Gravity – observations and theory

How does gravity fit into all this? Not an easy question to answer. Let’s look at the observations which belong to gravity and how they have been explained by the current theory for a convex Earth. Then we’ll invert this theory for the concave one and see if it can still apply.

Standard model
Inverted model
Gravity and orbiting

Standard model

Official theory: Gravity is a very weak attractive force which is a property of mass. The more mass, the more gravity. The center of gravity is the center of the mass from which this attractive force emanates. The center of gravity for a convex Earth is therefore the center of the Earth.

The center of gravity is the center of a solid convex Earth.

Theory for observation 1: The Earth is a lumpy ellipsoid and this is the explanation for why gravity is generally weaker on the troughs or basins of the ellipsoid and stronger on the mountains or areas on the “lumps”. There is less mass at the troughs pulling us towards the center and more mass at the mountains further away from the center.

Gravity tends to be stronger on higher land, than those areas lower down.

Theory for observation 2: On pure faith they say the Earth is spinning, despite all evidence to the contrary. The centrifugal force is therefore higher at the equator and less at the poles. This force is opposite to gravitational pull and is said to be the cause of the gravity differential from the equator to the poles.

At latitudes nearer the Equator, the outward centrifugal force produced by Earth’s rotation is larger than at polar latitudes. This counteracts the Earth’s gravity to a small degree – up to a maximum of 0.3% at the Equator – and reduces the apparent downward acceleration of falling objects.


An unaltered gravity map from the north pole to Ohio, about half the latitude of the United States, shows a difference of 2000 milligals. Includes differences in altitude.

The standard average gravity measurement of the Earth is 9.80665 m/s2. One gal is 0.01 m/s2, so the Earth’s average gravity is 980.665 gals. 1 gal is also equal to 1000 milligals making the gravity standard as 980665 milligals. The gravity difference in Ohio is 2000 milligals compared to the North pole. The latitude of Ohio is about 40.5°N. 90° – 40.5° is 49.5°, so 2000 milligals covers 49.5° of a difference to the equator. This fraction is just over half at 0.55, so at the equator it would read about 3636 milligals less. But this is an extrapolation and not a true figure, especially as the 2000 milligals difference is raw and includes altitude. I can’t read the north pole data on the scale because the resolution isn’t high enough. It looks to be 983000 or thereabouts. Therefore the extrapolated 3636 milligals at the equator is 0.369% less than that at the poles. Not bad; quite close to the 0.3% figure of the “spinning Earth”.

Observations 3 and 4: Objects falling to Earth obey the square law of acceleration until reaching a terminal velocity due to air resistance; otherwise, the object is said to accelerate forever. The size and weight of the falling object have no bearing on its acceleration, only the strength of the gravitational field, as shown in a vacuum chamber.

A ball is observed to accelerate according to the square law.
feather in vacuum
All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum. The larger heavier ball accidentally starts later than the rest.

Theory: The further towards the center of the mass we travel, the weaker the gravity, as there is less mass to pull us towards the center and more mass above us to pull us up away from the center point. But the further away from the entire body of mass we are, the weaker gravity becomes because we are further away from the mass and therefore its gravitational field.

Observation 5: Is there any evidence for gravity being an attractive property of mass? Yes, the Cavendish experiment is stated as such. In 1797–98, Henry Cavendish…

…made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system… The two large balls were positioned on alternate sides of the horizontal wooden arm of the balance. Their mutual attraction to the small balls caused the arm to rotate, twisting the wire supporting the arm. The arm stopped rotating when it reached an angle where the twisting force of the wire balanced the combined gravitational force of attraction between the large and small lead spheres.


A basic torsion balance where two hanging smaller masses are attracted to two larger fixed masses.
Cavendish Experiment
(Click to animate). The weights are very slowly, but continually attracted to the rocks and oddly oscillate back and forth – video sped up by 800%. The oscillation reminds me of the Bielefeld-Brown effect vacuum comparison video (3:07 min).

There have been plenty of skepticism regarding modern YouTube experiments due to the little time needed to view the effect and the wide degree of arc of the swinging masses which would have to counter the torsion effect of the hanging wire – a lot more than the gravitational force allows. Some suspect static electricity is involved, but one experimenter claimed there was no repulsion (oscillation) on impact when he tried it:

When I positioned the large masses near the balance, I got about 1 cm of displacement in about 1 minute. I was shocked! I thought that surely this was due to some static charges. However, my experience with pith balls in electrostatics tells me that when contact was made, there should be some repulsion, but that didn’t happen, the small and large masses remained in contact. I could then easily reverse the system and again got about 1 cm of displacement in about 1 minute time (should happen twice as fast right, but I wasn’t timing anything).


The experiment is not 100% consistent either, with one person not achieving any movement at all unless magnets were used instead. Plate Tectonics has also been suggested as a reason for the oscillations; but this wouldn’t explain the attraction if the system is reversed and the same attractive movement is observed, like the experimenter quoted above experienced. These amateur Cavendish experiments are so varied that there could be multiple sources for the movement such as static electricity or plate tectonics. Could there be another general explanation to throw into the already jumbled mix? Possibly. There is only speculation, but the most obvious answer would be magnetism. Everything could be very weakly magnetic. Hanging magnets always swing around to their attractive poles and pull each other towards themselves. The same may be true for all materials but on a very, very weak scale. In a concave Earth, all the Earth’s material is a globe around the central H-field from the holes near the poles. To form the same pattern of the iron filings, the atoms of the crust (silicon dioxide with minor amounts of magnetite and other metals) must be magnetic, however weak, in order to align itself in the H-field pattern.

