Comments (Concave Earth Theory)
Page 1
Totalrecall
I haven’t included the “bendy light” theory and the flat earth contradiction with this article as that is more suited with the next one. (I’m still not too sure about bendy light just quite yet anyway).
I hope that the article will be a “go to” link for those looking for the evidence of a concave Earth as it is all in one place (at least the evidence that I am aware of).
I’ve also added my own hypothesis on the horizon effect. I’ve seen other alternative theories, such as Rowbothan’s explanation and that of other concave Earth theorists with their bendy light theories, but none explain the telescope problem.
An example of which would be this pic below which doesn’t explain how a telescope can see an object on the horizon when the naked eye can’t.
Figure 12.
Lastly, apologies if parts of it are a bit detailed or heavy, but that is just the nature of the beast (rectilineator and parts of Tamarack mines for example).
2013/10/07 at 5:10 pm
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Totalrecall.
Excellent article, WH, thank you so much for your extensive work. I think you are right about the greater amount of light within the telescope allowing one to see the full ship as opposed to my speculating that it was some sort of inferior mirage. I really appreciate you, my friend, and will continue to point people to your site!
2013/10/08 at 12:12 am
Totalrecall
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Thanks Steve. I can’t see any other explanation for the telescope effect myself. It has to be the way the eye receives light. A bit like the sun is a sulfur lamp hypothesis, I was amazed how quickly the explanation presented itself after only a little bit of digging.
Thanks for pointing people to my site too. Simanek’s pages show a 500 internal error with me so I hope now this web page will become the “go to” page for references to concave earth theory. Luckily I had all the info from his pages I needed long before they went down.
2013/10/08 at 9:32 am
Scud
Very nicely presented with some excellent ideas TR, many thanks.
2013/10/08 at 8:04 pm
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Totalrecall.
Yeah that fraudulent prick knows he’s misleading people. Haven’t seen any recent activity from him in years. It would be nice it this were a go to page for people searching for an accurate and objectively explanation for CET. I still see his page however, alas after a few call-out vids and this page, I think soon the people will begin to see what a scraggly rat he truly is. To me it’s like pissing on Teed’s grave to so easily discard his accurate experiments. I have nothing but disdain for sci-quacks like Simanek. And I’m glad you saw, like myself, the necessity to call out his skewed and suspect analyses. I do however take pleasure in seeing that the results of a google query with “Donald Simanek” and “Cyrus Teed” harvest plenty of my links criticizing him. 😀
2013/10/08 at 9:19 pm
Scud
Hi TR.
I’ve posted a link to your site at the end of my ‘Cold of space’ thread at SC.. http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&start=240
Hopefully you’ll have a few more open and enquiring minds pitching their thoughts into the debate.
Scud.
2013/10/09 at 9:23 am
Totalrecall
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
In fairness to Simanek, he did describe the rectilineator experiment pretty accurately, but nowhere near extensively enough in my opinion. It’s just his purely speculative (and obviously wrong) opinion at the end of it all. Skeptoid magazine was far worse, as they deliberately got a fact wrong when it is clearly stated in Celluar Cosmonogy that the supports were supported by the two posts (standards).
2013/10/09 at 10:40 am
Totalrecall
In reply to Scud.
Cheers for that Scud. I’ll have a look see.
2013/10/09 at 10:40 am
Totalrecall
In reply to Scud.
Thanks for taking the time to read it all.
Just one more article to go, which I haven’t started yet as things have got a bit busy recently in other areas.
2013/10/09 at 10:41 am
Lord Steven Christ
well in fairness to ME, Donald Simanek ran away from our very friendly discussion back in 2003 by telling me that he would be putting all my emails in his Junk Mail Inbox, after I told him all his “research” was speculative.. So, the arrogant asshole looses.:)
2013/10/10 at 12:03 am
Schpankme
Interesting that the ‘concave earth theory’ should also include Dec 11, 1963, US Military and Sandy Hook. Also note, the military men in the photo, have on summer clothing; strange thing to do at the east coast on Dec 11.
2013/10/10 at 5:08 am
Schpankme
“Instead, in 1901, the balls moved further apart, apparently putting the center of gravity in space making it a push from outside, rather than a pull from within.”
