# Equinox

+++
The basic framework of the theory put forward here is the observations of the path of the Sun as it moves in the sky dome above our heads. We know some of the observed paths (arcs) of the Sun at different latitudes on Earth; and thanks to timeanddate.com we know at least the sunrise and sunset angles which deviate from East or West, and the angle of the Sun from the ground at noon (zenith), at any location and at any date. This data can give us the arc (path) of the Sun.

How does an internal half light, half dark Sun move in a concave Earth to give us its observed paths? Let’s start with the easiest observation which is the Sun at the equator on the equinoxes (March 20th and September 20th) and compare the position of the Sun in the sky mathematically to where the Sun should be in the Earth cavity.

## Noon

### Sun arc at the equator

On the equator on the equinoxes, an observer sees the Sun rise directly in the East and follow a path directly overhead so that at noon the Sun is vertically over the head of the observer and then sets directly in the West as the diagram below shows.

 At the equator on the equinoxes, the Sun is seen to rise exactly East and travel directly overhead setting exactly West. A simple illustration showing the same effect. The equivalent in degrees would be sunrise: 90°, sunset: 270°, with a noon zenith at 90°.

This is verified by the website timeanddate.com by checking the Sun co-ordinates with the closest city to the equator, which is Pontianak in Indonesia at -0.02 latitude (practically bang on the equator). The location of other cities according to latitude can be found on this really helpful list. The latitude co-ordinates on this list are degrees/minutes/seconds (DMS) which I have converted to decimal and then verified using other sources. Occasionally, these other websites gave slightly different latitudes for New York, Pontianak and Punta, which have been used instead; and Dhaka and Sao Paulo have been rounded up to the nearest second decimal place. This DMS to decimal conversion is necessary so as to correspond to timeanddate. The ground co-ordinates on timeanddate are North(0°), East(90°), South(180°), and West(270°). The vertical noon position of the Sun ranges from 0° to 90°, with 90° being on the axis straight up vertically above the head of the observer and 0° being either on the southern horizon or northern one.

On March 21st 2013 at Pontianak, the Sun rose at 90°, set at 270°, and was 89.7° high at noon; but reaches it’s highest point of 89.9° the day before on March 20th (and still maintain the 90° and 270° for sunrise and sunset). This highest path is practically straight up with only 0.1° in the southern sky. This means that in a concave Earth model with the Sun possessing a dark and light side, the Sun must be positioned anywhere along the horizontal axis, but just about bang at the middle of the vertical one as the diagram below shows.

 The Sun must be positioned somewhere on the horizontal axis if the midday Sun is seen straight overhead (90°) on the equator at the equinoxes.

However, at this time and at any position on Earth, day and night are very close to being equal in length – 12 hours each. This means that the Sun must be in or around the central axis as shown below.

 Because the Earth receives just about 12 hours of night and day on the equinoxes, the Sun must be positioned at or near the center of both the horizontal and vertical axis of the Earth space.

The movement of the Sun on march 20th would be very similar to a spinning coin or an object in the center of a vortex as seen here:

 The Sun spins at, or around, the center at the time of the equinoxes much like this matchstick revolving around the core of a water vortex, but without moving quickly downwards. (Click to animate) Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be a coin quickly and tightly spinning close to its axis. (Click to animate)

Merely for the sake of curiosity, I’ve also added a rough calculation below for the actual size of the Sun in the center of the Earth cavity.

The Sun’s apparent size in the sky is claimed to be between 0.52° and 0.54° of the total 180° of the sky “dome” above our heads. We are looking for its average size of 0.53° at the equinoxes. This is 1/339.62 of the 180° sky dome. The vertical diameter of the Earth is 6356.762km x 2 = 12713.524km (WGS84 ellipsoid model) which would make the Sun (12,713.524 / 339.62) = 37.434km or 23.26 miles in diameter (assuming of course that apparent size is in an any way accurate relationship to its actual one – this assumption is a huge one).

+++

### Sun arc at all other latitudes

The location of the Sun in the sky at noon also corroborates with the all other latitudinal positions if the Sun were at, or very close to, the center of the Earth space. The fact that the noon Sun position was 89.9° on March 20th 2013 (just in the southern sky) for Pontianak with a -0.02° latitude means that the Sun is shining 0.12° below the center of Earth space (-0.10° away from -0.02°). It looks to be the southern sky because the Sun is south of Pontianak during winter where it increases its angle by 0.4° per day around March 20th. If it were 0.6° difference then that 89.9° would be in the northern sky.

However, timeanddate only go to one decimal place. This unfortunately gives us a 0.09° leeway, e.g. the noon Sun could be 89.86° and rounded up to 89.9° right through to 89.94° and rounded down; or it could not even be measured to such a degree of accuracy at all. More importantly, the data from timeanddate is calculated (including the supposed refraction), not observed; therefore these figures can’t be taken as absolute gospel, especially when it comes down to hundredths of a degree. Let’s take the Sun at the -0.12° latitude and see the discrepancies.

If we look at a few of the other locations on the list such as New York City (40.71° latitude), we should see the Sun’s noon position at 49.17° in the southern sky (40.71° + 0.12° = 40.83°; 90° – 40.83° = 49.17°). The actual position on March 20th 2013 (the real equinox, when the Sun is at its highest point at the equator) was 49.4°, 0.23° further north than it would be if the Sun were close to being at the dead center.

It’s much easier to calculate (but not visualize) whether the Sun is further north or south than where it should be if it were in the center of Earth space by using the following diagrams:

 For the northern hemisphere on March 20th, if the actual position of the noon Sun is higher than that calculated, then it is further north. This is because the Sun is always below you. This can be visualized in a different, albeit in a probably less easy way. For the southern hemisphere on March 20th, if the actual position of the noon Sun is higher than that calculated, then it is further south. This is because the Sun is always above you. Again, using the “circle of the Earth” is another way of working it out, although probably harder to visualize.

Interestingly, this is the same way latitude (and longitude) is determined in the real world.

