RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Recent Articles

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part four). The Foucault Pendulum

Proves nothing about the Earth's rotation or Heliocentricity.

Bookmark and Share


(The former medical student Foucault, at the Pantheon in Paris in 1851, with his 200 foot bobbing block)

 

Prologue

The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:

1.     Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, previous post deals with this)

2.     The Stellar Parallax (ibid)

3.     Stellar aberration of the Sun (ibid)

4.     The Foucault Pendulum (this post)

5.     The bulge at the Equator

6.     Geosynchronous satellites

7.     Space probe measurements

8.     Retrograde motion

9.     Star-streaming

10.  The Doppler effect

11.  Geometric complexity of geocentrism

 

This post will look at the mighty Foucault pendulum.  Across the world, there are probably thousands of shrines in secular buildings and desacralized churches, which show a replica of Foucault’s apparatus.  Museums, the UN, laboratories, university labs, and former churches offer a chapel to the ‘great man’ Foucault and his machine, which in the mid-19th century, ‘proved’ heliocentricity and made a mockery of those geocentric religious ignoramuses and their mystical dogma.  A fine story which sadly does not stand up to scrutiny. 

 

Foucault the college drop out

 

Foucault was a mid-19th century French Catholic medical school dropout and part-time photographer.  He has been historically repositioned as a ‘physics researcher’.  Maybe ‘opportunist’ is a better career description.

 

At the ripe age of 32 he performed a public experiment which delighted the Sun-worshippers.  In 1851 he suspended a 61-pound ball from a 200 foot wire at the pantheon in Paris and set it swinging.  He drew a line in the sand below the apparatus and predicated that the pendulum would move 11.25 degrees in 60 minutes, which it did.  Applause all around.  This apparently proved the Earth’s motion.  So, we are told.

 

The logic is the following:

1.     Foucault’s first and primary assumption is that the Earth rotates itself once per 24 hours, moving west to east

2.     In one day based on this assumption, the pendulum should swing between 0, or not moving (which would be equivalent to the equator) and 360 degrees (the poles), meaning that at the poles the pendulum should rotate the full 360 degrees

3.     If we draw lines in the sand for this swinging pendulum, n would be the intersection angle between the first line witnessed after the swinging begins, and a line drawn 24 hours later (in reality the specific day time is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds– this is a sidereal day or star time, slightly different than the solar time of 24 hours)

4.     Another assumption is that there is no relative motion.  This means that if we swing the pendulum north to south it won’t affect the plane it moves in, this is due to the underlying assumption that the Earth rotates west to east and cannot ‘twist’ itself underneath the pendulum

5.     Foucault’s equation predicts the Earth’s movement based on the object’s latitude, with n=360°sin(θ), where θ is the latitude

 

What does it all mean?

 

Long before Galileo, medieval naturalists and scientists had studied the pendulum and time keeping.  Mechanical clocks were first built in the 14th century and were complex instruments.  In these clocks the pendulum is anchored in one plane, it does not move, it is stationary.  Foucault’s contraption allowed the anchor to rotate, which allowed the pendulum to move and rotate over a given time

 

Using Foucault’s apparatus, we could start swinging it between the 12 and 6 o’clock position, rotate the anchor and within one hour the pendulum should move to swing between the 1 and 7 o'clock position.  Over 12 hours and 24 hours, the pendulum should again be swinging back at the 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock position. 

 

To be fair, if you have tried a Foucault pendulum replica, they often don’t work (personal experience), but let’s assume it can work.

 

What ‘convinced’ the heliocentrists was the rather obvious fact that at different latitudes, there should be different effects on the pendulum.  At the North Pole or 90 degrees, the plane of the pendulum will rotate a full 360 degrees each 24-hours, or about 15 degrees per hour.  As one moves farther from the North Pole in a southerly direction, the pendulum will slow down its rotation.  

 

In Paris, Foucault found that the plane of the pendulum rotated 11.25 degrees in the first hour – just as he predicted.  At the equator there would be no movement of the pendulum, given it is at ‘0 degrees’.  Below the equator the rotation begins anew but in the opposite direction to that observed in the northern hemisphere.

 

There are many models to explain these observations, by themselves they don’t prove anything. More here

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part three)

Stellar parallax and Stellar aberration don't prove anything

Bookmark and Share



“If, therefore, under all circumstances, and especially in the comparison of days when the sign of aberration has changed, the apparent value of the geographical latitude [i.e., column (B) - (A)] is sensibly constant, it proves that the True Aberration is the same as the Received Aberration, or at least that one is not a multiple of the other.” (George Airy, 1871, p. 37)


Simply put, Airy could not confirm Stellar aberration. And he is far from alone.


The dogma

There are 11 commandments which are deployed as proof of Copernicanism.  The observed phenomena used as proofs are however, cogently explained from another viewpoint and model.  If another explanation can be applied, than Copernicanism with its attendant scientific theology and observational support is just a theory, and cannot be accepted as proof.


The standard list, used in textbooks and by online gatekeeps of what constitutes ‘proofs’ for Copernicanism beyond the ‘law of gravitational attraction’ includes: 

1.     Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (dealt with in 2 previous posts)

2.     The Stellar Parallax

3.     Stellar aberration of the Sun

4.     The Foucault Pendulum

5.     The bulge at the Equator

6.     Geosynchronous satellites (this post)

7.     Space probe measurements (this post)

8.     Retrograde motion (this post)

9.     Star-streaming

10.  The Doppler effect

11.  Geometric complexity of geocentrism


This post will cover points 1 and 2, namely the Stellar parallax and aberration.  Further posts will go through the rest of the standard list of supposed proofs for heliocentricity. 


To Airy is human

George Airy in 1871, could not prove Stellar aberration, a claim that had gone unchallenged by that time, for almost 150 years. Using a water-filled telescope, Airy proposed to confirm both Bradley’s 1725 claim of stellar aberration, and that of the German Klinkerfues in 1867. As with Arago’s attempt in 1810, along with many others who tried and failed, Airy could find no proof of stellar aberration or light aberration (Antonello, 2014) . Airy was a committed Copernican who was dismayed at his own findings.


Many experiments have since reconfirmed Airy’s findings as other posts here have outlined (Michelson, Sagnac, Miller etc). Unfortunately the flat-earthers enthusiastically refer to the Airy experiment, giving ‘The Science’ a convenient and easy target to disparage the reality of what he and others discovered. We should not conflate factual evidence from real experiments with the non-science that the Earth is a pancake surrounded by an ice wall.


Claim 1:  The Stellar Parallax Proves the Earth is Moving

This valid cosmological phenomenon has been consistently advocated as the vindicator of heliocentrism.  Science textbooks and online apologia will usually declare that Friedrich Bessel (1784–1846) discovered heliocentrism’s long-awaited proof when in 1838, he observed a very slight shift in the position of the nearby star Cygnus against the background of a more distant star. 


There are some who claim that Giovanni Pieroni, a friend of both Galileo and Kepler, may well have discovered the parallax in the early 17th century or 200 years earlier.  Copernican astronomers usually praise Bessel as the great proof-giver of heliocentricity ignoring Pieroni (he was a Catholic after all). However, the ugly reality is that parallax does not prove heliocentrism.


What is it precious?

standard definition of a stellar parallax is:

Parallax is the apparent displacement of an object because of a change in the observer's point of view.


This concept is of course central to the theory of Relativity which has been well savaged in other posts.  A parallax is used to measure the distance to a star.


From this image, using the heliocentric view of a parallax, we can describe how a parallax measurement would work (Ostlie and Carrol, pp. 57–59).

1.     In this model, the Earth is orbiting the Sun;

2.     In December, whilst on one side of the orbit, we pull out our telescope and observe 2 stars which are viewed at the same time;

3.     One star is near to the Earth, and the other appears further away;

4.     For simplicity let’s assume that both stars are aligned vertically in the same plane, that is, one star is at a higher position in our telescope lens than the other, but both are on the same vertical line;

5.     Six months later in June we take another look at these 2 stars;

6.     If the stars are not in a vertical alignment any longer, and have deviated from the y axis, than we have a ‘parallax’;

7.     The parallax motion means that the closer star appears to have shifted to the right off the vertical plane;

8.     The shifting of the nearer star is due to the mobile orbit of the Earth around the Sun, since we have viewed this star from 2 different orbital locations, one in December, one in June, now separated by 186 million miles (the diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun);

9.     Since stellar parallax can now be detected among a select few stars, most astronomers have generalized this interpretation to include all Stars, and offer this as proof for the Earth’s movement around the Sun.


Sounds pretty good.  When analysing Copernicanism, I found this to be a somewhat convincing argument. 


Heliocentric Stellar aberration animation


Note that this evidence was proferred almost 300 years after Copernicus issued his theory, or in the case of Pieroni 80 years post-Copernicus, and was never referenced by Galileo in his dispute with the Church over evidence for heliocentricity. Stellar parallax is the second reported ‘observational proof’ in support of heliocentricity if we follow the standard narrative and credit Bessel in the mid-19th century.  Stellar aberration (below) was the first reported proof, some 200 years after Copernicus if we ignore Pieroni. When the Church asked Galileo for proof, this is what it meant.  The evidential proofs took hundreds of years to develop.


It proves…?

Yet when you look into the stellar parallax as with the Galilean phases of Venus, you will quickly uncover that the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system explains the same phenomenon quite nicely.  This information will never be given to you, nor is it discussed within ‘The Science’ and its ‘educational systems’.  This is called a bias.  More here

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part two). Forces which Copernicanism cannot explain.

Neither can the Sun-worshippers explain why the Earth does not fall into the Sun.

Bookmark and Share


400 Years Ago the Catholic Church Prohibited Copernicanism | Origins

(The gallant Copernicus leading mankind to insignificance and irrelevance)

“Most scientists refused to accept [Copernicus’s] theory for many decades — even after Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. Their objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology,the “geo-heliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. The most devastating argument against the Copernican universe was the star size problem. Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence.”

(The Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney)

 

The ‘star size problem’ was an early objection to Copernicanism, given that the stars must be far away, yet they are visible and defined. This implies a massive size, hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than our Sun for example. Yet their appearance in the sky is small and uniform. The only way to explain this is by invoking a divine presence, or appealing to the distortion of light and optical illusions.

 

Optical explanations were not forthcoming until the mid 18th century though even now there is dispute about the validity of these claims. Stars are still seen as ‘points of light’, and very few adequate explanations exist which satisfy the ‘star size’ issue, though it is generally ignored in modern science, which views the ‘optical illusion’ explanation as sufficient.

 

Putting this issue to the side, we can list the standard textbook ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity which will be discussed and analysed in sequence:

1.     Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, see the previous post and this post below)

2.     The Stellar Parallax (#2-11 covered in future posts)

3.     Stellar aberration of the Sun

4.     The Foucault Pendulum

5.     The bulge at the Equator

6.     Geosynchronous satellites

7.     Space probe measurements

8.     Retrograde motion (this post)

9.     Star-streaming

10.  The Doppler effect

11.  Geometric complexity of geocentrism

 

Prologue

Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity.  Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’.  Other models can explain the same phenomena but are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’.  The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support this theory (posts outlining this are shown at the end).  This deposition follows from the problems with Newton’s law of gravitation which cannot explain how planets and constellations behave and why it does not support heliocentricity.

 

Models and problems

‘The Science’ and its heliocentric model explain that within our solar system the planets revolve around the Sun, and our milky way galaxy revolves around a center of the Universe whose location has never been identified.  In this theory, which is a part of the discredited Big Bang dogma, gravitational attraction between smaller and larger bodies ‘holds’ the patterns of orbits and the relationships between planets.  There are many issues with this theory.  A simple one is the following question.

 

Problem Statement:  Given that approximately 1 million Earths fit into the Sun, why doesn’t the Sun simply consume our Earth?

 

Related to this we can ask, why doesn’t the Earth consume the moon given that the Earth’s diameter is 4 times that of the moon?  The answer is that there are issues with the ‘laws’ of gravity, given they don’t explain the observed phenomena nor answer the simple question above. Gravity is a weak force, so some other ‘forces’ must be at work. 

 

A second model which offers an answer to the above question is the Tychonic-Ptolemaic concept, where the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe and the planets in our solar system either revolve around the Earth (Ptolemy), or the planets revolve around the Sun and this collection revolves around the Earth (Tychonic).  Tycho Brahe’s model is thus a mixture of heliocentricity and geocentricity, based on thousands of observations and calculations. Mathematically, even using modern scientific standards and observations, both the Ptolemaic and Tychonic models are valid, though no one is told this.

 

Video, summary overview of the Heliocentric, Tychonic and Ptolemaic models

 

In the Tychonic model the entire universe revolves around the Earth.  The Earth may still rotate (the neo Tychonic or semi-Tychonic model) or be immobile as Tycho Brahe believed. The massive force used to generate the phenomenal speeds to rotate the universe around the Earth is a logical objection to this model of planetary movement.  These objections, as outlined below, can however be answered using the standards and principles of modern science (Assis, pp. 190-191). 

 

I am not suggesting that the model is right or wrong, but as will be shown, mathematically using modern science’s own postulates there is no argument against this model. The model also explains phenomena that Newtonian and standard Copernicanism cannot. I am only looking at Socratic proofs to resolve the problem statement:

 

Why doesn’t the Sun consume the Earth?’

The point is that the observational evidence, the universal forces which are confirmed by modern science including the Coriolis force, the Euler force and centrifugal forces (which are discussed below), the existing mathematics and models, and the affirmed principles and ‘laws’ of modern science, do not disprove the Tychonic system, but actually confirm much of what it postulates.  The Tychonic model addresses the problem statement posted above, whilst heliocentricity does not provide an answer, hence the use of Dark Matter (a made up never-found constant to balance equations akin to Einstein’s steady-state model constant) and extended maths to Newton’s and Einstein’s equations.

 

Mach-o, Mach-o man

In the neo-Tychonic model, the gravitational attraction of the Sun with the Earth is balanced by a real gravitational-centrifugal force generated by the annual rotation of distant masses around the Earth (with a component having a period of one year).  In this model the Earth can remain at rest, a constant distance from the Sun.  Modern science can have no objection to this idea of geo-helio-centrism due to the duality of its own force laws and the theory of Relativity. 

 

Using Mach’s Principle and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity which employs the same; we can see that the neo-Tychonic model where the Earth is at rest in the center of the universe and has the Sun revolving around it, is not madness.  Universal distant matter (e.g., galaxies) which rotate around the Earth could create a centrifugal force, which is like gravity, but actually counteracts the force of gravity, keeping the Sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth, namely, 91-94 million miles.  These forces would be the ‘Coriolis force’ (more below). This could help explain why the Earth does not fall into the Sun, or why our moon does not missile bomb the Earth (Popov, 383-391).   

 

As Einstein admits:

“We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]we can instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K' as ‘at rest.’…On the other hand, the following important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ from a gravitational field….

 

This quite substantiates the view that we may regard the rotating system K' as at rest and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field….The kinematic equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K' [the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion.” (Einstein’s October 1914 pp. 69, 71).

 

Einstein has confirmed that a Tychonic or Ptolemaic universe is certainly feasible and possible.  It is as least as credible as the Copernican faith which has the Earth moving through the ether (a medium largely denied by ‘The Science’) at 108.000 km per hour. Quite a clip.  Many posts have discussed that no mechanical proofs for this have ever been presented (listed at the end).  It is only 500 years since the days of Copernicus.  Take your time.  More here

 

 

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part one).

Newtonian gravitation is not proof of heliocentricity.

Bookmark and Share


The claim

There is a severe paucity of proof for heliocentricity.  The theory is simply accepted as fact, without mechanical and observational verification.  There is voluminous evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries which contradicts and disputes both heliocentricity and its apologist framework, the Special Theory of Relativity.  The errors and lack of mechanical proofs are covered extensively in a previous set of posts.

 

In this post we will have a hard look at what is incorrectly forwarded as Newton’s key ‘law’ that smaller bodies always orbit larger.  This is usually offered as ‘proof’ of heliocentricity, but as we will see when discussing the greater universal forces at work, this is not the case.  In fact, this supposed ‘law’ provides more evidence for geocentrism than Copernicanism, a consideration that is anathema to ‘The Science’. 

 

What did Newton say?

