Comments (Concave Earth Theory)

Page 15

2015/06/23 at 5:38 pm
x2m
In reply to amused observer.
Mouns life time (2.2 µs) is quite weird too.
http://debunkingrelativity.com/muons-time-dilation

2015/06/23 at 5:50 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Berry.
Yes, I realised the temp decimal place analogy as too small afterwards, but I’ve been too busy of late to get back and correct it as it wasn’t relevant enough. Just change the temp difference to 27.65 and 27.60 if you like, doesn’t matter.

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.

I just did that. The average gradient may have been higher than 6cm on the other side. If the ground had been a flat dry lake bed or (still) water, then 6 cm is more relevant. But the test was done in a grassy valley – hence who knows how high the ground was. It could have been 30 cm closer (slightly uphill) on average, or 60 cm further away (downhill). The chance of it being exactly 6 cm over 496 m is very, very slim.

Anyway, this is just a hypothetical argument concerning a fantasy model. For other readers who want to know what is really going on (as well as myself), I’ll go through the logic of refraction in the true model – the concave earth – as proved by the rectilineator experiment.

This would give us a light beam rise of about 24 cm. Now, this may be a bit better for an average across a valley (but still not great). Does this mean that upward bending light and/or reverse density refraction is the cause of the horizon? A horizon is still seen at 110,000 feet from a balloon for example. The air is very roughly 1% that of at sea level. This puts the higher density below and the less density above. So, light would refract very slightly downwards. Therefore, refraction does not cause the horizon. But, does upward bending light?

Luckily, there is a clue as to what they say causes the massive increase in the horizon of radio waves at night. “At night, the atmosphere becomes drained of its charge, and radio signals can go much farther with less loss of signal. In particular, low wavelength signals that would be attenuated to nothing during the day will be received much farther away at night.”

Atmospheric charge shortens and increases the horizon dramatically. How does it increase/decrease this fog effect on light? The higher we go, the more we can see, despite there being more atmospheric charge to see through. So, it isn’t a density effect as such.

Night-time horizons are massive and WM discovered that light bends up the least at night. So it certainly looks like it is the bend of light causing the horizon – a horizon which isn’t caused by refraction.

Another pointer is the “ship over the horizon effect” which is essentially the same as WM upward bending light experiment. On its own, like WM, this effect could be argued to be a reverse refraction effect due to heat and humidity. But what about a tall skyscraper or a 1000m mountain on the coast? I have yet to see a video showing the top of a skyscraper being visible on the horizon from a camera on board a boat moving away. So I don’t know for sure if this effect applies to very tall objects taller than ships. Assuming it does, then the refractive index of air at 1000m is less than at 0m despite a large possible decrease in temperature and humidity. The density of air at 1000m, is roughly 89.1 kPA as opposed to 101,31 kPA. The RI at at 0m, 20 C, 101.3 kPa, 50% humidity is 1.000271374. The RI at 1000m, 10 C, 89.1 kPa, 10% humidity is 1.00024741. So seeing the top of mountains and skyscrapers first isn’t due to refraction either.

We can conclude that the horizon is caused by the difference in atmospheric charge (the principle already shown to exist by engineers who bent light inside a charged cavity of silicon) which bends light upwards.

Am I absolutely certain this is the case? No. Is it very likely? Yes. Are you here to cause doubt? Undoubtedly. 🙂

2015/06/24 at 11:00 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to x2m.
I agree. It is best to use physical objects to test straightness as we can physically engineer and test these with full knowledge. Light would be OK over short distances and with a control to test any discrepancy during the day over this short distance. Using quasi-hypothetical sub-atomic particles is not exactly the best because as many variables as possible have to be eliminated.

2015/06/24 at 11:20 am
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I just did that.

Where? I can’t detect any meaningful calculation of yours. First, you rejected the effect as being too weak (“a massive shimmering heat difference over those 6 cm” allegedly being necessary). Then, you rejected it as being too strong (making an alleged fine tuning of “absolute constant minute temp difference across 496 m” necessary). Now you’re bringing in irrelevant ground height fluctuations. Any calculations corroborating your claims? Nope.

The average gradient may have been higher than 6cm on the other side.

What!?! That’s like saying “The weight of by brother may have been higher than 6cm the other day.” Hello?!?
The gradient of the refractive index has dimension 1/length; thus, comparing it to a length is nonsensical.

If the ground had been a flat dry lake bed or (still) water, then 6 cm is more relevant.

The 6 cm are irrelevant, anyway.

But the test was done in a grassy valley – hence who knows how high the ground was.

That’s irrelevant as well. What’s relevant that’s a gradient of 1°C over one meter.

It could have been 30 cm closer (slightly uphill) on average, or 60 cm further away (downhill). The chance of it being exactly 6 cm over 496 m is very, very slim.

What exactly do you think was to be “6 cm over 496 m”? And why?

Anyway, this is just a hypothetical argument concerning a fantasy model.

Not at all. It’s something solely based on Snell’s law (which many of us have verified with our own hands and eyes) and empirical data on the temperature dependence of the refractive index of air (something quite important for companies dealing with optics like like http://www.ohara-gmbh.com/e/katalog/tinfo_2_4.html). Given these two simple ingredients, we can ask the question: Given a moderate temperature gradient of 1°C over one meter, which radius of curvature do we get in a light beam (initially almost) tangential to the ground? The answer is: about 1000 km. Pretty close to what Wilhelm Martin found.

