioxide atmosphere there).

Christopher Monckton: Incompetent Skeptics

2011-12-24T10:16:00.000-08:00

Recently, my earlier post, "Blackbody: The Key Error in Climate Science", was attacked by Christopher Monckton (a widely-known "lukewarm" believer in the consensus greenhouse effect), on Jo Nova's site. I became aware of this about a day later, but since I had not been contacted by anyone (in particular, either Jo Nova or Monckton) to participate, and no one had submitted any comments about it to my "Blackbody..." page, I did not, and will not now, go there to respond. I generally only answer comments made directly to the relevant posts on my own site, or e-mailed to me at newhdh@netzero.com. I will just say here that Monckton's points (which I came across during a casual internet browsing session just now, some four days after their posting) are scientifically and logically empty, merely consensus dogma sprayed forth without even noting that my blackbody claims are confirmed by my earlier Venus/Earth analysis, which used my understanding of the proper use of the blackbody equation. His detailed attack (which I, rather obviously, consider simply wrong in its basic blackbody assertions, and wrong-headed in its use of consensus theory) adds up merely to saying that my factual finding -- that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures (particularly outside of the thick cloud layer on Venus), is precisely and solely explained by the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun (and nothing else) -- is only an amazing coincidence. This is of course pathetic, on the part of a supposed "expert". Mr. Monckton, you have not explained my (yes, amazing) results with your irrelevant theoretical cant; you are miseducated, and incompetent in neglecting the factual results of my Venus/Earth analysis (you merely misdirected attention from them -- even Jo Nova had just enough integrity to quote from my blackbody article, "This of course was confirmed in my previous Venus/Earth analysis..."). In your attack upon me, you accomplished nothing real; you merely pontificated before an audience that accepts everything you say as gospel. There is no greenhouse effect as promulgated by you and the consensus, and your supposed expert knowledge about using the blackbody equation is worth precisely nothing, against the facts I have brought forward in my Venus/Earth analysis. Your loyal followers are ill-served by your dogmatic defense of the greenhouse effect, against those definitive facts.

How To Save Science

2011-11-12T14:35:00.000-08:00

The "Climate Etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry has a post on the fundamental problems with peer review. Instead of adding a comment there, I offer the following:

Scientific fundamentals like peer review are broken because science has not been self-correcting, but figuratively adding epicycles to planetary circles, for a long time, so that incompetence proliferates instead of the expertise that is advertised and expected. Materialistic scientism (dogmatically opposed to religion and, by false logical extension, to a higher meaningful reality than the merely physical) is leading science on a dead-end street; the "undirected evolution" paradigm is a failure, but that is largely unknown, especially among self-proud, cloistered academics. I am already showing the way to correct science--by identifying and focusing upon the definitive evidence that disproves key scientific errors of understanding. All scientists have to do is be willing to have even their favorite theories and supposed understanding undone, when the definitive facts say so. Science should be organized learning, first , last and always, not memorized, ritualized explanation.

Recent Responses to Consensus Defenders

2011-11-07T06:26:00.000-08:00

Followers may be interested in recent comments I have fielded from climate consensus, or greenhouse effect, defenders.

Here is my latest response on my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" page.

Here you can find my response to another inane critic, on Climate Etc (although you will have to look for my name).

You can see those dismissing me are clearly incompetent, obviously because they refuse to take any fundamental criticism of the consensus seriously. If they are competent otherwise, they cannot be trying very hard to make sense on this subject.

Incompetent Climate Consensus Defenders

2011-10-18T16:38:00.000-07:00

I came across a blog in which someone had made a comment referring to my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post (Nov. 22, 2010), and the blog author and others made a series of disparaging comments about it, all quite scientifically incompetent. I submitted a long comment of my own to clear up the science, but I checked back later to find my comment had been ignored, and despite someone coming to my defense, the disparagement continued. The site had 82 comments when I last looked (my comment would have been 81 if it had been accepted). For followers of my position on the greenhouse effect hypothesis, the following is the comment I submitted there (you may want to find the earlier comments, in Swedish, to which I was trying to reply--I used google translate to understand them myself):

"1) I am not an engineer, I am a physicist. I don't call myself a genius, only a competent physical scientist. This is a most important point (see point 7 below).

2) The greenhouse effect is not a warming of the planetary surface due to carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. It is an INCREASE in the atmospheric temperature due to an INCREASE in atmospheric carbon dioxide or other IR-active gases (water, methane, etc.). It is explained by consensus climate scientists as due to absorption of infrared radiation from the surface, with subsequent backradiation back to the surface, thus slowing heat loss. The consensus is incompetent, however, and their greenhouse effect does not exist, as my Venus/Earth comparison definitively shows.

3) I have not ignored albedo; instead, I have shown that there is no albedo effect, because the atmosphere is fundamentally warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, not by a previously warmed planetary surface. Specifically,

4) The Venus atmospheric temperature, at any given pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is just 17% higher than the Earth atmospheric temperature at the same pressure. Outside of the thick cloud layer on Venus, the ratio of temperatures, Venus/Earth, is very precisely 1.176, and this is due, again precisely, to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun, and nothing else. This is because the 1.176 temperature ratio corresponds to a 1.91 power ratio in the solar radiation received by the two planets (1.176 = fourth-root of 1.91), which is just the actual power ratio incident on the two planets. Thus, even though the clouds of Venus reflect much of the visible solar radiation, Venus's atmosphere is still warmed by 1.91 times the power per unit area as is Earth's atmosphere. This of course means (to a competent physicist like myself), that the atmospheres of Earth and Venus are not warmed by the visible portion of the solar spectrum--in the troposphere, the atmosphere is warmed by infrared absorption. Since the actual Venus/Earth temperature ratio is due solely to the ratio of their distances from the Sun, both atmospheres must absorb the SAME PORTION of the Sun's infrared radiation. That is a definitive finding for the correction of climate science: Even with its much higher albedo, Venus's atmosphere is still warmed by the 1.91 greater power expected solely from its closer distance from the Sun.

5) There is no albedo effect upon the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, precisely because the atmospheres are warmed by incident solar infrared radiation, not from the ground as most scientists believe.

6) I recommend people read not just my article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect", but the comments following it, which go into the above points, and more.

7) Those who refuse to study and understand my article, or having gone through it, dismiss it on any physical grounds, especially a supposed albedo effect, are, in contrast to myself, incompetent as physical scientists. It is, as I have written in my article, both a student-level analysis and the definitive correction of the incompetent consensus. This includes Judith Curry, Jo Nova, and the other so-called "lukewarm" believers in the consensus greenhouse effect, as well as the alarmist climate scientists and their defenders. My Venus/Earth analysis separates the competent physical scientists from the incompetent ones, on the subject of the greenhouse effect. I do not say that haughtily, I say that as a scientist who knows what he is talking about. My analysis should have been done by James Hansen and others back in October 1991, when the Venus data was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft, and the greenhouse effect dropped as wrong back then. That is how incompetent the climate consensus really is."

Blackbody: The Key Error in Climate Science

2011-09-07T07:05:00.000-07:00

The climate consensus in science is founded upon the greenhouse effect as imagined by the IPCC-sponsored scientists, which my last post simply disproved. Their greenhouse effect is, in turn, founded upon one key scientific error, that competent students of my generation cannot make: Misusing the "blackbody" equation, otherwise known as the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

A blackbody is defined as a body (or system of bodies in thermal contact) which absorbs all of the radiation incident upon it. A blackbody necessarily has an albedo (reflection coefficient) of zero. If you can define your body (or system) so that only radiation is passing into and out of it, then you can -- indeed you must -- define all the radiation passing into it as "incident", and you can replace the system with a blackbody, and use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, with that incident radiation, to calculate a mean temperature for the body or system (it's "effective blackbody temperature" or "radiating temperature"). That's it, that's all there is to it.

So how do current "expert scientists" go wrong? Because they define their "effective blackbody" system as inside the solid Earth, bounded by the Earth's surface -- and it should be obvious there is more than just radiation passing through that surface (there is conduction through the surface, and convection away from it). To use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation properly, they must define the boundary of the Earth system as outside of its atmosphere -- beyond all conduction and convection -- and use the mean incident solar irradiation only, not the "incident minus reflected" as they do.

You cannot "correct for albedo" to use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at the Earth's surface, because a blackbody by definition has no albedo to "correct" for. This of course was confirmed in my previous Venus/Earth analysis, which showed there is simply no room for an albedo effect upon the long-term mean temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth.

All of the billions of words wasted upon "explaining" the climate consensus are founded upon this elementary error of understanding, that a student in his/her first physics class could see is wrong (providing he/she were taught in that basic class the definition of a blackbody, and how it must be applied to solve appropriate problems -- and apparently they are not being so taught, for the last 20 years or more).

The climate consensus, and physicists who defend it, utterly fail to understand how to use the concept of the blackbody properly. I charge them all with scientific incompetence of the first order. No one who writes authoritatively in defense of the climate consensus is, in my professional scientific judgment, worthy of calling him/herself a scientist, although I usually just use the qualifier "competent" or "incompetent".

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

2010-11-22T09:51:00.000-08:00

The flip side of the entrenched incompetence in science today is that all it takes is scientific competence to make revolutionary discoveries, or fundamental corrections to current dogma. Being a competent physicist rather than an incompetent climate scientist (which 97% of them demonstrably are), I was able recently to post an answer on yahoo.com to a question about the greenhouse effect on Venus, an update to which I give here:

Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

[Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]

So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic.

Here is a table more precisely comparing the temperatures at various pressures in Earth's atmosphere (the standard atmosphere) with the corresponding temperatures in Venus's atmosphere:

(updated 12/02/10)

My uncertainty in finding T_Venus from the graphs is +/- 1.4 K, so any error less than about 1.2 K (in the last column) is negligible. I don't know why the comparison falters slightly between 600 and 300 mb, or why it improves suddenly at 200 mb (~60 km altitude), but the Venus cloud top is given as 58 km, between the 300 and 200 mb levels.

The Venus atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, and supposedly superheated due to a runaway greenhouse effect, yet that portion of it within the pressure bounds of the Earth atmosphere is remarkably like the Earth in temperature. This is student-level analysis, and could not have been neglected by climate scientists, if they were not rendered incompetent by their dogmatic belief in the greenhouse hypothesis. (Again, the overwhelming extent of fundamental incompetence exhibited by scientists today is the real underlying story.) This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth -- the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.) This denies any possibility of a "greenhouse effect" on Venus (or on Earth), much less a "runaway" one. This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who have written succinctly, "...since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses [sic] is not obeyed." Yet they are ridiculed by climate scientists, who thus behave like spoiled children who refuse to be chastised by their parents.

Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:

Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.

The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.

Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.

The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)

The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%.

There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.

There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide.

On Innovation in Science and Society

2010-11-15T07:31:00.000-08:00

I have posted a short comment at Die Klimazwiebel, on the present state of climate science, and more generally on where innovation comes from and the tasks facing society in a time of vaguely-sensed revolution, whether natural or man-made.

The Unphysical Greenhouse Effect

2010-11-14T04:00:00.000-08:00

In my post on "Runaway Global Warming", I pointed out that the radiational energy balance as claimed by the IPCC and most climate scientists exhibits an unrealistically large infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, and an almost equally large "backradiation", supposedly emitted downward by the "greenhouse gases", especially carbon dioxide. In this way, they insist, the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide controls the temperature of the globe, by returning heat to the surface that would otherwise quickly escape to space. To a competent physicist, this should set off alarm bells, primarily because in their model, the energy coming off the surface is greater than that coming from the Sun, which is simply impossible.

I would like to add a note to show how the infrared radiation actually works in the atmosphere, and that there can be no large "backradiation" from CO2 or other infrared-absorbing gases, because that is directly counter to the way the atmospheric radiation really works in the process of distributing heat energy in the air.

There is a new book out, exposing the overwhelming weakness in the climate consensus of a "greenhouse effect" responsible for global warming, titled "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Theory." I have posted a comment on one of its web pages, an updated version of which I present here:

In our gravitationally bound ocean of air, heat always rises, and the infrared radiation (supposedly "trapped" or "slowed down" by CO2, in the "greenhouse" theory) is just another pathway for the heat to go. It is, in fact, not a continuous path, since it depends on the temperature at which it was radiated and the temperature of any molecule it hits. The IR radiation given off at any given temperature level (height) of the atmosphere, cannot (statistically, or macroscopically, speaking) be absorbed by molecules immediately below, because they are too warm to be excited by the "cooler" radiation from above, and will quickly bounce it back upwards. The molecules immediately (or within a short distance) above the level from which the radiation was emitted, can absorb it, and it is quickly transformed into additional kinetic energy of those molecules, which are then convected upward, like the common candle flame, which is stretched upward by the same effect. Thus, there can be no real, large "backradiation", because it is heat radiation, and heat must rise naturally, like the candle flame (congratulations to the book's author, for pointing out this clear example of natural heat flow in the air). Why this is not obvious to the bulk of climate scientists is an ongoing sordid tale, and one of monumental proportions (although it is just one small example of the overall incompetence in science today, which only my discovery of the world design of the "gods" has revealed).

The temperature profile of the atmosphere is basically determined only by gravity, which increases the pressure in the atmosphere the farther down toward the Earth's surface you go (just like the pressure increases with depth in the water ocean), and the greater the pressure, the greater the temperature -- the presence of infrared radiation, or infrared-absorbing gases, has essentially nothing to do with it.

How long will it take to purge climate science of its belief in the "greenhouse effect", and how long to disabuse recent generations of students (and the general public) of the bad science which they have been, and continue to be, so determinedly indoctrinated in?

The Greenhouse Effect: Incompetence in Climate Science

2010-11-10T13:01:00.000-08:00

At the heart of the anthropogenic global warming (or AGW) hypothesis is the so-called "greenhouse effect", which is widely discussed on the internet (so I won't go over what is readily available elsewhere). Climate scientists have, apparently, all been taught that the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a long-known fact, and confirmed by overwhelming experimental observations along many lines of evidence. Physicists, however, tend to have independent opinions and more critical views (which are spread out over the range from total acceptance to total rejection). A few of the current articles, available online, by physicists critical of the greenhouse effect, are: Prof. Claes Johnson, "Climate Thermodynamics"; Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, "On the Barometric Formulas and Their Derivation from Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics"; and Tom Vonk, "CO2 Heats the Atmosphere...A Counter View." The first two are math intensive, while the third is more narrowly focused and clearly physical in tone. I would not ordinarily feel the need to write an article on the subject myself, but I have to discuss openly the incompetence I see being played out in many sciences, across the board. I have lately found myself posting on forums I have come across, where the physicist's view of the greenhouse effect seems to be neglected, or even haughtily dismissed by climate scientists; and I might as well say here, in my own backyard so to speak, what I have said elsewhere -- particularly because I haven't seen anyone voice my own understanding of the physics of it, in a clear, strong manner.

Putting my position succinctly, I have come to consider the greenhouse effect completely wrong, the more I have read about it. The following is basically a copy of one of my most recent posts on the subject.

The imaginary character of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is most readily seen in the energy budget diagrams that are derived from it (look up "Trenberth energy budget", or see my last post here), where the surface of the Earth is shown as emitting more energy than is provided by the Sun (the sole power source for the global climate system). This is a clear violation of the conservation of energy (never mind the "laws of thermodynamics" that others talk about), but today's climate scientists as a whole seem to have been taught otherwise, and are simply incompetent.

So forget what even the AGW skeptics who believe in the greenhouse effect are putting out, it is all flawed, as the obvious violation of energy conservation should make clear. CO2 and other IR absorbing gases cannot "trap" or even "slow down" heat transport through the atmosphere. The radiation they absorb and emit is simply heat energy, and that heat flows from warmer regions to colder, by whichever path (convection, conduction, or radiation) is available and is the most efficient.

[In fact, to make it simple, I suggest that heat radiation should probably be considered as "heat conduction by radiation," and perhaps treated as an effective thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, rather than radiation per se, since climate scientists, and thermodynamicists in general, have stumbled badly trying to deal with it as the latter. This is my own, recent idea, which I have noticed an echo of in the article by Prof. Johnson, so it is certainly not a new idea in the world of science, although the IPCC and those who believe in the greenhouse effect (including many physicists) don't seem to have heard of it. The physics behind it can be stated as, the IR radiation from molecules in a cooler region cannot be absorbed by the molecules in a warmer region, because the "cooler" IR photon does not have enough energy to excite the "warmer" molecule to its next higher energy level. Heat, including heat radiation, can only flow from warmer to cooler regions.]

The temperature profile of the atmosphere is dictated solely by gravity acting on the ocean of air and the specific heat of the air, which imposes a temperature "lapse rate" (a declining temperature) with height given by -g/c, a constant rate, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and c is the specific heat. Note that this is entirely independent of the presence of any IR absorption by gases in the atmosphere. The available heat energy must be distributed in accordance with that constant lapse rate, and IR radiation is just one pathway for the heat to be distributed. Thus, IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere can only enable more efficient (faster) heat transport through the atmosphere, they cannot trap heat, or slow it down. And as you can read elsewhere on the internet (see, for example, www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/), the evidence from climate science itself is that the co2 greenhouse effect cannot explain the global temperature record, particularly over the last ten years or so, when atmospheric co2 has substantially increased, while the temperature has levelled off or declined very slightly.

The only thing that has kept the greenhouse theory alive, even after the lapse rate was observed and explained by simple thermodynamics, has been the breathtaking magnitude of the entrenched incompetence among climate scientists. It can be traced, to a substantial degree, back to Carl Sagan's popular appeal, around 1960, to a "runaway greenhouse effect" for the extremely high surface temperature of Venus. But he was wrong (and a bad, self-serving scientist), and the lapse rate for the huge ocean of air on Venus (providing a surface pressure 90 times that on the Earth) explains that too, although again, you will find climate scientists referencing Venus to "prove" the greenhouse effect. This is not just your usual scientific discussion or genteel disagreement, then, it is the tip of a world-sized incompetence in science. Indeed, it involves a religious belief among climate scientists in the greenhouse theory, a belief up to now immune to even the clearest logical and evidential arguments.

Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria

2010-10-17T10:11:00.000-07:00

The finding of the great design of the "gods" immediately confronts science with the fact that our most popular and hotly-defended theories in the earth and life sciences are fundamentally wrong. Plate tectonics is laughably wrong, since the landmasses of the Earth are shaped and distributed according to a clear and precise, dodecahedral design; evolution is not even a theory, it is a misplaced metaphysical principle of human learning, wrongly applied to physical reality because scientists refuse to recognize design as design, or to believe anyone smarter than us once trod the Earth.

The intellectual climate today is so bad, however, that no one in science is interested in learning fundamental new knowledge. Learning a scientific specialty is hard--the hardest part is memorizing a lot of terms, and keeping their essential relationships clear in the face of complex, deteriorating arguments. For example, no biologist I am aware of knows any more that "evolution" properly means "change in a given direction"; they are too full of the supposed success of undirected evolution.

The point I am getting to is that when science gets off track, there are always clues, perhaps small but clear, that it is off track. When it is really wrong-headed, as it has become since Darwin's day, you can find instances of blatantly ridiculous results being promulgated as the best science consensus. The prime example of this at the moment is the global warming controversy.

I have not addressed global warming in an article before now, because I don't fancy myself a universal polymath: Climate science is not my field. So I won't bother putting up yet another article that supposedly sets everyone straight on climate science, or global warming in particular. If you study the many different points of view presented online, from qualified scientists, you should find that climate science is, in fact, not a robust science. It is mired in fundamental controversies and incompetence, and poisoned beyond immediate cure by one-sided politicization that fans hysteria among the unknowing public.

What I will do is put before you just one example of a ridiculous result from climate science that I, as a physical scientist, have observed, and which I have not seen other scientific critics bear down on as they should. I think, indeed, that they don't know that it is ridiculous, and I don't know yet whether that thought is a misapprehension on my part, or scientists in general have been rendered simply stupid by the wrong-headedness of their general paradigm, of undirected evolution of all that we see in the universe--not just the life on Earth, but the Earth itself, for example (and of course, the solar system beyond, which I have proved to my own professional satisfaction is part of the great design I found and verified).

Here it is, the little point of ridiculousness I currently marvel over: The "atmospheric greenhouse effect" at the heart of the bad science put out by the "consensus", touted by the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is summarized in the following illustration, of the supposed "energy budget" of the Earth's surface and atmosphere:

Earth's Energy Budget, from Trenberth and Kiehl, 1997

This illustration purports to show how the initial power incident on the Earth from the Sun is divided among the many processes going on in the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. It all looks straightforward enough, but then when you look closely you see something strange, off on the right side: The radiation coming off the surface is huge, and there is an almost equally huge "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the surface. To a physicist--or at least to this physicist--that strange, gigantic loop of energy between the atmosphere and the surface appears unphysical, out of all proportion to the rest of the diagram.