1901 = 911
or
September = 9 month
1901 = 1+9+0+1 =11
2013/10/10 at 5:25 am
thewordwatcher
zbawienie.com
Brilliant article! Well researched but… you need the rest – other 0.01 %! 🙂
I’m not buying an eye analysis.
How about Canon SX 50 HS!? Bytes are not lying!
Check my post on this forum and check all 3 YT films, made by people who had no slightest idea what they were filming.
http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/wewnetrzny-kosmos-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-315.html
That would be a missing 0.1% of all proofs!
Kind regards.
2013/10/10 at 2:32 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
His conclusions were definitely speculative and wrong when you consider they even flipped the supports over with each addition!
it’s pretty hard for them to face the truth as where do they go from there? There’s nowhere for them to go, so head in the sand it is.
At least you had a good ol’ talk with him. How did he come across?
2013/10/10 at 7:16 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Schpankme.
I think that date is just the issue of one of the magazines which published the article – issue 11/12, December 1963
The photo is from “Foto-Magazin” No. 11/1954 apparently. I’ve no idea when that magazine was published or when the original photo was actually taken. Is 1954 the year? If so, the photo was probably published in November (11), but the original date of the photo is unknown to me.
2013/10/10 at 7:24 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to thewordwatcher.
“Brilliant article! Well researched but… you need the rest – other 0.01 %! :-)”
Thanks a lot. Can you fill in the 0.01%? 🙂
“I’m not buying an eye analysis.”
Sure. Nobody has to. I just put that in as what I could see as a possible explanation. It’s just an added extra and not crucial. BY the way, if you have another explanation I’ll definitely listen. it’s the only one I could think of that made sense at the time.
“How about Canon SX 50 HS!? Bytes are not lying!”
Tell me more. Are you saying that a camera shows a boat on the horizon halfway below it, or only the top of the sails visible etc.? If so, then my hypothesis about the eye being at fault would be wrong. Can you please post a link to this photo, then if I am wrong I can edit my article above.
It’s funny, but I had never thought of that simple proof before. Good work.
I’m busy looking for that type of photo. I’ve found this one, but the pixels are too few. I need one with greater magnification.
http://www.sailsamal.com/blog/image.axd?picture=2009%2F12%2Fa+Boat!.jpg
I have found a thread which looks like I am wrong with the eye idea. I will remove my speculative hypothesis. What do you think?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.0#.UlcPXXf7pO4
“Check my post on this forum and check all 3 YT films, made by people who had no slightest idea what they were filming.
http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/wewnetrzny-kosmos-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-315.html
That would be a missing 0.1% of all proofs!”
I translated it with google translate, but I think I need a little help.
Can you give me the rough idea of the YT vids. They seem to be in Polish.
Thanks a lot friend.
2013/10/10 at 7:59 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Schpankme.
I’m not sure I would equate the Tamarack mines to conspiracy theory, but hey, anything is possible. 9/11 was widely published in the media circus to say the least, but Tamarack Mines? I’m not so sure.
There isn’t enough info on this topic unfortunately. It’s a shame Teed or Morrow didn’t follow up on the experiment or perhaps either they didn’t get any more info (likely, as neither did the newspapers or Mcnair) or the results they did find out went against CET and so they decided not to mention it.
2013/10/10 at 8:08 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Schpankme.
Yeah, I noticed the Sandy Hook thing too lol. 🙂
2013/10/10 at 8:09 pm
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Totalrecall.
Eh, he came across a bit condescending, and tried to lump me in with the rest of the religious people he would dialogue with trying to show him that perpetual motion devices were legit. His silence in my assertion that his views were subjective said enough. I brought up the glass sky concept with him, which he also was silent on. Not the most likable guy, imo.
2013/10/10 at 8:44 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Not at all surprising. They are the defenders of the realm so to speak lol 🙂
BTW, it looks like my eye hypothesis is wrong, so it is back to the drawing board on that one lol. I’ll have to think long and hard about it to see if an explanation pops up to in my head to research further.
Your mirage idea may be right after all lol.
This pic shows that that cameras also pick up the telescope effect.
http://i56.tinypic.com/1zv7kus.jpg
So I have no idea what could cause it. I’ll just have to leave it as one of life’s unknowns (maybe the next article will shed some light on the situation). There is still not enough evidence either way though. All the telescope effect does show is that the horizon isn’t there because of Earth’s curvature.