Wait, you may say, what about the curvature of the ground? Which assumption was used in the calculation above? Well, just a flat ground was assumed. Does it matter? Not much, after all: The curvature of the ground (whatever its direction!), its inverse being almost 6400 km, is more than 6 times smaller than the one due to beam refraction. What does the critical mind conclude from this comparison?

I summarize:

1) To claim that mainstream physics would assume straight light propagation in all circumstances (“all their straight light trigonometry”) is a lie, a red herring.

2) Snell’s law is confirmed all the time, just as its manifestation in the presence of temperature differences. This is in marked contrast to the rectilineator experiment, which was never repeated (and which actually brings consistency problems to the concavicionados).

3) Beam curvature due to refraction must be expected to be larger than the curvature of the ground.

2015/06/24 at 4:50 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Berry.
Where? I can’t detect any meaningful calculation of yours. First, you rejected the effect as being too weak (“a massive shimmering heat difference over those 6 cm” allegedly being necessary). Then, you rejected it as being too strong (making an alleged fine tuning of “absolute constant minute temp difference across 496 m” necessary). Now you’re bringing in irrelevant ground height fluctuations. Any calculations corroborating your claims? Nope.

I was just using your own argument against you.

It’s not nonsensical when comparing the various temperatures of the air. The closer to the ground the air is located, the hotter the air according to your theory, correct? Forgot your perfect isolation model and concentrate on reality with all its variables.

Absolutely a fantasy model. The Earth isn’t convex as already proven. So, therefore your refraction model does not apply. In a convex Earth, the 6 cm “dip down” causes straight travelling light to enter more dense air according to your heat/humidity theory, therefore it bends upwards. In a flat earth, there is no dip down or curve up, therefore no hypothetical refraction. In a concave Earth, the Earth “moves up” 6 cm, therefore straight travelling light enters a less dense medium according to your “hotter/more humid air closer to the ground” theory, therefore light bends downwards. Oh dear. And this doesn’t even take into account all the possible variables which could determine temperature. Hence your Snell’s law supposition over the various days and dates of testing is highly unlikely at best; despite a rough correlation when applied to a convex Earth with perfect temperature difference graduation.

Wait, you may say, what about the curvature of the ground? Which assumption was used in the calculation above? Well, just a flat ground was assumed. Does it matter? Not much, after all: The curvature of the ground (whatever its direction!), its inverse being almost 6400km, is more than 6 times smaller than the one due to beam refraction. What does the critical mind conclude from this comparison?

If the Earth were flat and the ground were flat, were is the supposed temp and humidity and density difference? There isn’t one. Unless there was a breeze over some of the length, or shadow, or the ground under the light was more light reflective in parts due to different substances. All likely and possible. Therefore your mathematical snell’s law construct can’t be applied to reality as there are too many variables. WE DON’T KNOW THE TEMPERATURE/HUMDIDTY DIFFERENCES OVER THE DISTANCE MEASURED.

I summarize:

1) To claim that mainstream physics would assume straight light propagation in all circumstances (“all their straight light trigonometry”) is a lie, a red herring.

Nope. Mainstream physics claims that only refraction can bend light. Nothing else can bend it. This of course isn’t true as engineers have already found out by electrically charging cavities of silicon. You know exactly that is what I meant as I have stated that in my articles.

The law of gravitation is confirmed all the time. It doesn’t mean it is the right model. Snell’s law hasn’t been confirmed experimentally over the Earth at all due to the variables I have already mentioned. They have no idea what temp/humidity existed over the said distance. Don’t confuse mathematical models with reality. Only experiments can do that.

3) Beam curvature due to refraction must be expected to be larger than the curvature of the ground.

Up for a convex Earth, down for a concave one, and neither up nor down for a flat Earth… in a purely perfectly consistent heat differential model, yes.

2015/06/24 at 5:25 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The closer to the ground the air is located, the hotter the air according to your theory, correct?

That is one of two possible scenarios. Warm air blown over a humid ground can produce the other one. The gradient can change during the day, as shown by Wilhelm Martin’s results.

Forgot your perfect isolation model and concentrate on reality with all its variables.

That would be quite foolish, because then I couldn’t compute anything (pretty much like you concavicionados). I start with a coarse model, then I check its predictions, and if necessary, I refine it. In our case, a refinement doesn’t seem to be necessary.

Absolutely a fantasy model. The Earth isn’t convex as already proven. So, therefore your refraction model does not apply.

That’s wrong. The diffraction model (or rather the result, i.e. the beam curvature) is (to 1st order) independent of the curvature of the ground.

In a convex Earth, the 6 cm “dip down” causes straight travelling light to enter more dense air according to your heat/humidity theory, therefore it bends upwards.

Nope, that’s wrong. Ground curvature enters only as a 2nd order effect. Upwards/downwards bending is decided by the direction of the temperature gradient (up/down).

If the Earth were flat and the ground were flat, were is the supposed temp and humidity and density difference? There isn’t one.

I beg your pardon? You have a flat, humid lawn, the sun rises and warms the lawn, and you claim a z-independent temperature (z=height above the ground)? Seriously?

WE DON’T KNOW THE TEMPERATURE/HUMIDITY DIFFERENCES OVER THE DISTANCE MEASURED.

