Richard T. Fowler

Offering Christian and Christ-centered commentary about climate- and energy-related issues.

Comment for Harry Dale Huffman and Steven Goddard Regarding the Biblical Account of Creation And Its Comparability to Fraudulent Climate “Science” — A.D. 2013/07/31 01

A commenter named Anto commented today at Steven Goddard’s Real Science:

When it’s a matter of faith, there’s always some way to excuse the pachyderm in the greenhouse.

Case in point: creationists – close relatives to today’s climate catastrophists.

Harry Dale Huffman replied with the following:

There is a real, physical truth behind the creationist claims, despite their religious motivation and habitual stampede towards a “First Cause” (or “God”) explanation for things. None of the earth and life sciences–not just the incompetent “climate science”–are “settled science”, despite 150 years of Darwinian dogma (the “undirected evolution” paradigm guiding all those sciences IS dogma, and fundamentally false).

There was, in fact, a deliberate “creation” event–actually, a re-formation of the existing surface of the Earth, AND a re-formation and re-orientation of the entire solar system (these links give only the simplest, definitive objective evidence of the event), which imposed a readable design enclosing a real message for man on Earth–within the last 20,000 years, as my unprecedented research has brought to light (I am a physicist, dealing only with objective evidence). We are literally in the time of Galileo again, when the “authorities” and the consensus-minded populace cannot focus upon the greater truth, and are violently opposed to recognizing it.

I offer the following in response to Harry, and I also address it to Steven.

I say that the “time of Galileo” never went away, just shifted its focus every so often. Your own arguments are packed to the brim with subjective observations, which you can’t or won’t admit are subjective. Physics itself must deal with subjective evidence, or else it is not scientific. For this reason I have yet to meet a “physicist” who is not anti-science, for they are ever denying the obvious subjectivity present in their reasoning. Granted that many if not most Creationists I’ve encountered are anti-science as well, but that in and of itself doesn’t falsify their theories, as is also the case with the physicists. Proof or disproof is not dependent on the use of a perfect method for finding the truth. If that there the case there would be no valid proofs or disproofs, because there is no perfect human being walking the Earth today.

Really the bottom line is whether one believes in the supernatural, which objectively does exist. If one denies that which is blatantly true and in one’s face, simply because one is afraid of the wider implications, then of course one’s conclusions about pretty much everything natural are going to be wide of the mark … sometimes phenomenally so. Most of us, myself included, have been guilty of this kind of denial.

But if one admits the existence of supernatural effects operating together with nature, then at once one has lost the ability to be certain that the biblical history of Creation is false. It is very, very important for people to understand this. Denial of this fact is really at the core of the modern Inquisition. And make no mistake, the Inquisition does want Creationists dead if they will not repent. Ultimately that’s where this is headed, and already some of their more strident denunciations are barely distinguishable from threats.

I think the really important thing here is to LEARN AND RECOGNIZE that the Inquisition has never been either scientific or Christian (or even Jewish), or inherently Creationist. It has been a wolf in sheep’s clothing ever since its inception. And it has now taken over the mantle of science, exactly as prophecied. Folks like you, Harry, and you as well, Steven, are unwitting accomplices, unaware of what you’re really doing. I have great respect for both of you, because I see the degree of honesty that shows through in your words. Ultimately you will probably see the full reality, and you will be targets as well, because you have such integrity that you’d rather be targets than publicly deny what has been proven to you. Please always remember that the truth about Creation is never just revealed to everyone who seeks it. Only to those who are willing to believe that it’s possible are shown the proof. And that’s totally out of the hands of us who already know. We can pray, but ultimately if it’s not God’s plan for you to know, you will not be shown! I was in Harry’s place for many years, and Steven’s for years before that. If anyone here is the very antithesis of habitual stampeding or mindless consensus-following, it is myself. I didn’t embrace my present beliefs, I fought tooth-and-nail to deny them! But because it was God’s plan for me to know, I was forced to know, against all my natural instincts! The consequence: I spent >85% of my life up until now denying that which I now know to be true. And again I can’t prove it to you because it’s subjective, and subjective things are something you have to experience yourself.

