Bendy light – the evidence

+++

Even though we have worked a lot of stuff out, so far we have only deduced that light bends through speculation, mainly observing the path of the Sun inside a concave Earth. Now let’s look at four pieces of evidence that light does indeed bend under certain conditions, including the Earth’s.

Micro cavities
Theodolites
      Refraction?
Optical zooms
Summary

Micro cavities

We’ve reasoned that an induced negatively charged field (electric current) from the outside of this Earth cavity, which is made largely of silicon, creates an electromagnetic field inside the cavity which in turn bends light. What if we took a cavity made out of silicon and put an electric current through it? Even without a solenoid (the Sun) to greatly enhance the fields, could we also bend light inside this silicon cavity in order to mimic what happens with sunlight inside the Earth? Amazingly, that is exactly what has been done.

In 2012, researchers have copied what happens in the Earth cavity but on a tiny scale.

The Stanford solution capitalizes on recent research into photonic crystals – materials that can confine and release photons. To fashion their device, the team members created a grid of tiny cavities etched in silicon, forming the photonic crystal. By precisely applying electric current to the grid they can control – or “harmonically tune,” as the researchers say – the photonic crystal to synthesize magnetism and exert virtual force upon photons. The researchers refer to the synthetic magnetism as an effective magnetic field. The researchers reported that they were able to alter the radius of a photon’s trajectory by varying the electrical current applied to the photonic crystal and by manipulating the speed of the photons as they enter the system. This dual mechanism provides a great degree of precision control over the photons’ path, allowing the researchers to steer the light wherever they like.

+++

This isn’t refraction or any other known issue of changing the path of light but a brand new phenomenon that even breaks known physical laws of light (which is a huge warning for all those following the “laws” in their textbooks. Laws are meant to be broken. You only have to find the right external conditions not tried out before. That is of course if you want to invent something new).

A key postulate in physics, the time-reversal symmetry of light, was broken by the researchers after they introduced a charge on the photons that reacts to the effective magnetic field the way an electron would to a real magnetic field. What this means, for engineers at least, is that a photon travelling forward will have different properties than when it is traveling backward, opening a whole new spec of technical possibilities.

+++

This is the same pattern to the path of an electron in a magnetic field; just like sunlight in the Earth cavity, fancy that. It looks like future computers are going to be based on electrified cavitation technology. So instead of solid-state devices, it looks like hollow-state ones are the future for electronics… and possibly electrics.

A fundamental principle of electronics is the ability to maneuver electrons through a given path. When an electron is met with an magnetic field, it will travel along the lines where resistance is lowest, typically in a circular path around the field. In a similar manner, the Stanford researchers have successfully managed to send photons in a circular motion around the synthetic magnetic field.

electrons like iron filings
Electrons act in magnetic lines of force just like iron filings which is the same as the path of sunlight in the Earth cavity and that in the electrified cavities of silicon.

This piece of engineering has solved the third and finally mystery of how sunlight can follow the Sun’s magnetic field without being a dipole. It does not theoretically explain it (which a previous article has done), but practical engineering carries a thousand times more weight than any possible theory, no matter how plausible.

Not only do we have a proof of bending light in the micro, but also in the macro. There is experimental evidence that visible light running parallel with the Earth bends at varied angles throughout the 24 hour day/night cycle; and in a concave Earth this bend is always upwards.

Theodolites

(Source Rolf keppler’s website.) In Riedern A.S. in Klettgau on May 24 2001 between 11 and 12am, the engineer Wilhelm Martin (deceased since 2009) conducted on experiment (which was witnessed by Rolf Keppler) with a theodolite (leveling device) called a dumpy level.

lichtkrumm6
Wilhelm carrying out the same experiment at night. In all tests he used the Carl Zeiss dumpy level (Nivelliergerät) NI 2, no. 87523 which is an optical leveling device with a built-in plumb level, used for surveying and in the building trade.

Proceedure
No.1. (The control) Two measuring poles were placed 1000m from each other. The dumpy level was placed in the middle of these two poles at the 500m distance. The built-in plumb line (spirit level) was then used to make sure the device was absolutely level to within 1 arc second, which is an accuracy of 0.5cm to 1km. Wilhelm then looked through the telescope and with the cross-hairs marked the zero mark on the measuring pole. He then turned the dumpy level around 180° and did the same for the other pole. These marks are now used as a control for the future measurements.

lichtkrumm1
The measuring poles are marked by the cross-hairs in the telescope viewed by Wilhelm.

No.2. Wilhelm then positioned the dumpy level 4m from the left measuring pole and adjusted the height of the theodolite so that it was level with the zero mark made previously when the dumpy level was located in the middle of the two poles. The dumpy level was then turned 180° and the cross hairs on the theolite were used to find its position on the right measuring pole 996m away. This was 12 to 14cm higher than the zero mark in the control.

lichtkrumm9
The original zero mark is sighted 4m away.
lichtkrumm10
The dumpy level is turned round 180° and the distant 996m measuring pole is sighted and then marked accordingly.
lichtkrumm2
Rolf’s German graphic reads “A deviation of 0 to 16cm depending on the time of day”. The actual reading between 11am and 12pm was 12 to 14cm higher than the zero mark.

No.3. The exact same procedure as no.2 above was carried out, but this time moving the dumpy level 4m from the right pole, sighting the zero mark, rotating the level 180° and sighting the position on the left pole 996m away. The result was nearly the same as the other pole with a deviation of over 14cm higher than the zero mark.

lichtkrumm11
The right measuring pole is sighted 996m away.
lichtkrumm3
The deviation between 11am and 12pm was 12 to 14cm for procedure no.2 and over 14cm higher than the zero mark for procedure no.3.