Iron filings have their north pole end facing the external H-field’s south pole, and vice verse. Filings in the same line are attracted to each other due to this alignment.

The attraction could be extremely weak magnetism, and if it oscillates, then either very weak electrostatics and/or plate tectonics thrown in as well, or something entirely different unknown to science. The alchemist Robert Pavlita was said to be able to magnetize wood. He produced a psychotronic generator, shaped something like a flashlight with holes in the bulbous end. “Pavlita inserted the wood into these holes, first one end of the wood and then the other. He then inserted the entire piece of wood into a long hole on the top of the generator. As Pavlita held a ferret magnet and approached the wood, one side of the stick was repelled and one was attracted. Again, a piece of wood had apparently been magnetized.” This shouldn’t happen, but it did.

Whatever the reason for the Cavendish experiment, gravity as an attractive property of mass doesn’t seem to be it; at least it is impossible to verify, as gravity cannot be isolated from magnetism, electrostatics and plate tectonics (if attractive gravity exists at all).

Inverted model

Now let’s invert the theory of gravity and compare it with the official version.

  • An attractive, pulling force
  • A repelling, pushing force
  • A property of mass
  • A property of space
  • The center of gravity is the center of mass
  • The center of gravity is the center of space
  • Becomes weaker further away from the mass, therefore weaker with increasing altitude
  • Becomes weaker further away from the source (central point), therefore stronger with increasing altitude. (The zero gravity accounts from Etidorpha and the Macuxi tribe make more sense here).

Now let’s compare the valid observations of gravity with the theory of gravity inside a concave Earth to see if they fit.

Inverted gravity theory
1. Gravity is weaker on the “troughs” and stronger on the “lumps” of the lumpy Earth ellipsoid. Gravity is stronger closer to the source, which is the center of the Earth cavity. Those areas on the lumps are closer to the center and so gravity is stronger, whilst those on the “basins” are further away and so gravity should be weaker.
2. Gravity is weaker at the equator by an extrapolated 0.369% compared to that at the poles (raw data which includes altitude variations). The Earth is a very slightly squashed ellipsoid measuring 6,356,752m radius for the north/south axis, and 6,378,135m for the East/West radius (WGS84 model). The difference is 21,383m more at the equator, or 0.335% further away from the center than at the poles, making gravity about 0.335% weaker at the equator – close to the extrapolated 0.369% figure.
3. A falling object obeys the square law of acceleration. The square law can be a push away from a central point source, or it can be a pull towards. The result is the same – an accelerating falling body.
4. All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum regardless of size or weight. The strength of the pushing force of space depends on the distance from the center of the source in any direction (radial). This is the inverse square law which gravity, electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena all obey. The field strength does not depend on how much object it has to push against, which instead determines its weight – more object equals more resistive points (“protons”), therefore more resistance, or weight, is felt.

Is there evidence for inverted push gravity in a concave Earth? Yes. Surprisingly, it is the Cavendish experiment! This already mentioned experiment is unable to isolate a single factor which could be the cause of hanging weights moving towards the two heavier objects at the side. Therefore this isn’t a good experiment. However, on the face of it, one lighter object being attracted to a heavier one could show gravity as an attractive property of mass on a convex Earth OR a repelling property of space in a concave one. How? This interpretation comes from Joseph Winthrop.

cavendish gravity push
(Click to animate). “The heavier weights block the external push force from the earth’s core. Red arrows “consume” energy from one side, causing an imbalance. This is caused by universal compression.”

In a bit more detail, the heavier stationary blocks have more resistive points (protons) than the ones on the fulcrum. Therefore, very slightly less downward pushing space makes it through the heavier object, creating an imbalance between the two objects. To correct this imbalance, space from the light object moves towards the heavier one pulling the lighter object with it – hence attraction.

In even more detail, we can use Bernoulli’s principle. Less space in the heavier object attracts more space from its surrounds, hence space around the heavier object is moving faster into the object than into the lighter one. Bernoulli’s principle states that “an increase in the speed of the fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure”. Because space is moving faster between the two objects than on the far side of the lighter object, the pressure between the two objects is less, pulling them together. This is the same principle said to cause an airplane wing to lift.

The space between the two objects is moving at a faster speed than the far side of the lighter object, decreasing the pressure between the two objects, pulling them together.
The slower moving air under the airplane wing has a higher pressure, pushing the wing upwards.

Simple stuff really. We can thank Joseph for the bare bones of that theory.

Gravity and orbiting

Does an inverted push gravity give us a mechanism for orbiting objects, whether natural such as stars/asteroids/comets, or man-made such as satellites? There are already very strong indications that the orbiting mechanism of these objects are fictitious due to the obscene temperatures of the thermosphere which start to rapidly increase several kilometers above the glass (Karmen Line – 100km altitude), and all their video fakery.

Satellites can be positioned on the glass looking up and/or looking down, as long as they are broadcasting frequencies which can penetrate the ionosphere. This seems much more logistically feasible than trying to shoot them up and attach them to the glass hanging down, as you would have to get the distance exactly right. Too far, and you risk destroying the satellite as it hits the glass layer, or it breaks through completely. Too little and the satellite misses the glass and falls back down to Earth again. The rocket is also going far too fast laterally that a sudden stop by the grappling mechanism to the glass would break up any material I would have thought.

