Comments (Concave Earth Theory)

Page 14

2015/03/14 at 2:30 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Me.
Thanks for the tip. Yes, I’ll do that when looking at stars. It will be far in the future as I am revising at the moment.

2015/03/14 at 2:54 pm
Jonathan Glassel

Since I am not sure there are enough bees around to pollinate my garden, I have developed an interest in beekeeping.

Some Nazis felt we were in a Swiss cheese universe and we occupy just one of the holes. A honeycomb is more symmetrical, making more efficient use of the space it occupies.

So, if we look at the multiverse as being a quantum honeycomb (best viewed from the honey filling end) and the stars we see in the heavens, a map of sorts as portals to other concave cells of the honeycomb.

Now, the distance between us and the cells above, below, left or right is not all that great. Access could be achieved by tunneling. It is completely possible, therefore that the DUMBs have inadvertently stumbled into the neighboring universes. And aliens have entered our domain in the same manner.

Somewhere, out there is a supercomputer that reads our thoughts and with its super fast 3D printer working like a swarm of bees, creates multiple new realities every second. Faster than the bad guys (like a virus) can destroy a cell, many more are created.

In the course of our conscious existence, I suspect the virus has destroyed our cells many times, yet as quantum beings, we do not taste death, we leap to a better reality, a stronger cell more resistant to the virus until, at some point the multiversal body develops complete immunity.

2015/03/19 at 1:26 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
Interesting theories. A honeycomb is hexagonal though isn’t it?

2015/03/19 at 6:52 pm
Nils Esche
freundevonwahrheit.xobor.de/t175f21-Les-eacute-to…

Hi guys,

I did an article in the forum, I am commonly publishing in – that may interest you.

This articles ‘main title’ is taken from the Bible: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalm 19)

Actually this article is about:
The heaven(s) do/does rotate, but not earth does.

It is particularly about ‘star trails”.

Those ‘shown’ concentric circular patterns of ‘star trails’ would not be possible in a ‘Copernicus Universe’ – where everything flies around like whatsoever (as it is told to us). No way! But within the concave earth with its celestial sphere in the center – it is!

It is a German forum, but this article does not contain very much written text, anyways.

(If you like to read or follow the thread there overall, I recommend ‘https://translate.yandex.com’ instead of ‘Google-Translate’.)

Feel free to register to this forum – if you like. As it not a problem to the members to understand you, if you comment there in English.

So, here ist the link: http://freundevonwahrheit.xobor.de/t175f21-Les-eacute-toiles-tombe-une-agrave-une-oder-das-Geheimnis-der-verschwundenen-Sterne-17.html#msg2100

Cheers guys, god bless – and cu.

Nils

PS:
BTW – the last video I found, posted in this article is a “real footage” (actually it is of course a montage, as well – done from photos to create a footage) of the celestial sphere. Ok, surely done with ‘fish-eye lenses’. But done from real(!) photos. And very impressive indeed. Just fitting perfectly to the animations, Steven does.

You for sure will like it 🙂

2015/03/22 at 4:03 pm
Try This
In reply to Nils Esche.
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://freundevonwahrheit.xobor.de/t175f21-Les-eacute-toiles-tombe-une-agrave-une-oder-das-Geheimnis-der-verschwundenen-Sterne-17.html&prev=search

2015/03/24 at 1:37 pm
guest

A good calculator to find your drops/distance, or whatever on a circle. Rowbotham was a little over in his shorter distances, from lack of computers he probably worked backwards.
http://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/arc18.cgi?submit=Entry

2015/03/26 at 8:36 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to guest.
Cheers for that. All Pythagorean calculators are most welcome.

2015/03/26 at 10:02 pm
Andrew
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
It’s interesting, for those who believe in the alien farm,or a “super computer” then it only takes the question back one step as to what created the farmer or super computer? Evolution is the pseudo science cop out of this age as it still brings us to back to the ultimate question of of a non created mass/energy/intelligence to begin with.
As eternal existing mass/energy/intelligence/spirit is the only possible explanation for life I suppose what you call a super computer i would call God as a even a super .computer must have a designer

Heck, for those who think we live in a prison created by aliens, then what created the aliens without appealing to to an infinite regression as things must have a first cause.