Latitude and longitude are angular measures: latitude tells us the angle to which a point is elevated above the plane of the equator, as measured from the center of the Earth. Taken together, the latitude and longitude do not uniquely define a point; they define a ray from the center of the Earth.

 Latitude is defined by “a ray from the center of the Earth“.

You can see this pattern being corroborated with all other latitudes as the examples in the table below shows. (Data taken from timeanddate.com)

 ```March 20th 2013 Latitude Location Sun at Noon Sunrise Sunset 82.5 Nunavut, Canada, Alert 7.7 84 278 64.84 Fairbanks, Alaska, USA 25.4 88 272 60.17 Helsinki, Finland 29.8 89 272 40.71 New York City, USA 49.4 89 271 23.7 Dhaka, Bangladesh 66.2 90 270 23.6 Muscat, Oman 66.4 90 270 10.66 Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago 79.4 90 270 10.50 Caracas, Venezuela 79.6 90 270 -0.02 Pontianak, Indonesia 89.9 90 270 -11.66 Lubumbashi, Dem of Congo 78.4 90 270 -23.55 Sao Paulo, Brazil 66.4 90 270 -41.28 Wellington, New Zealand 48.9 91 269 -53.15 Punta Arenas, Chile 36.8 91 269 ```

Take Helsinki for example, at 60.17° latitude, the Sun at noon should be (60.17° + 0.12° = 60.29°; 90° – 60.29°) = 29.71° in the southern sky, making the actual position 0.09° further north instead (29.8°). Caracas is situated at 10.5° latitude. The Sun at noon should be (10.5° + 0.12° = 10.62°; 90° – 10.62°) = 79.38° in the southern sky, whereas its actual position is 0.22° further north (79.6°). Dhaka has a 23.7° latitude which puts the noon Sun at 66.18°, whereas its actual position is 66.2° which is 0.02° further north. Sao Paulo is (23.55° – 0.12° = 23.43°; 90° – 23.43°) = 66.57° where the actual noon Sun is 66.4°, which is 0.17° further north than it should be.

Also on its own, the 0-90° noon sun data doesn’t differentiate between the Sun traveling in a northern arc or a southern one; but we know already that the Sun is always in the southern sky as seen from the northern hemisphere on the equinoxes and vice verse for the southern hemisphere. This fact also further reinforces the Sun to be very near the center of the Earth space.

 The Sun always travels in a southern arc when seen from the northern hemisphere on the equinoxes; and a northern arc when observed from the southern hemisphere.

You’ll have noticed that all the cities in our sample showed an actual position of the Sun to be further north which could be an indication that the Sun was not really -0.12° below the center on March 20th 2013, but a bit further north instead. Below is a table noting the differences for a -0.12° latitude Sun, and one at 0.00° (dead center). A (+) symbol under the tilt columns means that the actual Sun is further north than its calculated noon position shows it should be, and vice verse for (-).

 ```March 20th 2013 latitude Latitude Location -0.12° Sun 0.00° Sun 82.5 Nunavut, Canada, Alert +0.32 +0.20 64.84 Fairbanks, Alaska, USA +0.36 +0.24 60.17 Helsinki, Finland +0.09 -0.03 40.71 New York City, USA +0.23 +0.11 23.7 Dhaka, Bangladesh +0.02 -0.10 23.6 Muscat, Oman +0.12 0.00 10.66 Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago +0.18 +0.06 10.50 Caracas, Venezuela +0.22 +0.10 -0.02 Pontianak, Indonesia 0.00 -0.12 -11.66 Lubumbashi, Dem of Congo +0.06 -0.06 -23.55 Sao Paulo, Brazil +0.17 +0.05 -41.28 Wellington, New Zealand -0.06 -0.18 -53.15 Punta Arenas, Chile +0.17 +0.05 ```

Comparing the figures from above shows the -0.12° latitude of the Sun to be probably too far south as all but Wellington show the actual position of the Sun to be further north. This very small sample indicates that the Sun is probably 0.00° on the vertical axis of the Earth cavity, or bang in the middle.

