At the heart of the anthropogenic global warming (or AGW) hypothesis is the so-called "greenhouse effect", which is widely discussed on the internet (so I won't go over what is readily available elsewhere). Climate scientists have, apparently, all been taught that the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a long-known fact, and confirmed by overwhelming experimental observations along many lines of evidence. Physicists, however, tend to have independent opinions and more critical views (which are spread out over the range from total acceptance to total rejection). A few of the current articles, available online, by physicists critical of the greenhouse effect, are: Prof. Claes Johnson, "Climate Thermodynamics"; Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, "On the Barometric Formulas and Their Derivation from Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics"; and Tom Vonk, "CO2 Heats the Atmosphere...A Counter View." The first two are math intensive, while the third is more narrowly focused and clearly physical in tone. I would not ordinarily feel the need to write an article on the subject myself, but I have to discuss openly the incompetence I see being played out in many sciences, across the board. I have lately found myself posting on forums I have come across, where the physicist's view of the greenhouse effect seems to be neglected, or even haughtily dismissed by climate scientists; and I might as well say here, in my own backyard so to speak, what I have said elsewhere -- particularly because I haven't seen anyone voice my own understanding of the physics of it, in a clear, strong manner.
Putting my position succinctly, I have come to consider the greenhouse effect completely wrong, the more I have read about it. The following is basically a copy of one of my most recent posts on the subject.
The imaginary character of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is most readily seen in the energy budget diagrams that are derived from it (look up "Trenberth energy budget", or see my last post here), where the surface of the Earth is shown as emitting more energy than is provided by the Sun (the sole power source for the global climate system). This is a clear violation of the conservation of energy (never mind the "laws of thermodynamics" that others talk about), but today's climate scientists as a whole seem to have been taught otherwise, and are simply incompetent.
So forget what even the AGW skeptics who believe in the greenhouse effect are putting out, it is all flawed, as the obvious violation of energy conservation should make clear. CO2 and other IR absorbing gases cannot "trap" or even "slow down" heat transport through the atmosphere. The radiation they absorb and emit is simply heat energy, and that heat flows from warmer regions to colder, by whichever path (convection, conduction, or radiation) is available and is the most efficient.
[In fact, to make it simple, I suggest that heat radiation should probably be considered as "heat conduction by radiation," and perhaps treated as an effective thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, rather than radiation per se, since climate scientists, and thermodynamicists in general, have stumbled badly trying to deal with it as the latter. This is my own, recent idea, which I have noticed an echo of in the article by Prof. Johnson, so it is certainly not a new idea in the world of science, although the IPCC and those who believe in the greenhouse effect (including many physicists) don't seem to have heard of it. The physics behind it can be stated as, the IR radiation from molecules in a cooler region cannot be absorbed by the molecules in a warmer region, because the "cooler" IR photon does not have enough energy to excite the "warmer" molecule to its next higher energy level. Heat, including heat radiation, can only flow from warmer to cooler regions.]
The temperature profile of the atmosphere is dictated solely by gravity acting on the ocean of air and the specific heat of the air, which imposes a temperature "lapse rate" (a declining temperature) with height given by -g/c, a constant rate, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and c is the specific heat. Note that this is entirely independent of the presence of any IR absorption by gases in the atmosphere. The available heat energy must be distributed in accordance with that constant lapse rate, and IR radiation is just one pathway for the heat to be distributed. Thus, IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere can only enable more efficient (faster) heat transport through the atmosphere, they cannot trap heat, or slow it down. And as you can read elsewhere on the internet (see, for example, www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/), the evidence from climate science itself is that the co2 greenhouse effect cannot explain the global temperature record, particularly over the last ten years or so, when atmospheric co2 has substantially increased, while the temperature has levelled off or declined very slightly.
The only thing that has kept the greenhouse theory alive, even after the lapse rate was observed and explained by simple thermodynamics, has been the breathtaking magnitude of the entrenched incompetence among climate scientists. It can be traced, to a substantial degree, back to Carl Sagan's popular appeal, around 1960, to a "runaway greenhouse effect" for the extremely high surface temperature of Venus. But he was wrong (and a bad, self-serving scientist), and the lapse rate for the huge ocean of air on Venus (providing a surface pressure 90 times that on the Earth) explains that too, although again, you will find climate scientists referencing Venus to "prove" the greenhouse effect. This is not just your usual scientific discussion or genteel disagreement, then, it is the tip of a world-sized incompetence in science. Indeed, it involves a religious belief among climate scientists in the greenhouse theory, a belief up to now immune to even the clearest logical and evidential arguments.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
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.
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.
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").
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").
Saturday, September 26, 2009
A Light Amid the Shadows
Most people, scientists included, cannot seem to focus upon the evidence presented here, in the hard science posts (see the April and May "Challenge" posts, particularly), for the design of the "gods", long enough to really see it. They have lived so long in the twin shadows of ignorance and doubt, they are bewildered by the light. So here instead is my latest popular article, on NewsBlaze.com, to try to get their attention:
"Extraterrestrials On the White House Lawn".
