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

UPDATE: July 2, 2022 -- The "Design Behind the Ancient Mysteries" article referenced in the post below, is now to be found in four parts, with Part 1 here. Part 4 is in the bottom half of this post.

[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: This is Part 4 of "Design Behind the Ancient Mysteries"

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)

Continuing Vain Climate Debates

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

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.

Blackbody: The Key Error in Climate Science

Update 10 March 2012: I have realized the error in my blackbody understanding, and why that error does not affect my Venus/Earth comparison or my physical conclusions about atmospheric warming. I have posted on this at "My Own Blackbody Error". The article below should no longer be taken to be my scientific position. [Note added 6 June 2013: I see a few visitors continuing to come here, obviously concerned about theory, while I want to remain focused upon the definitive facts. For my view of the proper use of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, see here. The error in the original post below is that I neglected to say the power per unit area involved in the formula is not the INCIDENT, but the ABSORBED power.]

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

Comments are closed here. Comments about this post should be made here

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.

Update March 14, 2012: This analysis is so easy, the result so immediately amazing, and the interpretation just above so obvious to me, yet the opposition to accepting it so universal and so determined, that I was led to unconsciously accept, partially but nevertheless wrongly, the premise of incompetent critics, that my findings were invalid because I had not "corrected for albedo", or in other words had wrongly assumed the Earth and Venus atmospheres were blackbodies, absorbing all the radiation incident upon them. I inadvertently got caught up, over time, in claiming the Earth-plus-atmosphere system behaves like a blackbody (although I never claimed it absorbs all the radiation incident upon it, as a blackbody is defined to do, and as the incompetent dismissers of my analysis have determinedly, dogmatically insisted). Although this has thoroughly hindered the acceptance of my analysis, my initial approach to the problem was in fact sound (even if too simple-minded for most), and my above, initial interpretation is quite correct, and in fact unavoidable, although it is not a complete statement. The complete interpretation, which I have stressed (as a logical fact) ever since, both in comments below this article, and on other internet sites, is that the two atmospheres must DIRECTLY absorb the SAME FRACTION of the incident solar radiation. For, supposing that both atmospheres do so absorb, and are solely warmed by, the same fraction (f), and given that the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun--Venus/Earth--is (A), the governing formula becomes, for the Earth and Venus atmospheres in turn

This result is independent of the fraction f absorbed, which is why naively approaching the problem as if f = 1 nevertheless gives, without the need to even consciously consider albedo beforehand, the amazingly clear result that the temperature ratio depends only--and amazingly, quite precisely--upon the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction. So I apologize for not presenting the explicit equations above sooner, for it would have saved me stumbling into error later, and embarrassing my few defenders, in my "blackbody" defense of the original analysis--but I insist my critics have all been more incompetent than I in this matter, in refusing to even consider my correct interpretation, because of what they merely assumed was a fatal error. There was no physical error in my original analysis, because the temperature ratio I obtained was an empirical fact, and the absorbed power ratio I implied from that was a logical fact (simply stated, Venus's atmosphere DOES absorb 1.91 times the power that Earth's atmosphere does, as their temperature ratio shows--and that ratio is precisely that predicted simply from the ratio of their distances from the Sun). Since the two atmospheres DO, factually, absorb the same fraction of the solar radiation incident upon them, there was, in reality, no physical reason to extend the analysis by "correcting for albedo". But I seriously underestimated the level of determined ignorance--alias incompetence--of the "experts", and dropped part way down to their level for a time.

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.

Challenging Competent Scientists

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?

The Holy Grail and the Great Design

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.

Challenge to Science II: Focus on Design

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

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 Once and Future Paradigm -- Is Back

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.