### Possible discrepancies

1. Longitude
As well as timeanddate.com calculating and not observing, and only to one decimal place, there is another possible variable: the constantly moving Sun. Because the Sun is always on the move,locations at different longitudes should show different discrepancies in their noon Sun positions, and of course those cities near enough on the same longitude should show similar differences… but do they? Let’s have a look at a quick sample of cities at similar longitudes if the Sun were at 0.00° latitude.

 ```March 20th 2013 Longitude(DMS) Latitude(decimal) Location Noon Sun Calculated Difference 18°04'E 59.33 Stockholm 30.7 30.67 +0.03 18°21'E 43.85 Sarajevo 46.1 46.15 -0.05 18°25'E -33.93 Cape town 56.1 56.07 -0.03 18°33'E 54.5 Gdynia 35.5 35.5 0.00 18°35'E 4.37 Bangui 85.6 85.63 -0.03 ```
 ```March 20th 2013 Longitude(DMS) Latitude(decimal) Location Noon Sun Calculated Difference 2°11'E 41.38 Barcelona 48.6 48.62 -0.02 2°21'E 48.85 Paris 41.2 41.15 +0.05 2°26'E 6.37 Cotonou 83.6 83.63 -0.03 2°36'E 6.5 Porto-Novo 83.5 83.5 0.00 2°39'E 39.57 Palma 50.4 50.43 -0.03 ```
 ```March 20th 2013 Longitude(DMS) Latitude(decimal) Location Noon Sun Calculated Difference 61°05'W 14.6 Fort-de-France 75.5 75.4 +0.10 61°14'W 13.15 Kingstown 76.9 76.85 +0.05 61°23'W 10.5 Chaguanas 79.6 79.5 +0.10 61°23'W 15.3 Roseau 74.8 74.7 +0.10 61°28'W 10.28 San Fernando 79.8 79.72 +0.08 ```
 ```March 20th 2013 Longitude(DMS) Latitude(decimal) Location Noon Sun Calculated Difference 81°01'W 46.48 Sudbury 43.6 43.52 +0.08 81°03'W 34 Columbia 56.1 56 +0.10 81°18'W 28.42 Orlando 61.6 61.58 +0.02 81°23'W 19.3 George Town 70.8 70.7 +0.10 81°38'W 38.35 Charleston 51.8 51.65 +0.15 ```
 ```March 20th 2013 Longitude(DMS) Latitude(decimal) Location Noon Sun Calculated Difference 108°19'E 22.82 Nanning 67.1 67.18 -0.08 109°20'E -0.02 Pontianak 89.9(S) 89.98(N) -0.12 110°21'E 1.6 Kuching 88.3 88.4 -0.10 110°22'E -7.8 Yogyakarta 82.3 82.2 -0.10 110°25'E -6.97 Semarang 83.1 83.03 -0.07 ```

The first 2 tables are all tightly centered around zero difference at -0.05° to +0.03°; the third is even closer together at +0.05° to +0.10° (which may have something to do with the close latitudes), as well as the fifth at -0.07° to -0.12°, with the fourth table being the least close at +0.02° to +0.15°. So does longitude have a bearing on the discrepancies? Probably.

2. Earth ellipsoid
Yet another possible cause for the discrepancies in timeanddate’s figures could be the fact that the Earth is supposedly not a perfect sphere but a very slightly squashed one. The difference between the vertical (minor axis) and the horizontal (major) one is supposed to be less than 0.34%. There is hardly any difference in this shape and a perfect sphere.

How do they know the Earth is wider at the equator? Did they travel vertically up to one of the poles and back down the other side with a measuring instrument? No, all they did was measure the angle of the noon Sun and the stars in the sky relative to the horizon at different latitudes and fill in the blanks. For example, the Bessel Earth ellipsoid measures the angle of 38 stars and the noon Sun at 10 different latitudes.

The problem is, the Earth is a very lumpy ellipsoid and so one particular model (reference ellipsoid) is chosen which best fits the topography of a particular region, such as Bessel being used for Europe and Japan. Even then, it isn’t absolutely 100% accurate in all places as it is a mathematical generalization. Also data sets (i.e. computer software) which reference global latitudes use the average mean. This is probably one of the reasons when looking for the latitudes of the cities in the tables of this article, you will find Google to be slightly off most of the time compared to other websites, with even one or two websites differing amongst themselves. (Where possible, I’ve consistently chosen the consensus latitude from other websites rather than Google in these tables). For these two reasons, there are sometimes bound to be discrepancies between latitude and the noon Sun data from timeanddate.com.

Lastly, there is also another possible reason for these differences: refraction, that good old excuse whipped out for any anomaly. In a concave Earth (or a convex one for that matter) does refraction of the sunlight actually occur at all, and if it does, how and when? Before addressing this issue, we need to look at the path of sunlight from the Sun.

### Noon bendy light

Working out the position of the noon Sun in the sky relative to the Sun’s central location is all very well and accurate mathematically, but does it describe sunlight paths in reality? There are three serious problems with sunlight traveling in a straight line from the center.

1. Sun’s constant round shape
The Sun is observed to be the same size and shape regardless of the latitude of the observer. An observer in Pontianak sees the same circular Sun as an observer in New York. If the Sun were in the center and its light traveled in a straight line, then the New York observer would be looking “down” onto the Sun. This would make the Sun considerably more elliptical across the Sun’s horizontal axis (a squashed Sun). Look down at a coin from the top to see this effect.

 The Sun at Noon during winter on the Scottish isle of Islay (about 55.57°N) The Sun at Noon from Pensacola Beach, Florida during the winter solstice (about 30.33° N).

There are exceptions. Above +66.5° (Arctic Circle) and below -66.5° (Antarctic Circle), the polar Sun is occasionally photographed or filmed as being elliptical. This ellipses however is usually vertical, i.e. squashed from the sides, not the top. Very occasionally the Sun appears as a cross, squashed on both sides. Often, there is no ellipse at all and the Sun is perfectly round like on the equator. What is sometimes causing this ellipse effect is unknown to me. Obviously there is some varying factor involved.

In a nutshell, the rectilineator was an extremely straight and right-angled device which was initially leveled and then extended in a straight line, measuring itself against a tideless ocean over a few miles. The readings showed that the Earth is curving upwards because this very straight device “sunk” lower and lower into the ocean in exact relationship to the size of the Earth.

Because the rectilineator was straight and initially level, its right-angle to the level, i.e the angle pointing upwards towards the sky, must always have been pointing at the center of the Earth. If it were not, then it couldn’t have got the readings of a concave crust.

 The right angle of the rectilineator pointed towards the center of the Earth (at the start only) because it was 1. level at the start, and 2. when extended showed the crust to curve upwards in accordance with the size of the Earth.

Because the Sun is in the center of the cavity and straight up is always pointing towards the center, which is what the rectilineator experiment showed, the Sun should always be seen above our heads (90°) no matter the latitude of the observer. As we have seen this isn’t the case. We can see that on the equinoxes, the very far north (82.5° N) Nunavut in Canada has the Sun appearing 7.7° above the horizon in the southern sky at noon. The higher we go towards the north pole, the lower the Sun towards the south.

3. Compass orientation
For a person standing on the crust in a concave Earth, where is north and south? North curves upwards along the crust towards the north pole and south curves downwards along the crust towards the south pole. This means that for the Sun to be seen near the south horizon, the sunlight must be near level with the crust coming from that perfect south direction.

 The further the Sun appears to be south at noon, the closer sunlight has to be level with the crust coming from the south.

Bendy light
The Sun has been mathematically deduced to be at (or very near) the center of the Earth cavity. Therefore, this can only mean that light must bend at varied angles depending on latitude. There is no bend at all for observers at the equator, but sunlight must increasingly bend the further north and south the observer is situated. There is no other option because the Sun is at the center of the cavity.

 Except at the equator, on the equinoxes the Sun at noon is seen at different angles than straight overhead. Sunlight must bend at varied angles depending on latitude because the Sun is at the center.

Sunlight that misses the crust must bend fully around and travel into the back of the Sun as can be seen below.

 Sunlight that doesn’t hit the crust will bend all the way round into the back of the Sun.

Now let’s look at refraction for all these varied angles.

### Refraction

1. Straight line light
In this model, the sunlight emanating from the center is only near enough straight on the equinox at the equator.

 Sunlight is only straight when pointing directly at the equator on the equinoxes.

Does light refract through mediums of different densities when shined directly from the center onto a spherical concave surface? Direct vertical light shows no refraction as the diagrams below show:

 Direct vertical light through two mediums of different density shows no refraction. The same, but through a semi-circular glass block. Here, the light is refracted more vertically and then stays at this angle as it leaves the glass on the circular edged side.

The probable reason for this lack of exit refraction is that because the light ray inside the glass is coming from the center of the circle, the curved outside line of the glass block is always directly perpendicular to the incoming light ray which means that the light is always shining at a vertical angle out of the glass, hence the lack of refraction and displacement.

This means that in a concave Earth, the noon Sun on the equinox at the equator only shows no refraction, magnification or displacement whether traveling through glass or the atmosphere. But what about the other latitudes with their various angles of bend?

2. Bendy light
Let’s start with the glass. We don’t live in the glass. We live in the atmosphere. That might sound obvious, but it is important for refraction. The glass layer 100km high may refract light a lot, but it is only a certain thickness and so strictly speaking the glass displaces the light, rather than refracts it. Light leaving the glass is refracted back to the same angle before it left. The amount of displacement depends on the thicknesses. How thick is the glass? Completely unknown. If the space shuttle was breaking through, then not very thick at all. Meteorites are most certainly melting through and some of them are very small. 30cm, 1m, 5m thick? Even if it were 1000m thick and impenetrable, this wouldn’t be too much displacement at 100km altitude. At a few meters thick, the displacement is for practical purposes non-existent.

 The amount of displaced light depends on the thickness of the glass.

What about the atmosphere? How much does extreme bending light refract through air? The atmosphere is 100km thick, but varies in density and is only air which at standard pressure (0°C at 1 atm) has a refractive index of 1.000277. The website endmemo.com shows that light coming in at 90° (noon at the poles on the equinoxes) gives us 88.65°. Other websites give slightly different angles however. So the noon Sun refracts by 1.35° at the north and south pole. 88° gives us 87.59° – 0.41° refraction. 80° gives 79.9° refraction, 60° gives 59.97°, 40° gives 39.98° and 20° is 19.99°. So for all latitudes under 80°, refraction is merely in the few hundredths of a degree. This gives us another reason for any discrepancy in timeanddate.com’s data set.

That is the noon Sun dealt with. What about dawn and dusk?

## Dawn and dusk

### Dawn and dusk bendy light

As we have seen in the above table (reproduced again below), the Sun is seen to rise at 90° and set at 270° at every latitude on the Earth (with minor deviations for those locations closer to the poles) at the time of the equinoxes.