What about stars/asteroids/comets? How could they orbit the center of the concave Earth with inverted push gravity? Any orbiting object in a vacuum must overcome (or be a part of) three principles: 1. gravity – therefore an orbiting object is “anti-gravity”; 2. the thermosphere; 3. the high energy radiation in the Van Allen Belts.

Stars, asteroids and comets will therefore be extremely hot (2.) and extremely charged (3.) which in turn allow them to exhibit these “anti-gravity” properties (1.), pointing at gravity being an electrical phenomenon. There is a distinct possibility (even probability) that certain black projects of the military have such technologies which allow objects to move very quickly through a vacuum and hence would be “orbiting”, but we have no way of knowing what. High above the Karman line the technology would also have to allow them to resist or incorporate the very high temperatures and charged particles, which it may also do.


  • The official theory of gravity is that it is a very weak property of mass. The center of gravity is the center point of the mass.
  • There is less gravity lower down in the troughs and basins of the Earth, and more gravity on the mountains and lumps, supposedly due to the difference in mass.
  • The centrifugal force of a “spinning Earth” lessens gravity by 0.3% at the equator. This is close to the extrapolated 0.369% of actual difference from data which includes altitude and latitude differential.
  • All objects obey the square law of acceleration and fall at the same rate in a vacuum regardless of size or weight. The further away from the source, the weaker the gravity; therefore the further away from the Earth mass, the weaker the gravity.
  • The Cavendish experiment has repeatedly varied results when carried out by amateurs. The experiment cannot isolate this theoretical pulling force from other possible forces such as very weak magnetism, electrostatics, plate tectonics or any other unknown phenomenon. Without controls (isolation), this experiment is extremely flawed.
  • Inverted gravity theory is a push by “space”. The center of gravity is the center of space; therefore the further away from the source (the center of the Earth cavity), the weaker the gravity. This makes gravity stronger with increasing altitude.
  • Inverted gravity theory agrees with all 4 observations. 1. Gravity is weaker in the basins and troughs because it is further away from the center, and vice verse for the lumps. 2. The ellipsoid Earth’s equator is 0.335% further away from the center of space than the poles, which makes gravity weaker by the same amount at the equator – close to the extrapolated 0.369% figure from the actual data. 3. The square law of acceleration obeys both push or pull gravity. 4. All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum because the strength of gravity depends on the object’s distance from the source. Weight is determined by the amount of resistive points, or protons, of the object.
  • The Cavendish experiment can be equally interpreted to possibly show pull gravity in a convex Earth or push gravity in a convex one using Bernoulli’s principle.
  • Natural orbiting objects such as stars, asteroids and comets must have “anti-gravity” characteristics and also be highly charged and very hot due to the thermosphere and Van Allen Belts. This indicates that gravity may be an electrical phenomenon.

There are plenty of gravitational anomalies in the form of observations, experiments and technologies. Let’s look at a few of them and see which gravitational theory fits the best, if at all. Then we’ll pick a purely speculative already known phenomenon that fits these observations and which also answers the question as to why gravity never runs out or expires.

Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Gravity – observations and theory

  1. trigun4 says:

    If gravity is push from the center, why aren’t sun, moon, planets, asteroids pushed towards the earth? or are objects in space are in balance between push and pull? or is push from earth and center is causing gravity to cancel out resulting in zero gravity in space beween two concentric spheres?

    Is inertia and ether one and same? Is inertia unmanifest at the center of earth above? if i remember right, i heard it on theoria apophasis channel.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Good question, and the answer to that from me is that I don’t really know. Except to say that “anti-gravity” is an electrical effect, because I think gravity itself comes from the same source. To understand orbits around a magnetic/electric field I think we need to understand plasma and ultra highly charged and hot objects. I haven’t looked into this in detail yet. I’m not sure the answers are there. My best bet on approaching this subject will be to look at anti-gravity anomalies and see if a connection can be made as to the best possible cause of Sun-push gravity, and go on from there. I have a feeling some inroads can be made along that route.

      View Comment
  2. BlueMoon says:

    Gravity doesn’t actually increase with altitude. For a GIVEN altitude, gravity will be stronger the higher the ground is below you. But when standing on a mountain, gravity will be weaker than it is at sea level. This is what necessitates station-keeping functionality in high-altitude satellites. You can test this on a plane if you have the equipment.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Gravity doesn’t actually increase with altitude.

      Show me the experimental evidence that it goes the other way, that gravity decreases with altitude. We can have a look together at the papers and see if this theory needs revised.

      View Comment
  3. John says:

    The Earth Is Flat.

    If you start with the wrong information you will get nowhere in figuring out gravity!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The Earth Is Flat.

      No, it has been measured to be concave. Have you measured the Earth? Do you know of anyone that has and found it to be flat? Can you cite their experiments here please.

      If you start with the wrong information you will get nowhere in figuring out gravity!

      I assume you have the correct information. Great, please share your findings.

      View Comment
  4. trigun4 says:


    What could be the cause of gravity reversing and increasing again after becoming zero at 750 miles below the surface? Etidorhpa book.
    Gravity is half of what it is in outer earth surface aka inner circle compared to what it is in the concave earth.
    I am thinking maybe there is another concentric sphere we don’t know about creating the push force, could be why etidorhpa refers it as inner circle cuz another concenric sphere pushing each other creating gravity on both surfaces,outer earth convev surface and concentric sphere concave surface.
    although inner sun may not exist as there’s already 24/7 light from soft white light mentioned in etidorhpa.