This experiment was then repeated for different times of the day, on sometimes different days in the year, at the same location with varied results between 0 and 18cm higher than the zero mark. These results are listed below:

24.5.2001, 11am-12pm             No.2 from 12 to 14cm, no.3 over 14cm higher
07.04.2001, 6pm                  Both no.2 and no.3 about 16cm higher
07.05.2001, midnight to 2am      No.2 8cm higher, no.3 0cm (no difference)
07.05.2001, 8-9am                No.2 8cm, no.3 12cm higher
05.7.2001, 5-6pm                 No.2 16cm, no.3 18cm higher
lichtkrumm4
The midnight test was enabled using light-bulbs fixed to the measuring poles to allow for readings using the cross-hairs.

So at 996m we have readings from 0-18cm above the zero location, which was the mark measured at 500m. This difference therefore is over the extra 496m. According to Mr. Martin, this is a well-known phenomenon within the surveying community as surveyors always measure from the center if possible. The manufacturers also know about this as modern and expensive dumpy levels have built-in switches to compensate for this “error” in order to keep all readings the same as if light traveled in a straight line.

The overall actual physical height difference between the two measuring poles was only somewhere between 12 to 20cm, which eliminates refraction as a reason since the variation of air density over a few centimeters is non-existent. This leaves us with the only possibility left which is that light bends; but in which direction?

If the Earth were flat, then light bends upwards from 0-18cm depending on the time of day. If it were convex, then we would have to take the downward curve of the Earth into account, assuming that light travels in a straight line. This curve equates to around 6cm for the first kilometer according to Rolf. Another equation to work out the difference between a straight line and the curvature of the Earth is:

curvature1
The full equation showing how to calculate the distance between a straight line to a circle.

A simplified version.

latex.php
A much easier and simplified equation to work out the distance from a straight line to a circle.

R is the radius of the Earth which is 6378.1km; X is the distance of a straight line, e.g. light; and the funny squiggle is the difference between the straight line and the curve. Using our own numbers we calculate the square root of 40680159.61 + 1 then subtract 6378.1 which gives us 7.84cm as the difference. Whatever is the calculated true figure, 6cm or 7.8cm, light either bends downwards or upwards if the Earth is convex, and never straight, according to the experiments carried out above by Wilhelm Martin.

This fact destroys modern astronomy, and Copernicanism to which it is attached, because it relies on the erroneous assumption that light travels in straight lines at such short distances. It completely calls into question where objects are in the sky and how far. Where is the comet when it slowly traverses the night sky? Where are the stars, the “planets”, the “moon”? Not where we think they are, obviously. Where is “up”? Above our heads. And where is that? The electromagnetic Earth cavity has skewered everything visual… and a lot more, i.e. created gravity.

Sekoia-Comet
Where is this comet and in what direction is it really traveling?

If the Earth is concave, which we have already seen as very likely, largely due to the Rectilineator experiment by Cyrus Teed, then light is always bending upwards from at least +6cm up to +24cm in the “second 500m of 1km” depending on the time of day. If light bends so much at this distance, how far can it travel before it comes back on itself? Rolf didn’t have any data for 2km or 4km etc. so we don’t know how much more light bends beyond the “second 500m of 1km”. However, in our concave Earth model, light curves due to the the negatively charged field and the magnetic B-field of the Sun in the area past the glass (Van Allen Belts); and so all light on the Earth will eventually make its way back to the Sun, which is very near the center, and follow the magnetic multi-layered toroid shape already described.

This upward bending light explains why when we look up at the sky in a concave Earth, we don’t see the other side. Simply because the Sun traps all light in the Sun’s magnetic field whose center is roughly the center of the Earth cavity.

Refraction?

When confronted with Wilhelm Martin’s evidence, every nahsayer in the land screams refraction as the reason for the upward bending light – read: nothing to see here, please move along, known physical laws describe everything, aka Lord Kelvin Syndrome.

kelvin Syndrome
Despite the comments above looking ridiculous in the 21st century, there are people today who still suffer from this disability to some degree.

Standard air density differences don’t exist over 6 cm, but the nahsayers’ argument rests on possible heat and/or humidity differences over the 0 to 18 cm range of bending light. It is said that the temperature difference needed is only 1°C in 100 cm for light to bend 6 cm over 1000m. Wilhelm Martin registered a 6 to 12 cm upward bend during the day, and at night a 2 cm upward bend in one direction and 6 cm downward bend in the opposite direction if the Earth were convex. There are only two possible ways this can occur: 1. breezes; 2. a gradual differential in the height of the ground away from the light rays.

1. The light measured was running parallel to the ground which requires each breeze to be slightly cooler in the exact space of the light ray over the 1000m for the light to bend upwards. Each breeze also has to be blowing just off 90° (horizontal) to the light ray so that the light ray can enter the new colder air and to get the most refraction. Just 10° off the parallel light ray and light refracts 15 times less than it would if the breeze were blowing very nearly parallel according to endmemo.com when comparing light traveling from a vacuum into standard air density – 1.35° at 90° and 0.09° at 80°. On slightly to very breezy days looking out at the grasslands up to 500 m away behind my back garden, the long grass, shrubs and trees sway at varied speeds, height, directions and time. The breezes last from 1 to a few seconds. In places there is no breeze evident. The chances of the these two variables being just right for upward bending light are a zillion to one. Not only do we need this gradual temperature differential over all the breezes and also the near parallel direction, these same amazing conditions were replicated three months later on the 5th of July to get the same 16 cm upward bend on both dates. Now it is a zillion zillion to one.

2. During the day, the temperature of the air needs to be hotter closer to the ground by 1 to 2°C over 1 m (around where Wilhelm measured), which needs to fall away from the light ray in order for it to refract upwards. I.e. the light moves into hotter, less dense air, as it travels from the measuring stick to the dumpy level.

refraction-ground-drop
Light entering less dense air due to height differential moves upwards towards the dumpy level.