 ```March 20th 2013 Latitude Location Sun at Noon Sunrise Sunset 82.5 Nunavut, Canada, Alert 7.7 84 278 64.84 Fairbanks, Alaska, USA 25.4 88 272 60.17 Helsinki, Finland 29.8 89 272 40.71 New York City, USA 49.4 89 271 23.7 Dhaka, Bangladesh 66.2 90 270 23.6 Muscat, Oman 66.4 90 270 10.66 Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago 79.4 90 270 10.50 Caracas, Venezuela 79.6 90 270 -0.02 Pontianak, Indonesia 89.9 90 270 -11.66 Lubumbashi, Dem of Congo 78.4 90 270 -23.55 Sao Paulo, Brazil 66.4 90 270 -41.28 Wellington, New Zealand 48.9 91 269 -53.15 Punta Arenas, Chile 36.8 91 269 ```

For what it is worth, timeanddate.com have a illustration to show this 90°/270° angle as seen below. Using Photoshop’s handy 3D sphere effect, you can see how this straight angle fits nicely on to a globe. It is the same effect whether the Earth is convex or concave.

 The Sun rises and sets in a straight vertical line (90° and 270°) across the map of the Earth at the equinoxes. Also regarding the position of the noon sun, even timeanddate.com say “The Sun’s position is marked with this symbol: Sun symbol. At this location, the Sun will be at its zenith (directly overhead) in relation to an observer.” The same 2d image transformed by Photoshop’s “globe” 3d effect to show a more accurate 3d presentation of dawn and dusk at the equinoxes. The effect is equally valid whether concave or convex.

Exactly like the noon Sun at the poles, sunlight at dawn and dusk must be running nearly parallel to the crust to get the Sun coming up at 90° just above the east horizon and setting at 270° just above the west one. At the equator only, sunlight bends less towards noon until it is straight at noon, and then increases its bend away from noon towards dusk. The sunlight paths along the equator east to west (longitude) are the same as the paths sunlight travels in the north/south direction (latitude) which we have already seen.

 At the equator only, sunlight bends less towards noon, and bends more away from noon.

### Bendy light in 3D

The combination of dawn and dusk at the equator and the north-south sunlight bend forms a shape like the four legs of a coat stand. Now fill in the spaces between the four legs and we get the “top of a circus tent”.

 These four curved legs of coat stand are a similiar shape to the four paths of bending light. When the rest of the light is added, we get varying degrees of bend, making light project in a “top of a circus tent” shape.

Steve has a good illustration of this shape (except his sun is nearer to the crust than my model).

 Light bending in 3D, like a circus top.

It is very hard to visualize the 90°/270° angles at higher latitudes, near the poles for example, with the circus top model, but it works because the Earth is a concave ball. Imagining a circle band going around the Earth at high latitude near the poles makes it a lot easier. If I am standing 80° north I will still observe the Sun on the equinoxes to come and leave around the 90°/270° angle. However, the angle of sunlight from the Sun disk will be just° 10 off the vertical 90° angle, i.e. also 80°.