I’m sorry, but the doctrines of pure naturalism, and of uniformitarianism, are frauds. They are the true closest relatives of liberal climate catastrophism. Of course, the liberals are borrowing “liberally” from the Bible, because ultimately the intent is to impersonate Christians while fundamentally inverting the Word. I beg you not to fall for such a cheap trick. You are way, way better than that.


Sociopolitical Meaning of Star Trek, and Associated Discussion about the American Experiment — A.D. 2012/02/27 01

Additional comment is invited emerging from the conversation involving myself and Mr Lynn at this location:

The issue of globalism is also discussed at length on that thread, and ties into the two matters cited in the title.

Reply to Comment from Mike — A.D. 2012/02/07

{{UPDATE: Addition below in double squiggles. — RTF}}

My reply to portions of Mike’s comment posted on the previous post.

“That’s why it so puzzling,

that he only talks about kinematics and no dynamics.”

When I began participating in this conversation back in December at, the immediate topic at hand was computational fluid dynamics. Have you read that portion of the conversation?

Also, have you read Computational Blackbody Radiation?

Are you aware that it makes use of finite precision computation for its conclusions?

Also, Climate Thermodynamics does the same.

Also, Claes posted a little bit on dynamics in response to my unified field hypothesis.

All three of these works by Claes have in common their use of or reliance on, for their conclusions, the Euler equations for incompressible gas. This connection has fundamental cosmological implications.

If Claes has been quiet about dynamics during the discussion of SR, I’d imagine it’s because SR cannot deal effectively with either kinematics or dynamics.

You might as well ask why he doesn’t address how SR deals with hot dogs. If it is already proven that SR cannot deal effectively with anything, why should Claes have to list out the set of all known classes of things in the universe, and state the same reason for each one, as to why SR cannot be used to describe it. He said the reason once: because SR is known to be devoid of physical meaning and measurable physical effect. Why isn’t once enough?


“Or doesn’t talk about threshold energies.”


Try as I might, I have not yet been able to imagine how threshold energies can have anything to do with validating or invalidating relativity. Nonetheless, Claes has written about them before.


“Or doesn’t talk about Mandelstam variables.”


I just looked this up on Wikipedia. At first glance, it {{looks}} to me like pure smokescreen, i.e. assumptions that are at odds with those of SR.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand what proper time is.”


So what? Neither do you. You both flunked that question rather badly in your replies at Claes’ blog to my comment that I copied here:


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand what the ideal clock hypothesis is.”


You’ll have to explain the relevance of that to me. I haven’t gone searching for info yet.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand the [basic] definition of a physical clock.”


He says he follows SI time. If you believe in GR and SR, then so must you, no?


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that the principle of relativity was originally formulated by Galileo hundreds of years ago.”


As I posted below, he has posted about this. You replied, “I meant the ‘principle of relativity’ – the outcome of a physical experiment is independent of relative constant motion.” This is nonresponsive.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that the equivalence principle goes much deeper than just equating inertial and gravitational mass.”


From this comment, you don’t seem to understand that he has a problem with the equation of inertial and gravitational mass. That seems puzzling to me.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that a time dilation really have been measured.”


Now, about that there is nothing puzzling at all. He clearly knows that such measurement is impossible, because such dilation does not exist. Therefore, what would be puzzling is if he thought it had been measured.


“Or that he doesn’t seem willing to discuss empirical measurements.”


Again, this is not puzzling when you consider that so-called “empirical measurements” of SR are known to be simple misinterpretations of some other phenomenon.


“Or,… should I go on?”


If you feel it is the right thing to do, you may.


“Look at his answers about what time is according to him in a Newtonian theory. The answer is completely vacuous and extremely unscientific. Either he have not thought this through, personally I see this as unlikely, or he understands what his true answer will render.”