Is the air hotter though? There are opinions such as:

Air near the ground will generally be cooler than the air higher up during the daytime, and warmer at night, with a crossover in the morning and evening… Assuming it’s one meter, there isn’t usually much difference between the air temperature near the ground and the air temperature one meter above the surface. The exception is found at night when difference in the air temperature between one meter and the surface can be 2°C (3.5°F). This difference explains how frost can be observed when the morning low temperature is as high as 3°C (38°F).

+++

There is one case study over a grass lawn in San Fransisco in winter between 2 and 4pm which detected only a 0.7°C average temperature difference between the grass and the air 1.5m high, let alone differences within the air itself – grass: 25.37214°C, air 1.5 m above: 24.67143°C. Even the air over the 40 °C asphalt was just 24.92500°C, which is only 0.25°C hotter than over grass. The 37.27909°C paver had the coldest air of them all at 24.25455°C (pages 7 and 8 of the PDF).

“While there were major differences within surface temperatures, variations within air temperatures were not apparent… The air temperature above the different materials did not mimic the trend shown in surface temperatures.”

+++

This shows how little, if at all, the heat from the ground affects the air temperature above it during the day. If anything, vegetation is said to act as a heat sink due the increase in water content in the soil and evaporation from the leaves. So where does the hypothetical daytime heat differential come from?

air-and-surface-temps
The air temperature above the different materials did not mimic the trend shown in surface temperatures.

Nighttime is different and can experience the necessary temperature differences. 2°C over 100 cm has already been mentioned. The book Essentials of Meteorology: An Invitation to the Atmosphere says:

This measured increase in air temperature just above the ground is known as a radiation inversion because it forms mainly through radiational cooling of the surface. Because radiation inversions occur on most clear, calm nights, they are also called nocturnal inversions. A strong radiation inversion occurs when the air near the ground is much colder than the air higher up. Ideal conditions for a strong inversion and, hence, very low nighttime temperatures exist when the air is calm, the night is long and the air is fairly dry and cloud-free.

+++

night air temp
On most clear and calm nights, the air can beF colder further away from the ground over 1.5 m.

One study found that most of the urban area to be heat sinks during the day which makes the air slightly cooler above it. The same is said to apply to vegetation. This makes slightly cooler air nearer the ground in the morning and afternoon, warmer air in the evening after sunset, and back to cooler air nearer to the ground again further on late at night due to the air’s insulation effect (nocturnal inversion) – assuming there is no breeze throughout the day to equalize temperatures.

Actual measurements have been carried out during the winter/spring months above a road in Sweden (covered in snow). The graph below shows the maximum air temperature difference between 1 and 1.5 m at roughly 0.2°C around midnight (several hours after sunset). One reading even showed a very slight temperature reversal. This would be about the height that Wilhelm Martin tested bending light.

night temp over asphalt winter sweden
Page 5 of this PDF shows a table with the temperature difference of air from 10 to 250 cm over a Swedish road in winter tested every 20 minutes around midnight.

Also notice that this temperature inversion can occur only during perfect conditions which we must accept existed during Wilhelm’s night test for the downward refraction to occur – 2cm upwards in one direction and 6 cm downwards the other when applied to the convex Earth model. This is despite the lack of necessary air temperature difference during the day (or even a reversal of what is needed) which makes the argument mute anyhow.

There are also other variables such as differences in the colour (dryness of grass) between dates that registered the same amount of upward bend. One photo shows very dry yellow grass; another much greener grass which reflects heat differently. The length of grass was also not the same over the 1000m and shows quite a variation (looks to be about a 20 cm variation). Rolf Keppler said the height difference of the ground was around 12 cm. This is very likely undulating rather than a perfect gradual dropping off of the ground height from 0 to 12 cm. How much ground is high, how much is low? A convex Earth would help as it drops 6 cm over the measured distance, but would it really matter over so many variables?

The concave Earth is what has been experimentally measured, which moves the ground 6 cm upwards over the 1000 m. If we ignore the lack of necessary heat effect on the air by the ground during the day, the variable height of the ground and the grass, the different colour of the grass, and possible variable breeze and weather conditions etc. a concave Earth would move the ground gradually upwards, purely hypothetically heating the air nearest to it. This would bend the light downwards, not upwards, as light moves into colder air from the measuring stick.

refraction-concave
A gradually upward sloping concave Earth would refract light downwards as it moves into the hypothetically more dense colder air.

It is possible that the light could have moved into warmer air from the measuring stick, if the vegetation acted as a heat sink cooling the air directly above it; but there would have to be colder air near the ground at all the times and dates measured by Wilhelm which includes 9am, 12pm, 2pm, 6pm, 12am, and 6am, as light always traveled upwards in a concave Earth (6 to 24 cm). Also, because of this, the temperature difference during the day would also have to be up to 6 times than that at night during an nocturnal inversion (6° over 1 m as opposed to 1° over 1 m), which doesn’t exist.

Let’s say the ground still dropped gradually (and purely hypothetically) downwards enough despite the Earth’s upward curvature (concavity). A nocturnal inversion with the cold air below and hot air above should cause light to refract downwards. Yet at very early night time and early morning, light bent up by 6 to 14 cm in a concave Earth.

refraction-ground-drop---night
Light refracts downwards at night during a nocturnal inversion. Yet, Wilhelm detected light bending upwards at night (just to a lesser degree than during the day).