It takes the existence of "extraterrestrials" for granted and, hopefully, puts those who were the "gods" in the proper context for mankind's positive consideration, given the reality of the design.
"Extraterrestrials On the White House Lawn".
It takes the existence of "extraterrestrials" for granted and, hopefully, puts those who were the "gods" in the proper context for mankind's positive consideration, given the reality of the design.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men...
Why is so much wrong with the world just now? I submit it is a case of the lesser designs of self-interested people--experts though they may be in their fields--running afoul of one another, and of a greater design. Read
The World Is In the Hands of Children,
at NewsBlaze.com.
The World Is In the Hands of Children,
at NewsBlaze.com.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Time For a Change
Here is another NewsBlaze.com article, from last month:
"Back to School: Things to Ask the Teacher".
And this, on the next generation of American space flight:
Will America Really Return to the Moon?
Spaceflight is near and dear to American hearts and minds, since the incredible 60's -- the true decade of change to all of us who lived through it. The civil rights and feminist movements; the sexual revolution; the Beatles, and the flowering of pop music in nearly as many ways as there were performers; the hippie phenomenon and the environmental movement. Michael Jackson got his start then.
That decade fueled the creativity of the four decades that followed, in so many ways. And it saw America march determinedly and with one success after another towards a close encounter of the third kind with our nearest neighbor in space, the Moon. On July 20, 1969 -- before the decade was out, as John F. Kennedy had exhorted the nation to do early in his presidency -- Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon, with his shipmate Buzz Aldrin soon joining him. And the nation, justly impressed by this feat, saw one Apollo mission after another follow, and it seemed the space franchise had been established and we would just keep heading outward into the solar system -- to Mars and beyond -- just as we had headed west a century before.
The adventurous mood of the 60's was fanned and reflected on television in series like "Star Trek", "The Outer Limits", "UFO" and "Space: 1999" (not to mention one of my personal favorites, the classic British marionette series, "Fireball XL-5"), and in theatres by such films as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", and "The First Men On the Moon".
And then we stopped. (Cue the sound of crickets in an empty field.) Instead of continued manned exploration of the Moon and beyond, our attention wandered to harsher, real societal concerns, such as the exportation of Mideast terrorism to other countries, as in the kidnapping and killing of the entire Israeli Olympic team in 1972. For many of us, the Vietnam War was a sobering, defining time whose message seemed to be the curtailment of the hopes for peaceful progress engendered in the successes of the 60's.
The warring forces of the last 40 years are still with us, their conflict erupting into violent confrontations in many ways. The Conservative Right versus the Liberal Left, succeeding one another on the national stage like an automated seesaw, back and forth like clockwork, and always strenuously fighting more than building. Jews versus Muslims in the Mideast, the seeming archetype, or backdrop, to so much of the world's ill will, particularly since the 1967 Six Day War. The evolution/creationism/intelligent design debate, about which I have written elsewhere, which has become immune to reason and common sense about a real meaning to life, on science's part.
Now we are planning the next generation of spaceflight, and there are arguments on the direction to follow there too, although they are mild indeed compared to the above-mentioned wars between opposing dogmas. NASA is currently committed to going first to the Moon, while Apollo astronauts favor Mars, a position ably championed also by scientists in the Mars Society. Both sides have their reasons, which pretty much boil down to the progressive hopes and energy of the 60's versus the financial realities of today and the foreseeable future, with further debate thrown in over how much we need to learn from colonization of the Moon, just a quarter million miles away, before we tackle year-long trips in weightless conditions on trips to Mars, which is never closer than 35 million miles away from the Earth. That's like comparing an hour's walk through the mall to a 6-day continuous hike across country. Mars can also get as far away as 248 million miles, the equivalent of a 3-week trek on foot, with no rest stops, in our analogy.
NASA currently envisions seven-day missions to the Moon to begin with, followed by 180-day stays once a lunar outpost is in place. "We're not doing flags and footsteps," NASA planning director John Olson has said. "We're going for a long-term sustained human presence that's affordable and safe and built so that we can use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and near-Earth asteroids and other exciting locations in the solar system."
A potential manned mission to the Red Planet wouldn't take place until at least 2030, under the current NASA scenario.
Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, argues that "We won the moon race; now it's time for us to live and work on Mars," and warns that NASA's current plan will waste time and money, calling the return to the moon a "glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago."
Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, agrees, and with respect to the supposed learning curve for travel to Mars, says, "This idea that you have to know how to do it before you can commit yourself to the program is completely false. We didn't know that we could do Lewis and Clark successfully before we set them out" in 1803, to explore the American West.
"NASA was not created to do nostalgia acts. It was created to storm heaven," Zubrin said further. "For NASA to make as its central goal repeating technical accomplishments it did 50 years before is a complete abandonment of its purpose."