You are right that his answer is completely vacuous and extremely unscientific. No human being is perfect. But I think it is now clear from the record that he knows that to give the true answer will require a serious consideration of my postulate that energy is not conserved — and that such consideration introduces certain other difficulties for him that he is unwilling or unable to cope with.


“This is a very strong statement from someone who probably doesn’t know what special relativity is.”


Professor J. L. Synge in 1960:

“[. . .] the general theory of relativity. The name is repellent. Relativity? I have never been able to understand what the word means in this connection. I used to think that this was my fault, some flaw of my intelligence, but it is now apparent that nobody ever understood it, probably not even Einstein himself.”

(See Comment #619 at )


“Richard, do you have any intentions to really try to understand what special relativity is?”


That is a strong statement from someone who clearly doesn’t understand what special relativity is.

Special relativity is what I said it is — no more and no less. I know this because its chief proponents are on record admitting that it is nothing more than an imaginary representation of a nonexistent “illusion”, and the facts that have already been submitted by you and Claes about it are consistent with such an assessment.

If you have additional information you would like to share about it here, you may do so. But for it to overcome the contradictions that have been pointed out, the new information will have to change the assumptions so that they do not contradict each other — that is, it will have to alter the model into something new that is not SR.


“If your major exposure to special relativity theory comes from what Claes has written, you should be informed that he has presented less then half of the theory which makes it look like an empty theory “without physical content” as he him self have put it. He has left out important axioms and useful formalism that is necessary to understand the basic theory.”


I’m still waiting for anything new and relevant from you. You have failed to resolved the problems that have been raised. You have resorted instead to ex-cathedra declarations that our supposed misinterpretations are the result of incomplete understanding.

And how could you resolve them, since the problems being pointed out are fundamental? There is nothing that could possibly be presented. SR is internally inconsistent. This fact explains why you have not yet been able to present something new that would (A) make sense and (B) deal at least partially with one or more of the problems without making any changes to the present model of SR.


“Unfortunately Claes seem to have started to use a rhetoric that may fool someone not familiar with basic physics theory.”


Whether or not Claes has done this, I do know that Einstein has in describing SR.


“Who knows, maybe I will work through Penrose’s book [. . . .]“


If you do, feel free let me know what you find there.

Comment in moderation — A.D. 2012/02/02

I posted the following comment to

today, and it went into moderation, where it has been sitting for about a half hour.

Commenter Mike is being allowed to post at least one comment, while having another that he describes as being “of heaviest importance” hidden. He posted his comment after I posted mine.

{{Update: The comment was released from moderation. –RTF}}

Here is the comment I posted.


Richard T. Fowler
February 2, 2012
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

With due respect, both of you are engaging in circular argument.

You propose to test the proposition that time does (Mike) or does not (Claes) vary with motion.

In either case, you are starting with the assumption that it does not vary without motion. This, as I have said, is a reasonable assumption, even if it may be false. It is reasonable because modeling the alternative seems too difficult.

You both then implicitly assume that there exists one or more objects (e.g. caesium radiation, light) that travel with constant speed. The suggestion, apparently, is that experiment has already shown this to be a valid assumption.

How did experiment show this? If it was by comparison to another moving object, then it would be necessary to show that that object moves with constant speed, in order to test the first object. To test the second object would require an experiment comparing it to a third object, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, assuming this validation has not been done (since it would appear to be impossible due to infinite regress), it must then follow that it is simply being assumed that your respective preferred object moves with constant speed.

If this assumption is true, it implies that time cannot vary for that particular object.

If time cannot vary for that object, then it cannot vary for that object within any inertial frame, nor in any non-inertial frame. I.e., it cannot vary for that object in any frame where that object would be found.

If time cannot vary for that object in any frame where that object would be found, then it cannot vary for any other object in the same frame. Therefore, time cannot vary FOR ANY OBJECT between two frames that both contain the control object.