No need to shout. And I’m getting the impression that you’re confusing the vertical temperature gradient (important for nearly horizontal beams) with a possible horizontal gradient (irrelevant for nearly horizontal beams). “Oh dear”.

Mainstream physics claims that only refraction can bend light. Nothing else can bend it.

Wrong. According to mainstream physics, refraction can bend it and gravity can bend it. But here the topic is refraction, and everyday experience shows that temperature differences cause refraction. Do you deny even that?

Snell’s law hasn’t been confirmed experimentally over the Earth at all due to the variables I have already mentioned. They have no idea what temp/humidity existed over the said distance.

Wow, that’s tough. So, can you name any confirmed, quantitative law in Wild-Heretic-World?

And?

You really don’t get the implication of a perturbing effect (refraction) dominating the intended measurement (ground curvature)?

—
When you have denied all which is proven, then whatever remains, however insane, must be your belief.

2015/06/24 at 8:41 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
[Could you please remove my previous, nearly identical comment, where I had f*cked up the quoting?]

The closer to the ground the air is located, the hotter the air according to your theory, correct?

That is one of two possible scenarios. Warm air blown over a humid ground can produce the other one. During the course of the day, the gradient can change, which explains Wilhelm Martin’s findings.

Forgot your perfect isolation model and concentrate on reality with all its variables.

Absolutely a fantasy model. The Earth isn’t convex as already proven. So, therefore your refraction model does not apply.

That’s wrong. The diffraction model (or rather the result, i.e. the beam curvature) is (to 1st order) independent of the curvature of the ground.

In a convex Earth, the 6 cm “dip down” causes straight travelling light to enter more dense air according to your heat/humidity theory, therefore it bends upwards.

Nope, that’s wrong. Ground curvature enters only as a 2nd order correction. Upwards/downwards bending is decided by the direction of the temperature gradient (down/up).

If the Earth were flat and the ground were flat, were is the supposed temp and humidity and density difference? There isn’t one.

I beg your pardon? You have a flat lawn, the sun rises and warms the lawn, and you claim a z-independent temperature (z=height above the ground)? Seriously?

WE DON’T KNOW THE TEMPERATURE/HUMIDITY DIFFERENCES OVER THE DISTANCE MEASURED.

Mainstream physics claims that only refraction can bend light. Nothing else can bend it.

Snell’s law hasn’t been confirmed experimentally over the Earth at all due to the variables I have already mentioned. They have no idea what temp/humidity existed over the said distance.

Wow, that’s tough. So, can you name any confirmed, quantitative law in Wild-Heretic-world?

And?

You really don’t get the implication of a perturbing effect (refraction) dominating the intended measurement (ground curvature)?

When you have denied all which is proven, then whatever remains, however insane, must be your belief.

2015/06/24 at 9:02 pm
Melissa
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I have enjoyed reading the contributions on this site. Eye opening and at times confirms what I’ve felt since i was 13. Feels nice seeing others on same path and I thank WH for his diligence in supplying us with this information.
WH you said in a post to do the research or let you. Thank you for taking on that burden. I get involved and consumed .. Its a personality flaw lol. You’ve saved me from expending the endless energies expended in a quest for truths.
So much of what’s said here comforts me and I’m thankful. Its set me on a new path of Self. I was so consumed with the why and how and i don’t have to be now. I can focus on what matters.. What should matter. My own personal bubble that includes my family. Sure the world matters.. But not to the extent it did (to me) prior to finding this site.
Just thank you. The deception is real but on I can’t fix it. All I can do is rise above and perform my duties as commanded by my Father. Seek ye first! The kingdom of God. And His righteousness. And all these things shall be given to you. Nothing else in this world need matter to me. Its His to control. And it’s in my free will to choose not be buried in the nonsense.
I’m not scientific but am very intrigued and excited by science. I knew so much made absolutely no sense. And even less sense when you bring Scripture into it.
I can’t walk away from my Christian foundation as I feel it was a gift given to me by tools of Satan. Funny right? Long story but God’s work is mysterious.
All in all.. WH you are a blessing to me.
Christopher, your post on our ‘ego’ was so spot on for me. My emotions battle my intellect and keep me in a vicious cycle. I can confidently break free of this sin because its not of God. My emotions have kept me in stasis. In perpetual anger which stopped cold any forward motion towards God. I feel freedom. Hope and at last I feel peace. Peace in the knowledge that:: see (Romans 8:28).
I will pray that your efforts to make the masses aware will not be hindered. And if they are.. That you receive God’s strength to persevere. Bless you and yours.
I have been Pilgrim.. And now I can make Progress.

P.S. I’m in amazement frankly. At how utterly blind I’ve been. And how quickly the power of Satan over me has fallen. Now… To strengthen my mind and heart against future attacks from The Deceiver.
Much love. Mad respect. May God bless your good works.

2015/06/28 at 8:26 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
To clear up a possible misunderstanding: Maybe you’ve got tripped by my sloppy usage of “Snell’s law”, which in a strict sense refers to a discontinuous change of the refractive index. But taking the limit of many small changes, one (almost) recovers the result of the more general Fermat’s principle.

Hence, to make it absolutely clear: I’m considering a temperature field continuously varying with position (essentially with height z).

—
When you have denied all which is proven, then whatever remains, however insane, must be your belief.

2015/06/29 at 4:15 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Berry.
That still doesn’t refute anything I have said.