Newton neither said nor proved that a smaller object must always orbit the larger.  Newton merely stated that when we have two or more bodies in a rotating system, all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (also known as the center of gravity).  It is a natural effect and phenomena that the ancients probably well understood: 

 

“That the center of the system of the world is immovable: this is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center” (Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I)

 

Our own solar system and ‘milky way’ galaxy is not a closed system.  It is open and a part of a far larger universe.  This is one of the problems with Einstein’s thought experiments - he assumes a closed system. If we did have a closed system and there were only 2 planets namely the Earth and Sun, then the corrupted Newtonian claims that the smaller object or Earth would orbit the larger body the Sun, would likely be sensible and valid.  But that is not our reality.  There is a little factor called ‘the rest of the universe’ which Newtonians and Copernicans often ignore.  The universe is estimated to contain five sextillion stars.  Quite a mass of weight one would imagine.

 

Where is the center Chud?

 

In Newtonian physics the center of our solar system must find its location at the ‘center of mass’, which would consider all the bodies and masses within our solar system (ignoring for the moment the rest of the universe).  The displacement of this center within our solar system would of course not be the Sun itself, but would find its locus at quite an appreciable distance from the Sun.  Now add in the rest of the universe beyond our solar system.  The ‘center’ would need to migrate and be displaced even further from our Sun.  There is no proof that the center of universe is located with our Sun.  Such a claim, if ever made, has no empirical evidentiary support. 

 

As Fred Hoyle the famed physicist and astronomer (who believed in panspermia, and space-travelling ‘viruses’) stated:  “If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes” (Hoyle, p. 85).  This makes perfect sense.  We should take into account the weight within our solar system, our own galaxy and other galaxies (new planets, comets, collisions causing destruction etc) when assessing mass attraction, gravity and the impact on inertial motion.

 

If we add in the ‘weight’ of the universe there must be an enormous impact on bodies within our solar system.  This implies that there is no ‘law’ that the Earth must revolve around the Sun given the displacement of this center.  It might well be that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth in a Tychonic or Ptolemaic system, which current scientific observations would support as easily as they would support a Sun-centric view.  Or it might imply a completely different model not yet considered by ‘The Science’. 

 

The center of all masses

Given the size and mass weight of stars and bodies in our universe, there will be many local centers of mass.  These federated and local systems do not impinge or supersede the center of mass for the universe itself.  This means that each galaxy will have its own center of mass.  This seems logical.  While the constellation of planets in our solar system will have a center of mass near the Sun; and while the moons of the planets have a center of mass near their respective planet, these are only local centers of mass.

 

When we consider all the mass of the universe, there is only one place where the universe’s center of mass exists.  Newton’s principle given above that the ‘center of the system of the world is immovable’ does not mean that heliocentricity is proven.  There are many models which fit the observational data.  If for example, the universe was in rotation, Newton’s laws would demand that it rotate around its singular center of mass.  This could be the Earth (or not).  As Hoyle states it, the equivalence between heliocentricity and geocentricity was recognized not only in geometry, but also in the gravitational and inertial dynamics:

 

“…we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century” (Hoyle, p. 82)

 

Most physicists accept the concept that, “Mass there governs inertia here.” Newton never took the mass of the universe into account, and this is a primary inadequacy of his theory of motion (Misner, et al pp. 543). 

 

Newton’s Oubliette

Newton failed to consider the gravitational and inertial forces found in the rest of the universe when he composed his laws of motion.  The missing parts of his theory directly affect the choice one makes for either Copernicus, Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe. As the Brazilian physicist, Andre Assis, puts it:

 

Leibniz and Mach emphasised that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct…the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton…Despite the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed starsThe distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits.” (Assis, pp. 190-191)

 

This is an important point, ‘The distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets’. Without such forces, the Earth would indeed be swallowed by the Sun.

 

Mach power

 

The principle of ‘equivalence’, based on Kepler and Mach’s maths, was enunciated by Einstein to explain uniform acceleration in an ‘inertial system’.  The Special Theory of Relativity does not account for acceleration, nor non-linear motions.  There are no absolutes in STR, and everything must be relative (many posts have gone through the proofs of why STR is unscientific). 

 

But if we accept at face value Einstein’s incorrect model of the universe, we can see that heliocentricity is just a theory as given by this principle of equivalence.  STR has never proven heliocentricity, nor has it done much to fix the gap in Newton’s laws of inertial motion.  Einstein uses 2 systems, one called ‘A; and the other ‘I’ to explain:

 

“Let A be a system uniformly accelerated with respect to an “inertial system.” Material points, not accelerated with respect to I, are accelerated with respect to A, the acceleration of all the points being equal in magnitude and direction. They behave as if a gravitational field exists with respect to A, for it is a characteristic property of the gravitational field that the acceleration is independent of the particular nature of the body. There is no reason to exclude the possibility of interpreting this behavior as the effect of a “true” gravitational field (principle of equivalence) (Einstein, p. 14.)

 

A is a system in uniform motion with respect to another system within a defined grid or system.  Within A but outside of I, objects are accelerated whose movement will not only be impacted by the gravitational attraction within system A, but also from the total mass of attraction which includes I.  This indicates that within our own solar system, not only the Sun but the planets and every other moving object in our system (comets, asteroids, moons), are controlled by the galaxies and the collective attraction and weight.  This ‘true gravitational field’ or principle of equivalence removes the mystery out of inertia and why the planets travel in precise orbits.  

 

“Kepler’s standpoint is particularly interesting, since he was deeply impressed by Tycho Brahe’s ‘demolition’ of the crystal spheres. Kepler posed the problem of astronomy in the famous words: “From henceforth the planets follow their paths through the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize about these things differently.” (J. Barbour, p. 9.)

 

Kepler, the Protestant astronomer whose maths were the first theoretical proofs to support Copernicanism, came up with a rather ‘Machian’ solution.  Kepler’s maths suggested that the planets could not possibly follow such precise orbits by a mere inspection of empty space.  The elliptical and complicated journeys must be guided and driven in their motion by the real masses in the universe, namely, the Sun and the sphere of the fixed stars.  This insight by Kepler pre-empted that of Mach by some 300 years and is perfectly aligned to what most physicists believe today, namely that the mass of the universe is an essential ‘force’ which accounts for the observational data on planetary motions.  

 

This supports Mach’s principle which was in large measure a restatement of observations by the English astronomer George Berkeley in the 1700s:

 

(Encyclopedia Britannica) “Mach’s principle, in cosmology, hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity—i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter”

 

The Kepler-Berkeley-Mach ‘principle’ means that there are absolutes including mass and gravitational attraction.  Even Newton admitted that this was valid. 

 

More here

Scientism and the Galileo myth. Another example of 'The Science' and its mendacity and propaganda.

The Religion of The Science, or Scientism, does not suffer competitors or doubts.

Bookmark and Share

Intro To Art: Galileo facing The Inquisition!

(Galileo (1564-1642), facing the inquistion)

 

The Scream

We have all heard the story of Galileo from the early 17th century.  The honest, independent, objective, ‘scientist’, trying to drag the superstitious post-medieval world into light and knowledge.  Attacked, tortured, and demonised by the Catholic inquisition for ‘proving’ that the Sun was the centre of our solar system and the true object of worship.  His truths ignored due to Biblical ignorance and rank stupidity.  Lesser mortals, debased by religion, unable to comprehend his proofs and genius, refused to enter the door of science he was opening, closing it.  The hairshirt wearing, idol-worshipping, cowering and despairing Church with its unclean, unkept, illiterate monks had declared war on ‘The Science’.  We all know this to be true.  Teacher say, TV say, books say, ‘The Science’ say.  Twas the Dark Ages before the ‘Enlightenment’.  

 

But the truth is that Galileo was never accosted, tortured, beaten or even demonised for his views.  In fact, he lived a long, salubrious life, entirely funded by the de Medici’s and the Church. 

 

The Myths

 

According to our modern education hagiography, the following is ‘true’ about Galilei Galileo:

1.     Proved heliocentricity (it took some 200 hundred years after Galileo, before some proofs were offered, namely stellar parallax and light aberration which can also be explained by the Tychonic model, as covered in other posts)

2.     Invented the telescope

3.     Discovered Sunspots

4.     Identified comets

5.     Dropped weights from the leaning tower of Pisa proving the ‘law’ of accelerated gravity

6.     Invented the incline plane to prove that an object falling down an incline will roll up an incline for the same distance as the declination

7.     Discovered the important properties of a pendulum

8.     Based on the pendulum discovered time keeping

9.     Was the first to push ‘experimental science’

 

Busy guy.  Except that none of the above is true (Kuhn, p. 10).  Galileo did not invent the telescope and his customised production was largely inferior to that of Kepler’s.  He did not prove heliocentricity whatsoever (more below).  It is unlikely he performed the weight dropping experiment, nor did he discover the attributes of a swinging pendulum, the incline motion of an object proceeding from a declination; nor did he uncover secrets leading to time keeping or navigation. 

 

Christopher Scheiner discovered Sunspots.  Jesuits long before Galileo had traced and explained the life cycle of comets, contrary to Galileo’s claim that they were ephemeral.  Scientific experimentation using defined methods dates to at least the 12th century.  Galileo was the same character who yelled and pounded his desk that the moon had an atmosphere. It doesn’t and if you landed on it, you wouldn’t survive more than 10 minutes due to radiation exposure.

 

Regarding the fictitious Tower of Pisa-weight dropping, Galileo said that the heavier object fell fastest in contravention of the supposed ‘law’ attributed to him:

“Experience shows….in the beginning of its motion the wood is carried more rapidly than the lead; but a little later the motion of the lead if so accelerated that it leaves the wood behind…I have often made a test of this.”  (Lane Cooper, Aristotle, Galileo, and the Tower of Pisa, 1935)

 

‘The Science’ claims that Galileo invented the law of accelerate gravity or the equation d = ½ g (t2) + v*t, where d = distance, g = gravity, t = time and v = velocity.  He didn’t.  Observations date back to the 6th century with Philoponus and include many experiments from the 16th century, including one from Simon Stevin from the Tower at Pisa in 1586.  There is no evidence that Galileo performed any such experiment at Pisa, though he claims to have done so many times.  If he had bothered, he would not have written the above. 

 

Shoulders of giants

 

Galileo was born in the late 16th century and performed his work during the early 17th.  He was an educated man and much of what he ‘discovered’ was already known.  In fact, he was taught about objects, motions, pendulums, and time.  He did not invent any of these concepts.  Yet as with so many – Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and countless other ‘great scientists’-- Galileo never bothered to reference the work, nor the efforts of others.  As with Einstein, you won’t find more than a few tangential attributions by Galileo to those who did the hard work of experimentation, or who discovered the theorem in question. 

 

 

Galileo admits the paucity of his experimentation, and like Einstein was more interested in philosophy and abstractions than actual proof:

“…in order to demonstrate to my opponents, the truths of my conclusions, I have been forced to demonstrate them by a variety of experiments, though to satisfy myself alone I have never felt it necessary to make many.” (J.H. Randall, The Making of the Modern Mind, 1976, p. 235)

 

There are little extant proofs which confirm that Galileo did much in the way of mechanical experimentation. 

 

The context of heliocentricity

It is necessary to put the Galileo myth in the context of its era.  The Protestant revolt, beginning in 1517, had sundered Western Christendom in two.  State powers viewed the Protestant church as a convenient entity to subsume into the secular political structures.  The ‘reformation’ was more about national power and control than about religion.  Catholic dogmas and received wisdom were under attack in every sphere.  In many countries it was against the law to be Catholic.  The Church had been forced to retreat from much of northern Europe and felt itself surrounded by the heresy to the north, and the Muslims to the east and south.  The early 17th century was a time of flux and real danger.  The Church had little interest in more internal convulsions generated by ‘science’. 

 

More here

Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 4). Dayton Miller and 30 years of proofs which negate STR

and call into question Copernicanism.

Bookmark and Share


Einstein’s doubt:

Einstein: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental errorOtherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 in Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 400).

 

Einstein to astronomer Erwin Freundlich in 1913: If the speed of light is in the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false” (ibid., p. 207).

 

Einstein: “My whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.”  And so, they are Einstein.  Miller was right pace the first quote, and Sagnac was right confirming the second quote

 

Einstein’s house of cards

 

Georges Sagnac’s experiments, which disproved the constancy of the speed of light, and proved an ether, were rather miraculously, incorporated, and consumed by ‘The Science’ to support time dilation and STR!  Sagnac’s effect, which is used in GPS, measurement, and gyroscope technologies, disproved STR of course.  Sagnac proved there are absolutes when measuring light speed and the ether which STR does not support.  Experiments using Sagnac’s method which followed his 1913 effort, also found the same.  Not a single Relativist can point to an experiment disproving Sagnac. 

 

Sagnac never confronted Einstein and his fantasy-world directly.  But Dayton Miller did.  Miller like those before him who registered negative results when trying to prove STR and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, was a Copernican Sunworshipper.  He was a very well-known American physicist and a key figure in the US science establishment.  He was not a man to be ignored.

 

Dayton Miller’s biography in summary:

·       PhD in science in 1890 from Princeton University

·       President of both the American Physical Society (1925-1926) and Acoustical Society of America (1913-1933)

·       Chairman of the division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council (1927-1930)

·       Chairman of the physics department of Case School of Applied Science (aka: Case Western University)

·       Active member of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

During a 31-year period from approximately 1902-1933, Miller produced over 300.000 experimental tests which confirmed the 19th and early 20th century’s interferometer measurements including Sagnac’s, that no mechanical mobility or motion of the Earth could be detected, and there appeared to be an ether.  Miller’s experimentation is the most thorough and detailed study in history of trying to prove heliocentricity and the Earth’s movement through an ether.  All he found was that the Earth appeared immobile and that an ether acted on the Earth

 

Miller Time

So, what did Miller do?

 

Dayton Miller constructed (to paraphrase Joe Biden), the most extensive and sophisticated interferometer experiment in history.  Miller built the largest and most sensitive collection of equipment ever devised to record and measure the ‘interference’ readings of light beams.  As a devout Copernican he was simply trying to prove the theory of heliocentricity and STR.

(Miller’s Interferometer machine on Mount Wilson)

 

Miller took great care with his creation.  At extraordinary cost he floated the interferometer device on a pool of mercury to eliminate friction.  He employed different bases including, wood, metal and concrete.  Miller performed tests at different times of the day, different seasons of the year, different altitudes, including the Mount Wilson observatory near Pasadena California, and at different latitudes with differing light sources.  He produced his observations over a 3 decade long period. 

 

Miller also took precautions against thermal distortions by insulating the apparatus in one- inch cork and by applying uniform parabolic heaters and taking account of human body heat.  He covered the interferometer in glass so that drift would not be inhibited.  He used a 50x magnification telescope to observe the fringes, which allowed him to see down to the hundredth scale.  Miller even switched to an interferometer made of aluminum and brass to eliminate possible effects from magneto-constriction.

 

It was a comprehensive and largely incorruptible setup.  Beyond reproach or critique. 

 

The first round of testing ensued from 1902-1916, when Miller performed over 200,000 different readings.  By contrast, the 1887 Michelson-Morley had a total of 36 readings on an apparatus that was much smaller and less accurate.  The second round occurred between 1921 and 1933, when Miller performed over 100,000 trials (D. C. Miller, “The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,” Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 352-367, 1933). 

 

In total we have some 300.000 measurements.


More here

Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 3). Georges Sagnac and the ‘Sagnac effect’

Entirely upends Relativity, despite what 'The Science' claims.

Bookmark and Share

Albert Einstein

“Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.’’ [quoted in “What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck” Saturday Evening Post, October 26th, 1929, p. 11]

 

A Religious Philosophy posing as Science

Imagination is the basis of much of modern ‘science’. Two previous posts outlined the lack of evidence for a mobile Earth, both pre-and-post 1905, which is the year ‘The Science’ issued Einstein’s opus magnus on Relativity.  The Special Theory of Relativity’s main purpose was to remove the inconvenient relevancy of studies which could not find a mobile Earth.  Einstein through the abstraction and ‘imagination’ of STR sought re-impose the accepted dogma of heliocentricity. 