And we don't have to get into detailed physical theory or wordy explanations to pin down what's wrong with it: The power coming off the surface (the number 390) is larger than the incident power from the Sun (342). (The power shown as “back radiated” by the atmosphere is about as large as that from the Sun, too.)

Just that one fact is enough for me to see that the "climate science" of the U.N. and the consensus of (so we are told) 97% of all climate scientists--is absurd. No part of the "global energy budget" can be greater than the incident energy. Either their numbers are wrong, or the model being illustrated is wrong. Period, full stop. You don't have to know, or explain to the world, what is really going on, or why there has been recent "global warming". Just know their explanation is nonsense, basic physics absolutely and undeniably forbids it. Everything else you read is either other scientists trying to show they know what is really going on (which obviously no one does at this point, entirely), or scientists or their followers trying to defend the indefensible, with complex, technical and always wrong-headed arguments.

Of course, that unphysical loop of excess energy is just what they are calling the "greenhouse effect". And it is garbage, and all the scientists who deny that, or refuse to see it for what it is, should be drummed out of science, or at least be required to undergo re-education. Because they are worse than first-year students, who are generally at least open to learning the hard truth.

I am more concerned with the new knowledge I have found, however, and how it relates to the current incompetence across all of science. The harder I have tried to put forward my new knowledge, the more widespread and confrontational has been the public exhibition of epidemic incompetence in science. I know, as a fact, that the Earth was deliberately put together, in exquisite detail, and that it was changed, wholesale but not fundamentally, less than 20,000 years ago. I know the logical hysteria to which so many scientists have been driven by their wrong-headed paradigm, is what we are seeing in the promulgation of "runaway climate change". This same hysteria is behind the closed-minded defense of current theories, and the simplistic and relentless presentation of them to the public as facts, across all the physical sciences. Through such hysteria and continual, vain argument, dogma is being revealed to mankind as merely divisive, and like sand, upon which true and lasting knowledge cannot be built.

Advice to a Truth Seeker

2010-04-13T09:06:00.000-07:00

I got an e-mail from a truth-seeker, asking about the meaning of the "four corners of the earth", and when I answered that, a further e-mail in which he explained he wanted to know because he believed the "four corners" was the "abode of the most high god" as mentioned in many ancient mythical traditions. He was under the impression that "abode" had not yet been discovered. I answered with the following, which I consider worthwhile posting for the benefit of others (who should also be warned that I am stating the simple fact when I say the great design of the "gods" is responsible for all the ancient mysteries, including the "four corners of the earth" and the "abode, or seat, of the most high"):

Mr. _______,
The "four corners of the earth" is not a specific place, in time or space, and is not the abode of the most high god, mentioned in many mythologies, although the abode, or "seat", of the high god is connected to that celestial frame, of course. Yes, I have already discovered that place, and yes, it is interesting, and its real meaning is of central importance in the design of the "gods". That precise location, as brought out in my book, is the north pole of the ecliptic, the direction in which the solar system is oriented. For a full explanation, you need to read my book, but you can find the central elements of the design discussed in some of my online writings, particularly "Design Behind the Ancient Mysteries", to which you will find a link in my blog post "Challenge To Science III..."

Once you have read the "Design Behind" article, for example, you should know where the "home of the gods" is, and the abode of the high god is the very center of that region. The design is precisely defined, you see, and the answers to all the ancient mysteries are precise.

Every generation has many truth-seekers attracted to the ancient mysteries, and none get very far, being misled by the fantastic stories of the ancient myths, and the continuing stories of modern writers, who themselves have only learned just enough information (and misinformation) to cast themselves as leading lights for others to follow. So I would warn you first not to be too quick to judge anyone as better than others to learn from, because you simply don't know enough yet. Don't focus your attention, or your intellectual favor, on any popular author today, such as Zechariah Sitchin, because he for example also only tells dramatic stories about the "gods"--and only the gods of Sumerian texts (Anu, Ea-Enki, Enlil, etc.) at that. Beware dramatic stories (the fodder of most authors on the ancient mysteries), which only perpetuate the misdirections of ancient myths, and beware any "answers" that are not global, but bound to the limited traditions of this or that civilization or people--such traditions are all one has to work with, at many points (before my discoveries of the real design), but the real answer, as I have verified, transcends geographic and cultural boundaries and refers instead to the entire world, and the common inheritance of all. In short, the "gods" were before man on Earth, and were the single source for all later civilizations in human history; they were also cut off from later mankind, so the latter were so many pockets of orphaned children, who were able to hold on to, and pass on to their children in turn, only childish fragments of the real truth that came before.

I am not trying to be overly dramatic or mysterious, either, with these words. I am open about the real answer, in my writings on the internet: The "gods" (for so they were known to men worldwide) were real; they taught mankind all it knew and inaugurated all that we have inherited--arts, sciences, religions, philosophy, including our appreciation for truth, beauty, justice and virtue); and above all they remade the world, physically, to a great design that functions as the physical repository of the message they wanted later mankind to know, when the design should be rediscovered. I have found and verified that great design, as a hard scientific fact (just at a time when modern science has, through fear of religious intrusion, become dogmatic in denying the possibility of design in or of the natural world). Indeed, having found the answer to all the ancient mysteries, I am confronted by the mystery of an incompetent modern scientific mind, intent on replaying the old religious suppressions in their own way, rather than openly confronting and accepting that great truth, newly recovered after all the trials and tribulations--and abuses--of human history.

Above all else, know that the physical mysteries have lasted so long only because they were bound up with the spiritual mystery of man's existence, from the very beginning of human history. The physical truth of the "gods"--call them rather our true forebears on Earth--has been thoroughly hidden in plain sight, behind that intellectual misdirection. I am a physical scientist by education and long professional experience, and my work has uncovered the physical and mental truth, of the great design left by the "gods"; it does not deny the spiritual, but it cleans off the muck of false spiritualism, magic and mysticism, so long tied to that design, that has been the curse of mankind throughout history. I have found, in more than seven years of trying to introduce the revolutionary new/old knowledge to modern minds, that the muck is hypnotically attractive to those who believe in the spirit, thoroughly abhorrent to those who believe not in that spirit but in science, and thus an effective deterrent to both sides learning the truth. The one side is bound to ancient dogmas, the other to modern dogmas. Anyone who would do better must not only be able to think, but to do so dispassionately, without regard for dogma, and be prepared to recognize the truth where it really is, not where popular or expert opinion would have you concentrate your attention. You must respect both science and spirit as fundamental guides, but don't be misled by the false beliefs others have attached to them; they are both the offspring of overarching meaning and intelligence, and equally worthy. The answer is before you, but still requires sustained effort on your part to study it and know it for yourself.

Man and the Pyramids

2010-01-11T09:09:00.000-08:00

The following is a post I made today, commenting on a USA Today story about the pyramids--and especially about graves found next to them--at the Giza complex in Egypt:

The pyramids at Giza (originally pronounced "Jee-za"--as the Arabs still do--or "Jee-tsa", as shown in my book, "The End of the Mystery") were primarily monuments to the "almighty gods" of an earlier age; they were not really about the king (who was only a "Son of God", and temporal representative of the authority of the "gods") and thus they were, originally at least, not meant to be tombs of any man, even an earthly king. The absolute importance of the "gods" to ancient man, and the absolute separation between "man" and "god" from before the beginning of known history, is not today appreciated. Any graves, or tombs, of lesser citizens than the king found next to the pyramids (and use of the pyramid itself as a tomb for an earthly king) would have to postdate the creation of the pyramids by generations, even centuries or millennia, until the original meaning of the monuments had largely disappeared, or degenerated into a rote "sacredness" of the area, as absolute belief in the "gods" waned after the start of earthly kingship. The original monuments on the site, including the Great Sphinx, were probably all carved out of the living rock as the Sphinx was, c. 8700 BC (as shown in my book, and in the online article The Riddle of the Sphinx--Solved). In fact, the original rock here and in other areas around the world was no doubt made by the "gods" when they re-formed the Earth (forget conventional geology, which can be relied on only back to the last deliberate reformation of the landmasses by the "gods"). The predecessor of megalithic blocks in ancient constructions would have been not-yet-hardened sediments that could be easily dug out and molded; and the "gods" probably taught man how to make smaller cement blocks. The French scientist Joseph Davidovits has shown the casing blocks of the Great Pyramid were in fact not hewn stone but man-made cement blocks, clearly a later, much easier technology than rock sculpting or cement formation on a grand scale. Today's Egyptologists, and even alternative researchers, are ignorant of the larger mystery behind the megalithic monuments, and the source of that mystery "in the beginning" (which all the earliest civilizations on Earth looked back to--like orphans--as the "Golden Age" of the "gods").

A Light Amid the Shadows

2009-09-26T20:15:00.000-07:00

Most people, scientists included, cannot seem to focus upon the evidence presented here, in the hard science posts (see the April and May "Challenge" posts, particularly), for the design of the "gods", long enough to really see it. They have lived so long in the twin shadows of ignorance and doubt, they are bewildered by the light. So here instead is my latest popular article, on NewsBlaze.com, to try to get their attention:

"Extraterrestrials On the White House Lawn".

It takes the existence of "extraterrestrials" for granted and, hopefully, puts those who were the "gods" in the proper context for mankind's positive consideration, given the reality of the design.

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men...

2009-09-18T15:13:00.000-07:00

Why is so much wrong with the world just now? I submit it is a case of the lesser designs of self-interested people--experts though they may be in their fields--running afoul of one another, and of a greater design. Read

The World Is In the Hands of Children,

at NewsBlaze.com.

Time For a Change

2009-09-09T02:54:00.000-07:00

Here is another NewsBlaze.com article, from last month:

"Back to School: Things to Ask the Teacher".

And this, on the next generation of American space flight:

Will America Really Return to the Moon?

Spaceflight is near and dear to American hearts and minds, since the incredible 60's -- the true decade of change to all of us who lived through it. The civil rights and feminist movements; the sexual revolution; the Beatles, and the flowering of pop music in nearly as many ways as there were performers; the hippie phenomenon and the environmental movement. Michael Jackson got his start then.