If there were no nocturnal inversion (due to breezes for example) then there would be no (or very, very little) temperature difference anyhow. From 12 am to 6 am, there would need to be a 1 to 2+°C temperature difference over 1 m the other way (hotter air near the ground) for the upward bending 6 to 14 cm; and during the day a 6°C difference over 1 m (hotter air near the ground) for the light to bend upwards to 24 cm over 1000 m. Neither exists in reality. This of course also ignores the variables above.

Optical zooms

Youtube user Karol is the originator of this discovery. The center point of the image rises when the optical zoom function is used on a camera. It could have been theorized to be the camera mechanism at fault; however, when the camera is turned upside down, the same rising of the center point is seem. This makes the effect an external one.

11025800_565327500276310_6769286719366472602_n
Even if you turn your camera upside down and make two pictures (before and after optical zoom) the center of the image will go UP (just like with the normal orientation of the camera – so it’s not a technical inaccuracy of the camera). The sensor is upside down too so you must analyse the inverted photo to see what happens with the center of the image. Here, it went up from the level of white roof to the vicinity of the fence top. Photos made by Polish concave Earth proponent – Mariusz Szczytynski.

This will be tested by myself as soon as I get a high-powered optical zoom camera.

Summary

  • A grid of tiny cavities made out of silicon with an electric current running through them creates “synthetic magnetism” which bends light within those cavities as if the photons were electrons around a magnetic B-field.
  • A ginormous cavity made mostly out of silicon with an electric current moving up through its surface area has also been theorized to bend light around magnetic field lines – our Earth. Coincidence?
  • Engineer Wilhelm Martin measured light to be 0-18cm higher for the second 496m over 1km, depending on the time of day when the light was shone parallel to the Earth.
  • Light bent the least at night from 0-8cm which agrees with the theory that it is the negatively charged field creating upward bending light (see electromagnetism hypothesis).
  • The difference cannot be attributed to refraction as the physical height difference between the two poles were said to be 12-20cm.
  • On a convex Earth, the downward curve of the Earth subtracts 6cm or 7.8cm (depending on the calculation) from the readings. This means that light running parallel to the Earth bends 6/7.8cm downwards to 10.2/12cm upwards depending on the time of day, but hardly ever straight.
  • These findings prove that modern astronomy hasn’t a clue as to the location and distance of celestial objects.
  • On a flat Earth, light always bends upwards from 0-18cm; in a concave Earth it is always bending upwards from 6cm (7.8) to 24cm (25.8).
  • Upward bending light explains why when we look up at the sky in a concave Earth, we don’t see the other side – the Sun traps all light in the Sun’s magnetic B-field whose center is roughly the center of the Earth cavity.
  • Even for a convex Earth, refraction as the cause of Wilhelm’s results is very improbable due to the variables involved and the lack of correlation between average daytime air and ground temperatures as well as vegetation acting as a heat sink during the day and a radiator at night. The very improbable is made impossible in a concave Earth unless the air directly above the ground is cooler than above it for all times and dates tested, including an extreme 6° over 1 m around midday.
  • Ka Rol has shown that the center point of an image rises with increased optical zoom regardless of the camera being upside down.

+++

Light that bends slightly upwards is also the best contender for the horizon.

Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Bendy light – the evidence

  1. SPACE says:

    But how Lighthouses are used. As I know, signal from them is seen as far as 20 km. And it gives straight, not bended signal. Average ship sailor can drive with this help ship into harbor.
    Let’s say you’re Hitman, and you must kill target 300 meters away with optical zoom. Will you aim 30 meters up to hit?
    What I mean, there’s difference, where lights bend and where material object is.
    Light bending is mirage.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      But space, how can you tell if the light bent when looking at an object? There is no straight light to compare it to.

      There is little “concave earth” bend of light for 300m. This subject would be a very interesting research topic. Looking at long distance shooting 1000m+ and see if 1. such distances are achieved, 2. how accurate the shots are, 3. what other factors long distances shooters have to take into account which affects optical targeting. With Wilhelm Martin’s optical targeting over 496m difference, the average deviation was about 12cm. This distance was from 500m to 996m. So take a long distance shooter, line up the optical sights at a target 500m away and shoot. Then move to 996m away and line up the sights again and shoot. What is the average distance between the cluster of shots at 500m and 996m? Are the 996m bullet holes approx 12cm lower than those at 500m? Of course unfortunately, there are plenty of other factors at play, so this wouldn’t be a great experiment, merely an indication.

      Do we see that same problem with long distance shooters? Do they correct for that, or not? Time to visit the shooting forums I think.

      View Comment
  2. Rick Fickthorn says:

    @Wild Heretic The experiments cited are very interesting, and certainly may be a newly discovered phenomenon. But I do think it’s way too early to be drawing conclusions, without further repeatable – and more consistent – results. In any case, the conclusion of a convex earth, even if it is supported by this evidence, is easily falsifiable from many other already established means. You need to have the conclusion fit ALL the available data, not just the newly gathered data. There must therefore be another explanation for these effects. Perhaps you are allowing confirmation bias to skew your judgment.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I understand.

      Steve will repeat the WM experiment after the rectilineator one I believe.

      The effect is basically vacuum birefringence (or really multirefringence) at source I think (to put a scientific name on it).

      I think you meant “concave” earth no? What experiments refute concave Earth? The Bedford canal experiment? I don’t know of any other. There is also the problem trying to triangulate the Sun – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc with the Navy’s own data showing that light always bends (whether by refraction or not) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAJ7A7S82A

      View Comment
  3. Donald Sarty says:

    From Lorenzo Acerra via email
    Maybe this is the only thing needed to have the
    movement blossom.