    View Comment
    • trigun4 says:

      North Polar Mirage Sun could be the light from octahedron’s illuminated half shining on north pole, only seen once far far north.
      Mercator map shows Mount Meru at the North pole. Polar opening could be below this mountain.
      Garden of Eden also at North pole

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Yes, I don’t understand how the old 17th century maps show this mountain plus land and the mountain (not land) is also described in the Smokey God account, yet it is supposed to be only (sometimes) frozen sea at the north pole. Are there any sonar soundings of the sea bed at this latitude? Except for the exotic let’s put a hologram mirage on the north pole to keep people out the hole, I’m thinking that sea levels have changed a lot in certain earth areas – such as California being an island for example. Antarctica being mapped out in the late middle ages also springs to mind.

        About Antarctica, Hancock has got in wrong about that Preis map coming from an antediluvian source. The map is super primitive meaning that it came from the middle ages. My take on it is sea levels have changed a lot since the middle ages covering most of Antarctica in ice today. I also think during that time, the earth was a lot warmer then. I read grapes where grown in England at that time. Why was it warmer? Either 1. A natural sun cycle over millennia etc. or 2. The sun is very young and was renewed after the flood perhaps, therefore gave out more heat in its pristine and larger condition. Probably 1. as there has been a very cold period with low sun radiation 3 to 400 years ago apparently, which half starved and froze Europe.

        One theory: A poorer output sun means a weaker mag field which is a weaker gravity so the waters rose and vice verse when the sun’s output was more perhaps.


        View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’d have to look at etidorpha again. What does the book refer to as an “inner circle”? The Earth? or gravity?

      My initial take on gravity going to zero and then back up again is that the ultra low frequency EM waves (magnetic field) from the Sun stop penetrating the crust completely at around 750 miles say. After which the push gravity field of the other cavity takes over. To be honest though I could be completely off base. Maybe the zero G is where the two opposing magnetic fields of each cavity meet? Sounds better perhaps.

      This would mean that the other cavity also has a pushing EM field from its center also.

      View Comment
  5. Nick Landell says:

    I prove that gravity could be a centrifugal force within a concave earth. ie. If a sphere is constantly rotating in an ever changing direction (due to a changing force applied to it); then there is a force acting within the sphere that mimics gravity.

    I demonstrate this with experiments showing water bubbles spinning in zero gravity. see the video I did on

    This effectively disproves both Newtons and Einstein’s theories of gravity.


    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Not a bad idea, but wouldn’t gravity alter greatly in strength with every change of direction? I can’t see it being uniform throughout at all times.

      View Comment
  6. Nick Landell says:

    I’m not sure where on this website to post this. But I’ve just made a video explaining how planes stay airborne (fly) due to mass displacement. This is the same principle as how hot air balloons and boats float.

    I also disproves the current (mainstream) theory of how planes fly – which is due to low air pressure (due to wing curvature); creating vertical lift.

    This is significant because if everything we know stays afloat or airborne due to mass displacement, then rockets (space ships) must also function on this principle in space. In which case ….. NASA could never have gone to the moon. There is no propulsion system that would work in space – using the principle of mass displacement to generate lift or forward motion.

    For more on this alternative view (mass displacement) see: “Planes float, they don’t ‘fly’ “,


    View Comment
  7. Nick Landell says:

    Gravity is bunk – Planes float, they don’t “fly” –
    (re-posted comment with better language).

    This is evidence that the entire concave earth is spinning; which creates a centrifugal force towards the edges (the ground), and thus the sensation of “a gravitational downward force” on earth. But we cannot sense the spinning of the entire concave earth; there is no relative motion within the concave earth. ie. No rotating earth relative to the sun & stars on the inside of the concave earth.

    Just an addition to the concave earth theory. Conventional theory on how planes stay in the air (fly) is wrong; as shown on your website.

    I’m a pilot. At flying school we are taught that planes fly because the shape of the wing. Where the airflow over the wing is such that low air pressure on the top side of the wing creates lift.

    This is a total lie and easily disproved. The theory is partially correct, but pressure differences aren’t sufficient to lift a metal plane off the ground. This theory ignores that the upper-side of the wing is thicker and thus has more resistance to the direction of flight, which would push the wing DOWN, not up. So this downward force from air resistance compensates for the upward force from the lower air pressure.

    Also, critically, this conventional theory of flight cannot explain how planes can fly upside down. Upside down, with the wings inverted, the high pressure would pull the plane downwards to the ground, not up!!

    The reality is that planes float on air, based on the same physics principles that boats float in water (Archimedes principle). This is also the same for parachutes, paraponts, base jumping, balloons, ….

    ie. That planes stay airborne because the mass of air displaced by the wings exceeds the mass of the plane. Thus the plane become less dense than the air it displaces. Wings are placed at angle against the direction of flight; not horizontal as shown in most flying diagrams. The wings push air down and thus the plane up. Simple. To gain or lose altitude, the pilots raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, changing the amount of air that the wings displace. See

    This further undermines the current theory of gravity. It reinforces the observation that dense (heavy) objects are pulled towards the ground; which is consistent with the theory that this is because the entire concave earth itself is spinning, creating a centrifugal force towards the edges, or the ground of our earth.

    I say this without questioning any other part of the concave earth theory, ie. that the earth appears stationary and it is the stars, sun and moon that move, ….

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Also, critically, this conventional theory of flight cannot explain how planes can fly upside down. Upside down, with the wings inverted, the high pressure would pull the plane downwards to the ground, not up!!

      Good thinking.