That decade fueled the creativity of the four decades that followed, in so many ways. And it saw America march determinedly and with one success after another towards a close encounter of the third kind with our nearest neighbor in space, the Moon. On July 20, 1969 -- before the decade was out, as John F. Kennedy had exhorted the nation to do early in his presidency -- Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon, with his shipmate Buzz Aldrin soon joining him. And the nation, justly impressed by this feat, saw one Apollo mission after another follow, and it seemed the space franchise had been established and we would just keep heading outward into the solar system -- to Mars and beyond -- just as we had headed west a century before.

The adventurous mood of the 60's was fanned and reflected on television in series like "Star Trek", "The Outer Limits", "UFO" and "Space: 1999" (not to mention one of my personal favorites, the classic British marionette series, "Fireball XL-5"), and in theatres by such films as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", and "The First Men On the Moon".

And then we stopped. (Cue the sound of crickets in an empty field.) Instead of continued manned exploration of the Moon and beyond, our attention wandered to harsher, real societal concerns, such as the exportation of Mideast terrorism to other countries, as in the kidnapping and killing of the entire Israeli Olympic team in 1972. For many of us, the Vietnam War was a sobering, defining time whose message seemed to be the curtailment of the hopes for peaceful progress engendered in the successes of the 60's.

The warring forces of the last 40 years are still with us, their conflict erupting into violent confrontations in many ways. The Conservative Right versus the Liberal Left, succeeding one another on the national stage like an automated seesaw, back and forth like clockwork, and always strenuously fighting more than building. Jews versus Muslims in the Mideast, the seeming archetype, or backdrop, to so much of the world's ill will, particularly since the 1967 Six Day War. The evolution/creationism/intelligent design debate, about which I have written elsewhere, which has become immune to reason and common sense about a real meaning to life, on science's part.

Now we are planning the next generation of spaceflight, and there are arguments on the direction to follow there too, although they are mild indeed compared to the above-mentioned wars between opposing dogmas. NASA is currently committed to going first to the Moon, while Apollo astronauts favor Mars, a position ably championed also by scientists in the Mars Society. Both sides have their reasons, which pretty much boil down to the progressive hopes and energy of the 60's versus the financial realities of today and the foreseeable future, with further debate thrown in over how much we need to learn from colonization of the Moon, just a quarter million miles away, before we tackle year-long trips in weightless conditions on trips to Mars, which is never closer than 35 million miles away from the Earth. That's like comparing an hour's walk through the mall to a 6-day continuous hike across country. Mars can also get as far away as 248 million miles, the equivalent of a 3-week trek on foot, with no rest stops, in our analogy.

NASA currently envisions seven-day missions to the Moon to begin with, followed by 180-day stays once a lunar outpost is in place. "We're not doing flags and footsteps," NASA planning director John Olson has said. "We're going for a long-term sustained human presence that's affordable and safe and built so that we can use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and near-Earth asteroids and other exciting locations in the solar system."

A potential manned mission to the Red Planet wouldn't take place until at least 2030, under the current NASA scenario.

Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, argues that "We won the moon race; now it's time for us to live and work on Mars," and warns that NASA's current plan will waste time and money, calling the return to the moon a "glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago."

Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, agrees, and with respect to the supposed learning curve for travel to Mars, says, "This idea that you have to know how to do it before you can commit yourself to the program is completely false. We didn't know that we could do Lewis and Clark successfully before we set them out" in 1803, to explore the American West.

"NASA was not created to do nostalgia acts. It was created to storm heaven," Zubrin said further. "For NASA to make as its central goal repeating technical accomplishments it did 50 years before is a complete abandonment of its purpose."

Meanwhile, the hard realities of research and development of the next-generation engines that will power our future manned flights are not to be denied their say. An August 27th test-firing of the first-stage Ares rocket engine was scrubbed, due to a faulty valve that allowed fuel to drain away from a critical power unit needed to steer the rocket nozzle.

But, considering what the nation and the world have been through, especially in the last eight years, the strength of the voices calling for Mars exploration now is heartening.

The Greater Riddle of the Sphinx

2009-07-26T16:30:00.000-07:00

The design of the world by the "gods" was complex and intricately worked; many details dovetail together to provide answers to ancient puzzles like the Great Sphinx at Giza, Egypt. My new article on NewsBlaze.com tells the story behind the Great Sphinx:

The Riddle of the Sphinx -- Solved.

And, if you haven't read them, you should read my earlier posts, particularly the "Challenge To Science" posts of April 2009 and May 2009. In fact, it's best to start at the beginning, with March 2009. There are only 16 total posts, so far.
----------------

Atlantis Details

2009-07-17T05:20:00.000-07:00

The truth about Atlantis is one of those mysteries that lay bare a piece of the actual physical process by which the Earth was re-formed and the great design of the "gods" enabled, rather than delineating the design itself. While it is not on the main line of my research into the design, the fact is I was able to find enough hard evidence to identify Atlantis to my satisfaction, and therefore to be worth communicating to the world, which flounders in many speculative (as opposed to hard factual) theories about its location. Here are two more articles on Atlantis I have written, on NewsBlaze.com, with the clearest evidence (but not all, by any means) for what became of it:

Details of Atlantis Disprove Modern Theories, and

Atlantis, Greenland, and Ancient Testimonies.

Of course, the reader should read the article "Atlantis At Last" -- in the July 4th post, just below -- first.

Atlantis At Last

2009-07-04T08:47:00.000-07:00

[The following article has also been published on NewsBlaze.com.]

The sense that there is a great mystery to life on Earth -- beyond the existential questions of "Who, and what, am I?" -- is a continuing attraction to every generation. The "ancient mysteries" are like a primordial Black Hole, or unplumbable singularity at the beginning of history, which swallows the hypotheses and explanations of modern writers in the thick, swirling dust of millennia and the soul-deadening tyrannies of past empires.

As a romantic idea, Atlantis is first and foremost like a bright, twinkling star, a light at the end of that long, long tunnel into the past. There -- the stories that continue to spring from its legend all assure us -- is a kind of eternal life, glimpsed like a miniature diorama etched on the head of a pin, put under a microscope, and seen through a lens: Far, far away in time and space, yet as close as our imagination and will to recreate.

Where was Atlantis, really? Or was it only in the minds of ancient Egyptian priests, naive travellers from classical Greece to the Alexandrian shore, and gossipful early philosophers pandering to the appetites of their audiences?

I will tell you where was Atlantis, for it was and is real; it had a strong part in the larger history of man, and the origin of the Earth as we know it today.

There is an actual image of Atlantis still extant in the world. It was stolen out of Egypt by Roman invaders, the story was told by one Athanasius Kircher, the author of the 17th century book "Mundus Subterraneus" and a highly respected intellect of his time. Here is the picture he presented, of Insula Atlantis, the "island of Atlantis":

Now this is an upside-down image -- with north toward the bottom and south toward the top -- showing Insula Atlantis between the landmasses of Africa and Hispania (the Iberian peninsula) on the left, and America on the right. It is midway between these landmasses, in the very center of the "Oceanus Atlanticus", or Atlantic Ocean. Note that the two lesser islands between Atlantis and America are not named on the map.

We are used to looking at the globe with north at the top, so let's turn the image "right-side up":

Now we can readily see the Iberian peninsula -- Spain and Portugal -- above Africa, on the eastern side, and a rather featureless bulge supposedly representing America on the west. Atlantis is certainly not featureless, but has a distinctive shape that holds out the hope that this was once a real land in the Atlantic whose contours were well known. But so far, we can only positively recognize Iberia, and the bulge of Africa to its south, not least because the Strait of Gibraltar that separates the two can be seen in its proper location.

Atlantis was said by Plato to have sunk beneath the surface of the ocean, in just one day and night of earthquake and flood; it made the Atlantic an impassable muddy shoal, he reported as if it were a fact in his own time (in the 4th century BC). However, evidence found in America of colonies established there by Egypt and other Mediterranean lands, several centuries earlier (as early as the 9th century BC) -- as reported in the book "America BC" (1975) by anthropologist Barry Fell -- tells us the explorers of these lands were well able to cross the Atlantic nearly 3,000 years ago, just as we can today.

Is there any hope of finding a sunken landmass in the Atlantic, with the recognizable shape and size of "Insula Atlantis" on the Kircher map? The answer is no; the floor of the Atlantic has been thoroughly mapped, and this shape does not show up on those maps, dominated by the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, or mid-ocean rift.

But Atlantis is not lost forever, after all. There is a land with just the right shape and size to have been the fabled Lost Isle.

In discovering and subsequently verifying the Great Design of the "gods", which had involved a wholesale re-formation of the landmasses on the surface of the Earth between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, I became familiar with the many details of those landmasses, and when I afterwards came across Kircher's map of the Atlantic, with Atlantis in the middle of the ocean, I recognized its shape as one familiar to me.

I had, after all, not so long before, picked out the shapes of the continents and other landmasses -- one point at a time, thousands of points altogether-- to develop my own Earth- and sky-mapping software, with which I studied the Great Design and its message stored for mankind, or for whoever might come to Earth to study mankind, and who might find and read it.

One of the last large landmasses whose detailed ocean outline I plotted, was Greenland, and the similarity between Greenland and Insula Atlantis is substantial (see the accompanying illustration). To properly compare Greenland with Insula Atlantis, I only had to determine the actual size of Atlantis as seen on the Kircher map. This was easily done by comparing "Hispania" on the Kircher map with the Iberian peninsula on the actual globe; it is then a simple matter to scale Insula Atlantis to its appropriate size on the globe. When this is done, the comparison with Greenland is excellent, in both size and detailed shape.

I won't here go into the many strands of evidence I found which positively established Greenland as the Atlantis of ancient legend. I am satisfied here mainly with showing the close comparison of the two, with just a few added points to be made. First, the Insula Atlantis of Kircher's map is wider than Greenland. This is because the eastern portion of Atlantis was broken off, and became Iceland -- to the southeast of Greenland today -- and the islands of the United Kingdom, even further south and east.

And, as the accompanying illustration shows clearly, the lesser islands depicted between America and Atlantis on the Kircher map can be readily identified with the Florida peninsula -- before it was attached to America -- and the island of Hispaniola (the Dominican Republic and Haiti). The shoreline of America depicted on the Kircher map is not that of North America today, but from a time before the land east of the Appalachians was fixed onto the continent. Since Atlantis only "disappeared" -- that is, it was moved north to the present position of Greenland, by the designers -- around 9600 BC, this tells us North America was given its present shape, with Florida attached, only after that late date.