Of course the curvature of the earth is fundamental to your argument. Concave Earth just so happens to go against your theory so naturally you play the variable card (hot breeze along the ground). This I have no problem with on its own “in vitro”. However there are so many variables as I have already pointed out that this seems unlikely. How long did a hot breeze travel over the said distance? How deep was this breeze and where was it exactly along the distance? How fast did it travel? What was the temperature of this hypothetical breeze? Where was this breeze? In what direction was this breeze traveling? How long did the breeze last?

I have been looking out the window of my back garden for the last 5 minutes which is looking over a meadow. It is quite breezy at the moment. The trees and shrubs are blowing in different directions at different heights and different speeds every few seconds. Some long grass nearby in one particular area is swaying faster than at other places. A little further on it is isn’t swaying at all. For a few seconds there is no breeze. There is also not just one breeze, but many breezes. Sometimes, judging by the initial push of the wind against a branch, the breeze only lasts a second in one direction in one very small area.

Let’s just assume for one moment that all the required variables that you need played out during the time WM was measuring the difference (which didn’t take place over a few seconds). Look, these things happen 😉 Now, do you think all these variables played out exactly the same 4 months earlier to get the same 16 cm upward bending light? What are your chances? Not good.

You can also throw out vertical refraction. I found out when looking up the bend of light at various angles up to 10 degrees away from the horizontal from vacuum to air, the difference ranged from 1.65 degrees at about 89 degrees (1 degree off the horizontal) in-coming light to 0.01 degrees at 80 degrees (or a mere 10 degrees away from the horizontal). In other words, refraction effect drops off dramatically (looks exponential) when moving away from the horizontal incoming light. Therefore all the hot breezes would need to be slightly cooler with each gradient along the parallel. Oh dear.

I also re-read that the height difference along the valley was no more than 12 cm. I don’t know if this was up or down, if it was a consistent gradient or undulating (likely). Let’s assume a hypothetical gradual down, or maybe the grass was shorter further out, or more dark green to reflect less heat. So despite a concave Earth we could still get the necessary drop of the ground to get the required hypothetical heat differential where there is colder air above than below. But yet, again we get the same temp variables 4 months earlier. There is also another problem. During the night, the air near the ground is said to be colder than the air above it according to this book. This makes the air less dense above causing the air to refract downward (in my above hypothetical scenario of the ground losing height along the distance, despite the earth’s concavity) at night… except WM showed that light still bent up by 14 cm/6 cm.

When you make up extremely improbable hypothetical shit in a desperate attempt to keep your worldview alive, then academic careers can be saved.

2015/06/30 at 2:02 pm
Berry
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Of course the curvature of the earth is fundamental to your argument.

It is not fundamental, for heaven’s sake. One can leave it as an open parameter, don’t you understand that? Maybe a formula can help:

Let g(x) denote the large scale ground variation (a two-dimensional picture is sufficient) with g(x)=-x²/(2R). That means R>0 for a convex earth (of radius R) and R<0 for a concave one (and R=infinity for a flat one).

Then, as a very simple and very smooth model situation, let the refractive index vary linearly with the height above the ground: n(z)=n0+a*(z+x²/(2R)), where ‘a’ is of the order 1e-6/m=1/1000km when a (vertical) temperature gradient of 1K per meter is present.

Applying Fermat’s principle (the continuous father of Snell, million times confirmed and used e.g. in optical fiber industry) yields the beam shape to be (sorry for the ugly ASCII formula)

z(x)=z0+kx²/2*(1+(k²-3k/R)x²/24)

where k=a/(n0+a*z0) and z0 is the height where the beam is (horizontally) launched. Now, since the beam is launched in a height of one or two meters and since n0 is essentially unity, we have essentially k=a, i.e. also k=1/1000km. That means, without the x²/24-correction-term, we get a beam with a curvature of 1/k=1/a=1000km in good agreement with Wilhelm Martin’s findings.

Now, let’s check the correction term, which has two contributions: The k² stems from the fact that a curved beam implies a change of height and thus of n already above a flat ground, while the -3k/R is the consequence of n=n0 not being found at z=0 but at z=g(x). This last part is the only one considered by you in your comments (albeit 100% verbally, of course).

Let’s put in the numbers: We get (a²±3a/6400km)/24=(1e-12/m²±4.7e-13/m²)/24=4.2e-14/m²±2e-15/m². On the distance of x=500m used by Wilhelm Martin, that amounts to 1e-8±5e-10. Do you get that? The impact of the “unknown” convex/concave (i.e. R=±6400km) on the beam displacement is 1e-9 (relative), which for an uncorrected deviation of 12.5cm means 1.25 Angstrom. Pretty negligible, I’d say.

Hence, what is the rational basis for your claim “Of course the curvature of the earth is fundamental to your argument.”? Care to answer that? Is refraction magically switched off in a concave earth?

However there are so many variables

And your “solution” to these many unknowns is to completely neglect the influence of refraction?

as I have already pointed out that this seems unlikely.

What exactly is unlikely?

a) that refraction due to temperature difference exists?

b) that vertical average temperature gradients of 1K per meter exist?

c) that a real temperature field can cause beam deviations of 12cm
over 500m?

You can also throw out vertical refraction.

Let’s see…

I found out when looking up the bend of light at various angles up to 10 degrees away from the horizontal from vacuum to air, the difference ranged from 1.65 degrees at about 89 degrees (1 degree off the horizontal) in-coming light to 0.01 degrees at 80 degrees (or a mere 10 degrees away from the horizontal). In other words, refraction effect drops off dramatically (looks exponential) when moving away from the horizontal incoming light.