Meanwhile, the hard realities of research and development of the next-generation engines that will power our future manned flights are not to be denied their say. An August 27th test-firing of the first-stage Ares rocket engine was scrubbed, due to a faulty valve that allowed fuel to drain away from a critical power unit needed to steer the rocket nozzle.
But, considering what the nation and the world have been through, especially in the last eight years, the strength of the voices calling for Mars exploration now is heartening.
"Back to School: Things to Ask the Teacher".
And this, on the next generation of American space flight:
Will America Really Return to the Moon?
Spaceflight is near and dear to American hearts and minds, since the incredible 60's -- the true decade of change to all of us who lived through it. The civil rights and feminist movements; the sexual revolution; the Beatles, and the flowering of pop music in nearly as many ways as there were performers; the hippie phenomenon and the environmental movement. Michael Jackson got his start then.
That decade fueled the creativity of the four decades that followed, in so many ways. And it saw America march determinedly and with one success after another towards a close encounter of the third kind with our nearest neighbor in space, the Moon. On July 20, 1969 -- before the decade was out, as John F. Kennedy had exhorted the nation to do early in his presidency -- Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon, with his shipmate Buzz Aldrin soon joining him. And the nation, justly impressed by this feat, saw one Apollo mission after another follow, and it seemed the space franchise had been established and we would just keep heading outward into the solar system -- to Mars and beyond -- just as we had headed west a century before.
The adventurous mood of the 60's was fanned and reflected on television in series like "Star Trek", "The Outer Limits", "UFO" and "Space: 1999" (not to mention one of my personal favorites, the classic British marionette series, "Fireball XL-5"), and in theatres by such films as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", and "The First Men On the Moon".
And then we stopped. (Cue the sound of crickets in an empty field.) Instead of continued manned exploration of the Moon and beyond, our attention wandered to harsher, real societal concerns, such as the exportation of Mideast terrorism to other countries, as in the kidnapping and killing of the entire Israeli Olympic team in 1972. For many of us, the Vietnam War was a sobering, defining time whose message seemed to be the curtailment of the hopes for peaceful progress engendered in the successes of the 60's.
The warring forces of the last 40 years are still with us, their conflict erupting into violent confrontations in many ways. The Conservative Right versus the Liberal Left, succeeding one another on the national stage like an automated seesaw, back and forth like clockwork, and always strenuously fighting more than building. Jews versus Muslims in the Mideast, the seeming archetype, or backdrop, to so much of the world's ill will, particularly since the 1967 Six Day War. The evolution/creationism/intelligent design debate, about which I have written elsewhere, which has become immune to reason and common sense about a real meaning to life, on science's part.
Now we are planning the next generation of spaceflight, and there are arguments on the direction to follow there too, although they are mild indeed compared to the above-mentioned wars between opposing dogmas. NASA is currently committed to going first to the Moon, while Apollo astronauts favor Mars, a position ably championed also by scientists in the Mars Society. Both sides have their reasons, which pretty much boil down to the progressive hopes and energy of the 60's versus the financial realities of today and the foreseeable future, with further debate thrown in over how much we need to learn from colonization of the Moon, just a quarter million miles away, before we tackle year-long trips in weightless conditions on trips to Mars, which is never closer than 35 million miles away from the Earth. That's like comparing an hour's walk through the mall to a 6-day continuous hike across country. Mars can also get as far away as 248 million miles, the equivalent of a 3-week trek on foot, with no rest stops, in our analogy.
NASA currently envisions seven-day missions to the Moon to begin with, followed by 180-day stays once a lunar outpost is in place. "We're not doing flags and footsteps," NASA planning director John Olson has said. "We're going for a long-term sustained human presence that's affordable and safe and built so that we can use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and near-Earth asteroids and other exciting locations in the solar system."
A potential manned mission to the Red Planet wouldn't take place until at least 2030, under the current NASA scenario.
Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, argues that "We won the moon race; now it's time for us to live and work on Mars," and warns that NASA's current plan will waste time and money, calling the return to the moon a "glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago."
Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, agrees, and with respect to the supposed learning curve for travel to Mars, says, "This idea that you have to know how to do it before you can commit yourself to the program is completely false. We didn't know that we could do Lewis and Clark successfully before we set them out" in 1803, to explore the American West.
"NASA was not created to do nostalgia acts. It was created to storm heaven," Zubrin said further. "For NASA to make as its central goal repeating technical accomplishments it did 50 years before is a complete abandonment of its purpose."
Meanwhile, the hard realities of research and development of the next-generation engines that will power our future manned flights are not to be denied their say. An August 27th test-firing of the first-stage Ares rocket engine was scrubbed, due to a faulty valve that allowed fuel to drain away from a critical power unit needed to steer the rocket nozzle.
But, considering what the nation and the world have been through, especially in the last eight years, the strength of the voices calling for Mars exploration now is heartening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)