So the "gods" who re-formed the Earth's landmasses did so at least as late as 9600 BC -- actually, for more than a thousand years after that, as Egypt recorded its institution "by the goddess" as having occurred at about 8600 BC. Evidence for all of this is to be found in my book, "The End of the Mystery." The larger scientific community and its followers, in choosing to ignore and dismiss observable design in the world, remain stuck just this side of the discovery of the Great Design of the "gods" -- once, and now again, the single great wonder of the world.
-------------------------

If you want to see this new knowledge recognized, and verified by other scientists, tell your teachers, your scientist friends, your local and national radio and TV stations. And read the earlier posts on this blog, especially the April 2009 "Challenge to Science" posts.

Challenging Competent Scientists

2009-07-02T14:07:00.000-07:00

The following article is also on NewsBlaze.com here, with accompanying images of the dodecahedron pattern of lines followed by the landmasses on the Earth. Those images are also in the April 2009 post "Challenge to Earth Scientists" in this blog.
---------------------------

Hannah Montana Naked, Milankovitch Score on the Web

First, the back-story: I tried my hand at answering a question on answers.yahoo.com a few days ago--a question on planetary orbits that both the asker and the responders seemed to be having trouble focusing upon. Anyone who has ever taught physics knows you get a lot of, shall we say "soft" thinking from non-science majors who take an introductory physics course. That's because physics demands convincing evidence--not glib speculation--and strict rules of logic, not to mention mathematics. Some of those posting on that site were engaging in a fair amount of soft thinking, clearly without realizing it.

The question was, "if the force between the Earth and Sun is constant, why isn't the Earth's orbit a circle instead of an ellipse?" I won't go into the answer; my answer was given 2 thumbs down by viewers, mostly I think because I am a physicist, the question was an elementary one, and these kids--they seemed like kids to me--have evidently been spoon-fed a lot of smooth talk and bad ideas in their science classes.

Chief among these ideas was that planetary orbits change over time according to what is known as Milankovitch theory. Now, I am a physicist, and I don't subscribe to that theory (for reasons to be revealed below); earth scientists, however, do subscribe, and defend it strongly, because they think it "explains" the "ice ages" that are part of the modern scientific canon of holy theories, not to be denied lest you be called a religious idiot, i.e., a creationist rather than a rational person who, by the way, "knows" evolution is a fact.

You can see where this is going--earth and life scientists think their theories are strong enough to be called facts, and they're quite wrong, despite many incompetent physicists who also hotly defend them.

I am not being nice here, because modern scientists, with their holy canon, have not been nice, nor open to legitimate self-correction, for generations, nor have they been competent, particularly recently, in their dogmatic, biased attacks upon critics. Ben Stein even made a movie last year about this well known scientific tyranny, called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." To be blunt, evolutionists (in the earth sciences just as much as the life sciences) are the bristly ayatollahs of science, misusing their religiously-taught, religiously-held beliefs.

"Evolution", I might as well tell you here and now, is in fact a robust metaphysical principle, applicable across the full range of human learning, but "undirected evolution", as espoused by modern scientists, is a contradiction in terms, and positively denied by a world of evidence. Milankovitch is one of the subsidiary religious beliefs of most earth scientists, just as epicycles were subsidiary to the planetary circles envisaged by medieval scholars who, inspired for centuries by the empty rhetoric of the universally admired Aristotle, played games with an earth-centered solar system.

Let me cut right through all the intellectual mud that "defenders of science" will want to throw at me. I am a physicist by education and experience, and no doubt of an older, and I think finer, school. I have proved that the surface of the Earth was deliberately re-formed, largely between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago--which just happens to be the time frame of the last supposed "ice age"-- to enable a great design that was the original, objective motivation for all the exoteric ancient mysteries (as opposed to the esoteric, or spiritual truths, also claimed by wise men and women since "the beginning"); I have found enough answers from the design, to a broad range of such ancient puzzles, to state this as a fact.

But, even more amazing, in the context of what modern science thinks it knows but does not, the Earth shows clear evidence of design that should long ago have checked the wayward advance of the earth and life sciences, into the present huge edifice of speculations piled upon assumptions, and arbitrarily legislated by "authorities" to be facts.

I have previously written about the "Clockwork Moon Science Ignores", for example. I have pointed out in another recent article the clear image of a man's face in the outline and inland features of Africa. I could further point out, and suggest the reader check for him/herself, that there are similar images (often incomplete or tantalizingly vague, but many striking in their recognizability) in the outlines of North America, the St. Lawrence Seaway, South America, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Ireland, England, Scotland, France, Sweden, Italy, South Asia (from Turkey to Indo-China), Australia, Borneo, Sulawesi, New Guinea, New Zealand, India, Greenland, Antarctica, Arabia, Hudson Bay, and more.

I could point out--and I have many times, in the past 6 years of trying to gain recognition for my discoveries--that almost all of these earth images are uniformly upright on the globe, and so could not have been created by chance continental drift, or any undirected process. I say that as a physicist, confident of my estimations of the probabilities involved, which simply rule out chance formation of the landmasses. The fact that these images are also the original "sacred images" of mankind, worldwide--precisely described in the world's most famous myths--is merely icing on the cake, solidly confirming the basic, readily observable physical facts.

But science is so incompetent right now that no one, apparently, can even do such quantitative calculations, because scientists and their defenders simply don't believe design can be considered in the origin or history of the physical world. This is nothing short of juvenile delinquency on their part, and a gross, worldwide dereliction of scientific duty.

I have put a "Challenge to Earth Scientists" post on my blog, with a clear scientific and visual argument that positively proves design in the layout of the landmasses on Earth. Of course, this simple demonstration immediately invalidates undirected plate tectonics, the central theory of all the earth sciences, as well as the uniformitarian assumption underlying, and critical to, undirected evolution theory, at the center of all the life sciences. I present the pertinent images here, and simply state, and dare any scientist to disprove the statement, that the landmasses of the Earth were deliberately "parked" along their eastern coasts, to follow a strict dodecahedron pattern of lines laid out on the Earth--a pattern specifically and precisely indicated in the "Great Mapping" I found (as I call it).

The odds against chance placement of these landmasses according to that strict dodecahedron pattern, are on the order of a million million to one--that's how precisely, how uniformly, those coasts are separated one from another, and how certain is their deliberate design.

This is simply undeniable by any competent physical scientist: This pattern in the landmasses of the Earth, all by itself, shows that plate tectonics is a huge affectation, a modern myth, ascribed to by science as a matter of religious faith, just as the earth-centered universe once was. There are many scientific critics of plate tectonics (I refer to several in my blog post, "The True Origin of Continental Drift"), but none have been able to garner wide support, and neither they nor the theory's defenders have shown themselves capable of wresting their attention from the minutiae of their specializations, and lifetimes of study, to make the simple observations above, which the Great Design allowed me to make as a mere by-product of that discovery, literally unprecedented in all of known history.

Just that one by-the-way demonstration of the validity of the Great Mapping as an intentional world design, and the central theories of all the earth and life sciences are humbled. Until now, only the creationists have dared to judge these theories so harshly, and been reviled for even their best, most expert judgment. And they have not seen the Great Design, either.

The powers that be always leave the great discoveries for one person to find, before all others. I think it is meant, not to set that person up as a unique genius, but to tell man, in no uncertain terms, that the mind of every single person is of paramount importance in the world, and should be developed and used with great care.

I am not a "creationist", nor an "Intelligent Design" follower. I am an independent research physical scientist, who did my own dispassionate, unprejudiced research, and made world-altering discoveries of the intellectual origin of man on Earth, and I am here to tell the world that such seemingly small things as those soft-headed responders to that question about planetary orbits on yahoo.com, are fundamentally objectionable--blindly assuming Milankovitch theory is true, when it certainly is not; nor were undirected "ice ages" responsible for the carving of the Earth's surface as we see it today.

Nor did "God" do it, at the true beginning of all things. The ancient testimonies of man, worldwide, swore "by all that is holy" that the "gods" came down, and interbreeded with man, and taught him all he knew, and remade the world, and indeed the entire solar system--in the "birth of the new gods", the planets of today, as Greek myth remembered it.

I am an unknown in science, and I try to honestly call myself a competent, honest physical scientist, but until science confronts, and honestly accepts, the Great Design, I tell you it is incompetent working at the frontiers of human knowledge, and its theories will ever be subject to fierce debate--because they are wrong, and worse, wrong-headed.

Never mind calling me egotistical, fellow scientists (as both evolutionists and creationists have done); it is the specific design of the "gods" that tests you, and finds you lacking, when you are told of it and yet deny it, and refuse even to look at it. So many should not be so incompetent, on so clear a point as this; so the test is also obviously (to me) spiritual in nature, and worldwide, and has emerged just now because a fundamental, undeniable truth is nevertheless being denied by modern man: Design of the world.

And finally, as promised in the title: Hannah Montana Naked. She's a beaut, isn't she?

Time For a Sign

2009-06-28T08:52:00.000-07:00

Here is another NewsBlaze.com article, on

Signs of An Amazing Time,

about the need to focus on great changes now occurring, and how insight really works.

Also, here is an eye-opening article I wrote three years ago, after finding

Independent Confirmation

by other scientists of the precise symmetry of the world design I found back in 1997, earlier illustrated in this blog in the "Challenge to Earth Scientists" and "Challenge to Science II" posts. Their own scientific papers, referenced in the above article by me, are

EarthTessellation and EarthTessellation2.

The Independent Confirmation article shows some of what I have had to deal with over the last six years, revealing how science today (and most of the alternative research community as well) simply ignores what it doesn't want to hear.

The Holy Grail and the Great Design

2009-06-24T07:46:00.000-07:00

I have a seminal new article on NewsBlaze.com, which can be read at

The Holy Grail and the Great Design.

First-time visitors to this blog are encouraged to read the earlier posts--not many--especially the "Challenge to" posts, for the larger vision.

New Articles: One Step at a Time

2009-06-19T06:48:00.000-07:00

The world design of the "gods", even explaining as it does the entire mass of ancient mysteries, is such a huge idea, it requires approaching it one small step at a time, assuring oneself with the clear facts at each step. I am trying to do that with this blog. To reach a wider audience, I have also started to write a series of short articles at NewsBlaze.com, beginning with the idea that there are many very clear examples of design of our world, which could and should have been recognized as such long ago. The first article, which has gotten a good initial reception, is:

The Clockwork Moon Science Ignores.