Duh! Why do you think, I’ve pointed out that beams tangentially to the ground are effected the strongest by refraction?

And no, it’s not exponential: Let d be the refractive index difference. If it’s small (e.g. like d=3e-4 in your example), then the critical angle (all angles relative to the horizontal and in radians) is √(2d), which at the same time is the largest kink (corresponding to an angle b=0 on the vacuum side). For small angles b>0, the kink then becomes √(2d+b²)-b, which first drops linearly -b and then peters out as d/b.

Therefore all the hot breezes would need to be slightly cooler with each gradient along the parallel. Oh dear.

I don’t understand the plural here. What is “each gradient” supposed to mean? Do you know what a gradient actually is? It’s a vector. In the scenario above it has a z-component of ‘a’ and a (much smaller) x-component of ax/R. Hence, the curves of constant n (i.e. Snell’s “horizontals”) have a slope (relative to the “flat ground” z=0) of x/R and thus are (surprise, surprise) parallel to the ground g(x). But even for a beam bending opposite to the ground, the angle between the beam and the “horizontal” is x*(

+1/

), i.e. in our case of x=500m, a tiny 0.033°. Pretty grazing, I’d say. “Oh dear”. Thus, what is your rational basis to “throw out vertical refraction”?

—
When you have denied all which is proven, then whatever remains, however insane, must be your belief.

2015/07/04 at 1:31 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to Berry.
Rather than clog up the comments section, I’ve added to the bendy light article a simple refraction refutation as well as add a couple more pieces of evidence.

http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/#Refraction?

2015/07/06 at 5:14 pm
Cornel
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Tell us more about your experiences and the mind bending technology.

2015/07/10 at 3:14 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Cornel.
I can do it in a pm to your email perhaps.

2015/07/13 at 10:25 am
Cornel
In reply to Wild Heretic.
Sure, whenever you’ve got the time, thanks.

2015/07/17 at 7:33 am
arnott

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Nova_totius_Terrarum_Orbis_geographica_ac_hydrographica_tabula_%28Hendrik_Hondius%29balanced.jpg/640px-Nova_totius_Terrarum_Orbis_geographica_ac_hydrographica_tabula%28Hendrik_Hondius%29_balanced.jpg

I’ve been keeping my eye out on maps — you’d be surprised how many maps clearly show a concave Earth if one only pays attention to what the line contours are actually showing us! This one is “Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis Tabula” by Hendrik Hondius (1630).

Nary a mention of the concave shape, of course, from Wiki.

2015/07/17 at 7:02 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to arnott.
Good find. Sumstuff has a video on that. I was amazed when I first found out about that. Just goes to show that at least some people thought the earth was concave back then… and quite a few people judging by the maps. Also amazing that they have managed to wipe this knowledge out from history (except for the maps of course). If they can cover up that the Earth is concave, then what else are they capable of covering up? Just about anything I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZaq9NgJj2Q

2015/07/20 at 11:32 am
John

It is the biggest pile of bullshit that I have ever read. How can you be so ignorant? And how can you decipher science in such a pathetic wrong manner? There is something called the Occam’s Razor. Use it, I implore you. Ridiculous.

If you are looking for something, you will bend all evidence to fit your preconceived notion, and that is what you are doing here. Wow!

2015/07/23 at 12:41 am
Donald Sarty

Coins that look like they represent the concave earth and firmaments from »>1776«<

https://www.google.ca/search?q=coin+continental+currency+1776&num=30&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAmoVChMIo8WRiq7wxgIVxLgeCh1UmAoL&biw=800&bih=448

2015/07/23 at 4:03 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Donald Sarty.
Interesting, thanks Don.

2015/07/24 at 7:06 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to John.
I’m glad you liked it 🙂

2015/07/24 at 7:06 pm
trigun

What’s up with the pyramid at the center? wouldn’t it make more sense if galactic center were to be the center of the concave earth?
Thing that don’t make sense: pyramid at the center & sun is not a sphere instead is flat from behind.
are the planets and moon even real or just holographic projection?

Check Crrow777’s channel on YouTube.
Uncovering Missing Secrets of Magnetism
Stellar Metamorphosis.

2015/08/06 at 6:51 am
trigun

how do you explain earths energy grid with concave model?

2015/08/06 at 7:33 am
trigun

This book called Etidorpha tells us earth is really hollow. This man William Morgan (aka I-Am-The-Man in the book) was a Freemason who was forced to explore the subterranean world as a punishment for breaking the oath.

If we are the ones living inside the earth then this man went to the outer world that is totally unknown to us. 🙂

This book might help explain concave earth greatly.
https://archive.org/details/etidorhpaorend00lloy

The beings in that world speak language that is very close to sanskrit.

2015/08/06 at 7:50 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
I mention that book in the article about the holes near the poles. I didn’t remember the language part. That is interesting. Are you referring to the being with no eyes?

2015/08/06 at 8:40 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
I’m not entirely sure. All the energy in my model comes from the electrical output of the Sun. Could it be the resistance/conductivity pattern of the Earth’s crust to the electric field? No idea at the moment. That was a nut I had failed to crack.

2015/08/06 at 8:43 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
That is LSC’s theory, not mine (pyramid in the center). I think the Sun is near the center, but nobody really knows to be honest.