So as can be seen by the above, the experiment begins with an assumption which implies the question that is supposed to be tested. The experiment is begging the question.

I sincerely hope you will both take this very simple line of reasoning to heart and apply it to your future comments about this matter. This is not a trivial point I am making. It would seem to be foundational.



Discussion of Field Theories With Claes — A.D. 2012/01/09

There is a remarkable conversation between Claes and myself and a couple of others, which began on 1 January and continued until this morning.

I offer this post in case anyone would like to continue discussing the issues raised there over here.

The four posts where the discussion may be found are (in chronological order):

Please note, for the record, I do not subscribe to Claes’ opinion that Laplace’s equation is appropriately thought of as “God’s equation”, as he expresses in one of the titles of these posts. I believe Laplace’s equation is false, and I also believe that any equation which is true is creditable to God, which would qualify it as one of His equations.

But that was not the main point of the conversation. The main point was about field theories, including one which I came up with, in considering some of Claes’ past work, and posted on the second one of the four posts. Discussion ensued, with Claes posting some counter-arguments which I believe I successfully refuted. It’s not yet clear to me where Claes presently stands on the matter. Hopefully that can be determined soon.

Who Is Claes Johnson, and Why Should We Care?

{{Corrections have been made to the below. Additions are contained within double-squigglies, and removals are struck through. –RTF}}

  Claes Johnson is a professor of applied mathematics at the “Royal Institute of Technology”,[1] Sweden. This university is abbreviated “KTH” in the Swedish language, and so that is how this blog will refer to it in abbreviated form.

  Johnson is, by all accounts I have read, a brilliant and accomplished scientist. However, he has become somewhat notorious of late with some of his extremely controversial theories of physics, including of the alleged planetary “greenhouse effect”. Johnson asserts, as I understand it, that this alleged phenomenon is not real and that the persistent belief in it by many scientists is the result of either confusion about certain physical details, or deliberate deception, or a combination of both. Regarding these assertions of his, I am inclined to agree with him. He is probably correct.

  I will be taking more time, a lot more time, to try to explain why my belief about this is justified, in subsequent posts and articles.

  But first, I want to provide a little background about Johnson.

  I myself first encountered his work about a year ago, last December. Since then, I have engaged in a rather large amount of inquiry and debate on the internet in an attempt to ascertain the validity of his physical theories and hypotheses.[2]

  In the last approximately six months, Johnson has published, in English, a very large volume of work on his new physical theories and hypotheses on his two blogs. Each of the two blogs contains information regarding the theories that cannot, to my knowledge, be found at the other. Thus, it is important for anyone who is interested to examine both of the blogs. As of now, most of the information is on the old blog, However, Johnson has indicated that he wishes to transition to his new blog, Therefore, he is not posting much new material on the old blog at this time.

  However, he has written or begun a large number of books on various aspects of his new theories and hypotheses, and as far as I know these are only linked to from the old blog at this time. For the serious student of his work, these are required reading. I myself have not yet read all of them, but I intend to as soon as possible.

  A cautionary note: Johnson is not a Christian, and some of his work (including the books) contains extremely grave very deliberate expressions of idolatry. So they are not suited for the casual Christian inquirer. One must heavily brace oneself before plunging in, if one does choose to plunge in. Some of the work also includes strong denouncement of Christianity by connecting a state-sponsored and ugly form of Christianity with the general body of the faithful. If also contains denial of the existence of Hell, mockery of the idea that the existence of Hell is rational and believable, and an attempt to place Jesus alongside various non-Christian spiritual leaders as an equal of sorts. All of this must be rebuked.

  But … this having been said, Johnson’s beliefs about Christ, Christianity and the Kingdom of Heaven notwithstanding, I believe that there is much in this theories that is {{many of these theories are}} probably true, and since he is presently the only scientist who is presently articulating these theories in a thorough, meaningful and insightful way, he still deserves recognition for this. We must be careful not to try to throw out the good with the bad. And yes indeed, God can provide us with a mixture of good and bad together in one source of information. We have all fallen short, and that is no excuse for rejecting the legitimate accomplishments of any person.