2013/10/10 at 9:12 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Totalrecall.
thewordwatcher,
I saw the yt vids you mentioned. I went to your channel first, so I saw the wrong ones. You mean this one right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxspo3LNlA
This shows that it is definitely optics and not the curvature of the Earth which demonstrates the telescope effect. Good find!
I need more evidence that the camera sees the ship disappearing over the horizon as the eye sees it, but it does look that way thanks to this pic.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1zv7kus&s=7#.UlcpS3f7pO4
This is a very easy experiment for us to do though. All we need is a telescope (any cheap one will do I think) and a camera attached to the end. Canals would be the best medium of water as there is one right where I live in Ireland that extends very far and it is flat, still, fresh water with no waves etc.
2013/10/10 at 10:33 pm
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to thewordwatcher.
hey Worldwatcher, How dare you called me one who “contracts with the Devil”!!! You should know very well I registered to your forum, yet you say that I would not even log in?
How dare you use my material and then reject me. YOU are of the Devil!!!!
Cursed.
http://prntscr.com/1wjfoj
2013/10/11 at 12:14 am
Roy
Excellent article. I believe you hammered the nail in the coffin with this one. That long distance photo of New York renders any argument for ships disappearing into the horizon out at sea senseless. 30 miles away with the telescope pointing upwards, and the furthest horizon being at the top of the image, seriously?! That’s undeniable evidence in itself.
I believe the sky dome is a false illusion created by the glass sky, and I’m sure you can explain that fairly easily. The only thing standing in our way is the validity of NASA’s international space station. I think we need to expose the organization politically as well, as they’ve got quite the Masonic background.
2013/10/11 at 7:48 am
Totalrecall
In reply to Roy.
Thanks Roy,
I’ve taken out my (now perhaps wrong) speculative theory, sorry, hypothesis, on this strange optical phenomenon and just kept this article to the facts… which it should have been in the first place.
The next article will be the speculative and more fun one (at least to write).
Actually, my idea is that it is not the glass that causes the sky dome effect, but… no, I won’t reveal it until I have it all laid out. It’s only fair. Don’t worry, it’s dead easy to understand… maybe too easy mmmmm.
2013/10/11 at 8:36 am
Totalrecall
In reply to Roy.
I had another thought Roy.
Maybe the secret of the military camera is that it takes pictures in the infra-red. Maybe this wavelength doesn’t degenerate at the same rate as visible light, or at least is more penetrable through matter and the aether, hence the 30 miles through the atmosphere down on to the camera lens.
I’ll have to look up penetration depth and frequency of electromagnetic radiation.
Or maybe infra-red film is much more sensitive. Just a couple of thoughts. Probably lead to nothing.
2013/10/11 at 11:04 pm
thewordwatcher
zbawienie.com
In reply to Totalrecall.
I think that you don’t understand the issue! 🙂
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
Study that calculator. He is calculating the distance of horizon from the observer. The main point is – the height of an observation, based on Earth as the convex
When you are on 1.6 m, on the beach holding a camera, the horizon will be from you 4517.8 m.
That means you can’t see further than 4517.8 m, because the bulge of ocean is higher than real horizon. Of course IF Earth is a convex. Calculation are based on the size of Earth.
From the height of 10m the bulge or top of the water will be 11.2 km from you. 10m – that’s roughly the height of these cameras.
And on these films you can see as far as 50-80 km!
So these films are very solid proof, that Earth is a concave.
And that’s not all!
The light is bending up so that’s even bigger problem for these distances. Adding the Earth as convex plus bending up the light – you should not see further than 10 km as a maximum!
Second item on this calculator is H2. If something is tall beyond horizon, you can see it and you can calculated the distance as well.
In this link you can see few pictures of Australian island – Rottnest near Perth WA, and distance are shown on the Google map.
Pictures were found on Google and evidently taken not by huge zooms! 🙂
Now you can guess how far these films showing us. That is absolutely not possible if the Earth is Convex.
Friend of mine (Red October -co writer on that Polish forum.) has discovered yesterday some very interesting features of light bending. Things being examined.