2015/08/06 at 8:44 pm
trigun
In reply to Wild Heretic.
The books that actually say the beings speak sanskrit is The Smoky God and Passport to Eternity.
https://archive.org/details/smokygodorvoyage00emer
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/passporttoeternity.htm
while Etidorhpa explains what’s under the earth, where does lava come from, ether and does some experiments that proves current solid earth theory completely wrong.
The Smoky God actually says that when they crossed via the polar opening at north, they encountered another reddish Sun which almost always stayed stationary over their heads.

2015/08/07 at 5:47 am
trigun

Does Concave Earth Model support Polar Openings into outer world? It should otherwise question arises where does the excess heat escapes?

2015/08/07 at 6:03 am
trigun

Does Concave Earth Model support Polar Openings into outer world? It should otherwise question arises where does the excess heat escapes?

How does the Magnetic field of Earth Generates? I know there is no iron core.
According to Joseph Cater, i.imgur.com/UgzOwjI.jpg
i.imgur.com/zLTvmnX.jpg

2015/08/07 at 6:04 am
trigun

This is his book that one must read:
scribd .com/doc/47554465/The-Ultimate-Reality-Vol-1
scribd .com/doc/49492822/The-Ultimate-Reality-Vol-2

If Earth is concave, it would be obvious its impossible to take pictures of earth from space.
The other possible reason would be Van Allen Radiation Belts behaving like force field making it next to impossible to go beyond low earth orbit.

2015/08/07 at 6:05 am
trigun

Here’s the picture of that reddish sun reported in the book The Smoky God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMVmqtBbV-s
check at 3 minute 20 seconds.

2015/08/07 at 7:21 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
Interesting Trigun.

I read that they say that there is a long twilight, not really pitch black at the winter poles, but I didn’t know about seeing the Sun in different shapes at the horizon. They say it is refraction because of temperature changes, but is that really enough to show the Sun above or on the horizon? I mean, at the north pole on December 21st, the Sun is supposed to be way below the horizon at just about all times (noon and midnight), by about 23.5 degrees I think. I mean can slight hypothetically rising atmospheric temperatures put the Sun at the horizon from that far below? It seems incredible to think so. Maybe someone with the math skills can have a go.

Here is something interesting:

The North of Yukon is warmer than the South. Temperatures throughout most of the North American Arctic are warmer in the high Arctic. Where there is no sun at all. So it was during the last years at start of the long Polar Night. The cold comes from the South! For those living down South, this does not make any sense at all.. But it is so:

http://eh2r.com/

Maybe because the milder north zone is coastal?

Text version of the same you tube video.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/inuit-seek-answers-to-arctic-sun-quirks-1.672345

Looks like the temp difference at Novanut (82.5 degrees N if memory serves) is about 11 degrees warmer. Is this enough for refraction to put the Sun at the horizon?
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/arctic-town-isnt-so-hot-on-warming/

2015/08/08 at 6:08 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
Thanks for the links. Something interesting for me to read when I have time.

If Earth is concave, it would be obvious its impossible to take pictures of earth from space.

I’m pretty sure that is the real reason as well as the Van Allen belts as well of course. It’s pretty hot next to a light bulb filament after all.

2015/08/08 at 6:21 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
Yes, it does. At least my theory kind of relies on it. At first I thought it didn’t, but I don’t think the normal crustal magnetic field is enough to support the Sun and its position and movement, but I could be wrong. As you say, the polar openings would really help the heat issue; although the Earth could be fairly porous with “windy” caves both under and above water, so…

I don’t know how the mag field is generated. LSC has a theory about it being because of a metal outer casing. Honestly, I don’t know. I had an early thought that the Sun may have something to do with it; that the Sun’s rotation effects the semi-conducting silicate crust to create its weak field. The mag field is very weak – 200 hundred times less than a typical ferro bar magnet if I remember correctly. Why does it move slowly (is it 60/70 km a year?) about the antarctic/arctic circles? That would be the concave Earth version of Carter’s spinning Earth (moving electrons) creating the mag field.

2015/08/08 at 8:00 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
Yes it does.

2015/08/08 at 8:01 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
I remember the experiments. I must reread it again, especially concerning lava.

The Smoky God actually says that when they crossed via the polar opening at north, they encountered another reddish Sun which almost always stayed stationary over their heads.

Some people think that book is a fraud. I am not so sure. I sometimes wonder about what kind of Sun they are describing. Not a sulfur lamp at any rate.

2015/08/08 at 8:03 pm
trigun
In reply to Wild Heretic.
I think it is actually the sun providing light to those who live there. it is said that hell or underworld/sheol/tartarus exist below our feet so i am thinking maybe they live on convex surface or there is another concave sphere we don’t know about and accessible via polar openings.

I also think this is where all the aliens/fallen angels and their offsprings hybrid or not, are coming from whom religions worship.
So i never worship nor enter any religious places. 🙂

I am also thinking what if earth is a spaceship?

2015/08/10 at 10:01 am
trigun

WH, can you ask Steven Christopher to make a video named:
“Top 10 Reasons We Know Why Earth is Concave”

I think its very important to debunk this misleading video. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8
If possible make it same way this video is made.

2015/08/10 at 2:44 pm
trigun

This is intriguing. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQMpEAsNHmY
This guy says auroras are actually energy leaving earth.
Same is said by hollow earthers that direction auroras is up not down.