 

STR achieves this by erecting a universe with no fixed absolutes, no rules, and in essence, no logic.  In this fantasy world, no mechanical measurement is needed to prove that the Earth moves, because none can be made.  This is because pace STR, a moving Earth which is an unproven assumption, negates the ‘law of inertial reference’ and makes any calibrated measurement impossible.  This is called an illogical tautology.  What they are saying is that the Earth moves and we don’t need to have mechanical, physical proof. We should just accept the premise. 

 

Proof?

For 500 years our world-views have been irrevocably impacted by the purported fact that the Earth is moving at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour through the universe.   Yet the proofs are simply not in evidence. As Einstein and all physicists and astronomers have admitted, there are no mechanical proofs detailing and confirming that the Earth is hurtling along at 30 km per second.

 

The few who have thumbed through Copernicus’ 1543 exposition on the revolution of the orbits, will know that maybe 20 pages try to explain the idea.  The rest, some 180 pages is filler, full of tables and observations that don’t prove heliocentricity and could as easily prove geo-centricity.  The Copernican model was first and foremost a philosophical exercise, yet has been assumed since the late 16th century to be ‘correct’.  Newton’s entire system, which Einstein energetically tried to uphold, is based on Copernican acceptance, but like Einstein, Newton provided no proof. 

 

Since the late 16th century ‘The Science’ has never bothered to verify the Copernican claim.  This is not a scientific approach and is based on what is called an ‘appeal to authority’. The reality is that every physicist and astronomer since the 17th century has assumed Copernican veracity, appealing to various scientific figures as sources of proof. This includes Einstein, who wrote that Copernicanism should be taken as the starting point. This is a philosophical a priori belief, not a fact establshed from scientific measurement.

 

[An example is Gailelo. Any who have studied Galileo know that he did not prove heliocentricity. Indeed Galileo may have recanted his Copernican faith. At the end of this post is provided an interesting letter that no one knows about, dictated by Galileo in which he apparently apostasies from the Copernican theology (see footnote A)].

 

It must move!

Even though no mechanical proof exists that the Earth is mobile, Einstein demanded that we still believe it moves at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour, an incomprehensible velocity (speech Kyoto Japan, Dec. 14 1922, ‘How I created the theory of Relativity’).  Relativity cannot be interpreted unless one understands that it is far more a philosophical and imaginative framework, than a scientific endeavor. 

 

By 1905 Einstein and a small group within ‘The Science’ had to save the heliocentric-phenomena which was being assaulted by interferometer calculations, which showed that the Earth’s movement, as measured by these light-sensitive machines, is about ~5 km per second, not the purported or expected 30 km / second. Many other 19th century experiments also failed to confirm diurnal rotation.  In fact all of these experiments called into question heliocentricity, suggesting that the Earth was immobile.


More here

 

Heliocentricity and Scientism (part 2). Post-1905 experiments which found no movement of the Earth.

The magic world of the Special Theory of Relativity. Long dead but the public is just not ready for the burial. It would be too emotional for most people.

Bookmark and Share

 


Scope of this post:

  • Keep the length down

  • Outline the post-1905 experiments which attempted to prove heliocentricity

  • The implications of their greater-than-null results

  • How ‘The Science’ reacted

  • Next posts:  The ground shaking experiments of Georges Sagnac and D. C. Miller

 

Heresy and damnation

Edwin Hubble:

"…there must be no favored location in the universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity.…" (Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 63)

 

A very religious declaration from an icon of ‘The Science’.

Do you believe in a flat earth’? will be the response if you ask someone, ‘can you provide for me, physical proof to support the Copernican principle or heliocentricity’?  An exasperated interlocutor might also reply with, ‘are you stupid and one of those religious idiots?  Of course it flies around the Sun, everyone knows this, Galileo say, Einstein say, BBC say, NASA say, and you are not smarter than Einstein chud’

 

You can do your own poll.  Ask anyone to give you the speed of the Earth’s journey around the Sun.  Add the bonus question of ‘diurnal’ or daily rotational speed.  I doubt 1 in 10 could answer both.  The average person has no idea that the assumed speed of the mobile Earth is 30 km / second, 1800 km per minute, or a rather astounding 108.000 km/hour.  That is pretty quick. 

 

One would think that such a speed might be noticeable and measurable.  Supposedly, pace ‘The Science’, it isn’t.  You believe; therefore you spin around.  For the record the diurnal motion is purportedly and roughly, 1600 km per hour.  So here we are, spinning at 1600 km per hour in a tight turn, traversing the universe around the Sun at a sedate canter of 108.000 km per hour.  If that is not a miracle of something or other, I don’t know what it is. 

 

The previous post discussed the lack of evidence for heliocentricity pre-1905.  This lack of evidence led directly to Einstein and Relativity.  To save the Copernican theories and phenomena, the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) had to be invented.  Few know this.  Few know that there is no hard evidence for STR and that STR behind scientific closed doors has long been dead.  Its public burial and the rubbishing of its great apostle Einstein, is just too emotional a consideration for the great unwashed mass.

 

The previous post which can be extended into a book, was intended only as an introduction to a topic that rolls people’s eyes.  ‘You can’t be serious?’ will be the standard head-shaking comment.  However as this post will summarise, it gets even more difficult for the Sun-worshippers, post 1905.  There are literally dozens of experiments that you have never heard of, which do not support STR nor heliocentricity.  The brave explorer can find none that support the theories, ChatGPT and textbooks using their illogical and tautological claims notwithstanding. 

 

Socrates and evidence

 

Albert Einstein

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.” (Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982)

(The very religious declaration of a devout Copernican)

 

1905 is of course a watershed year in ‘The Science’, when Einstein published his theory of relativity, on September 26 entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Bodies in Motion” in the Annalen der Physik.  As a mental concept Relativity has a long history, including Galilean, Descartian, Newtonian and Lorentzian relativity.  Einstein’s theory built on these antecedents and took them to their logical end point.  He postulated that physical, observational, and rational investigation could be replaced by models and maths. 

 

In Einstein’s universe there is no absolute reality, and all objects are moving relative to each other.  It is the imposition of Kant into science, via Ernst Mach who was probably the key inspiration for Einstein, which saturates the absurdity of the Special Theory of Relativity.  Relativity as a theological principle and abstract idea, simply means that there is no single point of reference, anywhere, any place at any time. 

 

Because there is no single point of reference or a ‘frame of inertia’ (a grid, a reference point, e.g. a stationary Earth) it means that we can use maths and models to contort the universe into any theory we find pleasing.  Or, to paraphrase Einstein, if we look at the phenomena around us, we could as easily explain what we see in the universe by assuming that the Earth is immobile, or the Sun, or even the moon.  Everything we see could be explained by any number of ‘relative’ models.  This means that there is no fixed reality.  By extension, the only way to make sense of it all is to describe this fluctuating relativisation with maths. 

 

The fantasy world of STR

(A simple summary of the fantasy world of STR, a make believe world of maths, where you can move the ‘observer’ to any location to prove your theory)

Philosopher and scientist Bertrand Russell:

 

“Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.” (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 82

 

Einstein’s fantasy world is based on an ‘observer’ in a ‘frame of reference’ (a location, or a grid).  From an ‘observers’ position Einstein can create a make-believe world. Depending on where the ‘observer’ is sited, Einstein and his friends can declare that when an observer views a moving object or objects (eg a star, an electron, a train), that object’s length, width, velocity, motion, and even mass are all ‘relative’ and subject to endless change, or apparent transformation (contraction, recession).  Einstein can move the ‘observer’ around, or in many cases, get rid of him altogether if that suits the purpose. Within a frame of reference, and based on where you place the observer, two clocks can be both slower and faster than each other - a logical impossibility (see Dingle’s complaint). 

 

The above for Einstein et al means that light based measurements or ‘mechanical’ experiments, are therefore by definition invalid (e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment which disproved the Earth’s movement).  A measurement of time or velocity using light waves or particles (‘The Science’ does not know what makes up light), could be invalid relative to the moving object if you move your frame of reference and the ‘observer’.  Mechanical measurements for example on a mobile Earth (their assumption) means that the law of inertia is violated and the experiment nullified. How convenient. In this fantasy world, objects, time, speeds and relationships are not absolute and nothing can be reliably measured.

 

Magic and miracles in the Science religion

Within STR objects can appear from nowhere (eg anti-matter or positrons) and disappear into nowhere (violating the First Law of Thermodynamics).  Objects can change shape, form, utility and composition at any time for whatever random chance reason.  All relationships between objects are relative, even with light.  This means there is no absolute anything.  If needs arise, I can conjure up Dark Matter to balance Newtonian equations and save the phenomena, or invoke Dark Energy to explain the supposed endless acceleration of the universe, whilst contradictorily disproving the existence of an ‘ether’ (what then is ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy’?). I don’t need to prove that any of this really exists, as long as they reveal themselves in my infinitely inscrutable equations as constants or variables, giving form to calculations that no one will understand. 

 

As Einstein wrote, imitating the earlier relativity of Galileo and his ships, if I stand on a platform and see a train travelling at 50 mph rush past and crash into a mountain, it is ‘relatively’ true to state that an ‘observer’ travelling on the train could claim that the train station and Earth moved into the train and that the train was crashed into.  It depends on the ‘observer’ and their ‘frame of reference’.  In times past we put such people into mental asylums. 

 

In essence STR means nothing.  For Newton, a committed Copernican, ‘space’ not the Earth, was the absolute point of reference.  For Einstein who needed to erase the ether, in order to invalidate the failed experiments of Fizeau and Michelson-Morley, not even space would be tolerated as an absolute frame of reference.  In Einsteinian relativity there is no absolute frame of reference, no absolute motion, no absolute rest, no absolute medium, no absolute material, no absolute shape, no absolute time, no absolute space, and certainly, no absolute center of anything. 

 

Space is for Einstein a vacuum, curved by gravity, a curvature that is unexplained and unproven. Yet the emptiness of space can be filled by Einstein when he wants his General Theory of Relativity maths to balance, and then suddenly an ‘imponderable ether’ (meaning something with no attributes) arrives and fills space with some ‘material’.  Anything to get the magical and miraculous maths to balance.

 

Philosophy not science

As astrophysicist and critic of STR Fred Hoyle wrote,

Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers – in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter….So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus’ book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant… (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 1)

 

Importantly for the Sun-Worshippers the relativising of reality means that the Earth cannot be the center of creation or the universe, because pace the underlying philosophy and Relativity’s complex ‘tensor calculus’ maths, no center exists.  This is the major purpose of STR.

 

’The Science’ can now use this philosophical premise to concoct many pages of maths to merge time and space into a new dimension which contradicts quantum mechanics (if that suits its purpose), creating an entirely fictitious reality, or write more maths which ‘prove’ that the universe is ‘curved’, or maybe not, depending on the philosophical disposition or what is needed to be ‘proven’.  The main point however, is that there is no need for physical, observational proof.  As Einstein remarked, the models and theory will tell us what reality should be.  In this make-believe world, maths and models, not experimental evidence are the arbiters of ‘truth’. 

 

The entire philosophy and theology of Relativity gives ‘The Science’ free reign to employ complicated, arcane models no one understands, to create all varieties of imaginable theoretical constructs on how the universe, or the thousands of purported multiverses, operate.  The underlying theme is that these maths ‘prove’ the Copernican principle that the Earth is not the center of anything and is just an unimportant sphere in a remote galaxy of no great importance.

 

This philosophy, dressed up in maths and maths only, is of course faithfully echoed with breathless admiration by the controlled media who demand veneration of these demi-gods of abstraction if not outright worship.  ‘The Science’, starting in the 17th century, took a wrong turn and decided that models usurped common sense, objective proof and the world of the 5 senses.

 

Back to Michelson-Morley

(Sept 1887, Report on the Michelson-Morley failure, now turned upside down by ‘The Science’ as a signal victory for STR and heliocentricity….)

 

Charles Lane Poor: “The Michelson-Morley experiment forms the basis of the relativity theory: Einstein calls it decisive…if it should develop that there is a measurable ether-drift, then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house of cards.” (Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 261.)

 

 

A few posts have discussed the importance of the 1887 experiment by Michelson-Morley to prove the Earth’s mobility, using an advanced ‘interferometer’ machine, which is a highly sensitive and complex instrument, and very difficult to assemble (in fact Graham Bell provided the funds to build the technology used in 1887).  The failure of the 1887 attempt to prove heliocentricity and mobility, which followed the failures of Fizeau, Airy and many others had a great impact on ‘The Science’ and Einstein.  Pre-1905 more than a dozen experiments proved that the Earth was immobile, and that no one could detect the 30 km / second movement of the Earth in the ‘ether’. 

 

Expected result from Michelson’s interferometer if the Earth was moving:

Actual Result:

 

 

Even worse for ‘The Science’, the results of 1887 and other attempts were not null or zero.  They recorded on average, a mobility of around 3-8 km / second.  This movement can only be explained in 3 ways: 

 

1) The Earth is moving in the ether at ~5 km / second, not 30 km / sec; or, 

2) The Earth is immobile and the universe’s ether is acting on the Earth with a centrifugal force of ~5 km / second; or,

3) The Earth is immobile and its diurnal (daily) rotation is ~5 km / second (unlikely and can be dismissed). 

 

A fourth claim might be that the experiment or machinery was flawed, however the interferometer experimentation was done so many times, by so many different people with literally hundreds of thousands of collective readings that suggesting that all the experiments and all the equipment were flawed is insensible (R. Sungenis, Galileo was wrong, 2017, chapter 5). 

 

One can imagine why ‘The Science’ was so terrified by these results, all measured by devout, earnest, religiously devoted Copernicans.  They were not shirtless, toothless, illiterate, superstitious Catholics or Protesters, foaming at the mouth about geo-centricity.  They were Copernicans. 

 

What is interesting is that the 1887 experiment simply confirmed Michelson’s own 1881 experiment.  In both cases, however, the results were not accepted at face value.  Instead of admitting the 5-8 km / second mobility reading, in both experiments the result was put down as ‘null’, or no movement.  But this is a lie.  Why would ‘The Science’ lie?  They would lie to give themselves ‘time and space’ to come up with a reason why the 30 km / second could and would not be detected, but a ~5 km / second was detected.  Null meant that the scope for rationalising the failure could be made much broader. 

 

This mendacity was well known in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1902, Physicist W. M. Hicks analysed the numerical data published in Michelson-Morley’s paper and proved that there was distinct evidence of an expected effect (i.e., ether drift).  This data was also reflected in countless other results showing the same range of movement (W. M. Hicks, “On the Michelson-Morley Experiment Relating to the Drift of the Ether,” Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, vol. 3, 1902, p. 34).  This evidence was of course ignored by ‘The Science’. 

 

Smirk and carry on

Physicist G. J. Whitrow, a Copernican who like so many of his ilk admits that the results prove immobility, happily reports that such results can be ignored because after all, we the moderns, are much smarter than the medieval and early-moderns, and we just ‘know’ that the Earth is thundering around at 108.000 km per hour. He finds it all so amusing and obvious.

 

It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge. (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79)

More here

Is Heliocentricity a ‘proven fact’? Or is it just more Scientism dogma?

You live in a dream world Neo. Real Science must provide concrete, physical proof, not just math and models.

Bookmark and Share


“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” Albert Einstein (“Relativity – The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169)


“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Henrick Lorentz (1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in A. Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.)


“The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…” Arthur Eddington (Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8)

[Author’s note:  I don’t have a bias in this domain or associated arguments.  I am Socratic in that I believe you follow evidence and then decide what makes sense.  This Socratic principle is absent in science, hence ‘Scientism’.] 


Introduction

Scientism has a few definitions.  In essence we can say that Scientism is the blind religious belief in the abstraction called ‘science’ and its dogmatic claims.  We saw this with the Coronavirus plan-demic and hear it every day with the inane cult of ‘Climate change’.  Scientism demands that you suspend critical thinking skills and the world of the 5 senses and submit to the Church of ‘The Science’ and its gospel.  The reality is that much of what we have been taught as ‘Science’ is simply wrong.  An example is ‘the proof’ that heliocentricity is a fact.  This is simply a lie.  When you start to analyse the myth of heliocentricity, many more myths begin to implode. 


Copernican Principle Defined

Heliocentricity as a theory is encased in what is now viewed as a ‘law’ or principle.  This principle is used by everyone in ‘science’ as a starting point.  Few if any question whether the principle comports with reality. 