    For instance: I am a foreign body to the concave movement.
    I must digest the light bending issue and the sphere issue.
    BUT I WOULD HAPPILY buy the 2000 euros instruments on my own
    and after the measure confirms concave start studying seriously.

    let s say I have an interferometer which reads the inclination of a plane, a table and so on to the micron. if I bring it on a ship it can confirm or disprove the concave model. They have excellent software to plot all the data, see Wyler AG and Digipas professional solutions for the industry. please check out the video by TSG Physics called Michelson Interferometer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-u3IEgcTiQ

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m new to that idea, so I may not have understood it correctly. I’m not sure that would work, would it? The inclination of the table will be the same on all locations at sea because water is level at all locations right? Or does the interferometer act like a straight line measurement from location A to location B?

      View Comment
      • Donald Sarty says:

        I have no idea how the interferometer works myself, he sent me that message as he was overwhelmed by your website, so i told him i would send his email to you 🙂

        View Comment
    • Donald Sarty says:

      rectilineator-interferometer 120 yrs later: curvature boat (2016) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqIv7lJBcoI

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Saw that yesterday Don. Mentioned it on the forum. Not sure if it would work though as water is always level. Can the machine compare the level as a straight line at one location or does it just compare its position locally to the “gravity” of the earth. If the latter it would be no different to me taking a builder’s level around the world on a cruise ship. The builder’s level will always read level on water no matter where it is.

        View Comment
  4. TruthSeeker says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8auPtlRTyM
    Can you testify this video’s validity? I’m confused about his concept.
    Also, here’s the mindset I have in mind about how we perceive light. Our eyes have limited range of sight as far as the ‘vanishing point'(Assumption – though someone explained it’s due to perspective). Artists call it One Point Perspective. Therefore, we won’t be able to see the Sun above the concave earth model giving out it’s light and also reason why we see 2:15 – 5:05 Polaris and SIgma Octantis occurring at the same time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahNfU7zYlmY
    WHEREAS Sun’s light has a limited range of light emitted to earth which accounts for night period.
    I’m still learning. So I hope you can help to make the process easier for me.

    View Comment
    • TruthSeeker says:

      If this article can lead to my answer, no I have not read it yet since I’m gonna need to understand the human range of sight first. I’ll probably read this hopefully in a day or few. Please tell me though if this article is it or something else.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Can you testify this video’s validity?

      No I can’t, but it looks good. I will do something like that myself in the summer and test lots of horizon issues before then.

      Therefore, we won’t be able to see the Sun above the concave earth model giving out it’s light

      Depends on the size, distance and illumination of the Sun. Other factors may come into play that I am unaware of.

      why we see 2:15 – 5:05 Polaris and SIgma Octantis occurring at the same time.

      Do we? At the equator perhaps.

      WHEREAS Sun’s light has a limited range of light emitted to earth which accounts for night period.

      Is this the flat model? Sun paths don’t work unless you want to spend the time to try and make them fit using timeanddate. I’ve already mentioned this in another comment. If nighttime is due to increased Sun distance, then on the equinoxes how does the day and night straight-line division work on a flat earth?

      I don’t think this idea would work for the Sun in a concave Earth. Maybe in Steve’s model.

      View Comment
  5. Darren says:

    hey WH the effects can be seen near the end of the video, the boat visible through the sea,

    View Comment
  6. Darren says:

    this is the video with the close ups of the sea and boat , you can see the affects on the horizon in this video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYfB0B16VQA

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’ve seen that video and I wasn’t too impressed, but I can’t remember the exact reason (I’m concentrating on putting up a proper forum at the moment, nearly ready.) I’ve seen a ship go over the horizon with my own eyes, both naked and through binoculars, both wading in the sea and about 40 to 60 feet above sea level.

      This is not to say that every time a ship disappears over the horizon it moves hull first, at least through a camera, as it may depend on atmospheric conditions – fog effect etc. I am hopefully getting a x60 zoom camera for Chrimbo so when I visit my mother who lives by the sea I can get lots of horizon video and see what is what.

      WH

      View Comment
  7. Darren says:

    Hey WH , i recently watched a fround earth video , it was the one showing the sail boat at sea on the horizon and supposedly past the horizon.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI

    the interesting thing is , even though the boat seemed to have gone past the horizon if you watch closely you can clearly see the lower part of the boat appear through the waves , and the closer you look at the waves , you can see that there is an optical mirage illusion occuring or light bend effect which is bending up the horizon waves higher than they really are and this is whats covering the hull from view but not totally, the boat is alot more the 1km away im assuming

    View Comment
  8. SPACE says:

    Light is tricky thing. Just look how was defined metre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
    The metre is defined as the distance traveled by light in a specific fraction – about one three-hundred millionths – of a second.
    Then look lower at Meridional approach to get metre. They measured distance from Barcelona to Dunkerque and got a distance from North pole to Equator!
    I think it is a point to flat or concave earth model, because in convex model it’s not possible to make such measurements, because light bends over horizon and is not visible.

    View Comment
  9. scud says:

    Hey WH!

    On a clear day, what would you see through a ‘dumpy level’ positioned on the shore overlooking the oceans or large enough lake? Would the cross hairs of an exactly leveled device rest upon A: water. B: the horizon or C: the sky? What would then happen if you raised the altitude of the dumpy and positioned it, say atop a 300 foot cliff face?

    Yeah, it’s an expensive bit of kit but there is a much cheaper alternative that would effectively do the same job… http://www.screwfix.com/p/euro-box-level-1200mm/53540
    Mount him up on a tripod / table, anything that allows to adjust for level then ‘look down the barrel’, perhaps even fix gun like, rudimentary ‘iron sights’.

    In no way do I think that this is a poor mans alternative to the rectilineator experiment simply because of your evidence presented here concerning the nature of light (will it bend?)