Now since we actually live inside the earth, what does that tell us?
Right, energy is coming in from outside! 🙂

This means that the inner sun smoky god book talks about is actually the outer sun earth actually orbits! Cause of auroras.
So what if heliocentric model isn’t actually invalid, only invalid to us who live inside the earth?
Heliocentric doctrine came from masonic occultists anyway and Etidorhpa book confirms masonic connection goes all the way to inner earths actually outer earth (convex side).

2015/08/10 at 4:58 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
Yeah, that was my first thought too regarding the hollow earth being the convex earth, but it doesn’t work with the Smokey God description. Does this mean that the book is really fiction or that the “outside” of the Earth isn’t the convex side as experienced when going through the pole holes?

The problem lies in its contradiction with the entire smokey god world having constant daylight everywhere all the time, which means it can’t be convex, unless light is bending fully around… and yet they sail through the Earth’s north pole and come out its south.

If both are true and light isn’t bending around fully then I can only resolve the contradiction by looking at the other world as also being concave and that the connection between the two is kind of another dimensional one, or vortexian portal; possibly like a synapse in a brain so that the two worlds are connected by two tunnels at both poles (a little bit like this https://pearlsofprofundity.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/synapse-group-1a.jpg)

… or perhaps that world is overlaid onto ours and the pole holes are one way to access it via “dimensional” portals so to speak, i.e. there is no here or there.

2015/08/11 at 6:31 pm
trigun

Scripture don’t agree with another concave sphere so it has to be convex surface.
Philippians 2:10 – So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth
We would be those “under the earth” while those “on earth” would mean those on convex surface of earth.

I think this will solve the mystery behind 24/7 light of the hollow earth said in The Smoky God book.
Surely you have read Etidorhpa book which talks about what is called “soft white light” with no apparent source William Morgan and his guide the eyeless being encountered starting 25 miles below the surface.
Joseph Cater in his book The Ultimate Reality says that light/radiation from the Sun not only is reflected by the Earths crust but also continues to penetrates Earths crust. Even Etidorhpa talks about this if i remember right. Joseph Caters says that soft electron disintegration is what causes that soft white light. It will continue to penetrate until it is out on the convex side and illuminate convex surface from all sides at the same time leaving no place for night so even if there happens to be reddish smoky sun, there will be no night.
http://i.imgur.com/Nd2t7Av.jpg Joseph Cater is hollow earth believer but you can just invert the diagram in the image and think instead of soft electron sun, its concave soft electron layer above the convex surface illuminating that world, no shadows will exist on convex side.
Beyond that would be the bottomless pit or void/hell if there really are no other outer stars or planets.

2015/08/13 at 7:28 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
That is a plausible interpretation of that passage. I always interpreted “under the earth” meaning the underworld, but your interpretation is equally valid.
I think in the KJB there is an even 50% spread of “in earth” and “on earth”. I don’t know if this is because of the different level of knowledge of the many authors, or mistranslations or not. In other words, I don’t know the legitimacy of “in heaven and on earth and under the earth”. Should it read “in heaven and in earth and under the earth”; or perhaps “in heaven and on earth and in the earth”?

That is why the bible for me is such a hot potato.

The soft diffuse light as the source of light for the “other side” of the Earth sounds ok, but I don’t believe that is how the Smokey God pair described how the other side was illuminated. If our Sun is illuminated their side with soft light, then is their smokey purplish Sun diffusing our side with its light? Thinking on a slightly different tact, perhaps the “other side” is more spirit like and has its own luminescence, like a dream world, which emanates not from penetrating sunlight necessarily, but from “matter” itself?

I remember the caverns in Etidorpha being illuminated by soft light, but I can’t remember if they mentioned the source. I assumed it was self luminescence, which points more towards the spirit/dream state of being I think. I recall that gravity became less, until it was zero at one point. My take on that was that the telluric currents (originally emanating from the Sun) can’t penetrated that far down.

I quite like the idea of soft electron disintegration. Could it be perhaps that there is less of that here due to the magnetic h-field in the Earth cavity which would hold everything together. Less magnetic “glue”, more leakage – hence more spirit and malleable shapes? Could it be that the “solidity” of our material world relies on its distance from the h-field? That brings up the other point. In the amazon jungle tale, the Indians also experienced the same less, then zero gravity when venturing downwards. However, after the halfway point, gravity got stronger again as they got closer to the other world. Eitdorpha experienced pure spirit instead. Could it be that there are only certain underground portals or tunnel systems to the other world (the holes near the poles being two of them). I think that is why I thought of the nerve cell idea. It is unformed aether or spirit (or soft electrons) which surround the concave Earth – the analogy is the watery solution outside the brain cell. But some paths lead to another brain cell – some tunnels lead to the other world. It’s just an idea.

2015/08/17 at 11:36 am
trigun
In reply to Wild Heretic.
It makes more sense to me that Suns light/radiation penetrated through earths crust and became soft light that evenly illuminates the deep caverns and outer earth to the point that no shadow will exist. If earth were to be viewed from the outer side space, it will look like the star. You should read The Ultimate Reality by Joseph Cater to know more about science behind this soft light/soft electron. This soft light’s frequency is very close to the gravity or ether so it rapidly penetrates the solid matter. The smoky sun is reddish not purplish and is seen after going through the poles deep enough, i am also thinking that this sun may be artificial or this is where God sent the sinned angels, that reddish sun could be hell.
The outer side of earth is definitely physical as the sanskrit speaking people have visited our side many times. http://www.ourhollowearth.com/passporttoeternity.htm
http://www.holloworbs.com/Geo%20Model.htm

They said soft light had no apparent source and later explained the source of light if i remember correctly. The soft light penetrates all the way through as it is etheric like the ether.