 Imagine the above longitude circle band is near the poles. Sunlight still appears and leaves at roughly 90°/270° at the circle despite it being projected from the Sun at an angle not much further out than vertically up.

In the concave Earth model, the arc of the Sun is NOT a physical ball rising up above the horizon and around the convex ball/flat Earth (geocentric model) or the ball Earth turning on its axis in relation to the ball Sun (heliocentric model). The arc is caused by the differing amounts of bend of sunlight, with dawn and dusk having a purely horizontal (90°) bend and the Sun’s light at noon having the least amount of bend for that particular latitude.

That bendy light shape sure looks familiar.

### Sunlight and magnetism

Both the 2D and 3D version of the bending light is very similar to how iron filings act in a magnetic field around a magnet.

 2D Iron filings look exactly like sunlight fields when the poles (of this gramm magnet) are flatter than the norm. The magnetic B-field is the traditional squashed vortices alignment. The above diagram shows a current loop (ring) that goes into the page at the x and comes out at the dot. (Click on video to animate.) Iron filings suspended in oil show that they align themselves in loops. The same would-be loops demonstrated with magnetite.

Because the Sun in a concave Earth is disk-like and pointing at the equator on the equinoxes, the above diagram of a loop of wire is a very good representation of the Sun itself. It also demonstrates how the Sun’s magnetic B-field is on its side pointing at the equator and is the same path its sunlight follows. Could the Sun be magnetic in this theory? Yes. Due to the content of meteorites, the Sun has been theorized to be made out of a permalloy of low nickel content (30% to 50%), probably Invar (36%). All nickel/iron alloys are soft magnets, i.e. very easily magnetized.

Notice how the suspended iron filings are curving around the poles in 3D in a ball shape. This ball shape is actually called a horn torus. The Sun’s magnetic field and its light path are a “horn torus on its side” pointing at the equator on the equinoxes. The nearest real world device is an electronic transformer with loads of wire windings, but even this isn’t an exact analogy.

 The horn torus is the one shape to describe the path of sunlight. More accurately, it is the horn torus on its side pointing at the equator which describes the path of sunlight at the equinoxes. It is also layered just like sunlight. (Click to animate). A 2D horn torus with rotation demonstrates the path of sunlight perfectly. A doughnut transformer is said to have lots of advantages over the traditional shape. The above photo isn’t the ideal analogy because 1. it isn’t a horn torus; 2. there needs to be “infinitely” more windings and; 3. the windings need to be perfectly circular.

Light isn’t supposed to be affected by magnetism alone because it isn’t a dipole (two poles). However, engineers have bent light in a cavity of electrified silicon similar to the way electrons follow the magnetic field lines. In essence they have created mini-Earth’s.

It’s not over yet. The amount of daylight on the equinoxes at the equator and refraction of the dawn and dusk Sun’s rays in a concave Earth can reveal an interesting clue as to the exact location of the Sun in the Earth cavity.

### Exact Sun location

If the Sun is in the dead center of Earth space, then there should be either exactly (if there is no refraction) or very slightly less (with refraction) than 12 hours of daylight on March 20th at the equator. However, Pontianak (at the equator) experienced 12 hours 6 minutes and 29 seconds of daylight on March 20th 2013 according to timeanddate.com. On the face of it, this would mean that the Sun would be somewhere behind the dead center of Earth space on the horizontal axis. This info is from timeanddate.com, not to be confused with dateandtime.info which funnily enough give us a slightly higher number of 12 hours 6 minutes and 49 seconds showing us that all data is calculated and not observed.

However, various websites say that it takes exactly 12 hours for the geometric center of the Sun to disappear below the horizon and the same for it to rise above the horizon on March 20th. How much of the Sun is below its geometric center when it disappears below the horizon and how much above it when it rises to give us these extra minutes of daylight over 12 hours? The Sun is 0.53° at its average (equinox) size at noon; this apparent size may be misleading in a concave Earth, but it is the only measurement available to us. We want half of this below the horizon and half above, so we take the entire 0.53°. Does 0.53° give us the extra 6 minutes and 29 seconds?

The extra 6 minutes 29 seconds of daylight over the 12 hours on March 20th is an extra 389 seconds. 12 hours is 43200 seconds. If we divide this by 389 we get 111.05. This means that the extra 6 min 29 seconds is 1/111.05 of the 90° along the horizontal axis behind the dead center, which is 0.81°. This means that we have an extra 0.28° (0.81° – 0.53°) of daylight behind the center on the horizontal axis, which is where the Sun must be if there were no atmospheric refraction. Or, according to dateandtime.info, 409 seconds. 43200 / 409 = 105.62. 1/105.62 of 90° is 0.852°. 0.852° – 0.53° = 0.32°, an extra 0.32° along the horizontal.

 The Sun could be 0.28° or 0.32° behind the center of Earth space on March 20th if the geometric center of the Sun takes precisely 12 hours to rotate from dawn till dusk and there is no refraction.

The direction of refraction is the opposite to a convex Earth. Instead of light reaching further out along the crust, light falls short instead.

 Light coming in at +-90° on a convex Earth would “reach out” further along the crust. Light coming in at +-90° on a concave Earth would fall short instead.

So refraction would put the Sun further behind the center even more depending on how refractive the light is. For example, if the light refracted by an extra 0.5° degree, then the Sun must be 0.28° + 0.5° or 0.78° behind the center of Earth space in order for Pontianak to experience the extra 6 minutes and 29 seconds (i.e. the extra 0.81° behind the center on the horizontal axis). This is because sunlight is falling short by 0.5° due to refraction in a concave Earth. For dateandtime.info’s figure of 0.32°, the Sun would be 0.82° behind.

