In the Cold Light of Day
Flat Earth in Modern Physics and a Numerical Proof for God: A Climate Alarm Story
Available for Kindle or Paperback.
For the readers of this blog: Please help and get this book spread around to those who need to read it!
From the Foreword:
This book is Joe Postma’s voyage and confrontation with the modern version of Francis Bacon’s fourth intellectual fallacy. One authority describes Bacon,
“as the outstanding apostle of Renaissance empiricism. Less an original metaphysician or cosmologist than the advocate of a vast new program for the advancement of learning and the reformation of scientific method.”
Bacon’s fourth fallacy is as follows:
“Idols of the Theatre are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.”
Since Bacon (1561-1626), western society has dominated the intellectual and scientific view of the world. Although each culture holds a different perspective, they all meet and communicate with the universal language of science and its central disciplines, mathematics and physics.
Postma’s book is timely, relevant, and extremely helpful because it describes how a 21st-century scientist comes to terms with Bacon today. It’s a journey through a world in which the historical signposts were taken down since Bacon and not replaced. It’s a journey I took, and everyone should take. In fact, I would make it a mandatory part of any K-12 curriculum. I can say this because I took the journey following a different route than Postma but identifying with all his experiences. In other words, there are universal truths that if known provide light, direction, and understanding, to produce a more productive citizen of the Earth.
From the Introduction:
That climate alarmism is pseudoscience will be entirely proven within this book. Note that I am not a climate denier: I do not deny that the climate exists, and I do not deny that it changes. The term “climate denier” is just one of those loaded idiotic sophistical phrases that means exactly nothing, which is in fact the same foundation that the so-called science of climate alarmism rests upon. There is no such thing or such a person who denies the climate or denies climate change, and the joke here is that there are people who believe that there are other people who deny that the climate exists and deny climate change. No one denies climate change, or the existence of the climate.
This book is nothing to do with supporting the ridiculous flat Earth meme which can be found around internet discussion forums these days. That part of the subtitle indicates that the flat Earth meme has actually been clandestinely if not accidentally inserted into modern physics to the extent that flat Earth theory is actually literally taught to science students by science professors in professional academic universities and their science departments. Yes, seriously.
The second part of the subtitle about a mathematical proof for “God” is meant in the proper philosophical Idealist sense, and I leave the development of concepts in this book to get you there. I could have written “universal noumenal mind” but no one would understand what that meant, and God is a somewhat near-enough substitute if you’re careful about what you mean by that, but it has all of the essential features a thinking person would expect.
Climate of Sophistry 
I see a sequel titled, When Hell Freezes Over, which would be about the relative impossibility to eliminate climate alarmism, until the year 2500. (^_^) In other words, they would have to be nearly frozen to death by an ice age to finally admit that their alarm was misplaced.
Seriously, though, how does one get solidified minds to open up to rational thought ?
The challenge is not to present facts and flaws — these are obvious. The challenge is to get people to replace fears with these facts and flaws.
Fear trumps fact, so it seems. Enough brave people have not been born yet, and enough scared people have not died yet, to transition us out of this consensus climate stupidity.
That’s a good comment.
Not true Robert. Every human has the capability and belief system to change his consciousness within this lifetime. It’s choice, It’s free will. Intuitively NOT rationally a human can see the error of his his ways. A human can sense a wrongness but cannot be told necessarily.
And Joe having read your book we will need to have a discussion about emotionalism versus rationalism. The liberal RGHE snowflakes are emotional wrecks yes but don’t put us all in the same basket. Some of the same rational logicalists are monsters. You know who I mean.
The way to get this message across is to appeal to the humans sense of survival. To make them feel good. There are only two motivators.
1) to avoid pain
2) to gain pleasure.
If you believe that this is a non defacto premise then I ask you to move to a planet ruled by Spock. We have senses for a reason. We live in a physical domain of senses. If we want a sense deprived world then you should move to a different plane. Emotions are nothing other than energy in motion that is picked up by the senses. Without the senses we wouldn’t experience the energy or “feel” anything.To admonish emotion and human lack of control is to martialise thought. Thought police. Who makes the rules? The fascist ruler who can only be right. The God who is right. Who is God? What makes a God. Does he control the climate?
If you are a non 3d entity reading this then you will no doubt be confused. But if it is in fact the the case then fuck off back to your own dimension. You know who I mean.
Its the Lowdown:
“Not true Robert. Every human has the capability and belief system to change his consciousness within this lifetime.”