In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe, that observations from the Earth are representative of observations from the average position in the universe. Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus' argument of a moving Earth.


Is there an uglier, more debased and anti-anthropic ‘principle’ than this one? 


Is there any proof to grant it ‘principle status’?


A bold Thesis

Very few people on this planet understand that in reality, no one in all of history has ever proven that the Earth moves in space.  From Aristarchus to Galileo no proof exists, just theories.  Can you imagine this?  We simply accept what we are told to believe.  Isn’t this the definition of Scientism?  Blind belief.  For example, everyone ‘knows’ the famous but apocryphal example of the ‘persecuted’ Galileo during the 17th century, telling heliocentricity truth to unreasonable, fanatical, insipid, ignorant, superstitious, obnoxious, uneducated, dirty, toothless, priests and monks.  Hyperbolic and entirely wrong. 


Anyone who has studied this saga knows that the irascible, ego-centric Catholic was never persecuted, was in fact funded by the Church, feted, given 2 days of public honor and festival in Rome, yet when it came to heliocentricity possessed no proof for his assertions.  The better arguments are found with the monks and Jesuit astronomers.  What Galileo purported as proof, would today be dismissed with a chuckle and grin.  But he was quick at self-promotion, peacock strutting, slander and ridicule, a sure method not to win friends and allies.  Myths die hard.  We will look at the apocryphal Galileo case later always used by ‘The Science’ as a cudgel against the ‘religious’ as if the worship of ‘Science’ is not a religion.  


It will surprise many to learn that the Copernican model, including the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, has more to do with philosophical worldviews than with hard science.  When you deep dive into the data and sources, you are shocked to uncover the Potemkin, Wizard-of-Oz reality of the ‘Copernican Principle’, pronounced as yet another ‘Scientific Law’ that you must obey, whether or not it is true, and whether or not you actually understand what it means. 


Worldviews

Modern ‘science’ is suffused with philosophical worldviews.  Modern scientists openly admit that heliocentrism is merely the preferred model of cosmology, a choice made purely on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones.  As Stephen Hawking queried,


So, which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”   (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 41-42)


Hawking and modern ‘science’ philosophically use heliocentricity as their departure point, premised in part on an incorrect belief that the Copernican system is ‘simpler’ than the Ptolemaic.  This often-cited assertion is simply untrue.  To wit, the Copernican-Kepler model contains between 48-90 epicycles, or small, out-of-elliptical movements, digressions and retrograde motions, depending on how you want to count them.  Ptolemy’s has 40.  Ptolemy’s system is thus simpler and more elegant and as any astronomer and physicist past or present has admitted, admirably explains celestial phenomena and movements.  It is not an archaic model from half-naked idiots and illiterates. 


19th century disproof’s

(Tycho Brahe’s Tychonic system which incorporates the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems and explains equally well the observed ‘phenomena’)


In previous posts we discussed many 18th and 19th century experiments which disproved the moving Earth hypothesis.  All of these men were avid ‘helio-centrists’ and were ‘shocked’ by the null or negative result.  You won’t get this information from ChatGPT but you can read it in their writings.  ‘It cannot be true!’ they moan.  ‘We know it moves’ they proclaim. 


Most people have never heard about these experiments, so we will list and summarise the most relevant here:


In 1810, François Arago sought to measure how light particles were refracted by a glass prism in front of a telescope.  He predicted that there would be different angles of refraction due to the different velocities of the stars and the motion of the Earth at different times of the day and year.  Contrary to his expectation, he found no difference in refraction between stars, time zones, or seasons.  All that Arago observed was normal stellar aberration – as evidenced previously by Bradley (Persson 2011).  Bradley’s stellar parallax of 1725 can be explained by both helio-or-geo centricity.  It does not prove the mobility of the planet.  Arago’s failure was a huge shock to heliocentricity.


Arago also observed one star through a telescope for the whole course of a year.  In the heliocentric system the Earth will move toward the star and then move away.  Arago reasoned that the focal length of his telescope would need to change when viewing the star since the limited speed of light must be compensated to accommodate both a receding Earth and an advancing Earth at six month intervals.  To his utter astonishment, Arago did not need to adjust the focus to see the star clearly.  This clearly told him an avowed heliocentricist that the Earth was immobile (François Arago, “Mémoire sur la vitesse de la lumière”, 1810. Académie des sciences (Paris)).


In 1851 Armand Fizeau (1821-1896), attempted to prove Fresnel’s “drag” theory to procure a physical, not a theoretical or mathematical, answer for Arago’s results.  Fresnel had attempted to explain Arago’s failure by describing an ether entrained around the Earth, which moves with the Earth and prevents a mechanical calculation of its movement.  Fizeau’s thesis was that if we on Earth are moving through ether, then the speed of the light in a water tube will be increased with the speed of the Earth’s motion (30 km/sec).  But the outcome was quite different than what Fizeau expected.  The speed of light was not a sum of the velocity of the light added to the velocity of the Earth.  Rather, the only effect Fizeau found on the speed of light was that which was induced by the water’s refractive index.  Again the Earth’s mobility was not detected.  This experiment had a great impact on Einstein. 


In 1868 the Dutchman Martinus Hoek, an astronomer at Utrecht, performed another type of experiment, by creating a variation of Fizeau’s experiment in order to test the nature of light. Hoek used an interferometer arrangement of a monochromatic light ray from a source of light, divided by a (weakly silver-coated) glass plate.  Even if the whole apparatus were at rest in the ether, such an arrangement would give rise to interference fringes in the telescope.  To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, at least not in accord with an Earth moving at 30 km/sec.  He simply confirmed what Michelson and Morey would also witness in 1887 – the Earth was immobile. 


In 1871 Sir George Biddell Airy set out to record the change in the direction of light passing through a refracting medium that is moving.  This followed on from Fresnel (1818) and Fizeau (1851).  His experiments are replicable.  Airy demonstrated that stellar aberrations occur even when a telescope is filled with water and measurements are taken from the moving Earth (moving medium).  This is not what the theory predicts.  As with Fizeau, the Airy experiments suggest that light does propagate through dielectic or poorly conducting matter but at a reduced phase velocity.  The stellar aberration hypothesis seemed to be disproven, leading to the conclusion that the Earth is immobile. 


In 1872 Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal.  Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle.  Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected.  Mascart found no such results.   The Earth refused to reveal mobility. 


In 1881 the famous German physicist A. Michelson, using a highly sensitive interferometer tried to refute the Airy experiment but much to his amazement, failed.  He would try the same experiment again in 1887 with the American Morley – and produce the same failed result. With lament he wrote, “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (in, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125). 


Michelson found no evidence of the Earth’s mobility. 


Oliver Lodge tried to rectify Michelson’s failures and conducted experiments in the 1890s seeking evidence that light propagation was affected by being near large rotating masses but found no such effect.  Lodge still believed the ether existed but that it was difficult to find.  His 1925 book ‘Ether and Reality’ provides an overview of his experimental evidence for an ether, where he maintains that the ether accounts for the movement of light, gravity and even heat across a vacuum.  He did however refute the stellar aberration concept (Hunt 1986).  If the ether does exist Einstein’s STR is invalid. 


The above disprove the Sun-Worshippers precious theory. But you will never hear about them. In fact ‘The Science’ flips them around as proof of STR and heliocentricity. Lies are now truths.


More here

Historian Ferdinand Braudel and the long ages of ‘Climate Change’.

As Braudel states, a naturally changing climate has always impacted everything. These cyclical patterns have nothing to do with human activity, but certainly impact and inform human civilisation.

Bookmark and Share

  

Purpose

The purpose of this post is to put ‘climate’ in a historical perspective by citing one of Western Civ’s greatest historians – Ferdinand Braudel.  In the frenzied false science of ‘Climate Change’ funded by endless billions in propaganda, fake studies, temperature rewriting, and Winston Smith ‘newspeak’ where the past is cut out and replaced by a corrupt present-day rendering of mendacious falsity, reading real unvarnished history and truth is not only a delight, but an anodyne.  Braudel in his assessment of our civilisation discusses the natural and normal cycles of history, anathema to the religious within the Church of Climate.


As previous posts have articulated, there is no ‘Climate Crisis’ and the imposition of grotesque and deforming technologies such as SolarEV’s and the infamous Bird Choppers do the opposite of what the billionaire global class claims.  They are not cheaper, more productive, nor are they Gaia friendly.  Based on this reality we know that Net Zero and all associated climate policies are a fraud premised on the false claims that plant food at 400 parts per million controls climate and that ‘climate’ has never changed or been disrupted in the past. 


The risible idiocy of these claims is painful to those with balanced perspectives and a knowledgeable intelligence.  No matter how inane they are, these fantasies, fuelled by endless streams of money, and now accepted as religious orthodoxy, must be fought, overturned, and burned.  The only true crisis we have is the deconstruction of Western Civilisation along every vector, and the creation of a Federated New World Order tyranny.  Climate fascism is a part of that process.


A real historian

Ferdinand Braudel (1902-1985) is one of the most remarkable historians in Western history but is rarely if ever taught in university.  His name is largely unknown.  There is a reason for this.  Today he would be labelled a ‘conservative’, a ‘denier’ of some rewritten historical truth as defined by modern academia, an ‘extremist’ in that he defended the attributes and medieval heritage and foundations of Western Civilisation. 


Braudel eschewed the deranged anti-Western Marxist rewriting of history with its slavish fascination with communalism, totalitarianism; and a-scientific cults posing as religions-of-truth.  He had the unfortunate character trait of being honest and assessing facts in a direct and straightforward manner.  He possessed the derided capacity to identify the innumerable minutia which led to the creation of modern civilization, a complexity lost on the modern world with its 5-minute attention span and Braudel had the rather the unique capability of weaving such details into a story.  Not only was he a clear headed realist historian, he wrote history as a novel – compelling, structured, with organised and lucid themes. 


In today’s Orwellian dystopian view and virtual reality, Braudel is simply a thought-criminal and purposefully ignored by the gatekeepers in education and the media.  Given that Braudel is the greatest historian of the 20th century we can classify this censorship as criminal.   For those who desire a real record of history this is precisely why he should be studied (a list of Braudel’s books are provided at the end of the post)

Braudel and Climate


Though ostracized by the liberal-socialist educational system, the Frenchman Braudel, with his ‘longue-durée’ [long view] concept of historical processes is a remarkably thorough, accessible, and relevant narrator.  In one of his masterpieces, ‘The Structures of Everyday Life’, Braudel recounts how climactic cycles and a naturally changing climate has impacted the development of modern capitalism and our civilisation.  He would never dare to introduce the satanic fraud of Co2 as a toxin, or the fictitious ‘greenhouse effect’ (the Earth is an open, not a closed system). 


The Structures of Everyday Life is the first volume of three in Braudel’s opus on modern capitalism.  He paints a portrait of society at the common, everyday level.  How did people live?  What tools did they use?  Where did the tools come from?  How and where were they invented?  What metals, agriculture, industry and manufactures were in evidence during the period? How did they develop from past periods?  What were the houses, water, and food quality like?  How open was trade and the exchange of ideas?  What requirements and factors driving innovation led to ‘revolutionary’ irruptions in agriculture, business, and war?


There is no ante- or neo- Marxian analysis in Braudel’s work.  He does not apologize for capitalism, trade, prosperity, the conflicts of culture, or the preoccupations of war and enterprise.  He simply discusses how events transpired, what processes and inputs were evident in the creation of the modern world economy, and why certain results were achieved.  He puzzles for example on the Mongol capture of Russia and parts of Eastern Europe which forever changed the course of Russian history; how and why the English in the 17th century created coke smelting and not the Chinese who knew of coal and furnace blasts 18 centuries earlier; or the impact on European development between 1400 and 1700 from a greatly cooling global climate.  


The original human sin of issuing emissions from carbon products does not make an entrance into Braudel’s analysis, because such faux-religious ideals have no place in real history. 


1400-1700 and the Climate


On page 48 Braudel asks a key question in trying to understand why, between 1400 and 1700, human developments across the globe seemed to move together in many ways.  From China to North America changes in society, culture, warring, economics, exploration, and trade can be seen as moving essentially in the same direction.


‘The real question is: why did these phenomena occur at the same time throughout the world when the space [he means land] had always been available? The simultaneity is the problem. The international economy, effective but so fragile, cannot assume sole responsibility for such a general and powerful movement. It too is as much consequence as cause.’


Indeed.  What forced political-economic development in the early modern capitalist period between 1400 and 1700 was as Braudel states, due in part to natural cycles of climate change.


‘One can only imagine one single general answer to this almost complete coincidence: changes in climate.’


The change in the world’s climate over this three-hundred-year period affected everything from rainfall to agricultural output, to the levels of rivers and seas, to the migrations of people, to the opening and closing of trade routes.  As the earth noticeably cooled during this period the term ‘the little ice age’ was coined.  It was a global phenomenon and probably lasted longer than 300 years stretching in many locations into the 19th century.  Co2 emissions were apparently not a factor in this climate transformation.


In an epoch where 90% of the population was agricultural peasantry, a shift in climate provoked wide ranging societal change.  Harvests and social rhythms depended on a stable climate.  In the 14th century there began a general cooling of the world’s temperature. Glaciers and ice sheets advanced.  The Vikings were cut off from Greenland by large ice floes.  Corn, needing longer to grow than wheat, could not be harvested leading to yearly famines across much of Europe.  Peasant uprisings in the 16th and 17th centuries became common as harvests failed.  Droughts brought on plagues, locusts and more famines in China and Asia.  Mankind was under siege from nature.


Climate’s impact on foodstuffs had enormous consequences on the rest of society.  The prices of various products, and society’s general wealth were quite dependent on the cycles of nature in the early modern period.  Until the late 18th century, man was still a slave to the calendar and to nature’s whims.


Writing in the 1980s Braudel cautioned that climate cycles are incredibly complicated and cannot be oversimplified.

‘But we would also do well not to forget the damage inflicted by the drought of 1976 in France and Western Europe, or the abnormal change in wind patterns which caused catastrophic drought east of the Rocky Mountains…in 1964.’


Certainly.  We can add snow in London in July of 1976, or in Moscow in July of 2003, or in North Africa in 2006, or the worst winter on record in 2003 in Eastern Europe, or the highest snowfall on record during 2007 in parts of Canada and the US, early and severe winters in 2023 and 2024 in various parts of Europe and Asia, the impact of El Nino (a process we don’t understand) and undersea volcanic activity to induce some above average warmth in parts of the globe during the summer of 2023, along with an inexhaustible list of climatic and weather events in the past 150 years which are delinked from mankind’s activities.  Were the record hot temperatures of the 1880s and 1930s induced by mankind’s industrial output to be followed by the cooling scare of 1945-1975, or were they simply natural cycles?  Braudel rightly emphasises nature’s sudden and dramatic shift in climate and temperature.


Impacts of Natural Cycles


In the early modern period, there was a rush of activity in addition to the usual list of famines, uprisings and plagues.  Between 1400 and 1700 agricultural reforms, the improved use of husbandry and new techniques in labour division, production, and capital formation presaged the English industrial revolution of the mid-18th century.  Trade increased, ideas were exchanged and innovations in shipping and transport started the formation of the modern form of globalization in trade and commerce we recognize today.  The Dutch, through the creation of limited companies, began the process of modern capital formation so important to the modern political economy.  As Braudel states there is a deliberate pattern of change before a so-called revolution is allowed to appear.


But climate was vital.  All sorts of empires and epochs have been affected by climate change in times past as remarked upon by Braudel.  The Bronze Age empires of 1200 BC including the Mycenaean, Minoan and Hittite literally disappeared over night most likely due to a global catastrophe, perhaps induced by a cosmic incident.  Drought, famine, destroyed water supply and emptied the large Hittite centers of their populations.  The Roman empire experienced climate upheaval many times, which impacted agriculture, taxation, and ultimately the ability to sustain large enough armies to protect its ever-expanding borders.


 Climate is not stable, linear, nor is it predictable (the heretics Velikovsky and Cuvier provided extensive proofs of natural climate catastrophe).  Climate change is natural and it can be vicious and unkind. 