We can’t say for certain that the Sun is positioned at either 0.78° or 0.82° or some other location as 1. we don’t know the exact angle of refraction, only an estimate, and 2. the exact observed amount of extra sunlight at the equator on March 20th is unknown (only calculated)… unless a reader who lives on the equator can record it for us. However, the solstice article strongly points to the figure really being 0.78° at the March equinox.

September Equinox
What about the September equinox? Is it the same as March? On September 20th 2013 Pontianak experienced 12 hours 6 minutes and 27 seconds. These 2 seconds less than the March equinox equates to 0.806° as opposed to March’s 0.81° (43200 / 387 = 111.63; 90° / 111.63 = 0.806°). This means the Sun is (0.81° – 0.806°) = 0.004° less than 0.78° on September 20th – 0.776°, which makes it practically the same as the March equinox.

### Sun precession

So far, this would mean that the Sun would be revolving around the center of Earth space similar to a cylinder shape on March and September 20th, shining somewhere behind the center in a tight cylinder shape as drawn below… unless the actual observed amount of equatorial daylight is really less then 24 hours by an amount of atmospheric refraction minus the 0.53° of the top/bottom halves of the Sun. E.g if the refraction is 0.53° short, then this would cancel out the extra 0.53° of the Sun’s two halves of its diameter and so the equatorial daylight would have to register less than 24 hours if the Sun were to be in front of the center – highly unlikely. Interestingly, this tight cylinder shape is the same movement as a fast spinning gyroscope, or gyroscopic precession. The difference is that the face of the Sun is pointing horizontally at the equator, and not upwards like a gyroscope.

 On the equinoxes the Sun revolves about +/-1° tightly around the dead center of Earth space – continually shining through the center. The shape of its revolution would be that of a cylinder. (Click to animate). A fast spinning gyroscope can move around its axis in an upright cylindrical shape.

This precession solves the final issue. Timeanddate.com say they accommodate convex Earth refraction in their noon Sun calculations. (Altitude means the angle of the noon Sun in the sky.):

“The altitude takes into account typical refraction in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

+++

As we have seen convex Earth refraction is the opposite of concave Earth refraction. This fact would make the noon Sun figures a little less accurate for a concave Earth. Luckily, the position of the Sun behind the center of the earth cavity creates a rough equivalent of convex refraction.

We have just determined the position of the equinox Sun to be roughly somewhere around 1° behind the horizontal axis of the Earth cavity. What effect would this have on the noon Sun angles? The Sun at the equator would show no discrepancies (just as if there were no refraction), but these differences would gradually increase until their maximum at the poles. The exact figures are unknown as I am not a mathematician, but we can work out a rough guide.

Firstly, the further back away from the center the Sun is, the less its angle. For example, at 20° latitude the noon Sun would be positioned at 70° up in the sky. If we moved the Sun 90° across the horizontal axis (the furthest it can go) where the crust is, the noon Sun angle would only appear to be 10° or 80° up in the sky. This is demonstrated below using the software illustrator to find the angles (accurate to 1°).

 The further back the Sun is along the horizontal axis, the lower the angle and therefore the higher the Sun is seen in the sky.

What about a 45° latitude or 70° etc.? When the Earth is 90° across the horizontal (double the horizontal distance across from center) from the center, the relationship is half and so a higher latitude away from the center means a higher angle as can be seen below:

 The higher the latitude, the greater the angle. If the Sun were twice the distance along the horizontal axis from the center, the angle is always half what it would be if the Sun were in the center.

This means that the angle would be more vertical the higher the latitude either side of the equator. This means from the northern hemisphere the south gradient of the meridian would be reduced causing the sun to appear further north towards the zenith (directly overhead) than it would be if it were at the dead center. So if the Sun were double the distance across from the center, a 70° latitude would appear in the sky in the same position as it would at 35° latitude if the Sun were in the absolute center of Earth’s cavity.

The Sun isn’t twice across from the center though. It is somewhere around +/-1° behind the center. What is the relationship now? Using the software illustrator, when halving a circle we reach one and half times the distance across (45°) the horizontal axis. Half it again and again for a total of six times, we get 1.4° behind the center. Seven times would get us 0.7°, but this is too fine to measure with illustrator. The difference between 1.4° behind the center and the center itself is about 1° when drawing a line straight to the North Pole. Illustrator can only go to 1° accuracy and looked to be less than 1° when drawing it, so the relationship is somewhere around 1.4, 1.5 or 1.6 to one maybe.

 The relationship between 1.4° across to the vertical is around 1.5 or 1.6 to 1 perhaps.

1.6/1 for 1° is 0.625° off at the North pole (its highest deviation) than it would be were the Sun directly at the absolute center. So we have 0° deviation at the equator all the way up to 0.625° maybe at the North Pole. Strangely enough, this 0.6° deviation is roughly the same as the refraction of light from a vacuum to air when traveling at 89° (practically horizontal) to the air line, according to endemol.com.

Both the supposed refraction of the noon Sun on a convex Earth and the deviation of a “behind the center” Sun on a concave one, cause the Sun to appear higher in the sky than it actually is or would-be, and roughly at the same amount. The figures wouldn’t tally exactly with each other and so we would expect some very small discrepancies with timeanddate’s data.