Here is another, not about world design or my work per se, but illustrating the value of recognizing and focusing upon the best evidence, when one is judging a complex or confused situation:

Two Simple Facts Prove the Roswell UFO Is Real.

Yet another, which shows that some elements of the Earth design, while entirely obvious even to a child, are so outside of people's experience they can be relied on to evoke strong laughs, and expressions of amazement such as "what a coincidence!":

For Monty Python Fans, A Special Request.

And finally, here is another article I published two years ago, on Helium.com, which I think introduces my work simply and clearly.

Challenge to Human Vision: Benefits of the Design

2009-06-04T04:18:00.000-07:00

[To understand what this blog is about, and to appreciate its unprecedented scientific perspective, I recommend you read the earlier posts on this blog first -- there are not many -- in particular the "Challenge to Science" posts I, II and III. Also, check out The Clockwork Moon Science Ignores, my new pop article on NewsBlaze.com, I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it.]

For scientists, when they confront and verify the world design I have uncovered, the physical reality of the design corrects the uniformitarian paradigm ("the only forces that have ever acted upon the Earth are those we see acting today") which has arbitrarily limited science's appreciation of the true history of the Earth, by proving there were real, advanced designers behind much of the complexity of the Earth -- no "supernatural" intrusion (a long-held bogey-man used to alienate scientists from design of the natural world) is needed; nor was an extraordinary and highly unlikely series of undirected events ("ice ages", for example, which are surely spurious, the reality being deliberate forces exerted upon the Earth to enable the design). It allows scientists to trust the obvious nature of the many designs, that they are designs, and invites investigation of the intent behind them (for example, the Moon being so precisely and improbably -- by chance formation alone -- the same size as the Sun in our sky, and made to eclipse the Sun in eternal round, in a precisely repeating cycle). It also rehabilitates the intellectual reputation of ancient man, showing he had extraordinarily good reasons, even if they became confused and thoroughly misleading, for his many religious obsessions and superstitions.

For alternative researchers, particularly those investigating extraterrestrials, the design proves extraterrestrials not only exist, and visited the Earth in the past, but actually re-formed the Earth and solar system with a design centered on the Earth. Of course, those designers were, according to all ancient accounts, extraterrestrial human beings, who interbreeded with Earth humans. SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has been scooped, but vindicated fully, by the finding of the world design.

For the average person, the design gives the best of both worlds, the scientific and the spiritual: It confirms that science has solved the ancient mysteries, until now considered outside the province of science as "mystical", "magical", "paranormal", and above all subjective and hence illusory. Instead, all of these mysteries are simply the result of an extraordinary world puzzle set for mankind, and its extraordinary clues passed down among men, with increasing fragmentation and degeneration of meaning, through "sacred" images and dramatic stories. It also affirms that even the "gods" believed in God and a higher reality (known in all ancient traditions as "heaven", and given physical presence in the great design as the celestial sphere literally above the world of man), known among the wise of all times as the spiritual realm.

The design proves we are not alone in the universe, nor are we unimportant in it.

Challenge to Science and Religion

2009-05-27T08:17:00.000-07:00

Since I am a scientist, I am more concerned with science's mistakes than I am with others', and that is the reason behind my "Challenge to Science" here. I have found and verified a coherent world design which science today dogmatically refuses to confront and accept, because it invalidates the fundamental assumptions underlying the hotly-defended, central theories in the earth and life sciences today. But I am aware of all the evidence, not just that which puts today's scientific dogma in a bad light. I am not a follower of "Intelligent Design" theory, nor of biblical creationism (although my research findings reaffirm that design is behind everything we see on the Earth, and in the solar system beyond, and surely in the universe beyond that). I know, based upon overwhelming evidence, that the ongoing "debates" are obsolete. My research has taken the next step, beyond all three of these widely-held positions: undirected evolution, one-time creation, or even a single Creator/Designer of all that we observe.

Because of my fundamental commitment to openness throughout my work, I have sent the following communication to biologos.org, which deals with this theme:

The ongoing debates over evolution vs. design of the natural world are obsolete, due to new knowledge uncovered by my research into the objective origin of the popular "ancient mysteries": 1) constellation forms on the heavenly sphere; 2) myths and legends about the "gods" and the semi-divine heroes they sired among men; 3) sacred traditions, images and words; and 4) megalithic monuments of precise construction and astronomical/terrestrial alignments. All of these proceeded from a common real, physical source. I suggest everyone needs to read my work, which scientists and scientific publications have universally dismissed without competent consideration. I recommend as a start the new blog at http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com, for a maturer perspective that does not get bogged down in divisive speculations about First Cause, which the medieval scholars many centuries ago decisively showed were in vain.

I am a hard scientist, but I believe I can [also] give a clearer, simpler metaphysics. The term "evolution" is abused and universally applied because it is only a robust metaphysical reality, not a physical one; across all fields to which it is applied, it merely reflects human learning. Here is the fundamental philosophical truth that needs to be apprehended by all sides today: "Evolution" requires design, and design requires an overarching, prior intelligence. Undirected evolution is a logically inept metaphysics, a fundamental confusion of the mind, and the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" is superfluous.

And there is more to the story of man than God and undirected physical processes. The "gods", for example, really existed (as my scientific findings establish, along with their design, as fact) and they (not "plate tectonics") really re-formed the Earth, and the entire solar system, to a great design (as the design itself and the ancient records of mankind both attest). I invite everyone to engage in a more adult intellectual study of the amazing past of mankind. The current "debate" is medieval; learn instead the new field of science I have re-discovered, after thousands of years of human history and human struggle to learn in this world: The design of the "gods" who were our true forebears.

Undirected evolution is invalidated 1) above all, by its denial of meaning (or truth, or higher reality) underlying the physical world; 2) by a great deal of positive evidence of design on every scale of observation throughout the biological realm (such as the many remarkable examples of "co-evolution" and its deeper, characteristic presence, across the entire class of flowering plants, for example); and 3) most surely by the world design I uncovered, which communicates a coherent message encompassing, and thus surely the original motivation for, all of the ancient, religious obsessions held in common by men worldwide.

One-time creation is invalidated by equally sure evidence of past changes in the creatures inhabiting the Earth, again on every scale from global down to local. This is really all that Darwin--an amateur scientist who got caught up in his own worldly success among scientists--began by arguing against, and all he was right about, in the final analysis. The Earth is clearly older than 6,000 years, because the ancient records of the earliest civilizations, particularly Egypt, honestly claimed and diligently recorded a far longer history, a far longer human memory.

A single Creator of the material universe is logically equivalent to the metaphysical necessity for an underlying coherence, and meaning, to it. This idea is unassailable and adhered to by everyone, whatever they may claim. But Man is a designer, too, who has added to the natural world through domestic breeding, of dogs, cats, horses, and no doubt more. Someone also domesticated, in the millennia before known human history, the grains, fruits and other staples we enjoy without thought for how they came about. Multiple designers were thus already strongly indicated by scientific findings, even without my re-discovery of the "gods" and their great world design. My verification of a real re-formation of the entire surface of the Earth (and of a real re-orientation and re-formation of the entire solar system) at the heart of all the ancient mysteries of man on Earth, proves that other designers preceded man on Earth, and were known to later men, worldwide, as the "gods" (or "divine immortals").

Design of the world--and by extension, the material universe--is the underlying truth of all. Evolution is a powerful metaphysical truth, a universal metaphor for learning across all disciplines, every human endeavor and design.

Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the design, and man

2009-05-13T11:40:00.000-07:00

[I recommend you read the earlier posts first, particularly "Challenge to Earth Scientists" and "Challenge to Science II".]

On my lulu.com site, I offer my books for sale, as well as articles and images. Many of the articles are free downloads, among them The Design Behind the Ancient Mysteries, originally written in 2005. I recently updated this article with further amazing proof before sending it, along with a cover letter informing of the endemic crisis of competence in modern science, to then President-elect Obama immediately after the election last November. (After four months, I received a generic postcard thanking me for writing in. Like most people, the President and his team don't seem to be able to focus upon entirely unexpected and revolutionary scientific findings of facts that invalidate the most hotly defended of modern theories.) I have just noticed that someone has gotten hold of the web page containing the Design Behind article, so that the file comes up (in about 25th place) in a Google search on my full name. I thank that person, or Google, for it enables me to link to the article here (click on its title above). Here is the text of the letter I sent to President Obama:

President-Elect Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Obama:

I write to inform you that the need for change is wider and deeper than anyone realizes. Incompetence is not limited to our recent financial and political institutions; it is a disease spread as well throughout our intellectual institutions. Science in particular is in an unrecognized crisis: It is unheeding of new evidence that definitively demonstrates--proves, to any reasonable mind--deliberate design of our world. It is instead dogmatically defending theories that ignore (and even actively deny) easily observed facts that clearly indicate world-encompassing design. Recognition of a newly discovered and verified world design is the key to the self-correction and continued progress of science--the key to the next paradigm.

I am a 60-year-old independent research physical scientist and author, who has found and scientifically verified a design of our world which was the original motivation for all the popular “ancient mysteries”: the constellation forms; myths and legends; sacred traditions, images and words; and megalithic monuments of precise construction and astronomical alignments. In 1997, I found the single key to all these expressions of ancient religiously-held beliefs, in a rigorous scientific design imposed—millennia before the beginning of known history--upon the terrestrial and celestial spheres. After several years of uncovering and verifying the extent and meaning of that design, I wrote a book, “The End of the Mystery”. I have spent the last 5 years, with few resources and without success, trying to gain recognition for this epochal discovery, which brings together our modern understanding of the Earth and the fantastic testimonies of ancient people worldwide, and reveals the single world-embracing truth behind the latter. The most well-known myths told about the time of the “gods” refer directly--but generally metaphorically--to the great design, specifically to the precise images wrought upon the Earth and celestial spheres in the design. Unfortunately, just at the time I have tried to come forward with this new truth—which will require rethinking the most hotly defended of modern theories in the earth and life sciences—science has emotionally embraced its own dogma, against the possibility of design in or of the natural world. I need help now, to support myself and to develop the means to educate the world to this new knowledge.

I enclose an article, “The Design Behind the Ancient Mysteries,” introducing my work and epochal findings, and commend it for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Harry Dale Huffman

So that's one more authority who has been informed of the scientific verification of the world design of the "gods"--just as you who are reading this are being informed, and yes, I consider this knowledge a test for mankind, which so far no one has passed, whether through my poor efforts to communicate it or others' resistance to imbibing it.