By “not true”, I assume that you mean that fear does not trump fact, and, by stating this, all you are doing is saying the opposite of what I am saying, which is your opinion vs mine. Again, my opinion seems supported by my observation that countless displays of logic against the “greenhouse effect” cannot budge some people’s belief systems, and my suggestion is that their fear is what presents new facts from changing their belief systems — not only fear that the facts are untrustworthy, but fear that they must change what has become a comfortable frame of mind upon which they base their entire lives, and to change their minds would mean that they would have to change their whole lives, which would require more effort than they would be prepared to exert. … Fear of change, thus, is a motive, as well as fear of that which the facts could prove otherwise.
“It’s choice, It’s free will. Intuitively NOT rationally a human can see the error of his his ways. A human can sense a wrongness but cannot be told necessarily.”,/b>
Clearly, it is NOT choice, if fear shapes will. Fear clouds intuition. Fear blocks any sense of wrongness. You underestimate the power of fear.
Its not opinion it is fact. Belief systems whether they be RGHE or otherwise are easily reprogrammed with the right script. Ask any NLP or Hypnotist. Fear of changing a belief system is only supportable by knowledge. You are pre-supposing. All humans have fear of change. However it is easy to change.
You misrepresent will. Will can commit suicide, fear will not necessarily do so. Fear does not cloud intuition. Fear does not block wrongness. A human instinctually knows he is wrong but acts regardless. We are not animals, even cruel humans have will to do evil and its not fear driving him but his desire to do it.
Gosh and I so wanted Alice to not trick me:
Goodnight All xxxxx
Your opinion, Mark,
Fear underlies all, in its various forms, be it simple reluctance, doubt, worry, insecurity, or outright terror — they are all gradations of the same force.
What controls will, if not the feeling of confidence to act ?
I never said fear “blocks wrongness”. Rather, I suggested that fear prevents realization or wrongness.
I do not presuppose that ALL humans fear change. I observe that many humans are programmed with reflexive responses founded on fear and solidified by fear of changing those responses.
You underestimate fear and displace it to a secondary role, whereas I see it at the pinnacle of the determinants of human actions.
There’s also fear of going against established ideas and practices. It’s easier to be part of a consensus, simply as a matter of economic and professional survival (i.e., keeping your job, getting your pay check to feed and cloth the kids, not tarnishing a reputation, not rocking the boat, not drawing unwanted attention to yourself, not getting grant funding, etc.)
I look forward to reading it. My wife has (or will be soon) ordered a hard copy for me for Christmas
Awesome!
wickedwenchfan,
Hard copy? You mean on paper? What’s that? You mean those things where you have to use your bigger muscles to turn pages, while supporting the weight of the whole book?! How exhausting! How primitive!
Then there’s all that dust that gets on it, when you’re done with it for a while.
And the … [drum roll] … CARBON FOOTPRINT [reverb, echo], oh my, clearly you have no respect for the planet.
I’m missing something. You give a Stefan-Boltzmann proportionality constant in units of Joules per meter square per Kelvin. Equation 1 then gives units for power as joules x K^3. Could you clarify?
The constant is per K^4. Will fix. Thanks for letting me know.
I think there might also be a time unit missing. Another posting I found on the web for the value of sigma in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation gave units of (watt)(m^{-2})(K^{-4}). And 1 watt=1 joule/s. Do you need either watts or joule/s for the units on P nought? I’m not a physicist. This is an honest question.
Yes thanks. Wow lots of edits here. Will update the manuscripts.
I’ll tell you why the edits. I never re-read this part. Ever. Never have done it. Always skip over it. Just something about writing out units to read them seems so boring and…boring. The rest of the text is great though…hah.
Equation 3b is missing a fourth power on the last T term. It has been fixed. Kindle should update.
Actually, evaluating your logic in this derivation of 1 = 2 was the easiest part for me. Following the logic when you wax philosophical has me dog paddling desperately to keep afloat. I’m on my third read through the entire text.
That is not intended as a criticism of the writing or style. I’m just not versed in the discipline.
Oh wow Sherwoga, I am glad that the 1 = 2 contradiction was easy! That’s one of the most important parts, and it is important for all of the philosophy parts that follow too. Great!
Third reading! Awesome!! 😀
Yes Robert I see your point now! Well said. I was trying to suppose a human being able to factor reason without fear. Myself I can use tools to reprogram. I have succumbed to irrational fear myself in the past, and no amount of reason would dissolve it. Humanity is being attacked by negative archontic fears. Thankyou for pointing that out. I am human……thanks x
I think Equation 14 may have a problem or, more precisely, it is the explanation of what the terms represent, not the equation itself. It is a “definition” of temperature, suggesting T represents the temperature. Elsewhere, U represents “internal energy” or maybe enthalpy. Here it is said to represent the objects temperature. Further the next sentence suggests the delta U represents “the change in internal energy”. I think maybe a moment of brain freeze was operational.