Patterns, Patterns, Patterns

(Link - the above graph shows the Alley et al reconstruction of the GISP2 Greenland ice core temperature record. There is no ‘warming’ of anything in Greenland when viewed in Braudel’s long duration of history)


This is a most important lesson from reading Braudel’s work.  Climatic patterns, which seem to us so personal and close today, have been of course the centre of human experience forever and they impact civilisation’s development in every sphere of activity.  We don’t understand natural climate patterns, nor can we explain why between 1400 and 1700 (or 1800 in many regions), we had a little ice age, and why between 1945 and 1975 we experienced cooling temperatures.  We can’t explain what caused the devastation of the Hittites, nor why ancient Rome went through climactic upheavals which shook the foundations of the state and changed the very nature of the Roman system including which colonies were won or lost.


But historical perspective and endless repeating climate cycles seem irrelevant in a world of sound bites.  The maudlin predations of today’s eco-prophets are predictably premised on power, regulatory control and money.  The ravings and fraud of the eco-cult have however, little basis in anything other than stupidity.  Climate change has always existed and Co2 emissions have nothing to do with natural cycles and climatic derangement.  Given that Gaia emits 95% of the trace chemical plant food, logic dictates that Co2 levels must follow natural climatic patterns and shifts.  Claiming otherwise violates real science including Planck’s laws, how light wave infrared radiation operates, and the cycles of climate and element production and recycling. 


Bottom Line

The eternal narcissism and corruption of humans, along with the insatiable lust for power and control, makes debating a topic such as climate change problematic.  It is never about facts or reality.  It is always an emotive ejaculation with the cult of ‘science’ who have demanded since 1988 to ‘act now!’ to save Mother Earth or propitiate this and that demand of the earth goddess.  It is hardly an intelligent way to carry on.  Maybe taking a long view of history, processes and issues might help society restore some sanity.  


The cleanest societies in the world, are the richest, the most technologically advanced and the most democratic.  If you don’t believe that, then take a tour of the former Soviet Union, Latin America, China, or Africa.  Why anyone would want to impair modern development to satiate a Globalist-Marxist cult is truly unfathomable but entirely expected in a world where a woman cannot be defined, the shrew became you, and Corona fascism is applauded as health and safety.


=====

Related material

Wesseling, H. (1981). ‘Fernand Braudel, Historian Of The ‘Longue Durée’.  Itinerario, 5(2), 15-29. https://cambridge.org/core/journals/itinerario/article/fernand-braudel-historian-of-the-longue-duree/110770082a744b2713db4e3bd74e2bcb


Easterbrook, Don J. Professor of Geology, Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA, The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years  Link


The works of Braudel. 

The first three listed below are really ‘must reads’, though they are long and dense.  A definitive and accessible one-volume summary of Braudel’s extensive writing awaits an ambitious student of history. 

Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, 3 vols. (1979, translated by Siân Reynolds)

vol. 1: The Structures of Everyday Life

vol. 2: The Wheels of Commerce

vol. 3: The Perspective of the World

The Mediterranean in the Ancient World (UK) / Memory and the Mediterranean (US; both 2001, translated by Siân Reynolds)

A History of Civilizations (1995, translated by Richard Mayne)

Out of Italy, 1450–1650 (1991, translated by Siân Reynolds)

The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. 2 vols. (1972 and 1973, translated by Siân Reynolds)

On History (1980, translated by Sarah Matthews)

The Identity of France, 2 vols. (1988–1990, translated by Siân Reynolds)

vol. 1: History and Environment

vol. 2: People and Production

$cientism and the Solar farming fraud. Destructive in every way imaginable.

No science supports the wholesale adoption of solar and the replacement of clean burning, renewable hydrocarbon energy. None.

Bookmark and Share


Abstract

This post is aligned to the proofs presented about wind turbines (bird choppers) and electric vehicles (lithium batteries), namely their non-green, costly and destructive realities. The unHoly Trinity of eco-energy fanaticism includes solar farms of course. As with the wind turbines and EVs, very little of the industry’s propaganda matches reality. You cannot power a modern economy on this trinity of destructive and financially ruinous set of technologies, not now, not ever.

 

The Scientism markets a grotesque falsity as a truism, namely that industrialised nations should de-industrialise and focus the energy needs of a modern economy on unreliable solar and wind power, which of course, provide very poor value in output for the roughly US$500 million to $1 Trillion, per annum investments which feed the ‘climate change’ industry. 

 

The claim that digging up tonnes of Earth to find materials for solar panels (eg copper, cadmium), and the related manufacturing, shipping and distribution of said panels, is ‘green’, better for Gaia, or at a lower cost and price than coal, natural gas or nuclear (more below) is a howling mendacity. These lies offered as ‘science’ are disrobed when you analyse in the naked light, how solar panels are made, their materials, the land usage, the outrageous real costs in their output, and their eco-destructive nature.

 

It must be emphasised that anthropogenic, human plant food created ‘climate change’ is a fraud and simply a political program to reduce civilisation and our standard of living and usher in a Federated-Global government.

 

1. The materials and weight

Solar panels contain a wide variety of materials. They are hefty, cumbersome, operationally intensive with a life span of less than 10 years. Replacement costs and maintenance are usually left out of the ‘green’ calculations. They are complex to source and make as given below.

 

Main components

·       Silicon: Sand is the primary material used to manufacture photovoltaic cells. Sand is supposedly the second most abundant element on the planet after water, and is widely as silicon wafers

·       Silver: Used in the electrical contacts on solar cells (not limited but difficult to mine and extract, and reliant on hydrocarbon processes and technologies)

·       Aluminium: Used for the frames of solar panels (this is a manufacturing process using hydrocarbon energy)

·       Copper: Used in the wiring and conductive elements of solar cells (difficult to mine and extract, you need hydrocarbon-based energy systems and vehicles to do large scale mining)

·       Cadmium: Materials used in some types of thin-film solar cells, such as cadmium telluride (CdTe) cells (extracted from lead and zinc ores)

 

All of the above core materials rely on hydrocarbon energy to mine, extract, process, manufacture and distribute. There is plenty of plastic and polymers in a solar panel as well with the attendant costs of pollution and eco-damage. Yet you won’t find these ‘carbon costs’ in the ‘green calculations’ for solar panels. An example is the cost of cadmium management.

 

Critical cadmium

Cadmium is a heavy metal and a toxin. Producing cadmium from zinc ores is hydro-carbon intensive and has deleterious effects on the environment, food and water supplies. Costly processes around management, sequestring, recycling and destruction must be implemented and these are never accounted for in solar ‘accounting’.

 

Global cadmium reserves total some 500.000 tonnes with 25.000 tonnes being consumed annually, meaning that we have a 20 year known supply. Cadmium supply is thus a signficant restraint on future solar farm deployments. To develop further supplies will necessitate complex mining, zinc ore transformation, refining, processing and distribution. These costs will also never find their way into solar ‘accounting’ calculations.

 

The size and weight

Solars farms can be massive (200.000 or more panels). They must be sourced, created, brought to the site and emplaced. They also contain a tonne of material. None of this is easy to create or deploy and will have an effect on the environment.

 

The per MW acreage consumption by a solar farm, is about 10 acres or 40.000 square metres. For every square metre a solar farm will have at least 500 pounds of materials. For an average size solar farm, with 30 MW output, this means that over 1500 pounds or a tonne of material has been deployed on top of largely flat, arable land. This is an incredible concentration of minerals and materials in a condensed area which must be operated and replenished over a life cycle of usage.

 

  • Solar Panels: On average, traditional silicon-based solar panels weigh around 15-20 kilograms (33-44 pounds) per square meter.

 

  • Mounting Structures: The mounting structures, including frames and support systems, add additional weight. This can range from 5 to 15 kilograms (11 to 33 pounds) per square meter, depending on the design and materials used.

 

  • Inverters: Inverters are used to convert the direct current (DC) generated by the solar panels into alternating current (AC) for use in the electrical grid. The weight of inverters varies based on their capacity and type, but usually constitute several hundred kilograms (500 pounds).

 

  • Cabling and Wiring: Copper wiring, commonly used in solar installations, has a weight of about 8.9 kilograms (approximately 20 pounds) per meter for a 10 AWG wire.

 

  • Transformers and Other Electrical Components: Transformer size varies but the weight would not be less than that of inverters.

 

  • Racking and Foundations: The weight of racking systems and foundations for ground-mounted solar farms do vary based on the design and the soil conditions at the site, and run to about 50 pounds per square meter.

 

How is the above emplacement of a tonne of material ‘better’ for Gaia than farmland, meadows or forests? Natural flora is a ‘carbon sink’ recycling the trace chemical plant food and enhancing the eco-system whilst producing oxygen. Not only is the ‘landing zone’ for solar farms pillaged and disfigured, Gaia must be ripped open and gigatonnes of Earth displaced to provide the materials necessary for the solar farm estate. This is apparently ‘green friendly’ and ‘greener’ than just leaving the land fallow or natural.

 

2. Solar Farm costs

(Australia, world’s largest solar array, must be eco-friendly eh?)

 

Setting up a Solar Farm costs roughly U$115.000 per 5 MW of produced energy.  That is just the setup.  The total costs are in the region of $1 million per 1 MW of produced energy including operations, replacement costs and upgrades.  1 MW of energy supports 500-1000 households. 

 

To produce 1 MW of energy these solar farms will consist of roughly 72 solar cells linked over 6-10 acres, comprising some 1000 or more panels.  The total costs do not include soil degradation, ecological devastation, or the loss of farmland or other productive uses, which is called an ‘opportunity cost’ in accounting.  You will never see ‘opportunity costs’ included in the total cost of solar farm deployments.  Just as rare are the calculated costs for on-going maintenance, both material and human.

 

By contrast a single coal plant costs less than US$ 1 billion to setup with maintenance costs of about $100 million per annum and produces 4.000 MW of energy. Coal stations provide 40% of the world’s electricity and are far more efficient than solar.  We can do a simple comparison of coal versus solar energy. 

 

  • Total costs over 10 years for a coal plant:  U$ 2 billion.
  • Energy produced over 10 years from a coal plant:  40.000 MW
  • Cost per MW produced over 10 years:  U$50.000
  • Total costs of a solar farm, over 6-10 acres, for 10 years:  U$ 10 million
  • Energy produced over 10 years: 10 MW
  • Cost per MW produced: U$ 1 million

 

So in reality, coal plants are 20 times more efficient per MW than a solar farm.

 

There is no possiblity that solar, wind and EVs are ‘better’, cheaper, more eco-friendly, or less costly than clean burning, renewable and abiotic hydrocarbon energy.

 

Example, the disUnited States of Biden

David Craig wrote a very good book There is No Climate Crisis.  In the Daily Sceptic he takes the latest solar propaganda to the woodshed: “New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States.

 

Craig notes the massive government subsidies which are omitted from the costs of the beloved solar panelsSolar energy subsidies equal the total spend of Americans on their energy bills. No one hears much about this.

 

“Here’s a U.S. Treasury ‘Factsheet‘ about the Inflation Reduction Act. In it we read that: The U.S. Department of the Treasury will be at the forefront of implementation, delivering $270 billion in tax incentives as part of the $369 billion the Inflation Reduction Act dedicates to combating climate change.”  U.S. consumers spend about $1 trillion on energy each year including transport. I did a quick ‘back-of-a-fag-packet’ calculation. If the USA’s 123 million or so households spend around $4,000 a year each on energy (excluding transport) then that’s about $400 billion. Yet the inflation Reduction Act is spending a massive $369 billion subsidising supposed ‘renewables’, which are just a minor part of the USA’s energy use. In fact, wind and solar make up only about 3% of USA energy use:

 

Yet these almost negligible energy sources are getting $369 billion in subsidies –that’s almost as much as the $400 billion U.S. households pay for in total for energy each year.”

 

There is no logical financial case in promoting solar panel farms. They are economic losers with unreliable, variable output using technology that is not recycled.

 

3. Land usage

 

Solar panels are land and material intensive. The size of the solar farm depends on its output capacity. A ‘Utility-Scale Solar Farm’ or one that is ‘Ground-Mounted’ can range in size from several megawatts (MW) to hundreds of MW. On average, a utility-scale solar farm might have around 1,000 to 2,000 solar panels per megawatt. A single MW of output needs about 10 acres. Therefore, a 100 MW solar farm might have roughly 100,000 to 200,000 solar panels and consume 1000 acres or 1.5 square miles.

 

In most northern climes you might be lucky to get 50% capacity with a solar farm based on the number of sun filled hours and days. Storage batteries are nowhere good enough to capture ‘excess’ sunlight for later usage. Solar farming is thereby an inefficient and unreliable exercise.

 

The disUnited Kingdom and land hunger

Many states like the UK are land poor and densely populated. There are 75 millions in the UK mostly residing on about 1/3 of the land space of 90.000 square miles, with about 25 million or 1/3 in the ‘south’ of the country. Given that 1/3 of the country is off limits to development and reserved as parkland or greenland, and given that about 20% is simply uninhabitable as well as being inhospitable to solar farm deployments, there is a land scarcity at work which is always ignored.

 

The UK produces about 200 GW of electricity generation, each year.  Solar panels contribute a tepid and meagre 16-18 GW in total, or 8% of what the UK consumes. You will never satisfy UK electricity demand from solar farms or wind turbines.  This tawdry solar output is after almost £ 60 billion in funding by government, during the past 13 years. These costs are never included in the solar ‘accounting’.

 

Then there is the massive increase in electricity and utility bills for consumers. In the past 20 years electricity prices in most modern states has doubled - a cost borne by the taxpayer. We the taxpayers are thereby burdened by a very poor return on investment technology, expressed in massive increases in our energy and utility costs. Higher electricity costs are never calculated in solar ‘accounting’ with industry paid studies saying the solar farms pay back within 10 years. These false studies don’t count the subsidies nor the higher costs borne by consumers due to the installation of solar farms and other non-green technology.

 

Carpeting the land

In the UK there exists 500-600 industrial-size solar farms in the country producing an installed capacity (not the real output capacity) of roughly 16 GW or 16.000 MW. This gives us roughly, a 30 MW size per solar farm or roughly 300 acres per solar farm. In total, the UK has committed some 160.000 acreas or 250 square miles to solar farming or almost half of one southern county, West Sussex.

 

Real solar output is dependent of course on hours of sunshine and in the UK this varies between 30-50% of total daytime hours available. Why does anyone belive it is a good idea to efface natural land areas with solar farms in a country, where sunny daylight hours is a rarity for much of the year?

 

Basic maths tell us that if solar output targets of total energy production were say trebled (which is the plan), the UK would need to allocate another 750 square miles for solar farms or completely cover the county of West Sussex with solar farms. To satisfy the entire hydroelectric needs of the UK (some 200 GW), you would need to put at least 4000 square miles under solar farming, or 2.6 million acres, equivalent to the entire south-east of the country stretching from Kent to the Devon border. Given the real capacity utilisation rates of 50%, the UK would need to allocate 5 million acres to solar farming, or most of the southern area of the country.

 

Many eco-fantatics would be more than happy to displace 10-25 million people and put verdant, arable and productive land under solar farming creating an ecological and social catastrophe. Given the population and infrastucture density of nations like the UK, the only land truly available for solar farming is farmland, woodland and national parks. In other words the solar fanatics will need to destroy Gaia to save her.

 

4. Eco-Devastation

 

Not only are governments subsiding solar panels far above their productive output capacity and role within a well-balanced energy grid, the costs of ecological destruction are never accounted for. 

 

 

Harvard Business Review and the dark side of solar panels

The industry’s current circular capacity is woefully unprepared for the deluge of waste that is likely to come. The financial incentive to invest in recycling has never been very strong in solar. While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material. The long life span of solar panels also serves to disincentivize innovation in this area.

 

IEEE, solar is not as green as you think

This report cites huge energy usage in panel manufacture, vast consumption of water, a lack of recycling and toxic waste issues as serious matters of concern which debase the ‘green’ image of the industry.

 

Solar panel farms change regional weather conditions

The model revealed that when the size of the solar farm reaches 20% of the total area of the Sahara, it triggers a feedback loop. Heat emitted by the darker solar panels (compared to the highly reflective desert soil) creates a steep temperature difference between the land and the surrounding oceans that ultimately lowers surface air pressure and causes moist air to rise and condense into raindrops. With more monsoon rainfall, plants grow and the desert reflects less of the sun’s energy, since vegetation absorbs light better than sand and soil. With more plants present, more water is evaporated, creating a more humid environment that causes vegetation to spread.