Now the mind blower for you. 😉
Are you aware, that from Hamburg – Germany people have seen Istanbul i Turkey?
The furthest distance was 1100 km on the ocean. Do some research!
So called mirage are not mirages but the real thing – we live inside the Earth.
2013/10/11 at 11:57 pm
thewordwatcher
zbawienie.com
In reply to thewordwatcher.
Forgotten to add a link – http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/wewnetrzny-kosmos-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-240.html
Dear Steven.. you can’t write in Polish and most our readers can’t understand English. Don’t be upset. 🙂
BTW. On the concave Earth we have on forum more than 100 000 views!
Full respect for you work Steven but all glory goes to REAL Christ! 😉
2013/10/12 at 12:02 am
Totalrecall
In reply to thewordwatcher.
“I think that you don’t understand the issue! 🙂
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
Study that calculator. He is calculating the distance of horizon from the observer. The main point is – the height of an observation, based on Earth as the convex
When you are on 1.6 m, on the beach holding a camera, the horizon will be from you 4517.8 m.
That means you can’t see further than 4517.8 m, because the bulge of ocean is higher than real horizon. Of course IF Earth is a convex. Calculation are based on the size of Earth.
From the height of 10m the bulge or top of the water will be 11.2 km from you. 10m – that’s roughly the height of these cameras.
And on these films you can see as far as 50-80 km!
So these films are very solid proof, that Earth is a concave.”
Thanks for the link. That saves me doing the math. 🙂
Of course I understand the horizon limits and that you can actually see a lot further (with or without the aid of a lens), therefore the horizon is not proof of Earth’s convexity.
That is clear.
I would disagree that this proves a concave Earth however. The Earth could be flat, or it could be convex and the light bends around the curvature of the Earth etc. There are other possibilities. That is why the horizon is not proof of Earth’s convexity, but it is also not proof of its concavity either.
(The US military telescope is another story however)
Do you see what I mean?
“And that’s not all!
The light is bending up so that’s even bigger problem for these distances. Adding the Earth as convex plus bending up the light – you should not see further than 10 km as a maximum!”
The bendy light thing is very intriguing. I’m inclined to agree with it, but more because of a process of elimination. For instance, Rowbothan showed that if a person looks down the line of sight across the top of flags, he will continually see the top of each one. This means that we see a “plane” or straight perspective in front of us. Flat-earthers say this is proof of Earth’s flatness. But we can easily prove the flat Earth model wrong (the round disk shape): In the round disk flat Earth model, the distance from New Zealand to Australia should be very long. If you take the equivalent long distance in the Northern hemisphere and then compare flight times, you see that there is no correlation whatsoever and that the New Zealand/Australia distance is much shorter (as they say it is).
The only way out of this conundrum, as I can see it… (there still may be another solution I hadn’t thought of) is that light bends around the curvature of the Earth due to gravity. This also gives convex Earthers the possibility of explaining the “sight beyond the horizon” effect. Convex bendy light doesn’t explain the US camera however, as that is pointing up and sees the entire 4 to 26 miles in front of it!
I was going to include the above thoughts in the my next article but I don’t mind discussing this now in this post.
“Second item on this calculator is H2. If something is tall beyond horizon, you can see it and you can calculated the distance as well.
In this link you can see few pictures of Australian island – Rottnest near Perth WA, and distance are shown on the Google map.
Pictures were found on Google and evidently taken not by huge zooms! 🙂
Now you can guess how far these films showing us. That is absolutely not possible if the Earth is Convex.”
Can you provide a link? I would love to see these pictures. I’ll look for them anyway after I post this.
I find the problem with random flickr pictures etc. is that I need the sea level of the camera. The only way to be sure is do the experiment ourselves with definite verifiable data to prove to others.
“Friend of mine (Red October -co writer on that Polish forum.) has discovered yesterday some very interesting features of light bending. Things being examined.”
Please post a link to the discussion. I can use google translate. I would love to see that evidence (as it may help me in my next article). Or maybe you can quickly post his finding here (a summary of course! 🙂 )
“Now the mind blower for you. 😉
Are you aware, that from Hamburg – Germany people have seen Istanbul i Turkey?
The furthest distance was 1100 km on the ocean. Do some research!