    My guess is that the spirit level would always point dead on to the horizon (regardless of altitude). Would this prove Earth a solid ball +/- 6300 Km radius? Would it prove an ‘Eric’ (heads up here WH, you get a ‘shill badge of honour’ from the flat earth extraordinaire.. http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/06/flat-earth-shill-wall-of-shame.html ). Or would it prove that wherever you are and whatever height you’re always at the proverbial base of a gigantic saucer!

    Dunno! Let us go ahead and check out what our spirit levels tell us then lock this in with the information we have about the behaviour of light.

    View Comment
  10. Arturas says:

    Check Mercator projection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection used for naval travels. Square map on globe (or concave) Earth

    All 2D map world projections made by convex earth model latitude and longitude projections are always shown outwards. Except one exception Pan Am airways logo where projections shown inwards concave earth.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pan_Am_Logo.svg

    View Comment
  11. Hoi Polloi says:

    I thought of another illustration model that would be interesting to examine and might help explain matters if light bends exponentially with distance from a plane/point or height from Earth, if that’s a factor. You might consider this for helping to explain to people having a hard time examining the actual action of the light hitting the cornea. I know that the distance light travels somewhat makes this moot compared with the short little space in the eyeball, but it is interesting to note how the eye sees space.

    As we know, light enters the eye from the angle of its reflection and creates an “upside down” image within, on the back of the eye. So as a concave Earth curves upward from the plane of vision (actually the perfect plane would be a fictional mathematical concept at this point), would the exponentially “bended” light make a more dramatic curve or angle within the eye? Could this explain the appearance of the horizon at about “eye level”?

    Here is my visual attempt at a diagram of that, with image we see on the left, eyeball taking in light, and “world” image coming in on the right, with skylight bending the most because of the longest distance it must travel: http://postimg.org/image/88wnc81nv/

    I hope this makes sense and I am not confusing matters. I am really posing a question: does this help inspire a better visual explanation for “bendy light” somehow? I hope so. Thanks, WH.

    View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      Others here have brought this up, including me.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Just read it now Hoi. Yes, that could well be it.

      I was thinking about this, I think the angle of light from the light source is what counts as to its perceived position regardless of how much bend is on it so to speak. So, if an object on the ground is emitting light, the most horizontal ray is travelling next to the ground. This ray bends up and hits the eye which perceives the light from its original emitted angle. My take is that the bend has no bearing on the angle perceived.

      View Comment
      • SPACE says:

        And don’t forget prism effect. About a week ago, I was standing in my room and looking at world map with flags. Accidentally I was looking at Jamaica flag, window is behind me to south and sun is shinning directly into it, it’s midday. I kneeled down and flag black color changed to very nice dark blue. So it’s about 40 degree angle.
        Taking on global earth scale. Someone is standing above me and says: it is the night, sky is black. I say, no sky is blue and it’s a day.

        View Comment
  12. SPACE says:

    Check Mercator projection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection used for naval travels. Square map on globe (or concave) Earth.

    View Comment
  13. Jfb says:

    One more add that it’s not the light that bends but the earth that bends.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      What do you mean? You mean my theorized upwardly moving negatively charged field emanating from the Earth that pushes light up and makes it bend, then yes I would agree with you. It’s only a theory though and therefore not important. Experiments are important.

      View Comment
      • R.E. says:

        Speaking of experiments – are you near any high flying hot air balloon rides Wild Heretic? I’d help chip in for the ride of you report back. :>

        I’m thinking an eyeballwitness may be more useful than a camera lens: no one can claim distortion, and there are no airplane windows to possibly warp the scenery. The closest balloon ride is about 1,000 miles away from where I am, plus I am scared.

        Consumer litigation being what it is, I doubt balloon rides go up as high as they did in the 1800s, but still. These HAB ride accounts of a concave earth, no stars, are fascinating.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I have never thought about that, but I reckon there must be at least one company doing it. I’d have to look into it. Best to take up a few people at a time and ask the operator what he thinks about the view. Preferably a clear day too, maybe in the summer. I won’t be doing it soon though.

          View Comment
  14. Jfb says:

    Well does anyone take into account what our atmosphere does to the light in changing its properties before it arrives to us?? I’m sure when measured in tests that they don’t use an atmosphere filter to the light? These feel like stupid questions but it does make a difference right?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      You mean refraction? endmemo.com shows refraction of 0 to 90 degrees incoming light through air at STP to be between 1.25 to under 0.01 degrees. Everything under 80 degrees incoming light has a refraction change of 0.01 to 0.1 degrees.

      View Comment
  15. karol says:

    There is a Polish surveyor, a furious opponent of the concave Earth theory who admitted in one comment that if you leave the leveller for a couple of hours and do not move it…the reading will be completely different 🙂

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Interesting. Did he mention at what distances these were?

      View Comment
      • karol says:

        No, he just slipped his toungue. You can try this with a camera too I think. Zoom in to the max from the same place at various times of day and see whether the image goes up differently each time.

        Something different here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE1PQhrAI30 🙂

        View Comment
        • Christopher says:

          “Rolf didn’t have any data for 2km or 4km etc. so we don’t know how much more light bends beyond the “second 500m of 1km”

          Use a tripod to fix a laser or a telescope with cross hairs on a distant level target of say 2km. Do not move the telescope or laser during the experiment which will last 24 hours, each hour you mark the movement of the laser or the cross-hairs on the target which would show the change in bendy light throughout the day and the night and would provide more evidence of how light is bending. I need to get a good telescope and a laser.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I’ve just thought of a possible quick fix modern rectilineator experiment. I mentioned before about taking a load of measurements with a dumpy level say every 20m and a right-angle brace (5 foot high or so) or something like that over 3km. Why bother with the intermediary measurements. Correct me if I am wrong, but all we need is the first reading at 20m with the dumpy level absolutely level, and then walk 3km next to a canal without gates (or somewhere relatively flat) and set up the dumpy level as it was exactly positioned in the first measurement (no leveling). In a concave Earth it should point to the bottom of the right-angle brace (5 foot length) with the level pointing downwards.