 

Many solar farms violate national and local laws

This report states that a more environmentally conscious process is needed from start to finish. Sand should be legally and ethically mined….. Developers also need to consider how to build sustainable  solar arrays that minimize the impacts on the local habitat. Better recycling plans should be in place for the solar panels once they reach the end of their lives. And like with any other major construction project, renewable energy companies should take heed of state and federal environmental regulations.

 

Solar panels affect local widlife, conservation areas, and interrupt and often destroy local eco-systems including those that thrive in meadows (BBC Report). They eat up prime farmland and reduce food output. Yet these real environmental costs are never assessed within solar ‘accounting’ Neither is the opportunity cost of building a solar farm, in lieu of other more productive use cases such as farming, conservation or meadow restoration.

 

Bottom Line

There is too much hypocrisy and fake ‘science’ with solar panels. The numbers simply don’t add up no matter how you slice them. Neither does the Gaia piety hold up to analysis. The solar ‘accounting’ dismisses the life cycle costs of solar power, its waste, its toxicity, its rape of Gaia, its ‘carbon footprint’ during its life cycle from sourcing to landfilling, and the massive increase in prices for consumers and state subsidies.

 

As with any other inane idea pushed by corrupt governments, we the peasantry are thus millstoned with a technology that has a ridiculously low level of output and productivity when compared to coal or natural gas and does nothing to help support a modern economy. The eco destruction wrought by solar farming is just as great as any process sourcing renewable hydrocarbons and the impact on land usage and patterns within a country and region is enormous and never assessed nor quantified.

 

Solar farms may play a very minor role in energy production, but that role should be defined, limited and scaled back to reduce the destructive consquences on society and ecology by putting too much unwarranted faith in an immature and largely invalidated technology.

 

As with all Scientisms the rush to solar energy is about money - vast oceans of it which can buy anyone and anything. Follow the money to find ‘the science’ including the money used in bribes, payoffs, and graft - another ‘cost’ never ‘accounted’ for by the solar zealots.

$cientism and Wind Turbines, aka the Bird Choppers, the Bat Manglers

Bird Slaughterers destroy Gaia, produce little MW output, are twice as expensive as hydrocarbon technology, and will never, ever, power a modern society. The cult of 'green' at its worst.

Bookmark and Share


Abstract

This post on Wind Turbines follows on from the previous post on the non-green reality and limited utility of electric vehicles.  There are not enough resources in the world, which comprise electric batteries to replace new future vehicle demand, let alone the current complicated and indispensable stock of combustion engine driven fleets.  The same non-green, unproductive and costly realities apply to Wind Turbines, better known as ‘Bird Choppers’ (more below). 

 

As written previously ‘green’ energy is not ‘green’ but within the context of the life cycle of these platforms, entirely destructive of Gaia and nature.  The destruction takes many forms but includes massive and devastating mining, the destruction of ecology and ecosystems, the slaughtering of fauna including birds and fowl, and the exhaustion of non-renewable minerals and materials.  EV’s, wind turbines and solar panels are completely dependent upon hydrocarbons for their creation, distribution and maintenance. 

If you are an eco-fanatic and truly concerned about the ‘environment’ you would oppose the Bird Manglers.

And rather ironically ‘Net zero’ standards mean nothing when you view the reality that without hydrocarbons, there won’t be any of the purported ‘green’ technologies available to use - none of these ‘saviour-technologies’ can be created or maintained without cheap hydrocarbon energy. 

 

Wind Turbines are simply another example of ‘Scientism’ – a religious cult espousing a political agenda using ‘science’ and ‘climate’ as excuses to reduce civilisation and modernity.  As everyone should know there is no climate ‘crisis’

 

Meet the Bird Choppers

 

We can take one country as an example.  In the UK there are more than 9.000 onshore wind turbines and 3.000 offshore Bird-Choppers.  A single Bird-Mangler will have an enormous ‘carbon footprint’ (a meaningless term) of 242 tonnes over its lifetime or the equivalent of 30 petrol cars.  This means that in the UK the Bird Choppers have a total ‘footprint’ equal to 360.000 cars to generate electricity that is sporadic, at least twice as costly and suffused with eco-damage throughout their life cycle. 

 

The plans in the UK are to double or treble the Bird-Mangling estate, equivalent to over a 1 million combustion engine powered vehicles or 3% of the current stock.  Wind power only accounts for 15-20 % of total energy needs in the UK.  You could blanket the entire country with these monstrosities, and you won’t even satisfy future demand, let alone current. 

 

 

The Monsters

Height: Onshore wind turbines typically have hub heights (the height from the base to the centre of the rotor) ranging from 50 meters (164 feet) to 150 meters (492 feet). The rotor diameter, which is the diameter of the circle described by the spinning blades, can range from 40 meters (131 feet) to 130 meters (426 feet).

Weight: The weight of the tower, nacelle (housing the generator and other components), and blades combined for an onshore wind turbine can range from around 100 to 500 metric tons, depending on the turbine's size.

Offshore Wind Turbines

Height: Offshore wind turbines are generally larger than onshore turbines. Hub heights for offshore turbines can range from 80 meters (262 feet) to 220 meters (722 feet) or more. The rotor diameter can exceed 150 meters (492 feet).

Weight: The weight of offshore wind turbines is typically higher due to the larger size and the need for additional structural support to withstand marine conditions. Offshore wind turbines can weigh several hundred to over a thousand metric tons, including the foundation structures.

Materials in the Bird Manglers

The amount of skin and dirt that must be removed from tender Gaia’s skin to make a Bird Chopper is truly epic – running in the gigatonnes.  The same is true for EVs.  Wind Turbines are entirely dependent on hydro-carbon energy in every stage of manufacture and placement.

Steel: The tower of a wind turbine is primarily made of steel. On average, a modern onshore wind turbine tower may require approximately 300-400 metric tonnes of steel.

Aluminium:  Used in various components, such as the nacelle and hub.  The weight of aluminium in an onshore wind turbine can be in the range of 10 to 20 metric tons.

Fibreglass and Composites:  The blades of a wind turbine are often made of fiberglass and composite materials.  The weight of the blades can vary, but each blade may weigh several tonnes.

Copper:  Several tonnes of copper are found in various components, such as the generator, electrical wiring, and other electrical systems.  

Concrete or Cement:  Emplacements use concrete or cement which can only be manufactured with hydrocarbons.  Cement is manufactured through a controlled chemical combination of calcium, silicon, aluminium, iron and other ingredients.  High temperatures, kilns and mixing apparatuses are needed.  

Rare Earth Minerals:  Neodymium and Dysprosium are elements used in the production of permanent magnets for the generators in wind turbines (very limited supplies).  The amount of rare earth elements used in a wind turbine depends on the specific design and type of generator but will comprise many kgs of material. 

To source 1 kg of neodymium means removing more than 1 tonne of tender Gaia’s skin and underlying bodily structure.  Drilling for rare earth minerals generates 2000 tonnes of toxic waste.  We don’t have enough rare metals to produce endless arrays of the Bird-Choppers (China is the world’s top supplier). 

To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” said Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology and professor of geology and geophysics at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

So, let’s summarise the build of an average-sized Bird-Eater with a capacity output of 3 MW.

·       300-350 tonnes of steel;

·       3-5 tonnes of copper;

·       1,200 tonnes of concrete (cement and aggregates),

·       2-3 tonnes of aluminium;

·   2 tonnes of rare earth elements; [Aluminium; Zinc; Molybdenum. Zinc, Nickel, Cobalt, Platinum, Aluminium, Rare Earth Elements] and Nickel. 

 

If I look at the UK, all of these materials are between 73 and 100% imported and transported using of course hydrocarbon energy, and some are mined with slave labour (eg Cobalt).  It is an anti-scientific joke to call the above ‘green’ or to make the claim that this process is ‘cleaner’ than mining, refining and using clean burning, replenishable, renewal hydrocarbons

 

Costs per MW

The cost of a wind turbine can vary widely based on its size, capacity, and the specific site conditions.  Onshore wind turbines typically cost between U$1 million to $2 million per megawatt (MW) of capacity.  At least U$50.000 is needed per annum to keep them operational.  Blades need replacing every 10-20 years. 

 

The average Bird Chopper has a capacity of 3-5 MW which is the upper limit of what can be achieved.  Offshore manglers can reach 10-15 MW in size.  This is capacity.  The actual usage is far below 3 MW or 15 MW.  So, the total cost per onshore structure is roughly about U$ 5-10 million for construction and operational maintenance. 

This means that in the UK, the government has spent some U$ 6-12 billion on the structures.  But this is not all.  Massive subsidies, tax breaks, hand-outs and write-offs exist in every country and are rarely if ever ‘accounted’ for in the cost of these things.  In the UK just in December 2023 alone, some £255 million was paid out by government in wind subsidies.  This is more than £3 billion per annum and rising.

 

On a per MW basis, the Bird-Choppers are 2 x more expensive than a clean burning coal plant (roughly 15 cents per KW), in which coal deposits in the UK and elsewhere are close to the surface and can be more easily mined than the visceral rape of Gaia to provide the various minerals for the Bird Manglers.  But this understates the actual cost.  Unreliability and using hydrocarbons and hydroelectric energy are real costs that increase wind farm costs by 50% (see below).  You never hear about the cost of unreliability from the ‘science’. 

 

Unreliability

 

The assumption from the fake eco-science is that the Bird Destroyers are available, ‘renewable’ or will have in the future battery storage capabilities to store energy when winds are strong and use the stored energy when there is no wind.  There is little factual evidence to support these religious claims. 

 

To calculate the annual energy production (AEP) of a wind turbine, you can use the following formula: 

 

AEP in MWh = (Capacity in MW) × (Capacity Factor) × (Number of Hours in a Year)

 

Assuming a capacity factor of 30%, an average onshore wind turbine with a capacity of 2 MW would have an annual energy production of approximately: AEP= 2 MW × 0.30 × 8760 hours/year≈ 5,256 MWh or enough to power 5000 homes for one month.  This output does not satisfy a modern society’s demand. 

 

Capacity depends on siting.  Good wind locations may have capacity factors ranging from 25% to 40%, with some high-performing turbines achieving even higher capacity factors.

 

Offshore wind turbines tend to have higher capacity factors, often exceeding 40%.  But in reality, what we are sold in MW output is not what is produced.  You are lucky if the monsters run at 50% of capacity.  It is a massive waste. 

 

Reliability issues with the Bird Eaters:

1.     Intermittency: Energy production is not constant.  When the wind is not blowing or is blowing at low speeds, wind turbines generate less or no electricity.  This intermittency is one of the reasons why energy storage solutions, such as batteries, and a mix of complementary energy sources are often integrated into renewable energy systems.

2.     Grid Location: To address the intermittency of wind energy, grid operators use various strategies, including forecasting, energy storage, and the integration of other renewable sources like solar and hydropower. Additionally, advancements in grid technologies and energy storage systems are improving the ability to manage and balance variable energy sources effectively.

3.     Hybrid Systems:  Integrating energy storage solutions, such as batteries, or hydropower with wind farms to capture excess electricity generated during periods of high wind and release it during periods of lower wind, smoothing out the intermittent nature of wind power. Hydropower can act as a complementary source that can be adjusted to balance fluctuations in wind energy production.  All of this is immature and unproductive, and yes technology can improve, but that does not negate the import of hydrocarbon usage. 

 

Oil usage

Much to the chagrin of the extremist fanatics, the Choppers need oil to work  – lubricant oil and grease to be specific.  Some 700 gallons for the average wind turbine is needed, replaced every 24 months or so.  The lubricants, including oils and greases, ensure the smooth operation of various components such as the gearbox and bearings.

 

The lubrication is essential for reducing friction, dissipating heat, and extending the life of these components.  If you ‘eliminate carbon’ how would the manglers operate?

 

There is worse for the ‘green’ fascists.  Hydrocarbons are used throughout the entire life cycle of building a Bird Chopper: 

Manufacture: The production of wind turbine components, including the tower, nacelle, blades, and other parts, involves energy-intensive manufacturing processes. The extraction and processing of raw materials, such as steel and composites, are almost entirely reliant on hydrocarbon energy. 

Transportation:  Wind turbine components are typically transported to the installation site using trucks, ships, or other conventional transportation methods.  The vast majority of these vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons, contributing to ‘emissions’ during the transportation phase.

Construction:  The installation of a wind turbine involves the use of hydrocarbon enabled construction equipment and machinery.

If you eliminate hydrocarbons the wind turbines cannot be built nor operated.  It is as simple as that. 

Pro-tip, hydrocarbons are not derived from dead dinosaurs or ‘Devonian’ algae.  Saying ‘Fossil Fuels’ is just stupid.  It really does hurt. 

 

Land

 

There is the small issue in many countries of wind farm density per square mile.  One megawatt = 1,000,000 watts of power and can power about 1000 homes for a month but in reality, wind turbines don’t come close to producing their rated capacity because of changing wind speeds.  This means that the density of wind farm deployment must increase to arrive at the total MW output as given by the climate extremists.  Take an onshore Bird Chopper as a case example:

·       Total real MW output of maximum 2 MW

·       Powers 2000 homes for a month

·       UK total Turbine capacity of 9000 produces 18 million MW of potential energy

·       This powers 18 million homes (most of the country) for one month

Politicians claim that wind power will be the main energy provider for grid-electricity and power consumption.  This is a non-scientific claim.  In the UK you would need to build 12 times the current estate of Bird Manglers to satisfy current demand or 100.000 more monsters.  Where would you put them?  Roughly 50 acres is needed for every wind-powered MW of output.  Consider the UK:

·       Number of onshore choppers:  9000

·       Total MW capacity (roughly):  18.000 to 27.000 MW

·       Number of acres to support the wind farms:  ~900.000 acres

·       Square miles supporting wind farm:  ~13.500

·       Total square miles in the UK:  93.000

·       Total square miles in parks, green areas:  30.000

·       Real ‘liveable’ acreage for a population of 80 million:  40.000 square miles

 

If the UK wants to say treble wind farm output, you will need to cover almost all of the truly ‘liveable’ space in the UK with wind turbines or 40.000 square miles.  This is ‘science’?  No it is stupid. 

 

Wildlife and Eco impact

 

One of the notable environmental concerns associated with the Bird Destroyers is their impact on birds and bats.  Death and destruction reign, never discussed by the fake news, fake science and fake green cults.  The evidence is clear that each chopper slices some 500-1500 large birds and bats per year.  In the UK this this might mean that some 5-10 million, yes million birds and bats are slaughtered per annum.  A long-term study in the US, based on carcasses, estimates that 13.000 bats and birds are murdered per day.  This is only 4.7 million massacred per year.  I don’t see why the UK or the Eutopia would be different.  Millions of large fowl are sacrificed each year, so a greentard can put a bumper sticker on his Tesla. How is this ‘green’?

 

The idiots, and yes they are idiots, will tell me, ‘cats’ kill more than the Choppers.  To that I say you are a moron.  Cats will kill songbirds not hawks, eagles or bats.  As a cat owner of 2 cats, over 15 years I have counted 2, yes 2 songbird deaths.  So please shut up about the cats. The Bird Manglers are the greatest killers of bats and large birds, not cats.

 

Murdering large fowl and birds is illegal in every country.  But not for the cult of green.  No, no, no.  It is okay to slaughter, slice and decapitate large creatures if you are saving Gaia, laws need not apply.  No fines, no fees, no jail-time.  All for the ‘common good’.  But is you the peasant kill an eagle or puffin; you will be jailed. 

 

I heard the same during the Rona fascism.  ‘If it saves one life’, unless you discuss murdering the old with midazolam, morphine or remdesivir or lockdowns.  Then the life matters not.  Let’s not discuss the carnage from the mRNA bioweapons and the unsafe, ineffective and deadly stabbinations.  Apparently, the dead and injured from the Pharma fascism and their unholy elixirs are okay, because maybe in a model somewhere, it saved a life (which the quackcines never did, not a single person was ‘saved’).  So we hear the ‘green’ half wits moan, in sympathy with the cult of Rona, that ‘the wind turbines save ‘Gaia’’, except they don’t.  Quite the opposite. 