So called mirage are not mirages but the real thing – we live inside the Earth.”
Very interesting indeed. 1100 km is wild! I will look into that. I wonder why Istanbul and not Paris for example?
2013/10/12 at 4:04 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to thewordwatcher.
Thanks for the link. I am reading it now in google translate.
2013/10/12 at 4:13 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Totalrecall.
The Perth example is very interesting. Thanks for finding that. I was going to look for something similar before I wrote the article above, as I used to live in Blackpool, England and some people claimed to be able to see the Isle of Man from the promenade on a very clear and sunny day. The Isle of man is approx 68.53 miles or 110.27 Kilometers from Blackpool.
In a concave/convex world this would mean that light bends with the curvature of the Earth.
I still have a feeling that the infra-red has something to do with the military camera’s ability to see the objects 30 miles away pointing up.
For example, if you were in Perth Australia right now and looked at the Island across in the daytime, you may see it and take a photo. Correct? But if you looked up above it and pointed your camera lens above the Island, you would see sky. Correct?
But the US military camera did not see sky. In the infra-red it saw the objects flattened on the film. My guess is that infra-red light is not affected by gravity the way visible light clearly is and instead gives more of a true altitude of the perceived object.
How is that for a bit of sleuthing lol. 🙂
So, it may not be the different depth of penetration of the atmosphere by infra-red light that enables the military camera to see upwards, but the lack of infra-red’s curvature instead. 🙂
2013/10/12 at 4:31 pm
Lord Steven Christ
Waiting for you people to catch up is like waiting for a snail to shit a cumulative 100 pounds of shit.
Still drinking the rudiments of concavity and getting stuck with the menial issues of horizon and curvature of light, when you should be connecting the megacryometeors to the glass and realizing judgment awaits when they all come crashing down. But go ahead, keep spinning your wheels about the rudiments of the concavity of Earth, which by now if one still has a problem accepting, they will continue to have problems accepting MORE IMPORTANT matters, like the reincarnated Christ addressing you here, and how insulted he feels due to the pride of man and the unwillingness to honor him appropriately. So he will just continue to wait for cognizant people within the power grid to exalt him in due time, as his rejecters become ashamed. tick-tock, tick-tock. oh and winky wink, stupid Pollack.
2013/10/12 at 5:40 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Don’t worry Steve, I’m way ahead of myself in the speculative model (not Armageddon though 🙂 ), but it certainly doesn’t hurt going through the basic factual details and logic with others as it can help clarify and cement things (and even introduce new ideas such as the possible infra-red explanation).
Easy Tiger, interesting times ahead. 😉
2013/10/12 at 6:42 pm
sumstuff52 (D. Sarty)
Excellent work been waiting for this info, been following steves work for a year now, all your subjects your covering are mind blowing truths, thanks again TR, i have no questions, you and steve have answered them all, now that i know what we were taught about space is a fantasy now my mind is at rest, now i can truly enjoy science and fiction for they work together
Thanks
2013/10/12 at 8:21 pm
thewordwatcher
zbawienie.com
In reply to Totalrecall.
Here we are… Link to the pic in res 3782 × 2576
http://www.worldwanderingkiwi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Rottnest-Island-Australia.jpg
You can find yourself that particular pic typing on Google Images… rottnest island
There is another important issue with light bending and how much such bending affects our vision.
Now some serious hints.
In geodesy is well known problem, that measurement of levels are not very precise, because of light bending up. That’s why they run away from optical instruments – levelers and Rolf Keppler explains it a lot on his web page. Unfortunately is in German and has to be translated via Google.
One German scientist has made tables for a correction of levelers. The bent of light is not as big to discount these films with huge zooms! Especially if the light bends… up!
In marine in past and still today using instruments on the see to calculate your position – there are made calculations which are based on Earth as concave. It’s well known fact, that these calculations can be omitted and you will still get a proper results.
In cartography all imaging is based on Earth concave as well!
I don’t know details – these are not my fields but these directions will prompt you to search and maybe talk to the people who know well about these issues.
And the last thing – I have an idea how to prove Earth as a concave.
In Tammarack caves they were using about 1 km depth. We don’t need that much.