2015/03/27 at 11:36 pm
Guest

Jonathan Glassel March 19, 2015 at 1:26 pm Wrote:
“Somewhere, out there is a supercomputer that reads our thoughts and with its super fast 3D printer working like a swarm of bees, creates multiple new realities every second. Faster than the bad guys (like a virus) can destroy a cell, many more are created.

Is the almost the EXACT plot to Edge of Tomorrow, Tom Cruise movie. Snowpiercer was good and applicable to this sites ideas btw.

2015/03/28 at 8:49 am
Nunya

I would like some of whatever you people are smoking. Give your head’s a shake. Living inside the planet indeed! I would like to pose a multitude of questions to you people, but your answer’s would just be some ridiculous, tormented version of scientific facts. I suggest you people go finish high school before you start proposing preposterous ideas based on ancient ignorances. Topics of research I would suggest to you all:

Get on a boat, go for a cruise in the ocean from Asia to North America (or vice versa).
Get on a plane and go for a flight from Asia to North America (or vice versa).
Take a flight on Richard Branson’s suborbital space craft.
The thermodynamics of the Thermosphere, and how “heat” is “affected” so close to the vacuum of space.
Comets
Meteor showers
Asteroids
I suggest you forget about chicken little and keep a logical head, remembering that our understanding of the universe is based on thousands of years of observation, uncountable numbers of hypothesis put to the scientific method, and simple logic; and yes, sending people and machines into space itself. I’m not asking you to explain any of your ridiculous theories. I don’t care to hear anymore of this nonsense. I am very open-minded, but nothing in the concave earth theory makes any logical sense. In fact it really makes me laugh at the level of ignorance and lack of logic, common sense and practical application being applied here. If you don’t believe what the scientific community is telling you after thousands of years of observation, and decades of space travel, I suggest you go to university, and apply to become an astronaut. This shouldn’t be a problem for you well educated people right? Only people who refuse to see the true nature of the universe and true science believe in something much simpler, like gods and chicken little. Time to step away from medieval beliefs people and join the human race here in the 21st century.

2015/04/06 at 3:21 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Nunya.
New to the theory I see. Keep reading, including the comments.

Get on a boat, go for a cruise in the ocean from Asia to North America (or vice versa).
Get on a plane and go for a flight from Asia to North America (or vice versa).
Take a flight on Richard Branson’s suborbital space craft.

???

The thermodynamics of the Thermosphere, and how “heat” is “affected” so close to the vacuum of space.

Already addressed in one of the comments. There is one hole in each pole and the Earth is probably quite porous. The fact that Teed showed the Earth to be concave and ventilation is needed in a closed system shows that the Earth must indeed be an “open system”, which is more indirect evidence for the holes near the poles. http://www.wildheretic.com/holes-near-the-poles/

Comets
Meteor showers
Asteroids

Already addressed, but this is far from the last word concerning the night sky – http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-sun-a-light-bulb/

our understanding of the universe is based on thousands of years of observation, uncountable numbers of hypothesis put to the scientific method, and simple logic;

Actually no. That is what you would expect, but when scrutinized, isn’t so. Those articles will be revised. There is no scientific method in space. How can there be as there are no astronauts to conduct such tests. Simple logic says the Earth does not move. As for satellites, they take their remote horizon sensor readings on the glass. Satellites took these scientific mainstream readings. Don’t like it? No problem. Make some shit up to explain it so the old model is kept intact. That is the opposite of the scientific method. But they’ve been making shit up for a long time now, why stop at this mere hiccup.
https://medium.com/we-are-in-a-special-place/planck-satellite-confirms-wmap-findings-universe-is-not-copernican-26f88f17a732

Unfortunately for your current state of mind, the space industry is smeared with a thick layer of marketing faeces which I am in the process of trying to clean up. The ultimate question is why? You can start be brain-storming some ideas; and write them down or you will forget them.

I suggest you go to university, and apply to become an astronaut.

There are no astronauts (except those on board the space shuttle, if you can call them astronauts – very high altitude pilots is probably more accurate).
I suggest you take a deep breath and study the deep seated contradictions and allow for the possibility that the lie is far deeper than you have so far imagined. Next step is to think what they are protecting and why. Perhaps it is because “For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky“.