      The reality is that planes float on air, based on the same physics principles that boats float in water (Archimedes principle). This is also the same for parachutes, paraponts, base jumping, balloons, …. ie. That planes stay airborne because the mass of air displaced by the wings exceeds the mass of the plane. Thus the plane become less dense than the air it displaces. Wings are placed at angle against the direction of flight; not horizontal as shown in most flying diagrams. The wings push air down and thus the plane up. Simple. To gain or lose altitude, the pilots raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, changing the amount of air that the wings displace. See

      Interesting theory. That might tie in with the above video on rocket propulsion (or it might not. I’ll have to watch it again to remind myself.)

      I also thought that perhaps gravity could be centrifugal force, but it can’t be as gravity would be exceedingly weak at the poles compared to the equator. Also, the earth not spinning argument, verified both observationally and experimentally goes against that theory.


      View Comment
      • Nick Landell says:

        I agree, but pls allow me explain in more detail and provide a couple of suggestions:

        There are two separate issues here:
        1) Can a centrifugal force potentially explain gravity in a concave earth? Yes.
        2) What creates this centrifugal force? Don’t know.

        (Apologies for the long post, but it’s a complicated subject).

        The centrifugal force explanation of gravity is very appealing as it is so simple & neat. Occam’s razor.

        This centrifugal force would work similar to the stunt of “the motorcyclists in the Globe of Death”; see

        I also got the idea of a centrifugal force explaining gravity when I saw an experiment with a spinning water bubble in zero gravity. The air collected at the centre of the bubble, and the solid objects collected at the outer edges. This struck me as eerily similar to our concave world. see:

        By “gravity” I mean the force which accounts for the motions of bodies in space to accelerate towards the ground. I do not mean Einstein’s theory that gravity is caused by the attraction of two masses to each other (which I consider to be wrong).

        Gravity varies on earth and can vary in the same place over time. Hence the conventional (Einstein theory of gravity cannot be correct, as there is no change in the masses of bodies supposedly causing the gravity).

        Under the centrifugal theory of gravity; Gravity would be weaker towards the centre of the concave earth system; and stronger at the edges. It would PUSH objects towards the outer edges, to an exponential degree as you move towards the edge. This is consistent with what we see, with less gravity in space (eg. geo-stationary satellites). Also in space there is less mass of air acting on the satellites (pushing it down).

        Note that current physics theory is that gravity requires a uniform circular motion of some kind; ie. Constantly changing direction of movement creates constant acceleration towards the edge; and a centrifugal force.

        Thinking laterally, and this is very speculative, if the earth is concave, then the whole earth system exists in space (zero gravity). Also, this means that it was constructed by someone, and not a random creation of science or nature. ie. Someone created the sun, moon, earth, ….. So, we could consider some seemingly outlandish ideas. Nonetheless, laws of physics and logic must always apply to any explanation, which should be verifiable by scientific testing.

        Suggested explanations of how centrifugal forces can arise in a concave earth system:

        1) I agree that the explanation cannot be : the entire concave earth system spinning on one axis (in one direction). As then the centrifugal forces would only work along that axis. eg. If the earth spun around at the equator, then gravity (centrifugal force) would appear at the equator, but not the poles. Suggestion: BUT maybe the entire concave earth system is spinning at a constantly changing angle (not just along on one axis)? This is possible.

        2) Suggestion: Perhaps the centrifugal force is created there are discs spinning outside the concave earth (ie. effectively “underground” from our perspective). Similar to sci-fi movies where there are 3 spinning discs outside a central globe / portals (eg. time portal). I’ve no evidence or experiments that prove this can occur. Also, this could not be verified to actually occur, as we cannot dig far enough into the ground. It’s just an idea. I suspect the actual explanation for gravity will be unverifiable.

        So far, I’m not aware of any physics experiments that have shown that it is possible to create artificial gravity within a hollow & stationary sphere. They just haven’t been done.

        View Comment
        • Nick Landell says:

          As an addendum: I’m trying to do some research into the suggestions in the previous post; on the causes of gravity in the concave earth model.

          A gyroscope may provide the answer to this explaining this gravity conundrum.

          ie. Gravity may be caused by the angular momentum, created by the earth is spinning in an constantly changing direction.

          The earth could be held in place by a massive gyroscope- type apparatus that exists outside the structure of the (spherical) concave earth. This structure would effectively be directly underground from our perspective.

          See video on gyroscopes:

          If anyone knows how the forces within a gyroscope function do please comment.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Funnily enough, I think what you could be describing is the spinning h-field inside the Earth cavity which I based my theory on. This gyroscopic structure is more inside than outside, although it would penetrate and align the crust to some distance too.

            View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          “Gravity varies on earth and can vary in the same place over time.”

          I didn’t know it could vary over time. That is interesting. I fully expect a variation over time, especially seasonal as I am basing my theory of gravity as positive telluric currents from the centre-ish (probably the Sun).

          The problem for multiple spinning directions is that, as you say, we only have evidence for one (the Sun and stars etc.) However, I think the effect of centrifugal force is linked to gravity in some way, just not absolutely directly. I have gravity in a sense spinning in all directions. I had envisioned it like spokes in a bicycle wheel emanating from the Sun. In 3d I suppose it would be like pins in a pin cushion. Electrons move up from the earth which have their positive current counterpart moving in the opposite direction down towards the crust (gravity). Maybe these bicycle wheels of current flow could be envisioned as spinning disks in a some sense. I look at it as the energy emanating from a point source in all directions like those concentric circle diagrams showing energy getting weaker away from the center according to the inverse square law.


          View Comment
        • Observer says:

          Yes, the fact that air balloons passively float up, and helicopters actively “float up” using propellers, and planes actively “float up” using large wings PLUS propellers, leads to various ideas about the reason these things resist the force which we call ‘gravity”.