### Summary

• Due to the approximate 12 hours of daylight on the equinoxes at the equator and the position of the Sun in the sky on the equinoxes at various latitudes, the Sun is deemed to be roughly at the center of the Earth cavity at these times of the year.
• The Sun is calculated to be approximately 37.434km in diameter.
• On the equinoxes, the Sun is spinning East to West like a coin.
• Latitude is traditionally measured as a point from the equator as measured from the center of the Earth. Both latitude and longitude are defined as a ray from the center of the Earth.
• The variables looked at so far between timeanddate.com’s arc of the Sun data and latitude coordinates are: 1. the data is only calculated, not observed; 2. there is no second decimal place in the sun arc data, unlike latitude; 3. Varied longitudes change the noon Sun data due to the Sun’s rotation in the Earth cavity; 4. The Earth as an ellipsoid is a mathematical generalization, i.e. a calculation, which makes latitude also a calculation; 5. Refraction through the atmosphere in a concave Earth, adding a few hundredths of a degree to the inaccuracy.
• The displacement of sunlight by the glass layer 100km high is reasoned to be extremely small due to the relatively small thickness of the glass.
• The atmosphere does refract the sunlight at dawn and dusk by about 0.4° to 1°; but this refraction makes sunlight fall short in a concave Earth, which is the opposite to a convex one.
• Mathematically sunlight must originate from the center in a concave Earth, but realistically this is impossible due to 1. the Sun’s constant round shape at all altitudes; 2. the initially leveled Rectilineator proving a concave; Earth; and 3. the actual physical north/south orientation when on the crust.
• For the Sun to be in the center and these three contradictions to be reconciled, light must bend at varied angles from 0° at noon on the equator to 90° at dawn and dusk and at the north and south pole.
• Sunlight in 3D shines on the Earth as a curved cone, or circus tent top.
• Sunlight travels in the exact same shape as both a 2D and 3D magnetic B-field around a current carrying loop.
• The Sun on both equinoxes is estimated to be about 1° behind the central axis of the Earth cavity, shining through it. The reasons are based on the apparent size of the Sun in the sky, the amount of refraction of incoming 90° sunlight, and the amount of daylight experienced at the equator on the equinoxes.
• The Sun precesses anti-clockwise around the center of the Earth cavity.
• The Sun’s position behind the center of the north-south axis in a concave Earth roughly equates to noon Sun refraction on a convex Earth, which timeanddate.com include in their data.

+++

Finally, the equinox is finished. Now let’s look at the solstice and see how that works in a concave Earth.

+++

### 18 Responses to Equinox

1. Donald Sarty says:

Would be great to have a video or simple explanation for “sunrise and sunset in concave earth”, getting questions about it, a google search for sunrise sunset in concave earth gives me nothing, this is a hard part for many to grasp and me also until bendy light, still it is a mind screw for most
Thanks 😉

View Comment
• Donald Sarty says:

This is all i need, “In the concave Earth model, the arc of the Sun is NOT a physical ball rising up above the horizon and around the convex ball/flat Earth (geocentric model) or the ball Earth turning on its axis in relation to the ball Sun (heliocentric model). The arc is caused by the differing amounts of bend of sunlight, with dawn and dusk having a purely horizontal (90°) bend and the Sun’s light at noon having the least amount of bend for that particular latitude.”
I direct folks to your site but they are overwhelmed by all the data, we need a minute physics type explanation for the masses
🙂

View Comment
• JMAC1978 says:

i take it Donald you don’t like LSC take on the Sun Rise and Sun Set? which in his model is actually the Sun going downward (rising) and the Sun rising (downward)? you get the reverse image of what is actually happening.. might be worth a look?

View Comment
2. BigRed says:

Hi Wild Heretic

I love your research! It has amazed me for the past few weeks and i think you are just about dead on the money. I have also read a lot of the comments. You seem very knowledgeable. Do you post any where else or produce anything else?

Have you seen the videos of the second sun? What do you make? How would that fit in to your thesis? http://revelation12.ca/?p=784 Some videos on that page if you have not.

BigRed

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

I think Steve is right, that this is caused by birefraction. I’m not sure if it is the glass doing this or water vapour though. I had theorized the latter, but I’m not 100% sure on that.

View Comment
3. Wild Heretic says:

I’m re-posting this from YT.

“When the sun goes down it disappears bottom of the disc first the top sinking last over the horizon. In a concave earth model I would expect the sun to disappear upwards. I understand the reason it doesn’t has something to do with refraction of light but I don’t understand the details. I can’t find anything on this specific problem by LSC, wild heretic or yourself. This whole idea is only a few weeks old for me and I’m having to remember some school physics. LSC gave
me this link but I still can’t see how light refracts to give the right effect at Sundown.

“Hi Keith. I can answer that I think.
Let’s forget any sun/earth model for the moment and observe what the sun does from dawn till dusk. At the equator on the equinoxes is the easiest to visualize with the “top” of the sun rising in the exact east. Now keep following its path as it arcs right above our heads at noon and loops round again to dusk. The “top” of the sun at dawn is now the “bottom” at dusk as it dips below the horizon. The only way to get the “top” of the dawn Sun as the “top” of the dusk one is if the sun rotates 180 degrees. I’ve had a quick search and this doesn’t seem to be the case. I’m not sure if we would have a way of knowing anyhow – sunspots? Now let’s apply the various models.

A disk sun for a geocentric concave, flat and convex Earth will produce the above observation. The sun as a sphere could work to keep the same side of the sun as the “top” at both dawn and dusk for a convex geocentric earth. In this example, we would see the back of the sun as it arcs. Again, as far as I am aware, we only see one side of the Sun and is there anyway of knowing otherwise?

Mainstream heliocentric theory also produces the same observation as above with all the other models. Throughout 24 hours we see the same side. Visualize the earth turning clockwise west to east and the first side of the sun to be seen is the “left” side which would be the “top” at dawn with the right side coming into view as the bottom. At dusk, the “left” side is the first to go out of view and so now is the “bottom” with the still visible right side as the “top”.

Keep thinking and let’s see if we can all get to the bottom of this mess.”﻿

View Comment
4. Hoi Polloi says:

Well done. Keep it coming.

I’m still not sure I buy the NASA imagery of its shuttle program, so I don’t think they have necessarily achieved this “hole in the sky” trick; it’s more likely to be a psychological trick, in my opinion, including perhaps the idea of any element heavier than helium above. What if elements heavier than helium simply cannot go higher unless it’s the start of a different “wavelength” of physics?

Have you accounted for the possibility that it’s not a “glass” or “crystal” sky?

Perhaps it is an electromagnetic, physics-based and/or ethereal force at higher altitudes creating a shield between the physics world and something else, and this shield is what collects condensation and when removed becomes crystalline? Just hazarding a guess because most everything else about your theory sits okay with me, at least as far as asking the latest questions. I just don’t buy NASA’s shuttle footage as nearly what it purports to be, nor their physical evidence they claim to have of their experiments, even if it suggests a strictly physical, mechanistic sky.