Only people who refuse to see the true nature of the universe and true science believe in something much simpler, like gods and chicken little. Time to step away from medieval beliefs people and join the human race here in the 21st century.

Tell that to the Corpernicans. BTW, the concave Earth is anything but simpler, unfortunately. I wish it were. A convex Earth and absolute straight light is much, much easier to deal with than a concave one and varied bendy light, but that is the hand we are dealt with.

2015/04/07 at 5:52 pm
Guest

Awesome Nunya, just show these non conformist losers a picture of our round on the outside earth from space, that would teach them!
Then, show them some nice pictures of mountains getting gradually further away with peaks sinking down into horizon, that would work as well.
Also, a simple explanation as to how a solid sphere or spherical mirror reflects light evenly from a single point source (with pics of experiment) would be very enlightening.
Top it off with some good 360 video shots in space and then no one can deny the things you have learned.
If you want ppl to suck on your “balls”, present them.

2015/04/08 at 4:03 am
x2m
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Of course the scientific method is not there in space (no scientific method too is present in Einstein theory of Relativity that sustains the Copernican model) . Of course Nunya is new and had the natural reaction everybody has after decades of brainwashing, presuming there is scientific method in Space, when in contact with concave earth or first time. Of course I agree with Wild Heretic. But I disagree with him when he says that the Concave model of earth bubble is not simpler that the mainstream convex one where you need dark matter/energy to have sustainable galaxies where the spinning earth is going in 7 different direction with about 1 million Km per hour of speed in an expanding universe with black holes. Going around a speedy sun in a spiral motion along with Jupiter and other ‘big’ planets of spiral solar system is simple?? No it is not! What is simple (and wrong and not proved) is that the speed of light is constant. What is simple and not proved with scientific method is that gravity is matter that attracts matter. But the consequences of those two simple not proved wrong premises are very complicated. Much more that a bending light in a concave earth.
Nunya, please begin your search here:
http://debunkingrelativity.com/

2015/04/09 at 2:38 pm
Andrew
In reply to Nunya.

Get on a boat, go for a cruise in the ocean from Asia to North America (or vice versa).
Get on a plane and go for a flight from Asia to North America (or vice versa).
Take a flight on Richard Branson’s suborbital space craft.
The thermodynamics of the Thermosphere, and how “heat” is “affected” so close to the vacuum of space.
Comets
Meteor showers
Asteroids
Number 1, 2,4,5, 6 and 7 don’t disprove a concave Earth and who on here can afford number 3 which does not even exist yet?
Sorry you believe all you see on your gogglebox by blind faith i.e. modern pseudo science religion but those things are not a challenge to the premise made by WH. You need to present a more rational argument rather than relying on the popular narrative as an authority.

2015/04/10 at 10:19 pm
Andrew
In reply to Nunya.
Given a Pound for every logical fallacy you made in your reply i could have good meal out Nunya. http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

And yet you still claim to be rational, logical and “scientific”
Your having a laugh right?

2015/04/10 at 10:47 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to x2m.
Haha. Fair enough x2m. That part of the current model is very complicated and full of patches to try and make everything make sense. Time to rip off the band aids and start afresh me thinks. I read somewhere that one astrophysicist said that a new theory of gravity is sorely needed as there were too many contradictions and problems (in the current model of course). I can’t remember where I read that though unfortunately.

2015/04/13 at 9:22 am
dave
plato216.com

enjoying your research heretic.
thought id add my own bizzare revlation in case it helps as to the reason why.
Plato proposed the Copernicus model of the earth.
Most of us see Plato and think he was a philosopher.
And then dismiss it as irrelevant.
but Plato was not a philosopher, he was a witch.
He certainly wasn’t a theorist , as he stated he had no interest in theory
His knowledge which came from Heliopolis is now known as freemasonry
He devised the whole mass delusion we are living in.
I know this might seem a little weird but I suspect the answer as to why is to be found with Plato and those who follow him.
I also suspect those who control NASA are in on it because they’re Freemasons.
This page on my blog may open a new area to you. Specifically the work of gepgre latura , which he is constantly updating .

http://www.plato216.com/2015/03/11/platos-gate-the-secret-sign-of-mystery-babylon-exposed/

2015/04/13 at 9:53 am
Steven Christopher
In reply to Wild Heretic.
WH, thought I’d extend an invitation out to you, would you like to join in a CE Sessions discussion? this wed at 8pm central us time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4XVKfJRnOk

2015/04/13 at 10:41 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Steven Christopher.
I just watched one of those and it was a good one. Thanks for mentioning me.