            In fact, why 20m? Why not 1m or 5m? Whatever gives the most accurate reading with such a device. Also, you could do it over say 5 positions at the start, moving the device laterally to get five 5 different readings and then use the other side of the canal going the other way and do the same. If the 10 readings roughly give a 5 foot difference, we have a result. The wider, the bank, the better as we can have more readings. Another location is that race track in Germany – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehra-Lessien.

            More significantly, there is a high speed circuit with a straight approximately 5.4 mi (8.7 km) long. Although this portion of the track is flat and level, when standing at one end of the straight, the other end cannot be seen due to the curvature of the Earth light.

            We could get 20 lateral readings maybe, or more depending on how wide the track is. The only real question is if it is definitely possible to absolutely lock the leveling device into place so that it remains steadfastly the same level as it did at the first reading despite being moved from the start location to the one at 3km. If so, this is the experiment to do folks. Oh, and we need a third piece of equipment that can accurately measure distance (from 0 to 3km). I’m not sure what yet.

            WH

            EDIT: Actually, I don’t think that would work as I thought. It would work but all we could see I think is that after 3km, the dumpy level would no longer be level due to either concavity/convexity or have I misunderstood that? Mmmmm.

            EDIT2: mmmm. Not sure now it would work at all now. I’ll have to think about that one.

            View Comment
  16. Surely there’s some way to determine if a laser beam in fog is straight or curved over say 1km ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kdI5rFYl7I

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg4VNZTyciw

    Maybe viewing from one side would reveal the shape, or how about using parallel mirrors ?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Not sure if you would notice a few centimeters over 1km, but it is a thought. You could use laser instead of normal light in the above experiment I would have thought. That would be interesting as I think a laser is only one exact wavelength rather than a collection and so you could get readings for lots of different kinds of wavelengths and then see if there is a correlation to the amount of bend.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      No worries Steve. I thought it was about time Keppler’s bendy light experiment was put into English and in a hopefully easy to understand manner.

      View Comment
  17. WH, I mentioned you and this page in my video here. thanks for your help.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzaFH2jmBOY

    View Comment
  18. Arturas says:

    We alaways knew that light is bending and always believed what the told. Thrown object into sky travels parabola path but at small distance this path looks straight. Light travels at staight path in small distance becouse it is least energy required path. Big projection lights that lights the sky uses parabola mirrors that concentrate light on one big spot, after projection into sky this spot becomes more bigger and and bigger becouse light bends. Even laser pointer projectile at small distance is tiny spot, after 50 meters projection laser pointer spot becomes bigger.

    View Comment
  19. Bob says:

    Yes the cave neighbors that won the last war with us appear to be using the system of Institutions as the primary method of compartmentalizing intelligence and “setting the standard” (a very low standard)
    You can get what you think is a great education in a specific subject like master in English and know little about science or master science and know little about English lol… It is all so no one gets the big picture and everyone thinks they are the expert or that such a thing even exists. Then let the debating go on forever (politics anyone?)

    In a free world we would give any and all education and facilities that we had to LITERALLY ANYONE that wanted to learn and experiment.
    FOR FREE to ANY age.
    Want to be a doctor? OK! Need to learn how to work on a car? NO PROBLEM!
    We gladly and freely pass along ALL we know to our children and brothers and sisters because we want a SMARTER WORLD.
    That is how to have an educated populous.

    Only an invading force would prefer that education be exclusive and limited and for profit as anyone who lived here would know there is no real profit (or good karma) in making a dumb world to live in.

    But to make the world NEXT to us dumb? MUHAHAHAHA GREAT IDEA!!!! They can make all our food and drugs and blue jeans and socks for us while we PARTY!!!! WOOOT!!!

    The personality disorder of our owners is showing….

    The good news is they wouldn’t do any of this if they didn’t fear us. And they wouldn’t fear us if it was not possible for us to do the same thing to them. Or even better just teach them what jerks they are to the point that they actually get it and grow up past the ‘Dominate other lifeforms for the purpose of personal exploitation” phase.
    Then maybe we could all be friends?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I think you are right about the exploitation thing. It could even be that we are livestock and have always been used for exploitation for something or other. If there are new slave owners, then they won’t give up their property any time soon. They’ll have to be forced from within.

      View Comment
      • Icecoldsun says:

        The question about the nature of our “real” rulers is always interesting to think about. Watching events like 911 and the Moon Landings indicates to me that while TPTB always will have a technological advantage over the rest of the populous, they seem to cook omly with water, too, if you know what I mean. If these beings were from another cavity, not having suffered a complete defeat, they would be so far ahead of us, sites like this (and lots and lots of others) shouldn’t be possible in the first place. I mean, without he internet, without all this “new” technology that became public during the last 25 years, I’m pretty sure I’d still sit before the TV set night after night, consuming every bit of propaganda without actually thinking. But I don’t even have such a device and never will. 😉

        They seem to know their time is limited, and therefore press forward the agenda in order to keep things as they have been for thousends of years a little longer, maybe 50 to a 100 years.

        Another argument why TPTB should be humans like us is that they obviously can’t elevate themselves in a biological / genetic way compared to us (just look at the all the research done by the Wallstreet-financed Nazis during 33-45), they only stand a chance by dumbing the rest of us down on a constant basis, making us believe in government, communism, capitalism, money, authority, centralized education, religion, quantum quackery, the low fat / low salt diet and last not least – heliocentrism and convex earth.