 

Bottom Line – It is all Scientism and a Fallacy

The Bird Destroyers are rubbish. They may have a role to play but it is minor and must be limited. The aura around this technology is premised on junk science at its most pronounced and evil and hypocritical.  The Bird Manglers can only be sourced, moved, manufactured and emplaced with hydrocarbon technology.  In their manufacture we see nothing but waste, toxicity and gigatonnes of little Gaia’s skin and body being removed, holed, drilled, violated and raped.  Further, the Bird Eaters are utterly reliant on hydrocarbons in their life cycle and need hydrocarbon and hydroelectricity, powered by nuclear, coal and gas, as backup. 

 

No society will ever reach ‘Net Zero’ for the obvious reason that the ‘carbon’ used in the outputs of these giant bird slicers will always exceed any ‘savings’ from their rather meagre energy production.  On a per MW basis, land usage basis and mineral usage premise there is nothing to recommend the wholesale adoption of enormously expensive and eco-annihilating wind turbines.  They are unreliable, intermittent and fantastically expensive. 

 

Ergo, heretofore, we can conclude that there is no ‘science’ to the hyperbolic claims of running a modern state on medieval technology.  It is $cientism.  If you want the ‘science’ of the Bird Choppers, follow the money and the U$ 1 Trillion per annum market which animates the cult of Climate and Gaia. 

How many millionaires are minted every year from slaughtering birds and bats?  It is insanity, not morality.

Scientism and Electric Vehicles. Not much is 'green', eco-friendly, or rational about EVs.

Not a single major industrial country can power its national fleet of vehicles on EVs to say nothing of the eco-calamity that is going to transpire in pursing EVs.

Bookmark and Share

 

Abstract

‘Green’ energy is not ‘green’ but destructive of Gaia and nature.  The destruction takes many forms but includes massive and devastating mining, the destruction of ecology and ecosystems, the slaughtering of fauna including birds and fowl, and the exhaustion of non-renewable minerals and materials.  EV’s, wind turbines and solar panels are completely dependent upon hydrocarbons for their creation, distribution and maintenance.  ‘Net zero’ standards mean nothing when you view the reality that without hydrocarbons, there won’t be any of the purported ‘green’ technologies available to use.  Without hydrocarbons none of these ‘saviour-technologies’ can be built or maintained. 

This medium-length post focuses on Electric Vehicle batteries and their non-green, Gaia unfriendly reality.  The next two posts will analyse the Bird chopping Wind Turbines and the rather useless solar panels. 

Besides the fact that there is no ‘climate crisis’, there are 3 myths that the ‘Science’ pushes about EVs or Electric Vehicles.

Myth 1:  EVs ‘emit’ less ‘carbon’ than combustion engines.  This is unlikely to be true (depending on what powers the grid) but in essence who cares?  These calculations are probably fraudulent (Corona, Climate modelling anyone?), and don’t include the life cycle of building, transporting, replacing and disposing of EVs.  Petrol and diesel cars emit trace particles of various elements as will an EV.  It is however a ‘red herring’.  It is a meaningless statistic. 

To wit - combustion engine vehicles emit traces of carbon monoxide, nitrogen and about 17.000 pounds of Co2 over their lifetime.  In total less than 8 billion tonnes of Co2 is released from petrol and diesel engines annually – a rounding error against the one trillion tonnes or more of Co2 in the atmosphere.  Co2 is largely recycled so its impact is minimal.  Even if EVs emit less, it is hardly going to ‘save the planet’ given there is no impact whatsoever on weather, or climate, from our collection of 10 billion or so vehicles globally. 

Myth 2:  EVs are Gaia friendly.  This is a ridiculous assertion when you look at the extraction and strip mining used (using hydrocarbon energy), the vast seas of water needed in extraction, the pollution, chemical leeching and the lack of EV reuse and recycling.  EV materials (more below) are not ‘renewable’ in that there is limited supply and mining and manufacturing these minerals relies on hydrocarbon usage. 

Myth 3:  EVs are cheaper.  This is an absurdity.  If you strip out all tax breaks, subsidies, grants and retail tax holidays and add look at real energy costs of charging, maintenance, battery replacements and insurance, EVs are probably 2x more expensive than petrol and diesel cars, fake ‘studies’ and ‘fact checks’ notwithstanding.  Reality is more factual than paid-for-research by a criminal cabal. 

Electric Vehicles (EV) are not ‘Green’

There is not much that is ‘Green’ about the EVs.  A 60 kwH EV battery weighs between 60-80 pounds on average, which is roughly double the weight of the average petrol car battery.  In an average sized EV, there exists 45 pounds of lithium and more than 10 pounds of cobalt, nickel and manganese.  Copper, aluminium, and polymer plastics are other key components in an EV.  None of these materials comes cheaply or at ‘net zero’ cost to Gaia.

With the exception of child slave labour which procures cobalt and other rare minerals, these components are largely processed, distributed and manufactured with hydro-carbon technology.  Total reserves do not indicate the ability to mine, or the quality of the minerals.  Many reserves may not be economically accessible or of high enough quality to be mined.  If governments keep pushing EV usage which is now <15% of new car sales to completely replace combustion engines (called zero emissions by ‘the science’), the world will simply run out of minable minerals to feed into EV production. 

About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent in one pound of fossil fuels. For every one pound of batteries produced, 50 to 100 pounds of lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, and cobalt are mined and processed. Thus, a future of batteries for electric vehicles and back-up energy for the grid would require mining gigatons more materials as well as gigatons of materials needed to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels.

How is moving gigatons of earth, Gaia-friendly?  The vast majority of the massive 200 plus tonne mining trucks excavating salt flats for lithium are hydro-carbon powered, with a few firms developing hybrids, EVs or hydrogen fuel cell engines to great and extensive mass media applause.  The reality is that these huge vehicles depend on diesel for performance, duration and reliability.  Renewable diesel can also be used to reduce costs and ‘emissions’ and seems to be a more practical alternative than hydrogen fuel cells, or 1000 kwh batteries which will need a reliable grid to recharge.    

(Anglo American 1000 kWh battery powered mining truck, imagine the reliable grid needed to service a fleet of these monstersLooking forward to seeing these massive batteries at the end of their useful life, dumped in a landfill leeching pollutants into the ground soil.)

For the record ‘Fossils’ don’t make fuels.  Neither do rocks.  Hydrocarbon energy is abiotic, self-regenerating energy made at the mantle and core.  Hydrocarbons are renewable - naturally.  ‘Green energy’ minerals are not renewable.  How ironic.

Not Renewable

The main components and minerals needed in an EV are below, and the issues are obvious.Lithium:

  1. Cobalt: 

  • Cobalt is essential in EV batteries and a high supply risk.  Costs are $70.000 per tonne or more, making it a high cost component for EVs.  

  • Cobalt is also used in mobile phone manufacturing and other industries. 

  • There are 7 million tonnes of cobalt reserves worldwide, with some 170.000 tonnes are mined every year.

  • Global Reserves: The Congo (DRC) has 50% of the world’s known supply or 3.6 million tonnes and Australia possesses some 1.6 million tonnes.  Much of Congolese cobalt output is accomplished with child labour. 

  • There might be 30-40 years of available supply which can be mined.

  1. Manganese:

  • A global reserve of 800 million tonnes has been identified.

  • Annually about 25 million tonnes are produced and consumed, with the steel industry accounting for 80% or more of manganese consumption. 

  • There might be 40 years supply left based on what can be mined.

  • South Africa produces 7.2 million tonnes per annum, Gabon some 4.6 million Australia 3.3 million tonnes, and Ukraine 400.000.

  • Ukraine has almost 20% of the world’s manganese reserve supply.

  1. Graphite:  

  • Graphite (pencil lead) is a naturally occurring form of carbon and is a critical component in various industrial applications, including the production of batteries, lubricants, and other high-tech products.

  • Graphite is used as an anode material in lithium-ion batteries.

  • Approximately 1.5 million tonnes are mined and manufactured every year, with China accounting for 850.000 tonnes.  India, Brazil and Mozambique are other notable graphite producers.

  • Graphite is expensive to mine with an average price of $550 per metric tonne, but many projects needing almost double that price to be economical.

  • Graphite shortages due to increased EV demand are expected to start in 2030, substantially elevating prices which may allow some graphite mining projects to proceed.

  1. Nickel:

  1. Copper:

Problems with non-renewable ‘EV’ technology

(Lithium mine layout - strip mining at its finest with all the attendant ecological damage.)

There are many issues with EVs besides government coercion, massive subsidisation, rising costs and batteries catching on fire.  Some key issues are listed below. 

No advantages over hydrocarbons

1.     Producing EVs with hydrocarbon energy and related ‘carbon emissions’, negates any ‘non carbon advantage’ from using the end product.

2.     EV production uses 3 times more energy than a combustion engine.

3.     EV’s must be replaced every 5-10 years at an enormous consumer cost (U$10.000 or more per EV). 

4.     Heavier electric vehicles will lead to road damage and increased usage of tarmac and asphalt, which are composed of carbon (tar, bitumen). 

5.     Insurance costs are 2-10 times higher for EVs and unaffordable for many. 

6.     Even with subsidies comprising some 20% of the vehicles price tag (in many countries no retail tax is applied to an EV sale, and there are direct state grants to buy one), EVs are still roughly 2x more expensive per unit than petrol or diesel vehicles. 

7.     EVs are far more expensive to run and maintain, regardless of mass media propaganda, especially when future electricity prices (and likely taxes) are increased to compensate for increasing demand against a limited supply. 

8.     EVs don’t operate well in cold climates and have limited range. 

Not Gaia friendly

9.     To extract one tonne of lithium requires about 500,000 litres of water, and can result in the poisoning of reservoirs and related health problems.

10.  To extract 60.000 tonnes of lithium or about 6 months of supply, entails moving about 20-30 million tonnes of earth, more than the US coal industry moves in one year. 

11.  Less than 5% of EVs are recycled and the rest are dumped into landfills, where the various chemicals leech into the ground and groundwater.  Landfill fires from disposed EVs are not uncommon.

12.  By 2030 some 200 million EVs might be on the road globally leading to enormous ecological damage from the dumping of batteries as more than 250.000 tonnes of scrap waste, every year, are casually tossed into Gaia.  

13.  EV cars release more toxic tyre particles into the air than their petrol equivalents.

14.  It is impossible to replace our large transport fleets and cargo ships with EVs.  The batteries cost, weight, storage capability and the lack of infrastructure make the mass media claim that long road or oceanic haulage will be ‘electrified’ a baseless lie. 

15.  There is not enough national grid capacity, charging capacity or hydro-electric distribution capacity, to replace our combustion engines with EV fleets.  Not now, not anytime in the future, especially if nuclear, coal and natural gas networks are declared illegal and taken offline. More here

Climate Scientism. Scientific reasons why there is no 'Climate Crisis'

Climate theology and Corporate Fascism are part of the planned Federated New World Order governing model.

Bookmark and Share


(Just a cockup, a fake news headline from 1989 - Governments must yield national sovereignty to international governance)

 

Introduction

Climate Scientism and the cult of Climate-geddon fail basic science.

This post follows on from the previous deposition on the Federated New World Order and relates to many posts on the Climate totalitarianism enveloping society (links at the end of the post).  Totalitarian Fascism was defined and refined in the previous post and is a framework of reference for global governance models premised on ‘Health’, ‘Climate’ and energy control.  Because ‘Climate’ is marketed as global (it isn’t) and supposedly occurs with velocity and malice, a global governance model as recommended by the UN, WEF and others is the only ‘scientific’ solution to resolve this non-existent ‘crisis’.  All of this is based on junk science of course.

 

Transnational Climate Scientism is a core foundation of the New World Order.  It runs in partnership with the Health-Medical Nazism we experienced during the Corona plandemic.  Climate and ‘Health’ will be linked of course, through an outbreak of ‘disease X’ caused by anthropomorphic activity which has deranged Gaia, giving her no choice but to ‘fight back’ with a zoonotic scariant virus.  To ‘survive’ we will be told that global governance or a Federated structure of global power is necessary.  (It should be noted that many of the modern ‘plagues’ we are supposed to cower in terror from, were assembled and manufactured by US biolabs  including Ebola, HIV, Dengue, Marburg, Sars II to name a few)

 

State capture

What we want to do here is list some reasons why the Scientism of Climate is a deranged, neo-Malthusian, anti-human, anti-science, cult.  Scientism is largely the union of State and corporate actors merging interests for profit and complete control over society, or parts of it.  We see this with the complete capture of State agencies, academic and research institutions, and most media platforms across the world, by the ‘Climate’ narrative and its money, including the endless issuance of false and fake studies linking human created ‘Climate change’ with every possible weather event or every possible issue, real or imagined.  The propaganda from the Climate cult is relentless derived from endless billions of available spend. 

 

With Climate Scientism, the objective to dominate energy means that the real power structures in our world can manipulate the ‘commanding heights’ of just about everything that makes a modern society affluent and dynamic.  As with Corona and ‘Health’, the religion of Climate has nothing to do with ‘science’.  It is about power, mandates, money and a Federated NWO.  

 

Scientism:  Follow the money

According to the FT more than U$100 billion per annum is to be spent on international ‘Climate projects’.  Most of this money is simply a transfer of funds from the G20 to ‘developing’ nations like India or China.  But this underestimates the total amount of money on offer for ‘Climate initiatives’.  According to the Brookings Institute the world spends some $20 Trillion per annum on ‘Sustainable Development Goals’.  Most of these funds are not directly related to ‘Climate’ per se but at least U$ 1 Trillion would be directly attributable to ‘Climate action’, or ‘green projects’ related to ‘Climate’.  It is a stupendous amount. 

 

Given that the G20’s total economic size is ‘only’ U$ 26 Trillion per annum these numbers on SDG (sustainable development goals) and ‘Climate’ spending, are simply staggering.  What can you buy with a $ 1 Trillion?  Probably sanitation systems and clean water for most of Africa.  Does anyone with an IQ over 70 really believe that spending more money, on ‘Climate action’, or increasing taxes on ‘carbon’ will lower the non-existing ‘global temperature threat’ by 1 C?  Or is it more likely that the endless streams of these monies are ‘laundered’, taken, grafted, and abused by those within the ‘Climate action’ processes?  Don’t all governments view ‘Climate’ as an endless source of potential taxation?  Don’t the elite and their State allies engorge themselves on the same endless rivers of billions of dollars?

 

Outside of formal funding flows exist vast swathes of loan financing for ‘Climate projects’ for the great and good, such as the COP28 announcement that the UAE will provide some U$270 billion over a decade for ‘Climate action’.  We can add in billions in ‘carbon trading’ that goes on in the G20, enriching millionaires and billionaires as the elite and fund managers ‘trade’ to reduce ‘carbon footprints’ (akin to the medieval payment of the indulgence tithe, where you could buy your way out of sin).  Sundry other local, national and transnational financing exists for those who want to enter the ‘green’ game. 

 

Simply put the ‘climate industry’ is big business, roughly constituting somewhere between a U$200 billion and U$ 1 Trillion per annum global market.  It is now a larger market domain than the criminal mafia and Scientism called Pharmaceuticals which is a U$ 100 billion per annum revenue industry.  Yet look at the power that Pharma wields over governments and ‘Health’ policy, soon to be further ennobled by the WHO’s 2024 pandemic treaty which effectively ends national sovereignty.  Pharma literally owns governments, academics, agencies and most of the media.  Why not

Climate Scientism?

 

Given the massive extent of monies for ‘Climate action’, we would expect that such largesse would buy ‘democratic institutions’, agencies, regulators, universities and produce endless studies to ‘prove’ that the end of the world is just around the corner, or that mankind’s pernicious output of Co2 causes everything.  The two-headed Satan of Pharma and Climate is a formidable and demonic monster to fight. 

 

What is Climate?  Not what the Scientism says it is

 

Climate can be defined as weather over a long period of time, namely 30-50 years.  ‘Climate’ will vary by region and geography.  There is no valid concept of a ‘global climate’ given the complexity of convection systems and the innumerable variables which cannot be modelled, that constitute local, regional and continental weather systems.  For example, since 2019 some 350 peer reviewed studies have declared that no noticeable warming has gone on in the modern era, and human impact on natural cycles of Climate is negligible.  Most don’t know this. 