I’d love to, but I think 8pm CST is 2am GMT with me.
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/to/cst/

2015/04/13 at 3:04 pm
x2m
In reply to dave.
There two main Convex earth theories;

Convex heliocentric (with spinning tilted earth), with or without dark matter, with or without big bang….etc…
Convex geocentric (with spinning tilted Universe, including sun)

Why not two main Concave theories?

Concave sky spinning with magnetic milky way tilted; land motionless)
Concave land spinning and tilted (inside firmament almost motionless)
Most observations match the 4 theories at same time….
Flat earth cannot explain the different and oposite sky rotations on north equator and south equator

Theory 4 (new one, my idea I guess 🙂 ) seems completely improbable, but… gravity would be, then, a very simple centrifuge force

2015/04/27 at 6:41 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to x2m.
Thought about that, except centrifugal force doesn’t work for the poles. I mean, there would be a vast difference between the equator and the poles for a spinning centrifugal concave Earth, wouldn’t there?

2015/04/29 at 10:16 am
x2m
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Yes, You are right even considering the forced tilted form of the spinning. Gravity should have another certainly more complicated explanation in that ‘crazy’ model (happy not to be the first ‘crazy’ to think about it, but that model seem less ”crazy’ than the flat one, anyway) where natural oil might be needed in large quantities to allow precise spinning (considering that oil might be abiogenic)

2015/04/29 at 6:19 pm
Saros

So, yeah, I can finally say that I don’t think the Flat Earth theory is a viable alternative. I wasn’t willing to to accept that, because when it comes to alternatives of the official model, they all pretty much sound unbelievable. However, having dealt with some people who believe in Flat Earth almost religiously, I realized that this is an even dangerous delusion, as they are paralysed in their logical thinking. It is like a mental trap. The flight paths do prove the Flat Earth is impossible or at least, if we’re not so extreme, their map is impossible. Unless they can come up with a meaningful map the whole thing is nonsense. I realized their behavior is similar to that of trolls. Denying everything when it doesn’t fit their theory. I really gave it the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t see how it can work even after all the time I spent to study it. Actually, I should have done it intensively at the very beginning, and it might have taken me only few hours, however, there is not much time to focus on stuff like this for hours on a row. I guess, that is why most people get confused too. If they are open-minded, they don’t want to discard stuff right away, and they consider them for a very long time, because they have other things to do in their lives. Anyway, it is clear that the map is impossible. It was clear even before, but I thought maybe there is a way to explain it. There isn’t. All maps are map projections, a hypothetical flat Earth cannot be mapped, so the Earth is not flat.

2015/05/03 at 12:36 pm
Dave

In response to one of your comments, you said that perhaps the earth could be “one of those euclidean shapes that’s both concave and convex simultaneously” or something to that effect. I’m wondering what your thoughts are on this whole “we’re a 3d projection of a 2d universe” theory that’s circling around. It would seem that if that were the case, we would be neither? Or both at the same time? I have no idea, I’m just wondering if this alters your perspective at all, or if you have any opinions on that theory in particular.

Thanks!
Dave

2015/05/12 at 12:26 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Dave.
In my opinion, that is the “computer game” idea of reality which may well be true, at least on one level. However, that is a level beyond what I am talking about when finding out the shape of the Earth. The Earth is a certain shape to our senses and how things work. Beyond that, who knows? That is something outside the system of which I know nothing about.

2015/05/12 at 7:59 am
Jonathan Glassel

Some of the more recent flat earth guys show the earth kinda like a roulette wheel which would provide the concave that does not enclose, Only half of it with an outside circumference of 52,000 miles.

In this manner, both flat earth and concave earth are compatible to a point. This leaves us living in the bottom half of a doughnut, or more likely, a torus energy field?

2015/05/15 at 9:28 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
Doesn’t work with the rectilineator experiment as well as others such as flight times and poles stars etc.