See Equation in the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph just before the “Flat Earth” chapter. It has no equation reference number. Missing a fourth power???
Oh yes…U should have been described as internal energy…as it was immediately after that error. Will fix. Kindle should update.
Yes, 4th power missing there. Will update.
I’ve run into what I believe may be the omission of a diagram in your book. Unfortunately, the Kindle presentation of the book doesn’t make it easy to reference items you haven’t given specific references to. So I have to offer a longer description. I hope it is adequate.
The diagram would be the RGHE diagram analogous to that found at Location 2761 of 3791 for the real green house effect and should appear at about Location 2770. It would appear in the Chapter titled “A Proper Derivation” and just before the discussion of how a magnifying glass works to concentrate the dispersed photons of sunlight making it hot enough to cause combustion. It would show the decrease in temperature with height above the surface predicted by the RGHE. I quote from the location:
“One could replace the decreasing energy flux density values from the simulacral greenhouse effect diagram with temperatures as well, and correspondingly with the energy values the temperatures would likewise decrease thus forming a temperature gradient from the bottom surface to the top pane. This is in the next diagram.”
I fail to find that promised diagram. The lack thereof doesn’t make or break your argument, but it did cause this reader considerable confusion, most of which was self-generated. The diagram I initially envisioned in my head was inverted (plotted backwards), causing your discussion to seem incomplete and necessitating multiple trips through the verbiage. I’d like to believe my mental error was little more than momentary dyslexia and not permanent cognitive dissonance. Anyway, once I sorted out what the diagram should look like, I greatly appreciated this derivation and the discussion.
The diagram is actually a few pages later. I can make that more clear. Will update. Thanks!
I need to partially correct my previous comment. The diagram in question does appear in the next section but at a significant distance from the discussion in question and the included quote. I suspect you may have needed it both places and moved it as you were writing the later chapter. Regardless, there is still some confusion around the promise of it being the “next diagram”.
Yes I will clarify. Thanks!
Pingback: Flat Earth in Modern Physics | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Erwin Schrödinger’s Cute Personality | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Erwin Schrödinger's Cute Personality | PSI Intl
Pingback: Flat Earth in Modern Physics: How Climate Alarmists are using Warped Science - SUBNOMICS
Pingback: New Book: The Science Conspiracy | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: New Book: The Science Conspiracy | PSI Intl
#Joseph E. Postma: I am reading your new book criticizing AGW because I know AGW is a pseudoscience, I heard of your book on The Red Elephant, and it is recommended by Tim Ball. So it seems you may have something to say on the claim that heat is held deep in the ocean due to heavily salinated water sinking and holding heat? Surely such water would release its heat as it descended, so it is an absurdity.
So, the flat earth point is that the equations assume that solar radiation is received by the whole earth when it is only by half the earth, at the same time as the whole earth is radiating heat out. It would have helped if you told people this right off, because if you don’t deliver the goods quick you’re out of luck! The longer people wonder about “what he could mean by this flat earth stuff” the worse for you! Similarly, you should tell people much sooner that the CO2 cannot, contrary to the alleged greenhouse effect, warm the surface of the Earth, but can only keep the heat from radiating away through the atmosphere so fast. This alone disproves the greenhouse effect.
But, would you explain some things that you did not seem to me to draw out, perhaps because you took for granted people already knew them? You are writing for a wider audience and I think you left crucial facts unmentioned. I have read a lot of excellent criticisms of AGW but I don’t have the knowledge to understand what you are trying to say and it doesn’t seem like you drew it out in your book. A little more of the elementary math would have helped.
It would have helped if you had explained a little about how one gets from 1368 watts per meter squared to 342. Your point is that, because it would be half a sphere it would be not 342 but 684. (area of a sphere is 4 x that of a circle) A flat Earth would be 1368, and a half sphere should be 684. You must be correct on that. Then what are the implications of that? And how did this error help their claim of a greenhouse effect? Most people would think that they probably get around to that when they are doing their models. Do they?
If there is no greenhouse effect how does Venus get so hot? Just from a denser atmosphere?
It was very amusing that your reviewers complained that you did not have enough appreciation of AGW.
Speaking of physics, the alleged run-away greenhouse effect was just a lame attempt to distract people from the fact that for each additional increment of CO2 there is a diminishing effect.
Pingback: Science History Shows Flat Earth Success | Climate of Sophistry