Monday, November 22, 2010

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 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.

Monday, November 15, 2010

On Innovation in Science and Society

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.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

The Unphysical Greenhouse Effect

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?

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Greenhouse Effect: Incompetence in Climate Science

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,, 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.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria

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.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Advice to a Truth Seeker

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.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Man and the Pyramids

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").