2015/05/16 at 10:04 am
cpt common sense

This article has many mistakes. so many false information i stopped reading it. how anyone takes this seriously is beyond me. for example at sea a person can easily see over ten miles. this is saying you shouldn’t be able to do that. just false information

2015/05/21 at 6:59 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to cpt common sense.
No. http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Change your name to captain experimenter and come back with your results. Like this fellow – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9xcbigOZOE

2015/05/21 at 7:09 pm
R.E.
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
Johnathan, it seems a lot of flat earth people are shills. They are trying to drown out the people who are feeling out the real contours of the earth with experiments, and discussions of previous experiments. There is no need to strike some balance between the two models. The truth isn’t a bit of both.

2015/05/22 at 9:25 pm
R.E.
In reply to cpt common sense.
Cpt, that entirely emotional reaction is your cognitive dissonance threatening to come into your awareness. In the old days, people could pick up a big rock and bludgeon anyone who scared them by thinking different thoughts, and they did. This is how scapegoating works. Hope that helps.

2015/05/25 at 12:19 am
R.E.
In reply to Jonathan Glassel.
Jonathan said “Some of the more recent flat earth guys show the earth kinda like a roulette wheel which would provide the concave that does not enclose, Only half of it with an outside circumference of 52,000 miles.”

I looked at their map and it doesn’t correctly account for the path of the sun, or why (if it’s true) the horizon remains at the same level no matter the altitude. I noticed this too on a long, high flight, and thought it odd at the time.

2015/05/25 at 12:27 am
x2m

I thought about an easy experiment to try, and also not very expensive (I guess).
The experiment is not valid unless it is possible to measure distance between two balloons at great distances (100 to 300km approx.).
From point A0 let a balloon (or a plane, if possible) go straight up let’s say about 30km high
From point B0 let a balloon go straight up 30 km high, too
Measure the distance between A0 and B0 (let’s say, exactly 200km) at sea level.
Measure the distance between the two balloons when they are both at 30km high (both straight up) at A30 and B30, I hope that must be easy why sound wave technology or other. Maybe there are many ways, some more precise than others.
Now, the FINAL VERDICT:
If the distance between A30 and B30 is less than 200km the Earth is Concave
If the distance between A30 and B30 is more than 200km the earth is Convex
The higher you measure and the larger the distance is between A0 and B0 and more conclusive will be your final verdict.

2015/06/06 at 1:46 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to x2m.
That’s a job for a scientist. I’m not sure how to measure the distance between the two balloons.

2015/06/06 at 3:12 pm
Steve
In reply to x2m.
Wow x2m! 🙂 Like the Tamarack mines experiment but better!

Measure 2 mine shafts = not easily accessible and not viewable.

Measure 2 hot air balloons = easily accessible and viewable. Nice! 🙂

2015/06/06 at 4:52 pm
x2m
In reply to Steve.
A job for scientist, I agree. Surely, not for lientists…
Thank you Steve.
🙂 I am glad you like the idea. I guess there must be several ways to measure distance between balloons WH.

2015/06/07 at 3:56 pm
icanhandlethetruth

If the assumption for the rectilineator experiment was that water is always flat, a concave earth would assume water is also curving upwards to form the shell? Thus, the 25,000 circumference would reduce to 1/2 of that because the zero curvature assumption of the water would have to be in actuality curving upward at the same ratio as the land surface measured. If that is the case, then wouldn’t that make the inner earth too small with this theory? Maybe only 12500 in circumference?
I’m not sure I buy into the NASA BS and it seems evident to me that the earth is not moving due to scientific experiments, and although not a flat-earther, per se, I can wrap my head around that more so than trying to figure out how water is curving up around the inside of a ball earth and people walking upside down.
The conclusions I get from these experiments is that the earth is at least flat (most likely) with maybe some upward curvature (my guess maybe curving upward closer to the outer regions?
No clue, but I think I’m like most everyone else here. I know I’ve been lied to about most of the things I thought were true my whole life and would sure like to know the truth about the planet we live on knowing it is certainly out there.

2015/06/11 at 8:19 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to icanhandlethetruth.
If the assumption for the rectilineator experiment was that water is always flat, a concave earth would assume water is also curving upwards to form the shell? Thus, the 25,000 circumference would reduce to 1/2 of that because the zero curvature assumption of the water would have to be in actuality curving upward at the same ratio as the land surface measured. If that is the case, then wouldn’t that make the inner earth too small with this theory? Maybe only 12500 in circumference?