  I will have much more to say in the near future about Johnson’s work, but for now my time is required elsewhere. Thank you, reader, for your time this morning!

  Please feel free to leave a comment or question.



1 The name is in quotes due to the use of the word “royal”.

2 I do indeed ascribe to some of Johnson’s ideas the word “theory”. This is not a casual decision. I will have more to say about the extent to which I believe some of Johnson’s ideas withstand testing, and thus in my opinion merit the label of a “theory”.

Comment to Claes Johnson — A.D. 2011/12/19 01


I am posting this comment here in its entirety, because it was too long to go on your Blogspot blog. An abridged version will be posted over there.

I have recently finished reading your book Dr Faustus of Modern Physics.

I have also been reviewing your recent publications of other material regarding your finite precision computation.

I would like, at present, to ask you two questions about this work.

Before I do, I want to thank you for the time and effort you have put into the work. While I do not agree with all aspects of it, I believe that there is much insight and value to be found in it, and I think that many of your scientific conclusions in this body of work are probably true. I also believe that with time, the question of which specific items are of value, and how much value will become clearer.

The topic I want to ask you about is J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in developing certain “cover-ups” of the type that you illustrate in “Dr Faustus”.

The book makes, I believe, only two extremely brief references to Oppenheimer. One is on page 65, where he is cited by Michio Kaku as complaining about the high number of “particles” being discovered, and the other is on page 127, where he is called by yourself as a “witness” against Einstein.

If you will bear with me, I would like to quote, at the end of this comment, several passages from Wikipedia articles.

After considering those passages, my first question to you is this: would you agree that an argument could be made for including Oppenheimer as one of your “Faustian” scientists, and perhaps also for including an “indictment” of Oppenheimer alongside those of Born, Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein, and Bohr?

Following the theme of “Dr Faustus”, I believe that Oppenheimer’s “statistical and quantum sellout” is comparable to Bohr’s, and that his “atom bomb sellout” surpasses both Bohr’s and Einstein’s.

I would also like to ask if there was any particular reason you gave Oppenheimer so little criticism in your book.

Thank you for your consideration of these questions and for this blog.

Richard T. Fowler



[Oppenheimer] and Born published a famous paper on the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, which separates nuclear motion from electronic motion in the mathematical treatment of molecules, allowing nuclear motion to be neglected to simplify calculations. [. . .]

Initially, [Oppenheimer's] major interest was the theory of the continuous spectrum and his first published paper, in 1926, concerned the quantum theory of molecular band spectra. He developed a method to carry out calculations of its transition probabilities. [. . .]

Oppenheimer also [. . .] started work that eventually led to descriptions of quantum tunneling. In 1931 he co-wrote a paper on the “Relativistic Theory of the Photoelectric Effect” with his student Harvey Hall,[45] in which, based on empirical evidence, he correctly disputed Dirac’s assertion that two of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom have the same energy [. . . .]

As early as 1930, Oppenheimer wrote a paper essentially predicting the existence of the positron, after a paper by Paul Dirac proposed that electrons could have both a positive charge and negative energy. [. . .] Oppenheimer, drawing on the body of experimental evidence, rejected the idea that the predicted positively charged electrons were protons. He argued that they would have to have the same mass as an electron [. . . .]

Oppenheimer’s papers were considered difficult to understand even by the standards of the abstract topics he was expert in. [. . .]

Murray Gell-Mann [. . .] who, as a visiting scientist, worked with him at the Institute for Advanced Study [. . .], offered this opinion:

He didn’t have Sitzfleisch, ‘sitting flesh,’ when you sit on a chair. As far as I know, he never wrote a long paper or did a long calculation [. . . .] [H]is own work consisted of little aperçus, but quite brilliant ones. But he inspired other people to do things, and his influence was fantastic.[53]

[. . .]