          Yes, you COULD say, “This ‘gravity’ force is a PULL from the mass of the convex earth” as the consensus theory states.

          Or you COULD say, “This ‘gravity’ force is a PULL from the mass of the VAST ROCK WHICH SURROUNDS THE CONCAVE EARTH” as Hitler’s “Concave Earth, non-spinning, sitting within vast rock, with the vast rock surrounding us being what pulls us towards the ground” theory states.

          Or you COULD invent a new complex theory of “Concave Earth PLUS this concave earth is spinning, not just on one axis since that would be easily noticeable, we must be spinning on many many many (perhaps millions) of axises at the same time, because hey, this theory assumes that outside the concave earth is not rock, outside the concave earth must be emptiness, so this concave earth when seen from the outside is actually spinning around in an actual huge space, either that, or this concave earth when viewed from the outside is attached to some big gyroscope spinning machine, either way it must NOT be spinning on one axis, it must be spinning on many, yeah, that must be what is creating this ‘gravity’ force we feel keeping us connected to the ground.”

          OR, how about this, now here is what I think is actually the simpler theory, how about: “The force which we call ‘gravity’ is actually a PUSH which emanates from the center of this 12,700km diameter ball which we call ‘space’.”

          This force of PUSH emanates from the center of the concave earth ‘space’, and thus pushes things out/down to the ground.

          This is WildHeretic’s explanation of gravity, and it took me awhile, but I have come to accept it as correct.

          A hot air balloon allows one to float up towards the center of ‘space’ at a rate quicker than… this force of PUSH emanating from the center of the concave earth ‘space’ is able to push the hot air balloon to the ground.

          When discussing things “floating” up, the hot air balloon example is the easiest to understand and the easiest to discuss, since no complicated propellers (and the entangled factors of upward propulsion and forward propulsion) need to get involved.

          So, I like to imagine a hot air balloon floating up, rising faster than the downward PUSH force can push it down.

          This “force” emanating from the center of ‘space’ (which is in the center of the concave earth) emanating in all directions from the center (and thus, from the point of view of folks attached to the ground, this is a ‘downward’ push) MIGHT be a bunch of actual currently undiscovered MOLECULES emanating out from the center, or more likely, might be a non-molecular ENERGY WAVE moving out from the center, but either way, this PUSH from the center is what keeps us heavy things on the ground, while light things like hot air balloons are able to float up towards the center quicker than this push from the center can push.

          Of course, the interesting thing about this floating ability we have with hot air balloons (and of course helium balloons, and any “lighter than normal air” floating device) is how high towards the center can we go?

          I of course want to go ALL THE WAY up to the 100km barrier (known as “the karman line”, “the ionosphere”, and Lord Steven Christopher’s “the glass barrier”) to touch that barrier…

          …And try to bust through it and to keep going all the way into that black ball which we call space and go all the way to the very center of space, where this PUSH force is emanating from) and then keep going straight all the way towards arriving at the opposite side of this concave earth. Yay! What a nice fantasy, moving from here in Japan, in a straight line up, and arriving eventually in America. Yes, I see the problems involved, I’m simply talking about a fantasy straight-line-through-the-center-of-the-concave-earth travel path.

          On a more serious note, I want to go ALL THE WAY DOWN into the hole at the south pole which leads to a tunnel which leads through the vast rock and eventually exits to an entirely different location. So this means visiting other “concave worlds” by simply getting past the gate-keepers who are guarding the tunnels through the rock.

          But where were we? Ah yes, a young padwan was suggesting that a centrifugal spinning reason is why we have trouble floating up (but I think WildHeretic’s non-spinning-based non-mass-based PUSH FROM THE CENTER theory is simplest and most likely to be true.)

          Still, even though I am calling the multiple-axises-spinning theory too complicated and unneeded, please do not be discouraged fellow human Nick.

          Your original point, about the “lift caused by wing shape” being NOT the reason planes can fly, remains a valid correction of the consensus theory. Yes the “planes can fly upside down” fact is what proves the magic “lift caused by wing shape” theory wrong.

          And your “let’s think about simply making huge wings, which allow the planes to float up” theory has something within it that might help us fly better, I simply want to remind you that with planes there is that unfortunate need to also add those heavy spinning-forward propulsion-machines (propellers, jet engines, whatever one wants to call them), which makes the whole plane thing heavy and constantly having to use mass amounts of energy to stay “afloat”…

          …while meanwhile the hot air balloon (and helium balloons) can REALLY do what you are wanting to do: float up, with less wasted energy expenditure, while concurrently proving we live inside the concave earth.

          So please do keep thinking and please do keep sharing your ideas. Who knows, you might help humans float better AND help humans understand the concave earth we live in better.

          View Comment
    • BlueMoon says:

      If you are indeed a pilot, you are no doubt familiar with stalling. Stalling correlates with a sharp decrease in lift, and is due to flow separation from the wing surface. If the lift was due to buoyancy, as you say, then it should be unaffected by flow separation, but this is not the case. Airplane wings need to be moving quickly to generate enough lift, but balloons don’t, Propellors and fan blades operate in the same way, and so do parafoils. Do you seriously believe that those airfoils operate on buoyancy? I could go on, but I have already put far more thought into this than you ever did. However, if you took the time to look it up, you would know.
      Based on your lack of basic knowledge on airfoils, I think it’s fair to say that you are not a pilot, and that you only say so for credibility. Following the logic of this blog, that means you are not a credible source, and we can ignore and dispose of the information you provide.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        The logic of this blog is fine, but thanks for the jibe.