IMHO experiments can be made – inside of tall buildings (flats) 10-20 m tall or higher. Thin cords hung for a quiet few minutes and do measurements on top and on the bottom. 12 m should give you about 2-4 mm difference.
I’m thinking to get two pipes 6 m, join them into one pipe PCV 12 m. Make a bar on one side and put two cords and some weight (Fishing lead!) and on the bottom do the measurement of difference between the top and bottom.
Rolf Keppler is talking about a laser kind of measuring tool, which can be very accurate and such experiment can be made on two 1 m cords, 5 m apart and measured with laser to precision of 0.001 mm or even better. According to Keppler it works and that is a solid proof of Earth being a concave.
Another idea is – on the lake at least 7km wide two people on both opposite sides – one with at least 5mW laser – 5 cm above the water trying to show on other side with exactly the same 5 cm above the water reflecting material and film the whole experiment. In 7 km the bulge of water or height of it would have about 95 cm.
In the dusk with still some light such experiment should show us a laser beam hitting the water!
I don’t have to much time to do these experiments but this one with PVC pipe should be an easy one. Maybe in near future I will do it and I’ll make sure I will have all on camera. 😀
So… now you have a big headache! Pardon my poor grammar! 😛
Kind regards…
2013/10/13 at 12:57 am
Totalrecall
In reply to thewordwatcher.
Great to see you thinking of experiments we could do ourselves. The ones using lasers sound problematic as laser is light and would bend with the curvature of the Earth (probably).
My head is too relaxed today to think much about it lol. 🙂
2013/10/13 at 1:44 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to sumstuff52 (D. Sarty).
Yeah, the “space” themes in every day culture are being promoted thick and fast, especially movies.
It’s a great defense against all kinds of brainwashing. For example, a lot of “channeling” new age stuff includes Copernican themes. Those deceivers should have left that bit out… oops.
2013/10/13 at 1:48 pm
Saros
Great work! However, there is something I would like to propose. Just an idea. Why don’t we also consider the possibility that the Earth is a bowl(concave hemisphere) and the sky is something like a lid of concave or convex shape. I mean, why does it need to be flat, concave or convex? It could be a combination of all of the above. In my opinion, it is easier to engineer a bowl and than simply put a lid on it, instead of engineering a hollow concave sphere and place smaller spheres inside.
2013/10/15 at 1:25 pm
Totalrecall
In reply to Saros.
Good thinking. It doesn’t have to be those shapes and we shouldn’t limit ourselves to that.
I don’t agree with the bowl theory for the same reasons I don’t believe the earth is flat. Both the bowl and flat Earth would make the Southern hemisphere massive. Check it our for yourself. Look at the distance between Australia and New Zealand and verify those distances by flight times. Go to the respective airline websites and “book” a flight. You will see that those distances are very accurate.
A fully concave Earth is not as alien or as difficult as you may think. I believe the Earth to be a toroid and we are on the inside, so you can put the Sun through the holes in the poles. There is also another way through alteration of the Sun machine’s frequency (my opinion only). I’ll touch on this speculative idea in the next article.
Don’t worry about the macrocosm yet. We (I) are a long way from speculating on that front. Just to throw one idea out there: in the book Gods of Eden, the author wrote that Hitler thought the Earth was a cavity and that it was just one of countless cavities in the rock; a bit like Swiss cheese. It is the inverted view of everything we have been taught, where space is actually rock etc.
lastly Saros, I don’t think there are any spheres inside the Earth. The Sun is either a bowl (concave disk) or a lens (convex disk). The planets and moon are definitely not spheres as they don’t reflect light as a sphere does.
http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/#D
Whatever they really are is up to debate.
2013/10/15 at 3:05 pm
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Totalrecall.
what do you think?…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p8ICLZZA8c
2013/10/19 at 4:10 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Watching it right now Steve. Will comment in a few minutes.
The good news is I now know exactly where the stars are as there can be only one possible place (logically that is). Thank goodness for that. You are right that they are much further out… about 4000 miles (ish). 🙂
I’ve no idea if the reason of their invisibility at high altitude is as you state because of the varying aether densities (I’ve not looked into it), but they can only be in this one place which I will reveal in the next article.
I’ve also no idea what they are. Maybe in time it will be revealed… maybe.