And here is the update I appended to the article I sent the President (you should read the article first, which has illustrations and other explanations referred to in this update):

UPDATE:

The above identification of the former ecliptic axis was further confirmed in 2004, when the author discovered references to an "early heaven" in Chinese myth. In The End of the Mystery, I had found that during the earlier ecliptic orientation, the world was divided between worship of the north and south ecliptic poles as the true representative of the "highest," and I had identified the worship of the former ecliptic south pole, or ESP, as characterizing those peoples who worshipped the Goddess, who preceded the later patriarchal gods (led by Zeus in the Greek canon, for example). Here is an illustration (Figure 15) of the former ESP and the precession circle around it:

The center of that former "heaven" was in the constellation Pegasus, and its position is precisely known from the mappings shown in Figure 14.

The center of the Chinese "early heaven" was depicted on an ancient instrument known as a "shipan" or cosmograph (see fengshuigate.com, the site of Dr. Stephen Field of Trinity University, Texas). It is illustrated in Figure 16:

Dr. Field wrote about the shipan: "In ancient Chinese myth there is the tale of a primordial battle.... When the water demon Gong Gong fought with the fire god Zhu Rong, he toppled the northwestern pillar, Mount Buzhou, causing Heaven to fall downward and Earth to tilt upward in the northwest.... It is the ideal world existing before the great flood that is captured by the cosmograph."

The form depicted on the Chinese shipan is known as "Bei Dou" and is generally translated as "north star." However, it is more correctly translated as "north land" or "north way," with "bei" meaning "north" but "dou" meaning "land" or "way." "Dou" is just a variant of "ta", "tao" or "dao", meaning "way," as previously discussed; it is also used for a "land" in Chinese, with, for example, "peninsula" in the Chinese being "ban dou" (pronounced "ban dow"), and "island" being "dou iw" ("dow yu", approximately). In The End of the Mystery, I discussed a sacred "island" in Egyptian myth known as "iw titi", which Egyptologists translate as "island of trampling." All of these terms are mutually consistent, and all refer to the precession circle around the ecliptic pole, either in the "early" or "former" heaven, or afterward, around the current ENP. Currently, "Bei Dou" is identified as the Big Dipper, which I have included in Figure 16 for comparison; but its shape is too shallow a bowl, while the bowl form of Pegasus is almost exact. This is particularly true when the comparison with "Bei Dou" is done with the form of Pegasus c. 17,000 years ago, which I identified in The End of the Mystery as the time when the "heaven" or ecliptic axis changed. Figure 17 shows this comparison, using the known proper motions of the Pegasus stars to find its shape c. 17,000 years ago:

The two shapes are almost exactly the same. Furthermore, and most important, the Big Dipper was never the site of the ENP -- or even the celestial north pole, as modern scholars mistakenly believe -- and thus could never have been worshipped as the "center of heaven," while Hamlet's Mill, Appendix 39, pp. 434-5, with illustrations [1], [2], [3], and [4], provides a good deal of other, independent ancient evidence that the Pegasus-square was indeed once pictured as that heavenly center, or paradise -- without, however, understanding the true meaning of it shown here. Combined with the concatenation of word meanings ("dou" = "way"/"land" = the precession circle, in all major ancient traditions), we see that identifying "Bei Dou" with Pegasus not only confirms the existence of the former ecliptic axis, it confirms the precise location of that axis as found from the mappings in Figure 14, as the near side of the "bowl" form of both Pegasus and "Bei Dou" points to the same stellar location (the red lines in Figure 16) in both cases. This is an amazing confirmation of the entire synthesis of the physical meaning of the design, including the precise validity of the several mappings of "heaven" to earth involved and the precise identification of the former ecliptic orientation-- which means not only the Earth's orbit, but the orientation of the entire solar system, was changed, as discussed in The End of the Mystery.

Bibliography--

Burnham, R., Burnham's Celestial Handbook, Dover, New York, 1978. (book, three volumes)
Chartrand, M. and Tirion, W., National Audubon Society Field Guide to the Night Sky, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1997.(book)
Colum, P., Nordic Gods and Heroes, Dover, New York, 1996 (originally The Children of Odin, Macmillan, 1920).(book)
Cotterell, A., ed., The Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, Penguin Books, New York, 1980.(book)
de Santillana, G. and von Dechend, H., Hamlet's Mill, Godine, Boston, 1969.(book)
Frazer, J., The Golden Bough, Wordsworth Editions, Ware, UK, 1993.(book)
Graves, R., The Greek Myths, Penguin Books, New York, 1960.(book, two volumes)
Hamilton, E., Mythology, Penguin Books, New York, 1969.(book)
Huffman, H., The End of the Mystery, HDH Sciences, Gallatin TN, 2004.(book)
Ions, V., Indian Mythology, Paul Hamlyn, London, 1967.(book)
Pasachoff, J., Menzel, D. and Tirion, W., Peterson Field Guides: Stars and Planets, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1992.(book)
Sturluson, S., The Prose Edda, transl. by J. Young, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.(book)
Tirion, W., The Cambridge Star Atlas, Cambridge University, 1998.(book)
Zauzich, K., Hieroglyphs Without Mystery, transl. by A. Roth, University of Texas, Austin, 1992. (book)

Challenge to Science II: Focus on Design

2009-04-17T06:13:00.000-07:00

Appreciation of the world design requires one to focus one's attention on hard, unyielding observations that have before now entirely escaped the notice of generations of even the best of scientists. The dodecahedron pattern obeyed by the Earth's major landmasses, discussed in the last post (see below, on this page), is a prime example of this. The observations are not really hard to interpret (once they are noticed, and given serious consideration), it is only that science has deliberately kept its focus away from the truth, of a real design of the Earth. And, as the authors of Hamlet's Mill noted, solving the great riddle of worldwide myth and other ancient testimonies--which, my research shows, refer directly and precisely to the design--requires competence in working with the celestial sphere, and no scientist before me has married such competence with a professional interest in getting to the bottom of the ancient mysteries. For example, I had to develop my own software, UrMaps, capable of mapping the celestial sphere onto the Earth in any way my research required, and enabling efficient, precise calculations on the sphere, after I discovered the central elements of the design using one of the common star-charting programs, as detailed in my book, The End of the Mystery. The design I found is the key to all the ancient mysteries--their single, primordial source.

All of the scientific authorities today strenuously and dogmatically assert that design of the natural world is an idea that simply cannot be broached in a scientific context. Examples of design in the natural world are so widespread and easy to see, they consider the idea "non-falsifiable"--which is spectacularly wrong thinking (it certainly is falsifiable, it just turns out it's not false), but it's the only way they can continue to deny design. The sheer idiocy, the unadulterated scientific incompetence, of that assertion should be obvious to scientists (and all the scientists in the world who have proclaimed it should be summarily kicked out of science), given that man adds his own designs to the world all the time, and scientists in particular can and do speak of changing the natural world, of terraforming the world and creating new species as if these things were no big deal, "in principle". I don't intend to go further here into this sorry intellectual degradation of science--I am a serious, competent scientist (possibly the only one, based upon my experience in looking for others of my kind over the last six years), and I will not dignify the so-called debate over "intelligent design", on the part of dogmatic authorities (either scientific or religious, on either side of this intellectual war) or the many self-styled defenders of science, with further comments here, which would only provoke the usual dogmatic, and unsupported or irrelevant, assertions from them. I will only say that when the design is identified--not some vague speculation about the idea of design, but the particular fact of it I have found--its validity is independently confirmed by every line of study, in strict conformity with the highest standards of dispassionate, unbiased science. Again, the facts are extraordinary, but thoroughly unyielding and determinative. I am the only one who has done this scientific duty so far, and found the world design--others have only followed the many fragmented theories that abound, of biblical creation, plate tectonics, expanding earth, 12th planet, cosmic catastrophes, and so on, without once seeing the real design (and even denying the possibility of it--especially those scientists I have tried to inform--rather than investigating it, like competent, dispassionate scientists would do).

So let us continue with the dispassionate consideration of facts. In the last post, I showed that the east coasts of the continents obey a strict dodecahedron pattern on the surface of the Earth, with the probability of this having happened by chance being only about 1 in a million million. Technically, this observation by itself is enough to disprove "plate tectonics" and prove the design. The truth, however, is that this simple demonstration was only a late, added confirmation of the design I had already verified long before, along every independent line of study. I found what I call the Great Mapping--of the celestial or heavenly sphere onto the Earth, or "heaven on Earth" as the ancients would have said--in September-October of 1997, and not until July of 1998 did I realize that a primary feature in that mapping directly indicated the dodecahedral pattern in the layout of landmasses on the Earth. In short, the particular pattern of lines I showed on the Earth in the last post was not something I pulled out of thin air; it was precisely indicated in a prominent element of the Great Mapping, and thus was one confirmation--among many--of the validity of that mapping as a deliberate act of the designers.

Remember, all it really takes is focus upon the fact. Here is an image of the Great Mapping:

The black line in the image is the path of the ecliptic on the celestial sphere. (Remember, the ecliptic marks the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the apparent path of the Sun among the stars as seen from the Earth.) While it may not look like it (due to the limitations of a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional sphere), the ecliptic is a great circle on the sphere, an undeviating line. The Great Mapping was found from matchups between elements of the celestial and Earth spheres in the immediate area of the circle in the center of the image. (That circle marks the successive positions of the celestial north pole among the stars, due to the Earth's precession, i.e., the precession of Earth's spin axis around its orbital axis.) The point to be made here is that I found the Great Mapping from a few central elements, and validated it with precise matchups of form and name at sites scattered over the globe. I can't go into the many details of that extended validation in this short post.

But look at the ecliptic path, in particular how it follows the east coast of Asia. Now look back at the preceding post, and the illustration there of the line along the Asian coast, in the dodecahedron pattern discussed there. The ecliptic path in the Great Mapping is essentially this same line. So the Great Mapping, among many other virtues, points to the dodecahedron symmetry in the landmasses on the Earth, and its meaningfulness--its great scientific importance as a deliberate design--is spectacularly confirmed by recognizing this precise dodecahedron pattern on the Earth.

Here again is the dodecahedron pattern I was drawn to by the Great Mapping, showing how the eastern coasts of the landmasses conform to that strict layout:

A Challenge to Earth Scientists

2009-04-09T04:57:00.000-07:00

The surface of the Earth has been subjected to deliberate design; that is the truth behind supposed past continental drift.

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.

The True Origin of Continental Drift

2009-03-29T06:52:00.000-07:00

What we will be dealing with in the future is so big that most people can't get their minds around it, and need time and looking at it from different angles to get used to the idea and its validity. For example, when I say "the Earth was subjected to a wholesale re-formation in order to enable a great design", many followers of currently-accepted science consider this claim an insult to modern science, and to the theory of plate tectonics in particular. So they refuse to look at the new facts I have uncovered in my own research program. After all, that theory is the recognized linchpin, the central theory, for all the earth sciences today. As an older scientist, I would counsel the newer generations to remember that it achieved this high status only recently (within the last 40 years or so). Here is an article I wrote about a recent development brought forward by scientists in the field, to show another way of looking at it for the average interested reader:

I have just coined a new term: Punctuated Plate Tectonics.

Remember when Stephen Gould hypothesized "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the strange apparent pattern of evolution as a succession of ages, each beginning with a worldwide extinction of most previous lifeforms, followed by a swift repopulation of the world by new ones, with relatively little evolutionary change through ensuing millions of years, until the next catastrophe-led "age"? Perspicacious critics of evolution pointed out that his hypothesis merely admitted the obvious--that natural selection was a mechanism for homeostasis, or little change in species over even geologic time spans, rather than for continued, gradual evolution--but they were ignored or dismissed as religious creationists, not the scientists they often were.

Now comes a report at enn.com that plate tectonics, too, shows clear signs of being an on-again, off-again process. As the report says:

Writing in the January 4 [2008] issue of Science, Paul Silver of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism and former postdoctoral fellow Mark Behn (now at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) point out that most of today's subduction zones are located in the Pacific Ocean basin. If the Pacific basin were to close, as it is predicted to do about [sic] in 350 million years when the westward-moving Americas collide with Eurasia, then most of the planet's subduction zones would disappear with it.

This would effectively stop plate tectonics unless new subduction zones start up, but subduction initiation is poorly understood. "The collision of India and Africa with Eurasia between 30 and 50 million years ago closed an ocean basin known as Tethys," says Silver. "But no new subduction zones have initiated south of either India or Africa to compensate for the loss of subduction by this ocean closure."

From this simple observation and other evidence, the scientists conclude:

Plate tectonics is driven by heat flowing from the Earth's interior, and a stoppage would slow the rate of the Earth's cooling, just as clamping a lid on a soup pot would slow the soup's cooling. By periodically clamping the lid on heat flow, intermittent plate tectonics may explain why the Earth has lost heat slower than current models predict. And the buildup of heat beneath stagnant plates may explain the occurrence of certain igneous rocks in the middle of continents away from their normal locations in subduction zones.

"If plate tectonics indeed starts and stops, then continental evolution must be viewed in an entirely new light, since it dramatically broadens the range of possible evolutionary scenarios," says Silver.

Scientists critical of plate tectonics have long pointed out that the total length of "subduction zones" (trenches) and "collision zones" is only about one-third of the total length of "spreading zones", quite contrary to the theory, so this newly-perceived lack of new subduction zones in the wake of the closing of the Tethys sea merely confirms those critics. Plate tectonics is not the robust , successul theory--the triumphant linchpin of all the earth sciences--that it is usually presented as being. It is failing; it has always failed. This report admits "subduction initiation is poorly understood," but scientists such as David Pratt, Dong Choi and others have pointed out the real truth, that there is no good evidence for subduction at all, anywhere, and calculations indicate the subduction of lighter crustal material into the denser mantle cannot be initiated, much less maintained by heat-driven, internal currents. Geophysicists resisted continental drift for about 50 years because they could find no sufficient physical cause for it. Although science is now well assured that the continents were moved over the Earth, it still has no physically reasonable cause for such wholesale movement. Science does not want to face it, but the truth is that we know "continental drift" occurred, but (some of us know, and all should know) "plate tectonics" was not responsible. The reader is also referred to mantleplumes.org, a site devoted to detailed scientific discussions and articles critical of plate tectonics theory.

This is where my discoveries come in. I have shown in my work that the Earth was re-formed--not created, re-formed--wholesale and by deliberate design, less than 20,000 years ago according to both ancient testimony and the design itself (which communicates a coherent, verifiable purpose). Remembrance of that design, through "sacred images" and "sacred stories", or myths, was the motivation for the subsequent religious obsessions, and all the greater endeavors (toward science as well as art and religion), of mankind. Plate tectonics as it is currently envisioned will never be confirmed, because physics has all along been against it, and now the design of the "gods" (as they were known in earliest recorded history, worldwide) makes it unnecessary.

Isaac Newton famously compared himself to a child playing with pretty stones on the beach, while before him lay the real ocean of truth, unexplored. When will science stop tossing up "pretty stones"--like the article reported on here, claiming what I call "punctuated tectonics"--that really only underline the fundamental, even logical, weaknesses of the most-admired theories of our time? The real history of the Earth has been one of successive designs.

Looking Around

2009-03-21T05:41:00.000-07:00

"Change we can believe in" is what we all want now, but the reality is entangled in everyone thinking and doing just what they are accustomed to do (and no more!), and change can go hang. It's going to take rock-solid leadership to get people to work together, for one another.

What the country really needs--what we need--is the courage to lead ourselves. We have dreams and hopes that are stunted and shunted aside, by the forces of inertia both around and within us; we know they are there, crying to get out. We may even see another person, here and there, expressing what we would do ourselves if we could only see the way. We think of the angles, the risks, the seemingly inevitable bruises or worse we would be asking for, and we decline. We can't do it now, we say. We have to wait for a better time, a decent chance. Only the chance never comes.

We have to make our own chance for ourselves. We have to stand forth, out in the fierce rain of public ridicule and near-universal dismissal. We have to show ourselves, and one another, it can be done.

Design vs. Contrivance

2009-03-18T18:19:00.000-07:00

Above the entrance to the library where I first went to college (CU Boulder, Colorado, 1966-70) are these words:

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child."

I have always been a fan of very old wise sayings, and this one stands out for me, over the 44 years since I first read it, as particularly appropriate for our time. I am quite sure that not until we all make a renewed effort to reclaim the wisdom of the far past (from before the beginning of known history, it turns out), and integrate it with our modern knowledge and experience in a more thorough understanding of our humanity, will we be truly grown-up.

We don't have to go back too far to begin to see how scientific belief has changed, in just a few generations. Here is how Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, thought about the world as little as three centuries ago:

"Newton was not the first of the Age of Reason. He was the last of the magicians... Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher's treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements... He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty..."
(from Newton the Man by John Maynard Keynes, quoted in the preface of Hamlet's Mill, which can be found at phoenixandturtle.net)

Now here is Charles Darwin, a century and a half ago, or two centuries after Newton's Principia inaugurated modern physical science:

"I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems too much misery in the world..." (from a letter to American botanist Asa Gray)

Note that it is the lack of beneficence, not design, upon which Darwin hangs his reasoning. His is basically the quintessentially childish complaint of every generation--"it's not fair!"--that adults should be able to answer with real wisdom ("No, it's not, but there is more to it than you yet know, and reasons for everything, many of which you can and will learn as you go through life, if you will keep your eyes and mind open.")

In another interview, upon the publication of his The various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised by insects (and note that a contrivance is a design--"artificial arrangement or mechanical assembly as opposed to natural or logical development", as Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines it), Darwin noted:

"I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton..."

Fair enough, but note his use of the term "designed laws." He could not escape consideration of design, something that modern science refuses to honestly and properly acknowledge. Design of the natural world is a taboo subject within science, to their intellectual discredit and ultimate shame.

Now, if the world were not now full of stubborn children knowing only their own generation, I shouldn't have to instruct anyone on "why is there evil in the world," the thing that was such a stumbling block for Darwin--though he led a charmed life of financial security and the admiration of others--but not for Newton. Not to make a big deal out of it here, as I won't be dwelling on it, but the short answer is: Because we are here to learn, dummy, and especially to learn that this world is not the end-all and be-all of our existence.

I intend, if this blog generates sufficient interest, to demonstrate in coming posts that Newton was, astonishingly (to the modern scientific mind), right about the world being a complex riddle or cryptogram, whose solution indeed partly involves the "evidence of the heavens"--though the world design I have uncovered was not Creation, nor was it done by the Almighty. Darwin, and all the undirected evolutionists of the last century and a half, have indeed been weak-(and generally closed) minded in failing to honestly recognize real design(s)--as Darwin himself insincerely admitted in the above--instead opting to celebrate design by other names, such as "contrivances", "co-evolution" (something quite contrary to supposed "universal competition" or "survival of the fittest"), "self-organization", and even "natural selection". But don't think this is a Creationist or Intelligent Design rant. I won't be dwelling on the living world, but the physical, for that's where the verifiable world design is to be found--involving the actual layout of the landmasses on the Earth, as well as the observable forms in the heavens, or the celestial sphere. I'm talking about new knowledge, new facts proving a real world-encompassing design, which science does not want to hear and refuses to hear.

The Once and Future Paradigm -- Is Back

2009-03-17T08:08:00.000-07:00

Man is an animal, as modern science would have us believe; but he is far, far more, as the same science too often would have us forget. We are insignificant on the Earth, and in the vastness of the universe. Yet our minds constantly slip these bounds, and all others that are placed upon them. We are very much minds with bodies, not bodies harboring only a simulacrum of mind. Physical reality is a hard reality we constantly bump into -- and we are annoyed, or insulted, or scared witless, or worse -- because our minds touch a higher reality, a prior reality, that entices us inward, and outward, with the ultimate freedom. Thus, within this physical realm, we must learn in order to survive and to prosper -- to deal with the structures of physical existence.

I'm talking about physical details. The world is full of it, more often than not far too much of it for our simple tastes. So we say "The Devil is in the details." Or better, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio." Science is about finding simple answers to the astounding detail of physical processes, physical phenomena. It gathers large swaths of the physical experience into classes, and sets of classes, and organizations of sets. It would replace the real many (the near-infinitude) with much fewer, simple categories. Yet the real physical world is "everywhere dense" in detail, and resists every simple-minded categorization, no matter how "unified" the approach, how sophisticated the philosophy. Sooner or later the old observation comes back to haunt the present: "There are more things (still)...."

This blog is about something that science, along with the entire human race throughout history, has neglected to learn...or been misdirected from realizing. Something fundamental to everything Man has studied for thousands of years, something at the very heart of our physical existence on this world, and the very origin of all our learning. Call it the First Paradigm, or the Once and Future Paradigm. Because it's back. More later.