        Do you not agree that when a witness is caught lying on the stand that all further testimony by said witness would be put in doubt?

        Of course you do, the testimony must be disregarded and another means of finding the truth enabled. This doesn’t mean that we can have a look at their testimony and see what makes sense with the new found data (concave Earth). But that is speculation.

        View Comment
  8. SPACE says:

    I’m pretty sure, that if this Cavendish gravity experiment would be performed in air balloon in 35 km height, compass pointers would stand still or rotate in random directions.
    These oldskool experiments on gravity or sides of the earth (north south east west) work only on ground.
    Planes use certain ping service, that tells where to fly.

    View Comment
  9. Arturas says:

    Way the describe SI unit of length can be standard of karman line 100km and average sea-level pressure about 100kPa so 100km/100kPa=1km/kPa or 1 meter per Pascal. So every meter from ground up you get 1 Pascal of pressure decrease (drop). So length and pressure is described in terms of earth measurments. But all books tells that you go higher pressure drops exponentialy not linear. We have that voltage increase is also linear every 1 meter 100 volts. Barometric plane altimeters don’t tell caibration. Equation of log base 10 is just for convinience. Like sound decibels earthquakes richter scale and i sure that sound and earthquakes equations are exponential of base e not base 10.

    View Comment
  10. Arturas says:

    Gravity can be electrostatic pressure between negatively charged earth ground and positively charged sun or positively charged glass in 100km altitude. Charge increase is 100V/m and Volts per meter dimension is electric field E [V/m] potential so on ground we have 0 and on glass sky in 100km we have 1000000V electric potential. Sun and earth works like radio LC circuit earth is electric capacitor with high voltage and sun is very hot very high velocity current amperes inductive solenoid. Sun charges and discharges conservation energy can be applied to isolated concave earth. Recycle one energy into another and none of electrical enegy is predominant.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That’s kind of my theory too. I’m not that knowledgeable on electric circuits, but what I think generally is happening is: 1. Sun charges Earth with neg current. 2. Excess Neg current constantly leaves the charged earth towards the sun which forms a circuit between sun and earth whereby the opposite pos current must flow back towards the earth from the the Sun at the same time, if that makes sense. The charging of the Earth by the Sun sets up the electric circuit in the earth cavity. The upward moving neg charge (electrons) bends the light and the downward moving pos charge (electric current) is gravity.

      That’s my basic gist of it.

      View Comment
      • Steve says:

        Hey WH 🙂

        I have the ability to zoom out farther than most people to see a bigger picture than most,
        and yet I sometimes make the mistake of not zooming into checking the details of what I write,
        and thus the result is I sometimes post paragraphs without noticing typos or mistaken details,
        like when I wrote this nice zoomed-out ode to you yet mistakenly switched Concave & Convex, haha

        Point being, in the paragraph you wrote above, perhaps there is a similar little typo switch?

        I’m guessing that the paragraph you wrote above is perfectly zoomed-out big-picture truth,
        and that the one tiny typo is perhaps a mistaken switch between pos and neg in one sentence,
        meaning, I think you meant to write “1. Sun charges Earth with POSITIVE current”, yes?

        Observer = Steve 🙂

        PS – This note, and all subsequent notes from now on, are publicly publishable, of course.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Actually, no typo. I have the Sun initially being charged due to its movement in the magnetic h-field of the cavity. Electrical charge. I understand these terms are confusing as some people define electricity as the movement of electrons through a wire one way, whilst others describe it as positive current going the other way. I have it as the Sun charging the Earth with electrons initially. It is then these electrons that consistently and steadily move back towards the Sun which invokes this constant electric circuit within the Earth cavity. It is then the reverse positive charge towards the Earth of these upward moving electrons that I think is what we call “gravity”. That is my best guess so far.

          View Comment
          • Steve says:

            Ah, now I see, thanks for that additional explanation.

            I sure hope someone will take this info and create benefit.

            For example, grabbing those sun electrons for major free energy.

            View Comment
          • Steve says:

            Imagine an new electron-collector 99-kilometers high that is floating straight up due to being:
            a simple cheap 99-kilometer long hose filled with hot air or helium with a fat bulb at the top,
            since the closer to “space” (e.g. the center of the concave earth) the higher electron density,
            I’ll bet good old solar panels and/or this new electron-collector will grab much more energy
            when placed as high as humanly possible (meaning 99km high, limited by the 100km glass.)

            Boom, it’s been thought by one, it’s being thought by many simultaneously, it will be done.

            A 99-km hose, 20cm diameter, filled with helium or hot air, pointing straight “up”. Done.

            No heavy basket burden, instead on the top a solar-panel and new electron-collector.
            Taped along the 99km hose is a 99km electrical wire bringing the 99-km energy to us.

            Light-strength AND push-from-above gravity-electron-strength, both MORE at 99km.

            Yes, fellow humans, eventually we will add a drill function to go higher through the glass.

            FIRST, let’s begin with this 99km tall safe flexible hose that will be attracted to space=center.

            AND we’ll make TWO of these by the way, to perform x2m’s Tamarack-SKY experiment! 🙂


            View Comment
  11. Steve says:

    Sceppy wrote:


    View Comment
    • Steve says:

      I was almost getting pulled into Sceppy’s “gravity is denpressure” idea.

      But then I realized it was wrong, like his “earth is a bowl” idea is wrong.