In September [1942], Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., [became] director of what became known as the Manhattan Project.[91] Groves selected Oppenheimer to head the project’s secret weapons laboratory, a choice which surprised many [. . . .] [Groves] detected in Oppenheimer something that many others did not, an “overweening ambition” that Groves reckoned would supply the drive necessary to push the project to a successful conclusion. [. . .]

A series of conferences in New York from 1947 through 1949 saw physicists switch back from war work [. . . .] Under Oppenheimer’s direction, physicists tackled the greatest outstanding problem of the pre-war years: infinite, divergent, and non-sensical expressions in the quantum electrodynamics of elementary particles. [. . .] Probing questions from Oppenheimer prompted Robert Marshak’s innovative two-meson hypothesis: that there were actually two types of mesons, pions and muons. [. . .]

The question of [Oppenheimer's and Teller's] responsibility toward humanity [. . .] is the basis of the opera Doctor Atomic by John Adams (2005), which was commissioned to portray Oppenheimer as a modern-day Faust.


The idea of quantum spacetime was proposed in the early days of quantum theory by Heisenberg and Ivanenko as a way to eliminate infinities from quantum field theory. The germ of the idea passed from Heisenberg [. . .] to Robert Oppenheimer, who carried it to Hartland Snyder, who published the first concrete example [1].

FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE “Quantum electrodynamics”:

Dirac described the quantization of the electromagnetic field as an ensemble of harmonic oscillators with the introduction of the concept of creation and annihilation operators of particles. In the following years, with contributions from [Pauli, Wigner, Jordan, Heisenberg, and Fermi], physicists came to believe that, in principle, it would be possible to perform any computation for any physical process involving photons and charged particles. However, further studies [by Bloch with Nordsieck and Weisskopf] in 1937 and 1939, revealed that such computations were reliable only at a first order of perturbation theory, a problem already pointed out by Robert Oppenheimer.[6] [The reference #6 is to a 1930 paper authored solely by Oppenheimer. --RTF] At higher orders in the series infinities emerged, making such computations meaningless and casting serious doubts on the internal consistency of the theory itself[. . . .] [I]t appeared that a fundamental incompatibility existed between special relativity and quantum mechanics.

FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE “Molecular Hamiltonian”:

Almost all calculations of molecular wavefunctions are based on the separation of the Coulomb Hamiltonian first devised by Born and Oppenheimer. [. . .]

Once the Schrödinger equation of the clamped nucleus Hamiltonian has been solved for a sufficient number of constellations of the nuclei, an appropriate eigenvalue (usually the lowest) can be seen as a function of the nuclear coordinates, which leads to a potential energy surface.


The Hartree–Fock method is typically used to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a multi-electron atom or molecule as described in the Born–Oppenheimer approximation. [. . .]

The Hartree–Fock method makes five major simplifications in order to deal with this task:

* The Born–Oppenheimer approximation is inherently assumed. [. . .]


The vacuum state is defined as the state with no particle or antiparticle, i.e. a[k]|0>=0 and and b[k]|0>=0. Then the energy of the vacuum is exactly E[0]. Since all energies are measured relative to the vacuum, H is positive definite. Analysis of the properties of a[k] and b[k] shows that one is the annihilation operator for particles and the other for antiparticles. This is the case of a fermion.

This approach is due to Vladimir Fock, Wendell Furry and Robert Oppenheimer. If one quantizes a real scalar field, then one finds that there is only one kind of annihilation operator; therefore, real scalar fields describe neutral bosons. Since complex scalar fields admit two different kinds of annihilation operators, which are related by conjugation, such fields describe charged bosons.


After the war, Robert Oppenheimer remarked that the physicists involved in the Manhattan project had “known sin”. Von Neumann’s response was that “sometimes someone confesses a sin in order to take credit for it.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: