Gosh. Those are a lot of questions, some of which …

Comment on New forum by Wild Heretic.

Gosh. Those are a lot of questions, some of which will be answered in future articles. However, the breadth and depth of those questions are too vast for me alone to answer thoroughly. It could take me 5 to 10 years to do so with the current time I have available and then I am one man with one brain and one perspective. Hopefully the articles so far and those few in the future will motivate other people with better minds to take on a couple of those questions themselves. No professional who is capable of overcoming their own initial root assumptions within a 4000 mile radius will touch CET with a barge pole as it is immediately career ending. Forget the educational establishment. It is up to us to figure it out. We are on our own. There are no “good guys” but us and I am glad of that. I think we only really understand something when we strive to find out for ourselves. Spoon-feeding was never going to work.

If you had unlimited resources, what experiments would you perform to prove your model and force the current accepted model to be refuted?
I’d repeat the Rectilineator experiment. At the moment though I will continue to write and ponder and then mess with electrics… probably. Or I might change the subject material and go off in a different direction.

Please note that with the current accepted model these are all explainable and very well understood.
I strongly disagree with this. Nobody knows what gravity is for example… or matter. Physics can never get to the bottom of anything as there are always more questions. At least a basic mechanical explanation will suffice for me at the moment. I’ll leave the knowing to a joining with the metaphysical when I’m dead… or maybe not (probably not). Seems ignorance stays with us when we die. Another topic of research perhaps?

For the moment let me very quickly and superficially answer those questions (in 30 mins lol).

* Functioning of compasses
I’m looking at that at the moment and will never be fully able to answer that until I have a detailed model of the aether which may be unattainable for me to reach.

* Functioning of GPS (and more generally satellites)
Applied technology satellites attached to the glass is one possibility.

More likely though is that that they bounce it off the ionosphere (glass) as AM radio. http://www.wildheretic.com/nasas-weird-and-wonderful-orbiting-machines-pt2/#2

* Aurora borealis/australis
Not sure. Could be a few reasons including the official one. LSC has a theory I think. No idea if it is correct.

* Magnetic poles shift over time
Briefly thought about this. Not sure yet. Some clues may be revealed over time.

* Climates generally change with latitude
Easy one. I will answer this in the next article. Funnily enough, heliocentric theory can’t explain a serious issue with climate which I will point out in the next article.

* Seasons
See above.

* Phases of the moon
Yeah, the moon. What a mess that thing is, whatever it is. I haven’t thought about this properly. I may not address the issue at all as it isn’t in my radar for future research.

* Only one side of the Moon is ever seen from any location on Earth
Bizzare eh? I’m not going to look into this… probably.

* Visibility of the Moon at day time and night time simultaneously in different locations (call someone up in a very different time zone)
Could be a topic of future research if you are up to it. I won’t be looking into the moon I think.


* Sunsets/sunrises of different colors then high-noon, simultaneous observation of sunsets/sunrises as the sun being at high-noon (call someone in a very different time zone)

I had an initial theory of the glass being the cause of the different colors due to the high magnesium content, but that theory fell flat on its ass. I haven’t looked into the purple sunset thing more than that. The official explanation may be correct.


* Tides (including why the tides change in magnitude every day)

Obviously an aether connection. I think I know what gravity is (to a certain extent). Not hard to figure out when you know the Earth is concave. Tides would be a good thing to ponder and will be in my radar for the future.

* Coriolis effect
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/#E


* Positions of the stars changing over millennia (I am not talking about nightly changes or seasonal changes, I am taking about the fact that the stars in 1600 were in different positions then they are in 2000)

I think I saw a video from Steve giving an explanation that I liked although I can’t remember what he said now. The obvious answer would be slight changes in the movement of the aether (in the eye of the vortex especially) over time which I would fully expect because the aether would be dynamic – like everything in life really, cycle always repeat… but not absolutely exactly the same as the last time.

* Volcanoes, tectonic shifts, earthquakes
Just been thinking about this recently. I’ll write about this properly in an article on gravity and the planets when I’ve looked into it better. It’s spinning aether pressure basically (which is gravity).. think centrifuge.

* If our vision is misleading, then why is it that when we take a picture that picture looks pretty much like what we see (with maybe some coloring differences)
That would support the theory that it is light that bends and not the interpretation of our eyes/brain. I am also strongly leaning towards this theory.

* How we stay put on the Earth (you say gravity is problematic)
See above.

* How come other objects have gravity
Ok. Simple explanation is Steve’s one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4VHcFY1Vg

A more detailed explanation – At the moment I’m leaning towards the alternative theorists that matter is just vibrating aetheric vortices. I think it is the bonds which are doing the vibrating like a guitar string. The gravity force of matter would be the spin of the aetheric vortices compressing against whatever the aether is spinning against. These waves compressing waves would be longitudinal. This is a huge clue and you can research this yourself further for some real eye openers and a lot more besides if you put your thinking cap on. There is obviously a lot more to this, but I would need to look into this more. This will be hopefully written about in a future article.

