Can this theory make predictions?

Yes, but at the moment they are limited in scope due to the freshness of the theory. When people ask this question, they mean can it predict astronomical phenomena like: the position of the Sun in the sky, asteroids, comets, stars (celestial sphere), planets, the moon, eclipses and such like?

Sun: Predicting the Sun’s position throughout the year has already been calculated in a concave Earth, as well as its actual location, material make-up, and mechanism. I concentrated on the Sun first as this object is primary to life and the creator of nearly all of the “unresolved forces” of the Earth. Its importance cannot be understated. The night sky is largely irrelevant to this theory, unlike the mainstream model of a vast universe.

Asteroids: These can also be predicted because thanks to radar we know their locations relative to the Sun. Their inclinations and speeds can be predicted in the concave Earth because the model theorizes that the Earth is held together by two attracting magnetic fields. These magnetic primer fields show the asteroids’ (meteoroids’) shape and orientation. For example, the closer the asteroids are to the poles, the steeper their inclination will be because they are being held by the “cone” vortex of the magnetic primer field. NASA thinks the same:

“The fourth and least understood source is the Asteroidal source. Observed asteroidal meteoroids are predicted to have inclinations close to the ecliptic poles, at about ±90º, in the apex direction.”


The asteroidal source are the areas closest to the poles.

Comets: (Please read Primer fields, meteoroids and the Sun to understand this properly). I haven’t looked at comets; however my guess would be that the movement of comets in the mainstream model to be very similar in a concave Earth, just the distances and speeds would be much reduced. My model is actually very heliocentric in that the Sun is placed in the center of the Earth cavity. The Sun is in (very near) the center and the comets move around the Sun in an ellipsis of relative inclination (angle), size and distance. The common ones moving elliptically around the magnetic field cones of the north and south apex and the north and south toroidal. The comets closer to the center (north and south apex) or the ecliptic (helion and anti-helion) will be less inclined and less elliptical.

ellipse vortex
A cross-section of a cone is an elliptical orbit.
Two attracting magnetic fields (primer fields) put together show the magnetic cone fields (and octahedron shape) in the middle.

These comets have most of their trajectories further away from the center and so orbit the center at a much slower speed. If the Sun is about at 0.80º from the center and orbits every 24 hours, then a comet orbiting around 50º from the center may take years or decades. Then there is the factor of the electrical Earth cavity slowing or speeding up the comet in some way.

Radar images of meteoroids positioned around the Sun show the cone/octahedron
The names given to the different source areas of meteoroids. The Sun is in the center of the graph.

Perhaps when it passes close to the Sun, it becomes more charged due to the solar wind and emits an electrical discharge (tail), or it heats up more and some of the iron/nickel alloy evaporates into a gas and becomes like plasma.

Stars/planets/moon: These objects don’t need a model to predict their whereabouts and/or phases. They are observed night after night, year after year. This data can be entered into a computer program like Stellarium. In fact, the moon phases are not 100% predictable even today.

The three quarter moon should appear 7 days after a full moon according to the mainstream model, yet there is often a 1 day irregularity with the three-quarter moon appearing 6 or sometimes 8 days later instead. This means the moon has an irregular speed (elliptical orbit?).

Eclipses: I haven’t looked into these at all in terms of their regularity, so I cannot predict them.

Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Can this theory make predictions?

  1. BlueMoon says:

    Sure, you can retroactively apply the data to your model. But can your theory make predictions that heliocentric theory can’t? If not, it’s really more of a hypothesis. And if it can’t explain all of the phenomena that heliocentric theory can, like eclipses, it’s really not a very good hypothesis.
    Your model needs to be simulated to see if all of the different aspects fit together. Then it needs to be tested to see if the data matches up with your predictions. The rectilineator experiment doesn’t count, because it was carried out over 100 years ago and had numerous flaws and biases.
    But before you do that, take a step back and consider: Is heliocentric theory REALLY false? Take a look at it with intent to find actual answers, not to find evidence to promote your own hypothesis. Bias is the enemy of science.

    View Comment
    • JMAC1978 says:

      Blue you sound educated enough… please be apart of LSC experiment. we need people like you involved. im sure Steve would not mind you coming Texas to see and help with the experiment. heck, you might be apart of history then once the true shape is shown.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Consider the hypothesis a work in progress. How long did it take the heliocentrists to come up with their theories which have to be patched to this day?

      I’ve done remarkably well so far (pat self on back). Couldn’t do it all on my own though.

      The rectilineator experiment doesn’t count, because it was carried out over 100 years ago and had numerous flaws and biases.

      Lol times ten. Experiments don’t count because they keep giving us the results we don’t want. That is why we only have maths and the dog and pony show to show us our place in the universe.

      Is heliocentric theory REALLY false?

      Yes. There is loads more evidence against it. I haven’t updated my blog with new info and may never will as I am one part time blogger how spends way too much time on it. I’m not part of a team like you guys. This isn’t my job. Look on other websites for evidence against it. Do your own research.

      Take a look at it with intent to find actual answers, not to find evidence to promote your own hypothesis. Bias is the enemy of science.

      If the article gets redone it will be done within a more neutral stance pro and against.

      View Comment