Etidorhpa didn’t experience pure spirit, William Morgan was taught to have full control over matter so he can become a spirit or flesh at will. Outer earth is also the source of Freemasons occult knowledge apparently.

2015/08/17 at 6:06 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
It makes more sense to me that Suns light/radiation penetrated through earths crust and became soft light that evenly illuminates the deep caverns and outer earth to the point that no shadow will exist.

Wouldn’t it make more sense that the Sun’s radiations are mostly not penetrating 25 miles deep? Otherwise wouldn’t we see soft visible light in a shallow cave rather than pitch black? Are these soft electrons merely the infra red spectrum in the shallow cave, which transform into the visible light frequencies further down? Possible I guess. Would it fit in with Cater’s theory of gravity being radiations in the low infrared spectrum? If this spectrum is transformed to a higher one such as visible light, maybe gravity as an effect ceases to exist? I don’t know to be honest.

EDIT: Been thinking about this. Here is a stab in the dark theory: The negatively charged field moving up from the crust (after being charged by the Sun due to lightning strikes) would be Carter’s “soft electrons”. These soft electrons radiate light in the infra-red spectrum (including the very low infrared “Carter gravity” frequencies), hence we can use infra-red goggles to see in the dark. Now the further we go through the crust, the less charge reaches these depths. This means there is less positive current flow pushing downwards at these depths. Also, we are further from the h-field keeping the Earth together. The charge that is getting through excited the rock more because it’s atoms are more free to move about (vibrate) hence the soft electrons emit the visible light frequency. Hence gravity is not radiations in the low infra-red but rather those radiations are the effects of the positively charged telluric currents (gravity) and the strength of the magnetic h-field on matter. It is the positively charged telluric currents which is the real origin of gravity.

The above is only an idea. I’d have to look into the zero g effect in Etidorpha to see if the soft glow was more visible or not, so as to amend this idea. For example, maybe the h-field is the primary determining factor and the charge travels right the way through the crust. This means that the positive telluric currents are approximately equally strong at great depths than at the surface, but matter is more free to move and vibrate at depth (further away from the Earth’s magnetic h-field and center; and also thick rock may dampen the field too) hence matter becomes “lighter” and whose soft electrons now emit visible light. Sounds better to me. Could be a mixture of both.

The outer side of earth is definitely physical as the sanskrit speaking people have visited our side many times.

Everything is “physical” in that sense. What piqued my interest is when one of the giants, which the Indians met on the “other side”, said that the returning Indians could meet the giants again in their giant world when the Indians were deceased in our world. This means there is a non-physical connection that doesn’t easily exist here. This points to spirit merely being that which is not or less affected by our Earth cavity’s h-field (magnetism). When they enter our world, they too become “physical” as they are subject to our h-field, just as we would be subjected to their environment if we entered their world. There have been plenty of anecdotal evidence of deceased people saying goodbye in the “physical” to loved ones. One involved a friend of mine and his family. Is it that this alive person is more in tune with the spirit? Perhaps. Or is it that the spirit can “tune down” more to the “physical”, like the story teller in Etidorpha BTW.

This leads on to the giants in the bible. Some giants could well have come from this other world, and then in the post flood environment shrunk to our size in successive generations. This means that some of those giants could well be us. And vice verse if we went to their world. The Indians that stayed on the giant’s world grew to a size in between their previous Earth size and those of the giants. Perhaps their future generations became giant size.

2015/08/17 at 6:40 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to trigun.
Etidorhpa didn’t experience pure spirit, William Morgan was taught to have full control over matter so he can become a spirit or flesh at will.

I think I remember him saying something to the effect of he was between spirit and flesh. Even better. Sounds like a true “multi-dimensional” being who can visit many worlds. He doesn’t need a UFO vehicle for that. I have a suspicion that pre-flood cycles were closer to this level of reality (between spirit and flesh) hence the longer ages and giantism etc.

2015/08/17 at 7:53 pm
Steve Widdicombe
N/A

What a bunch lovely open minded folk.
A true Platonic Cyber Symposium dedicated to the trapping the truth with reasons Gambit, and not a bunch of people dogmatically preaching unassailable fallacies or truths, who usually miss the point entirely, and always omitting the Stone the builders forgot that Heisenberg and Bohr’s so artfully reminded us of.
Very impressive, and joy to behold.It actually gave me hope compared to usually prevalent venom spitting. I don’t know if you guys a right or not when it comes to this subject, but I know quality people when I see them.

2015/08/18 at 1:05 am
Wild Heretic
In reply to Steve Widdicombe.
Thanks for that. A compliment is always appreciated I am sure.

2015/08/20 at 8:24 pm
dan

The Gofast Amateur Rocket proves zetetic flat earth. It launches over Nevada on July 14th 2014, 7:30AM and witnesses the full moon over Australia high over the horizon.

The heliocentric establishment holds that it should have only been 9% visible over the horizon.

2015/08/31 at 4:22 pm
Wild Heretic
In reply to dan.
I saw that argument on YouTube. To be honest I wasn’t sure either way.