* Why does air rest near the surface of the Earth?
Inertia due to compression.

* Speed of light (this is more involved to test on your own, but is possible, using revolving mirrors on two the two sides of a big canyon like the Grand Canyon)
Not sure about the speed of light. I have thought about light and I think I know what it is. I disagree with Michael Mathis and Walter Russell on this one and agree with Maxwell and Hertz, but hey I might be wrong. I future article for sure.

* Comets get further away than Sun does
Yeah. I think I have comets in the bag. Will see.

* Many planets in our solar system are further away than the Sun

Yeah. I’ll talk about this in a future article.

* Orbital movements of planets
Super easy. The article after next. Don’t want to spoil it right now with a couple of links.

* Why planets are the distance they are.
See above.

* At what altitude do you pass the stars?
Without giving too much away about 0.7 degrees away from the center on the horizontal axis. Will write an article on it very soon.

* Why is it that when you go up in altitude the stars don’t get visibly larger before you “pass” them?
Concentration of the compressed aether (gravity) is more compressed the lower the altitude is my guess. I think the “flicker rate” of the stars depends on the density of the aether at any given position of the observer.


* Why can’t you see the stars below you once you go above them?

Not sure I understand this question. Oh wait I think I know what you mean. I don’t know if your statement is true but it should be as the only light you will able to see below you would be the reflected light from the crust and so you shouldn’t be able to see any stars without looking at them directly which of course are always above the observer (unless you are able to get to the center of the Earth).

* What holds the stars in place?
The eye of a rankine vortex. The following clip is a rotational vortex, but same idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hafHLx6YEDM

* Why does the Earth look spherical from the balloon cameras?
It doesn’t… well not all the time. It changes from convex to flat to concave depending on how high the horizon is.

* As the balloon rises, the Earth looks more and more like the outside of a sphere instead of the inside of a sphere?
See above… and also http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/#D.

* Do we have to change all of physics and chemistry to adopt a new model of light? If light changes a good portion of physics and chemistry will need to be changed as well.
Partly. Visible light seems to be accurate at short distances. See Rolf Keppler’s website for future reference.

Any other questions feel free to ask. Those where good ones to help me with future articles.

Thanks friend.

WH


Wild Heretic Also Commented

New forum
Thanks Trevin.

I like alternative theories to gravity because I don’t believe in the official narrative. The question is if any of these theories is true or not? I don’t know. At the moment I am sticking with gravity coming from the sun. What that is, I don’t know.

“As another separate thing, I know that gravity is a pull and not a push because of tops; tops can’t spin with their sides as close to the ground as they get without these sides being pushed directly to the ground if gravity is a push. ”

I don’t think wobble matters either way. It’s the angular momentum keeping the top up, isn’t it?


New forum
Gary, you have to sign up and then I will approve you. After approval, you can reply to posts or start threads.


New forum
Don’t know, but very interesting all the same. Possibly a large meteor burning through the glass. It looked far too short for it to be a reflection on a cloud from something on the ground, unless it was a ground explosion. Wouldn’t we see the light from the ground explosion on the horizon first though?


Recent Comments by Wild Heretic

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
One possibility (look under “planets”): http://www.wildheretic.com/what-are-the-astronomical-bodies/

Personally, I much prefer the other idea that retrograde motion is caused by speed variation/planet tilt. The idea in my CET is that the sun is the outermost body near the center of the cavity and spins the slowest. The rest are inside the sun’s orbit a little bit closer to the center of the cavity. Sometimes when a planet gets too close to the sun/moon it is attracted/repelled to or from that body (or maybe other planets as well) which slows the planet down, or speeds it up. Something like that.

It has been a while since I looked at Jupiter in Stellarium and got latitude readings at the equator over 5 years, so my mind isn’t fresh on the above theory. I have yet to get the longitude data for Jupiter for example and compare it to the sun’s position.

It isn’t something I am concentrating on right now.


There is glass in the sky
Very difficult question. I don’t know. I assume the creator(s) of this biosphere. What then is the purpose of this biosphere?

The glass could be needed to add extra pressure to keep the flood waters below the earth, and/or to block out some of the harsh sunlight radiation. It seems to be a key component to the biosphere.


Why hide the concave earth?
Monsters Inc is older than this article I think, so I would say they got it from the source, which is Monroe’s books.


Space machines do not orbit the Earth
When you are at Davos, you can ask them.

There are satellites up there IMO, just their deployment is not as we are told. Why? Because they are using heliocentric theory as a cover. Why? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.


Space machines do not orbit the Earth
I personally think the moon is reflected light from the back of the Sun. The negative cooling effects come from the “positive” charge of the Sun which is pushing the moon around Sun.


Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.