It is very much like NASA to have layers of lies based on different indisputable truths. Perhaps a physical shield is the direction they would “spin” the cosmology should “Concave Earth” theory gain the attention it rightfully deserves.

If we ignore their pranks, we don’t have to take in their billiard ball Earth, nor their conception of physics.

I believe that Earth ‘physics’ as a whole does not extend beyond the Earth, and it is only the Earth where Earthly ‘physics’ holds true. But Earthly ‘physics’ also gives us a clue to Universal ‘physics’, especially the (possibly) universally applicable patterns of wave forms, the torus, and spectrums.

Is it possible that Helium (helios – sun – etc.) might be the limit of the physical spectrum under Earthly conditions, and that bodies and structures above the Helium layer (closer to the Sun at the “center” of this cosmology) must be gaining other properties that are poison to Earthly ‘physics’ but as essential ‘up’ as water and air are to life ‘below’?

Could radiation and other spectrums be a clue that the spectrum of ‘physics’ involves a “super-periodic table” of elements that are all ‘higher’ rather than ‘denser’? (Lighter? More light? Less dark?)

Does the space of the Sun and around the Sun necessarily become closer and closer the more you travel toward the Sun, or would one’s senses (provided one could travel “to” the Sun) expand into a larger and larger cosmos as you go along the dimension from descended to ascended? Is the Sun much more distant than 4,000 even miles due to the warping of space inside our “Concave” Earth cosmos?

Religion and mystery aside, could there be a scientific description of this multi-dimensional shape we inhabit for everyone to understand?

View Comment
• Hoi Polloi says:

Woops, I meant “Hydrogen”, the lightest. Please ignore my musings on Helium/Helios unless you want to go into the etymology.

Also, I want to add that the electromagnetic “shield” (supposed to be some “7,500 miles” up) which blocks harmful radiation is said by old-school scientists to behave like a sort of glass shield. Perhaps this is a clue as to the true nature of our world’s threshold, which we are trying to discover and describe.

Would it be irony or a coincidence if the “shield” (in reality) were about 500 miles upward toward our cosmos’ center? 7,500+500=8,000 miles, the (apparent) diameter of the Earth cosmology?

This would make the “central glass sphere” (which I still am assuming for the sake of admitting I don’t know) about 7,000 miles in diameter, with some trick of attempting to observe the Sun’s light causing its higher radiation to appear “blocked” on the furthest side of the inside of the glass. (Looking 500 miles up, plus through 7,000 miles of the inner glass, but warped to appear as the entire sky due to light’s behavior?)

Oh, anyway, just spewing out thoughts as they come to me, no idea if this is of any help.

View Comment
• Hoi Polloi says:

Now, I also want to speculate that if *hydrogen* (not helium as I mistakenly said before) is the upper limit of the physical particles, and as such they represent the threshold between physics and electromagnetics (ions, the ionosphere, etc.) that every water molecule may contain a hydrogen atom or both that has/have traveled to this sky threshold and back given enough age to the cosmos.

Since water is said to have a relationship to magnetism and may even partially repulse from it, could water’s two hydrogen have something to do with its ability and/or propensity to resist or have a special relationship to purely electromagnetic forces? Could it also explain the possibility of water condensating on a non-physical electromagnetic shield?

Water is known to be an excellent conductor of electricity, for example, even while apparently being theorized to be used “in space” to slow down deadly radiation effects. (We know this is bunk, but we also may suspect water really can take on radiation in this way). We also know water stores information in unique ways, ways that are easier to read than other elements.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

There could well be another glass layer. My only reservation is the thermosphere. If its not too hot a bit further up, then this may explain the other “force field”.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

The frozen condensation of water being attracted to the glass layer may well be true as an explanation for a bit of ice on the glass, but I don’t think it explains the glass itself in terms of it being fused silicon dioxide blocking certain ultraviolet wavelengths from the Sun and also its composition in meteorites.

Yeah, the only physics we know is here on the crust of the cavity. It may differ in some areas quite bit near the center, or above the glass. Who knows what physics is like outside the cavity? Seems to be spirit out there which may be pure aether to be formed anyway we please perhaps. I’ve no idea.

Does the space of the Sun and around the Sun necessarily become closer and closer the more you travel toward the Sun, or would one’s senses (provided one could travel “to” the Sun) expand into a larger and larger cosmos as you go along the dimension from descended to ascended? Is the Sun much more distant than 4,000 even miles due to the warping of space inside our “Concave” Earth cosmos?

Sculelos and Mostafa Abdelkader think that but I have my reservations because we don’t seem to experience it when traveling by air. Is there missing time when a hot air balloon goes 40km high? Probably not. Or would this condensing issue only occur beyond the glass, which is a possibility? There is a supposition by Godrules on one of YT videos that light slows down nearer the center because of the atoms themselves being more densely packed and therefore giving us the illusion of a vacuum. There is an experiment he mentioned where one physicist slowed light down to 40 miles an hour in a vacuum. I have to look into this more though. He links to the experiment under one of his videos, but I can’t find it right now unfortunately.

View Comment
5. Objective One says:

I have tried to find a connection with what I’ve been learning and this ancient Egyptian image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sunrise_at_Creation.jpg
Any ideas?

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Mmmm. It seems to show a concave earth. That much is easy enough to see. Is it that they dropped the Sun in through the hole at the top? The dotted field lines looks like part of the attractive H-field between the two holes. Could the water being poured over the convex surface be the aether which is flowing through the holes?

That’s my best guess so far. What do you think?

View Comment
6. Cornel says:

Excellent work! Thank you for sharing with the world! I didn’t understand shit, I must read it again twice 🙂

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

The numbers parts and the 3D sunlight parts were difficult to conceptualize, at least I found that they were. 🙂

View Comment