No and yes. Water is always level at the point of measurement, therefore in a concave Earth water is also curving upwards with the shell. The rectilineator was a piece of wood locked in at the same level as its starting point. Therefore, the level of the wood was continually compared to the localised curve of the Earth at the point of measurement which was the level of water. Also, water wasn’t the only comparison. Line of sight level and plumb bobs were also used. All showed the same result – Earth curving upwards at the current known size of the convex Earth but in reverse.

I’m not sure I buy into the NASA BS and it seems evident to me that the earth is not moving due to scientific experiments, and although not a flat-earther, per se, I can wrap my head around that more so than trying to figure out how water is curving up around the inside of a ball earth and people walking upside down.
The conclusions I get from these experiments is that the earth is at least flat (most likely) with maybe some upward curvature (my guess maybe curving upward closer to the outer regions?
No clue, but I think I’m like most everyone else here. I know I’ve been lied to about most of the things I thought were true my whole life and would sure like to know the truth about the planet we live on knowing it is certainly out there.

NASA are lying about the model, but for the most part not the technology (ISS and Hubble exception IMO – the ISS is there to promote the model). There is no upside down or right way up and that includes the flat Earth model as well (flat earthers don’t realise that though). Flat Earth is easily disproved by 5 or 6 points, particular flight times and pole star.

2015/06/12 at 7:18 pm
amused observer

neutrino beams are regularly shot through the ground over hundreds of miles, for example, during the OPERA experiments, beams of neutrinos were shot through the earth at distances of around 454.222 miles. these beams had a firing angle around 3.2 degrees below the astronomical horizon (different from optical horizon.)

if the earth were concave, these beams shot at these angles would never be able to reach their destination. in fact, on a concave earth, for these beams to reach their destination, they would have had to have had firing angles above the astronomical horizon.

before you start claiming that there is some kind of electrical force curving the path of these neutrino beams, (as you have seemed to do when confronted with any other sort of straight particle beam) i think it is important to note that neutrinos almost completely ignore all physical forces, including that of electromagnetism and electrical charge. they interact so weakly with the rest of the universe that they are extremely difficult (but still possible) to detect. so, any force you might decide to try to conjure up to bend this particle beam would almost certainly not be strong enough, especially considering the energy levels that these particles had.

2015/06/15 at 3:37 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to amused observer.
Old argument from YouTube that was thoroughly debunked if I remember correctly. The curvature on 450 miles isn’t very much.

See Steven Christopher’s video on that. Can’t remember the link.

Thought I’d mention this:

I think it is important to note that neutrinos almost completely ignore… electromagnetism and electrical charge.

So does light (except its rotation), yet bend it does. Go figure. They haven’t.

2015/06/15 at 3:41 pm
amused observer
In reply to Wild Heretic.
i calculated it myself, and re-checked the math multiple times, the curvature is significant enough, as they would have had to fire the neutrinos towards the ground to reach the detector. it was only three degrees towards the ground, but ANY degrees towards the ground would end up making it impossible to reach a detector on a concave curve.

“So does light (except its rotation), yet bend it does.”

actually, this is completely wrong. first, you contradict your self twice, by saying that light isn’t effected by magnetism, then listing two times when it is effected by magnetism.

not only is light effected by magnetism, light IS magnetism. magnetism is described by the interaction of virtual photons and electrons. photons are created any time you move a magnetic field. light is inseparable from magnetism, so comparing it to neutrinos, which have zero charge, which do not interact with photons, electrons, or magnetic fields is absurd on it’s face.

also

“Go figure. They haven’t” actually, they have, the very paper you linked to to support this effect describes it as being caused by virtual particles.

2015/06/16 at 12:27 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to amused observer.
i calculated it myself, and re-checked the math multiple times, the curvature is significant enough, as they would have had to fire the neutrinos towards the ground to reach the detector. it was only three degrees towards the ground, but ANY degrees towards the ground would end up making it impossible to reach a detector on a concave curve.

I can’t remember the debunking now, it was so long ago. I think someone found a photo of the neutrino projector and it was pointing slightly upwards.