 

We need to bear in mind that weather measurements have only been in existence, in an on-going and verifiable manner, since the 1880s.  Most of the globe is uncovered by temperature reading instrumentation, including the oceans.  Only recently were liquid thermometers replaced by more modern electronic and digital instrumentation which record temperatures at a more granular level.  Many temperature reading sites are old, thermometer based, situated in urban heat sinks including airports, which fraudulently increasing surface temperature measurements.  Therefore, it is silly and criminal to pass judgements on ‘climate’ and issue climate-geddon forecasts based on inaccurate, sparse, fraudulent and recent data sets.  

 

Longer age temperature measurements using ice core sampling clearly indicate that Co2 has no correlation with temperatures and in fact lags temperature by hundreds of years (sources at the end).  Outside of cautiously interpreted ice core sampling, the best evidence for past regional ‘Climate’ and weather is that of written records.  These elaborate clear natural, cyclical patterns from the Roman to the early modern eras.  Extant and detailed records over 2000 years indicate that Co2 has no role to play in natural climate variation and that all manner of phenomena has been experienced by humans when Co2 levels were lower than today. 

 

Frauds

Since the Climate cult cannot explain the Medieval Warming Period (900-1300 A.D.) or the Medieval ‘Little Ice Age’ (1350-1800 A.D.), they simply and criminally airbrush both from the record.  Apparently, they never existed or if they did, it was ‘local’ and of no great importance.  They then create a temperature history so that the medieval era (500-1500 A.D) and the 1945-1975 global cooling frenzy are now forgotten and flattened to provide a ‘hockey stick’ graph of spiking 20th and 21rst century temperatures.  

 

Mann et al’s fraudulent tree-ring circus of 1998, based on 3 tree samples (2 pines and 1 cedar), which purportedly erased the medieval warming period (an objective of this corrupt cabal) is one example of criminal malpractice and the abuse of dendrology, itself a non-science riven with assumptions and problems (see Steyn’s great book, ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’).  The peasant has also observed that Michael Mann is a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania earing U$1 million per annum and has a net worth in the many millions.  Corruption and data fraud pay well it appears. 

Climate-Gate revealed the depravity and criminality of a small group of US and UK based ‘researchers’ as they sought to rewrite climate-records and ‘hide the decline’ of temperatures from 1945-1975.  The Hockey Stick fraud and ‘Climate Gate’ reveal this cult for what it really is. 

 

Co2 and Climate

 

(The Inconvenient warming ‘pause’ that will soon be rewritten)

 

95% of plant food is emitted by Gaia but for some reason it is only the 5% emitted by humans which deranges Gaia through word-salads like ‘radiation refraction’ and ‘the greenhouse effect’.  The human emission of CO2 is 4-5% of the total, or 20 parts per million of all atmospheric gases.  It is not even worth worrying about.  To say otherwise is anti-science. 

 

To state that Climate is dependent on CO2 output is also anti-science.  CO2 falls naturally out of climate processes.  It is a part of the carbon cycle, a natural fact taught to 12-year-olds in most countries.  There cannot be a ‘greenhouse’ effect because the Earth is an open, not a closed system.  This means that there is no ‘layering’ or blanketing of the Earth’s 12 layered and complicated atmosphere by carbon dioxide.  The exaggerated, linear and amplified ‘greenhouse’ effect, sold to the masses, is also anti-science. 

 

To wit, “Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and as its atmospheric concentration can vary rapidly, it could have been a major trigger or amplifier in many sudden climate changes..” (Thompson et al. 1995).  Water vapour constitutes some 95% of ‘greenhouse gases’, why not target water for reduction and net-zero?

 

Greenhouse nonsense and Planck’s Law

(CO2- Endothermic and Exothermic convection systems)

 

CO2 has little to do with ‘heat accumulation and energy radiation’ if we look at the real science of spectral bands, Planck’s law and absorption.

 

1) Molecules in the atmosphere absorb light waves over what are called spectral bands. Spectral band absorption in the atmosphere can be quantified based on measurements over a certain distance through the atmosphere (eg 300 m above sea level).

2) The Earth emits a spectrum, or wavelength continuum, of radiation that is described by Planck’s Law, which has been validated by experimental data for over a hundred years.

3) There are two spectral bands in which the CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation.  The first band is in what is called the Medium Wave InfraRed (MWIR) spectrum, and the second spectral band is in the Light Wave Infrared spectrum, or LWIR. The LWIR band is the most important in the absorption of infrared radiation (see the IR Handbook).

4) In the LWIR absorption band of CO2 (centre wavelength of 15 microns) the transmission measured is 0.0 due to CO2 absorption.  This means a total of 100% absorption over 300 meters at sea level, within the spectral absorption band of CO2, that would capture the most energy, or “heat”, being radiated by the earth’s surface.

 

Based on the above science, CO2 absorption of 'heat' is both a myth and unimportant in climatic variation. You cannot go beyond 100% heat absorption, yet that is what the Climate Cult is trying to sell with its inflated absorption rates. Within LWIR there is a ‘limit’ on CO2 heat absorption, claiming otherwise is anti-science and ignores that most of the CO2 is recycled and reused anyway. 

 

CO2 is also exothermic, meaning it has both ‘warming’ (endothermic) and ‘cooling’ (heat reduction) properties.  Co2 is not a unidirectional ‘heat trapper’.  It does not create a warm blanket.  It can absorb energy up to 100% of its mole fraction weight, but it also demonstrates cooling attributes.

 

At higher altitudes NASA has publicly admitted that CO2 is a ‘cooling agent’. Given that ‘Not A Space Agency’ (for the moon fraud see here), is also a prime beneficiary and promoter of Climate nonsense, the fact that CO2 has cooling properties within the LWIR and at higher altitudes is a rather large inconvenient truth.  In other words, the net effect of CO2 on anything is negligible at best. More here

A Federated model of World Government enabled by the religion of 'Science' or Scientism

Health Fascism, Climate Fascism and endless cycles of panic and terror. Follow 'The Science'. Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Bookmark and Share

 

 

(Clapping ignormuses applauding the supposed demise of clean burning hydrocarbons)

Emanating from the elitist and reality-challenged COP28 (conference of the parties) the peasant is told, “…transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner … so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”  Net zero of what?  Carbon?  That means no life.  And what ‘Science’ supports such nonsense and what is meant by ‘Science’?

 

No better illustration exists of Scientism, or the Church of ‘Science’ or its deluded, irrational and anti-human theology, than Climate and Eco-Fascism.  No finer example exists of a non-science being used to create global governance, in the name of ‘Science’.  CS Lewis and others warned about the Scientocracy of a New World Order.  And here we are.  It can be summarised as satanic and demonic. 

 

In this post:

Given the nature and context of the post, it is a bit longer than normal.

  • Very brief overview of Scientism and its history

  • The State, ‘Science’ and Culture

  • Defining Fascism

  • Why national governments participate

  • The 3-pronged attack on reality by the 2 major cults of Scientism (Climate, Health/virus) and the threat of a WEF-led cyber-attack

  • The US inspired ‘New World Order’

  • Digital IDs

  • Why now

The Next post related to this:

  • Cui bono from the Climate con?

  • Why Climate Scientism is a brain-dead cult and a fraud

  • The end goal

  • The material makeup of EVs, Bird Choppers, Solar panels

 

 

Abstract

Globalist or World Government premised on ‘Science’, is promulgated in various ways through endless propaganda.  ‘Science’ is used to market the most anti-scientific claims and the most absurd theories including Climate catastrophism from human activity, and global ‘pandemics’ and ‘viruses’.  Thus we have Scientism, or the philosophy and religion of ‘science’, not real science. ‘Follow the Science’ is now a theological gospel.  Science has become perverted and is used to generate crises which can only be resolved through transnational if not a Federated-global governance structure (a constant refrain of the US Deep State, the UN, WHO and WEF). 

 

Other philosophies and programs pretending to be scientific and which play a central role in dehumanising people and in iconising and elevating ‘Science’ to Godhood include inter-alia and what can only be called the frauds of: materialismevolutionlong-ages, the big-bang, the moon landings, much of STR (special theory of relativity), ‘vaccines’ and ‘health care’ (which includes huge amounts of dead from drugs and misconduct, abortion, euthanasia, and mercy-killing).  This is not a comprehensive list, many other examples exist.

These philosophies and conceits are however, offered as ‘proof’ of ‘Science’ and its benefits.  They are deemed ‘settled’ and beyond doubt.  After all, didn’t the 19th century smallpox quackcine save everyone? (No it only killed and injured).  Don’t rocks ‘prove’ billions of years of age? (No they don’t).

 

The philosophy of ‘Science’ as a program of ‘truth’, benevolence and consensus is used to sell the idea of state and scientific omnipotence.  If you object or question ‘The Science’, you are the problem and pace JS Mill you might ‘harm the community’ (whatever harm might mean) and need to be restrained or worse. ‘Science’ is now religious.

 

What is Scientism? 

Scientism is the establishment of a Church of Science, which involves the expansion of science to include all domains, including those areas that lie outside of real science.  The theology of ‘Science’ is used to create a total governance system to establish complete control over all domains. In this endeavour Scientism purposefully conflates technological advancement with ‘Science’.

 

Applications are not ‘Science’

In the early 21rst century we can look back on great advances in all areas of life in hygiene, electro-magnetism, physics, microbiology and DNA, to communications, satellites, cosmology and the human body. Machines, applications and technologies abound. These outputs of intelligence and design are not however, ‘Science’ which is the study of objects, entities and the physical world.

 

Technology and applications may or may not use ‘scientific’ principles. Even if they do, that does not prove or disprove a particular area of physical science. Maths, logic, electro-dynamics and other applied features of science and observation are the main elements in application development.

 

Climate and Health ‘Sciences’ are entirely unscientific and are political, philosophical and metaphysical programs, based on assumptions, and corrupt or poorly programmed models and measurements. Neither virology including Corona ‘Science’, nor Climate ‘Science’, remotely fulfill the postulates of a Scientific method especially regarding data verification, experimental replication and method and data transparency. These two programs are driven by profits, money and power, not observable evidence.

Modern Scientism differs from the totalitarianisms in past ages, due to the almost unlimited power of the modern state, modern technology, fungible and massive money flows, international linkages, international governance forums and models and the ease of meeting, planning and dialoguing between vested interests. The tools and financing now exist to create a global dystopia.

How did this modern obsession with ‘Science’ and Scientism develop?  Why the deluded and immoral desire for a global governance based on totalitarian ideals?  There is a long and pernicious path in Western history leading to the current menace. 

 

Scientism from Condorcet to Communists

Philosophically, Scientism is based on the pernicious and corrupted theories of rationalism, evolution, materialism, relativism, and suffused with the philosophies of both nihilism and extreme-pagan nominalism where objective reality does not exist.  A hard core of anti-humanism is also apparent within Scientism reflected in ‘Climate change'‘ and its obvious hatred of humanity.

 

We can trace the antecdents of these philosophies to the bastard metaphysics produced by the so-called ‘Enlightenment’.  By destroying the foundations of Western civilisation, especially the Church and its culture, the ‘Age of Reason’ bequeathed to the modern unreasonable metaphysics.

 

The French Revolution, premised on Enlightenment rationalism, accelerated ‘Scientism’ or a ‘Church of Reason’ into the mainstream of philosophical ‘thought’. 1789 was an irruption by the forgotten, the marginalised, the poor and the aspiring middle class, against over-taxation, misery and the hierarchy of privilege and corruption found within the system of noblesse oblige, the monarchy and its close ally the Catholic Church.  The mandate was to create a New World Order.

 

This largely atheist New World Order was decidedly disordered, manifested in mass mayhem, murder, destruction, the ‘thermidor’ and Napoleon’s bloody career, which fascinates and impresses too many. Napoleon’s dicatorship was an extension of the revolution’s atheist ‘Church of Reason’ which was entirely unreasonable and immoral, resulting in a generation destroyed by wars, deaths, injuries, economic devastation and widespread social destruction. 

 

Positively mad

Auguste Comte and many others during and after the Napoleonic era proposed a ‘Church of Science’ which imitated that of the ‘Church of Reason’ but was broader and more ambitious.  Mindlessly parroting the French Enlightenment propagandists of the 18th century, Comte religiously believed that only ‘Science’ should control ‘all aspects’ of life, not only the physical and material, but also the spiritual and immaterial.  Human activities must therefore be governed by ‘scientists’ and only the scientific view of life was valid.  Some echoes of Plato’s technocratic republic can be heard in Comte’s declarations. 

 

To this end Comte and the ‘positivists’ advocated turning over political and social control to ‘scientists’, without bothering to define any of the terms.  This idea is much in vogue today.  It was ‘self-evident’ to extreme rationalists such as Comte that reason, which is also not usually defined, is the only organising principle worth pursuing.  The fact that unreasonable people believe they are reasonable, or that the insane maintain they are sane, or that the fascist declaims his love of freedom and individual choice, is lost on these not-so-bright-lights of philosophy and scientism.  Irrationality pervades much that is declared rational.  When Comte died his enthusiastic followers - who idealised ‘reason’ - built and sacralised Churches of ‘Science’ in his name. 

 

As the 19th century progressed with inventions and scientific achievements advancing into the 20th century, the desire to embed science in all aspects of life permeated political discourse and philosophy.  Materialism, Darwinism, mechanistic views of life, dominated the philosophy and culture. Invention, technology, application development became permanently and wrongly conflated with ‘Science’ and especially rationalist or humanist science, even though Christian and Deists dominated much scientific investigation (Maxwell-Clerk, Einstein, Morley, Duhem to name a few).  Much of scientific investigation was abstract and mathematical often disconnected from physical proofs (see posts on the big-bangEinstein and long-ages).

 

Total Science

Claims of scientific invincibility helped shape Nazism and Communism.  Creating a bizarre mix of satanic occultism, Nordic paganism, and evolutionary determinism, Hitler and the Nazis wanted the complete destruction of Christianity to impose what Hitler called a ‘religion of science’.  The State Church of Science would manage all areas of Nazi society.

 

Nazi theology and the establishment of a Reich Church and culture, was based on the principles of Social and racialist Darwinism, including eugenics and the purification of genes.  Jews and Christians (Hitler did observe that Christ and Paul were Jews) were deemed unfit within the process of ‘natural selection’ and along with undesirables, non-Whites, the sick, the insane, the poor, the old and other Untermensch, were to be dispensed with.  The key objective was unfettered state power confirmed by ‘the science’ to create a super-race (Darwinian racialism) and achieve materialist-evolutionary goals by eliminating genetic impurities.  

 

Russian Communists also imposed their own Church of Scientism, selling the public that Communist dogma was a scientific and materialist inevitability, given the stage progression of history and the clash of classes.  Russian Scientism was based on Lysenkoism or the Darwinian theological belief, based on failed Lamarckian theory, that the ‘environment’ would change genetics and eventually form better and even perfect plants, crops and humans.  The key point was immanent state control of the ‘environment’ or society to create a perfect state and fulfil the scientific prophecies of Lysenkoism and Marxist dialecticism.  As with Nazism, religion and opposition was demolished. 

 

The Nazis and Communists thus had their ‘Science’ and their ‘proofs’, based in part on the non-science of Evolution, which confirmed their totalitarian regimes.  Citizens in those states could not disagree, dissent was not allowed, censorship enforced, and internal enemies liquidated.  How is this any different than what was implemented during the Corona plandemic?  In a demonic twist of history, the victors of WW2 are now following their former enemies’ playbooks, using health and climate allied with Darwinian themes of trans-humanism and evolutionary demands, to create another instantiation of Fascist governance.

 

Defining Fascism

Fascism has nothing to do with ‘right wing’, conservatism, libertarianism or anarchy. Fascism is identified as: ‘A Totalitarian movement which merges Governmental power with Corporatism in a system of total control, with forced compliance, limited freedoms, cult symbolism and myths, allowing no dissent. Nothing lies outside State power. Fascism can be national, regional, or transnational in nature. Fascism is aggressive and violent. It shares many characteristics with Communism. The defining difference with Communism is that of Corporatism, and the pursuit of wealth and property controlled by the Fascist elite.’

 

This definition is based on explanations offered by Mussolini, Hannah Arendt, Roger Scruton, Roger Griffin and others. There is no reason why a ‘Scientism’ would not morph into a totalitarian Fascism as defined above especially given the omnipotence of our modern governments. As state power has increased, so too has the power of ‘Science’ its close ally.  More here