        Humans share a lot of things with domesticated animals – crippling diseases, being in need of “masters” compying to them, bad eating habits… So there is an argument that we as a species may have been designed to serve other beings (our masters), but I’m pretty sure if that’s the case they (our creators) are gone, adn gone for good. A dog may be not aware he is at the mercy of his human owner, but he definitetly knows his owner is there, and he realizes (if the owner somehow realizes his potential) that his own capabilities are far below those of his owners. But we don’t see those owners. It would be no problem for them to be visible, we would not have a chance but acknowledging their capabilities which could be perceived by us only as outright magic. But this magic never ever is obvious.

        My guess is that TPTB have learned most of their controlling techniques from “them” and now try desparately to stay in power. It won’t be forever, though.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yes, I sometimes think of that too. The internet certainly isn’t a free-market “bloke in the garage” setup. It needs fiber optics and the outlay for those submarine cables are huge. There could be many angles to the reasons behind this world depending on the different levels of realities. One of my favourite takes is from Oz93666 on truthzone.

          “Interesting information…… I think what might be going on is this.
          The controllers are ET s with access to all sorts of technology , probable future prediction, time travel…. They planed ,thousands of years ago, a sequential science role out , that would keep us enslaved , steered away from free energy , keep our understanding of the world limited, and containing just a little truth, so their story wouldn’t collapse . This was laid out in the Quaballah , and as time moved along put out into the world through their hand picked agents, who they knew they could trust , often Jewish . I suspect Einstein was fed the information to be released , He was just an office clerk with a fluffy image, not a genius.
          In a similar way to how they rolled out computers and the internet, they did their calculations knew the internet would help the awakening but figured the surveillance it would give them would outweigh this, so someone from one of their helper families was picked to ‘invent ‘ it. Bill Gates no more started the computer revolution than I did, he was just the front man, told what to do, allowed to get wealthy on the understanding he’d use the money to vaccinate the children and invest in GMO.”

          http://truth-zone.net/forum/science-and-physics/63548-cabbalistic-origins-of-physics-science-religion.html

          I don’t think the “ET” level is the final level of reality at all, but could be just one angle.

          View Comment
          • el guapo says:

            I believe concave earth pretty much rules out the existence of “ET’s” and “aliens” does it not? Whatever is in here with us has been in here all along, from the very beginning. Oh did I say beginning? What I should have said was “genesis”, specifically Genesis 3:
            “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

            Catch it?…WILD ANIMALS. Not Satan. Not an angel or demon or some kind of superior being. WILD ANIMALS. And very very crafty ones at that. There’s your jailor. There’s the root cause of this mess and the source of all lies…including the biggest lie of all: “Outer Space” …it’s their cover story you see

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Like the word “God”, the word “aliens” is very loaded IMO. It is difficult to discuss without better definition and more information for better references. Certainly, the half animal/human pagan deities sound like genetic messing from a previous cycle.

            View Comment
          • ProperGander says:

            Could it be the Emperor(s) simply have no clothes?

            The art of deception having been developed over the course of what we understand to be human history, might just be the most powerful weapon that could ever be imagined and actualized.

            Just an idea.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I am also deeply suspicious.

            View Comment
  20. Icecoldsun says:

    Well, before I pose my actual question, I have to admit that all this for me is extremely difficult to grasp, not even confusing yet… 😉

    You say multiple times that light bends differently throughout the day, bending less at night, making the horizon longer.

    So we can see further at night than during the day? If that is the case, the horizontal line should go down for the watcher, right?

    If that’s the case, one could make a video demontrating this…

    BTW, I’ve noticed for a very long time that at dusk the visibility of far away mountains in my country is often the best, better than during the day. This could be a hint your theory is right, at least, for my limited brain… 😉

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The horizontal line will always remain at eye-level, but in theory you should be able to see further at night (lights in the distance that is), especially over water. Oh wait, you mean the light bends upwards at a less angle (becomes straighter)? Yes, that is what I theorize.

      You can read it in German at Rolf Keppler’s site. I may have organized it better than he has, but at least you can read it in your mother tongue (assuming you are German).

      View Comment
      • Darren says:

        dont we need to bring heat into the light bending discussion? how it distorts the horizon aswell

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yes, superfraction caused by looming etc.
          http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/7/

          It isn’t that reason of course as the Earth is concave. I just pointed “looming” out to show the “other side’s” argument.

          For heat to be the reason for the hull first effect and horizon etc. in a concave earth, I had thought of that. I dismissed it though. There would be a tiny bit of upwards bend in a concave Earth due to refraction because parallel light is moving into denser air. The same effect if the air is hotter at the ground than higher up, which it is normally I think. This wouldn’t work over the sea as water absorbs heat. It is a giant heat sink; so heat doesn’t explain the hull first effect. The amount of refraction is also way too small to account for the horizon distances and different altitudes etc. If light traveled in a straight line in a concave Earth, then a little bit of refraction here and there won’t stop me seeing halfway round the world – atmospheric fog would though. Objects on the horizon would also be elevated with straight light (with a touch of refraction thrown in). SO it must bend in a concave Earth for other reasons. I hypothesize it is because of the electrification of the crust/atmosphere.

          With Martin’s experiment, heat could be a possibility for the results, but the added concave drop over the distance was only about 6cm and although it took place in a flat valley, there was vegetation of slightly varied height and the height difference of the ground was between 12 and 20 cm I think, and undulating. It would seem very unlikely. I think I wrote about that though in the article. I’ll research it some more at a later date.

          WH

          View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Bob, it’s amazing isn’t it. The shape of the Earth as to its way of curvature was never measured and the direction of light also (even though engineering has always known about it) are two such fundamental principles of our world around us that it can only lead me to two conclusions: either people are in their own way retarded, or there is a global conspiracy of colossal proportions. Probably a healthy dose of both.

      View Comment