“So does light (except its rotation), yet bend it does.”
actually, this is completely wrong. first, you contradict your self twice, by saying that light isn’t effected by magnetism, then listing two times when it is effected by magnetism.

Have you been on my blog before? This is deja vu. Only the polarisation of light (its twist) is said to be effected by magnetism. Light is supposed to be electromagnetic, not magnetic (i.e. not bipolar; there is no positive or negatively charged end). Light also has zero charge. Not absurd.

“Go figure. They haven’t” actually, they have, the very paper you linked to to support this effect describes it as being caused by virtual particles.

I suppose it depends who I mean by “they”. But no, the mainstream consensus is that light does not bend except by refraction. Wilhelm Martin showed that it does. Therefore all their straight light trigonometry has no basis in reality.

2015/06/16 at 2:08 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
But no, the mainstream consensus is that light does not bend except by refraction. Wilhelm Martin showed that it does.

It does, because there is significant refraction for tangential light rays close to the ground. Every child knows the apparent puddles on hot streets in summer. This influence is especially made clear do to his finding of a “deviation 0 to 16cm depending on the time of day“. Wilhelm Martin’s results do not contradict mainstream physics.

2015/06/16 at 3:48 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Berry.
Ah, so refraction is it then?

Of course, there must be a massive shimmering heat difference over those 6 cm. That explains it. 🙂

12 cm upward deviation (and that is on a convex Earth. 24 cm on a concave one!) over 496 m for light beams parallel to the surface. That is over a “tunnel” of 6 cm. 6 cm! What is the temperature difference over those 6 cm (assuming wrongly of course that the Earth is convex)? If you took the temperature with a thermometer 1 meter from the ground, and then raised the thermometer up another 6 cm, would your thermometer be able to register a temp difference? His readings were over a green field in May and July.

And that’s not including all the massive horizon anomalies over water at any time of year. Is a 133 km horizon from near sea level at night due to refraction? No, It’s completely absurd. So, it is time to drop the parroting and start exploring instead.

2015/06/16 at 6:41 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
[Sorry, replying to your comment http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/?cid=11201 somehow isn’t allowed.]

Ah, so refraction is it then?

Yes. Which sound argument against that did your exploration deliver?

Of course, there must be a massive shimmering heat difference over those 6 cm.

Why do you think so? Do you assume quantitative similarity between Wilhelm Martin’s experiments and my example? How come? His deviation angle is about 2.4e-4 radians, in my example (say seeing a “puddle” from a car at 200m distance) it amounts to 5e-3 radians, that’s already 20 times larger.

12 cm upward deviation […] over 496 m for light beams parallel to the surface. That is over a “tunnel” of 6 cm. 6 cm!

What’s the exclamation mark suppose to express? In which sense is 6cm “much”? We can calculate the radius of curvature of this beam, which is R=(496m)²/(2*12cm)=1025km. Pretty large, I’d say. Why do we need it? Because for refraction in air, its inverse is essentially the gradient of the refractive index (being vertical here), which thusly amounts to roughly 1e-6/m. That means, to explain Wilhelm Martin’s results by refraction, the refractive index n of air would need to change by 1ppm over one meter. Absurd, you say?

What is the temperature difference over those 6 cm […]?

Ignoring the fact that the refractive index does not only depend on temperature, but e.g. on humidity, let’s look up the necessary temperature difference for 1ppm change in n. One finds (e.g. http://www.ohara-gmbh.com/e/katalog/tinfo_2_4.html, Table 2) a change in n of about 1ppm per Kelvin. That means for our case, a temperature difference of about 1 K (or equivalently 1°C) over 1 meter. Absurd, you say?

2015/06/16 at 9:54 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Why didn’t pass my last comment moderation, yet? Argument too inconvenient?

2015/06/17 at 8:42 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Berry.
What’s the exclamation mark suppose to express? In which sense is 6cm “much”? We can calculate the radius of curvature of this beam, which is R=(496m)²/(2*12cm)=1025km. Pretty large, I’d say. Why do we need it? Because for refraction in air, its inverse is essentially the gradient of the refractive index (being vertical here), which thusly amounts to roughly 1e-6/m. That means, to explain Wilhelm Martin’s results by refraction, the refractive index n of air would need to change by 1ppm over one meter. Absurd, you say?