2013/10/19 at 9:03 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Very interesting. I’m really glad you did this. I nearly looked into something similar in that video but I was getting too far away from the original subject of the above article.
The accommodation action is definitely another spanner in the works with regards to optics. I thought about lens contraction too and that it must alter real distance and size perspective in order to keep the object focused (i.e keep the object bigger or smaller on the eye retina than it’s distance would really dictate). I think it is only when the muscles can’t contract the lens any more that the object really shrinks in true proportion to its distance. It has to be, after all, the eye lens is just a flexible telescope (and its opposite) in a way if you know what I mean. The difference in perspective might not be massive though. It could just be the difference of 100 feet or something (or a lot further?), I’ve no idea. It must be there though.
Good work.
I have a simpler theory on the sky dome. Whether it is true or not remains to be seen. Hang tight; it’ll take a while. 🙂
You’ve inspired me to put my eye stuff back on the website, but on another page for anyone to refer to if they want. I can’t do it tonight (it’s 10:30pm here and I’m going out for a change :))
2013/10/19 at 9:30 pm
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Well I’m glad you see them further up, although 4,000 mi seems a bit too high since that would be the virtual center of Earth, but go ahead and present your theory, looking forward to it. Again from an a posteriori experience, I’ve been on the celestial ocean, that, and knowing sonoluminesnce takes place in water, and the shape of the galaxies being spiral denoting remnants of drainage when the celestial glass sphere was opened during the global deluge, and believing the glass sky plays a part in it’s position, leads me to think more like @2,000 miles. I know the German geocosmos team (Kepler, Diehl), make the celestial sphere much smaller, extracting from a mathematical formula from Mostafa Abdelkader’s work, but something intuitively just doesn’t jive with their theory. I’m more akin to believing Teed’s original bigger size,
2013/10/19 at 11:40 pm
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Yea been thinking along the bi-focal planes of the horizon. There is a gap we don’t see from where the land ends and the sky begins. The disparity between the distance of the ground and the sky must cause the distant sky to magnify it’s perception creating the gap, or blind spot we don’t ever see. The eye has to be the key component to this illusion since the horizon is always level with it at any altitude. The “verve” as Teed called it.
2013/10/19 at 11:45 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
I’m also not keen on Mostafa Abdelkader’s work because I disagree on “inverted Copernicusism” for want of a better word. There is no need for it. All we need to do is look at the observable facts and try and form our own model instead. Far safer than putting “bullshit” in a bottle so to speak.
2013/10/20 at 5:31 pm
Wild Heretic
Steve, here is the link to the eye and the horizon hypothesis. I’ve added a link to the above article but it is probably easier to find it by coming to this comment.
http://www.wildheretic.com/eye-horizon-theory/
2013/10/20 at 9:57 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
Steve,
You are on to something here.
I think it is partly the accommodation of the lens of the eye, but (mostly) the glass in the sky that magnifies the sky dome to encompass the entire sky from horizon to horizon, but the sky dome’s actual convex shape comes from something much simpler.
2013/10/21 at 9:16 am
Lord Steven Christ
In reply to Wild Heretic.
“sky dome’s actual convex shape comes from something much simpler.”
haha, yea ok. well simple is seeing the inside of a sphere and thinking it’s the outside, and vice-versa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Q5M1b2qvk
2013/10/23 at 3:04 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Lord Steven Christ.
I really like that vid Steve. Is that one of your first ones? It’s a great intro speech with good background music.
2013/10/23 at 9:47 am
thewordwatcher
zbawienie.com
Another solid proof of cosmos inside of Earth.
Check that film.
http://vimeo.com/67785762
Such movement is possible only in case of Earth being a concave. Take notice – different speed of stars.
http://www.beskid-ski.com/ownlog/poradnik/gwiazdy2.jpg
🙂
2013/10/24 at 2:46 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to thewordwatcher.
Thank you word watcher.
We are researching the same things! I read that the stars turn 4 minutes less than 24 hours. What I need to find out is do all the stars turn in sync or do the interior stars turn faster than the periphery?
At first glance of your photo, it would seem that that they turn in sync. What do you think?
The very first star trail in the video also shows two meteors hitting the glass sky (bottom left).
Found the answer. It seems the stars rotate in sync:
stars in sync
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/StarMotion.html