You are right, the maths isn’t absurd. But do you honestly believe that this ultra, ultra small temperature difference across those 6 cm remained constant across 496 m on each of those May/July days tested? No breeze fluctuations, no clouds moving across, no angle of sun variations over that 496 m, no ground heat reflectivity variations, no variation in the height of the ground to offset the 6 cm difference? Just an absolute constant minute temp difference across 496 m. It seems very unlikely.

Also, what is the likelihood of this ultra small temp difference being across the exact same temperature? Maybe it was 27.3467 °C at 0 cm and 27.3466 °C at 6 cm higher on both 05.7.2001 at 5-6pm and 07.04.2001 at 6pm three months apart to get the 16 cm difference. (Ok, a very small leeway is allowed for the absolute accuracy of measuring 16 cm). Maybe it was 20.8675 °C at 0 cm and 20.8674 °C at 6 cm at both midnight and 9 am on 07.05.2001 to get the 8 cm difference (8 cm only one way I might add). Look, maybe it was 😉

Yes. It is absurd. I’ve read before the argument that it is an increase in humidity over water that causes the giant horizons over water especially at night (when it is cold therefore less evaporation lol). These are GIANT horizons. Not 0.1%, not 1%, not 10%, not 50% more than it should be, not 200% more, but more than 1800% – 5 m height should see 8 km, not 136km) How in earth can that be refraction? It’s more than nonsense. It is shameful behaviour.

Better yet, water vapour is less dense than air. Just like the heat argument, the air should therefore be less dense the closer to sea level than higher up (opposite in the standard density model). This is light travelling from a less dense into a more dense medium (very slightly more dense), therefore light would bend a tiny fraction upwards (to a certain low altitude point obviously before the standard model takes over). Therefore on a convex Earth, the horizon should be very slightly shorter because light is bending up very slightly, not down “curving with the Earth” like AM radio waves do incidentally.

This is a great anomaly that should be further investigated by the world’s so-called scientists, but isn’t. Therefore I can only conclude that there are no more free civilian exploratory scientists left in the world, only parroters and academics who think maths is reality and do not do real experiments.

Freedom is dead. Except on the internet 🙂

2015/06/20 at 12:52 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Berry.
No. I was too busy the last few days. Just logging in today.

2015/06/20 at 12:53 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
You are right, the maths isn’t absurd. But do you honestly believe that this ultra, ultra small temperature difference across those 6 cm

I beg your pardon? 1°C per 1 meter, that’s 0.06°C over 6cm. That’s neither the “massive shimmering heat difference” you employed for mockery last time, nor an “ultra, ultra small temperature difference” as you bring forward now. It’s a reasonable value for the gradient, perfectly possible by usual outdoor conditions.

remained constant across 496 m on each of those May/July days tested? No breeze fluctuations, no clouds moving across, no angle of sun variations over that 496 m, no ground heat reflectivity variations, no variation in the height of the ground to offset the 6 cm difference? Just an absolute constant minute temp difference across 496 m.

Why should this “absolute constant” be necessary? If there are fluctuations (which of course will be true in reality), then a small wobbling is superimposed on the parabolic path of the beam. So what?

It seems very unlikely.

Yes, unlikely but also unnecessary! Red herring?

Also, what is the likelihood of this ultra small temp difference being across the exact same temperature?

That’s not necessary, either. Only the average gradient needs to be the same.

Maybe it was 27.3467 °C at 0 cm and 27.3466 °C at 6 cm higher

This difference is too small by a factor 600. Why do you use it here?

I repeat my question: Which sound arguments do you have against a radius of beam curvature of about 1000km being caused by refraction? Obviously, you didn’t bother to check which predictions mainstream physics actually makes for such a situation. You deemed ridiculing to be sufficient.

2015/06/22 at 3:38 pm
x2m
In reply to amused observer.
Those neutrino beams may be the only convincing scientific experiment that could prove Earth is not concave. But, remember that in the concave model aether must be present and so dynamic as neutrinos. And what would be the relationship between eather and neutrinos and their anti-matter counterparts, when we still don’t know much about about them (so little that even weird (http://debunkingrelativity.com/) ‘light speed constant’ was broken by those neutrinos in 2012…)
To use so little particles that we know so little about as only proof that Earth is not concave is rather weird too.