      Back to the reality of Concave-Earth, and gravity is: a push from the center.

      So, how deep and how wide of a hole must one build, to experience low gravity?

      Perhaps it can’t just be deep, perhaps it must be deep and wide, to really feel it.

      Below-sea-level dry-spots in which mankind enjoys the low-gravity health-benefits.

      Probably the wealthiest parasites have already secretly built such underground spots.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I would imagine slightly lower gravity in a mine miles below the Earth. To notice a difference, maybe 10s or hundreds of km are needed?

        I don’t agree with Screppy. Does an object float in a vacuum chamber?

        View Comment
        • scud says:

          “Does an object float in a vacuum chamber?”

          Indeed no WH. But propose a hyperbaric chamber not devoid of air but rather pumped up to the max.
          I did the calculations a couple of months ago but didn’t note (silly boy). Anyway, I think it’s around 11,700 psi for air to equal the density of water which is +/- the human body. Assuming that one could condense air to this level without it liquifying then ‘Voila’….floaty people, floaty everything that is less dense than its surroundings.

          Interesting that the ‘gravity map’ registers greater effects atop mountains. Of course at higher altitude there is less ambient pressure. Less ambient pressure the less buoyant a solid or liquid becomes…it effectively gains ‘weight’ (reversal of the above illustration).

          Regards CET. People may say that… ‘If there is no ‘gravity’ then we should all fall toward the bottom…the South pole’. Well, that’s just every day perception and would require an attractive ‘force’ to be located South. If we know it to be a system, a system of circles (picturing the whole thing as a slice in 2D) then there is no up or down…just lines of balance / buoyancy always and naturally toward the centre.

          Tides. Have we looked at electrostatics yet?

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Hi Scud. Good to see you peruse the site now and again. 🙂

            Indeed no WH. But propose a hyperbaric chamber not devoid of air but rather pumped up to the max.
            I did the calculations a couple of months ago but didn’t note (silly boy). Anyway, I think it’s around 11,700 psi for air to equal the density of water which is +/- the human body. Assuming that one could condense air to this level without it liquifying then ‘Voila’….floaty people, floaty everything that is less dense than its surroundings.

            I don’t believe density variation as the actual cause of gravity because, although it adequately explains floating and sinking, it doesn’t explain why sinking is down and not up or to the side etc. I suppose if sinking was up, then we would be living on a ball haha 🙂 There is also the issue of objects of widely different dnesities falling at the same rate in a vacuum and even air if that Galileo fella wasn’t telling porkies. My understanding is that gravity causes mediums to arrange themselves according to density, but that density variation itself is not the actual cause.

            Interesting that the ‘gravity map’ registers greater effects atop mountains. Of course at higher altitude there is less ambient pressure. Less ambient pressure the less buoyant a solid or liquid becomes…it effectively gains ‘weight’ (reversal of the above illustration).

            I never thought of that. Good one. We would have to find out how they determined the gravity differential in the first place.

            Regards CET. People may say that… ‘If there is no ‘gravity’ then we should all fall toward the bottom…the South pole’. Well, that’s just every day perception and would require an attractive ‘force’ to be located South. If we know it to be a system, a system of circles (picturing the whole thing as a slice in 2D) then there is no up or down…just lines of balance / buoyancy always and naturally toward the centre.

            Lol. I assume by people, you mean flat earthers. Haha. I agree. They are a silly lot. They have spotted the bullshit, but they aren’t able to put the correct picture together. I guess “up” and “down” is too much for them. Unless they believe in their flat earth must be moving up continually theory, then some unidirectional force such as gravity must also exist for them in some way. The argument is completely irrelevant but they don’t seem to get it.

            Tides. Have we looked at electrostatics yet?

            Not regarding tides, no. Definitely a possibility. But I am strongly leaning towards the glass sky as causing this effect. I’ve mentioned it in the next article very soon to be published so I’ll leave that topic with that article.

            View Comment
        • sceppy says:

          Wild Heretic
          May 28, 2015 at 8:34 pm

          I would imagine slightly lower gravity in a mine miles below the Earth. To notice a difference, maybe 10s or hundreds of km are needed?

          I don’t agree with Screppy. Does an object float in a vacuum chamber?……………….

          An object won’t float in a vacuum chamber because it’s not a true vacuum. As we all should know, a true vacuum (absence of ALL matter would mean no life/Earth at all, just what we would know as suspended animation.

          Anyway, moving on. An object inside a chamber wth pressure evacuated from it means that the object is now under less compressed pressure.
          To move anything from under the ground to the top of the ground or into the atmosphere, requires energy. It requires a PUSH from some energy source.
          Remember though, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction and energy pushing an object UP against atmospheric pressure means that energy is now stored as potential energy as long as it’s held up.
          That object and the energy taken to get it to where it is means that rock now has the exact same energy upon release.
          It’s not gravity, it’s merely density in a fight against atmospheric pressure upon that density = denpressure.

          People mention UP and Down as if gravity caters for it. We walk on a solid ground. We mine from under solid ground. We are pushed onto and into solid ground by atmospheric pressure.

          People don’t see how simple it all is because we’ve been saturated with scientific nonsense all our lives.
          We get told that gravity is more or less depending on where you are stood on Earth.

          It’s a dupe…..I mean, a swimming pool full of water is more or less depending on where you’re stood, in terms of depth of water upon you.

          When looked at in basic thought and in simplistic terms, we can liken anything we do to whathappens in and on water. And I mean, everything.

          Air waves are smilar to water waves on a pond . Wind is smilar to ocean waves creating movement of water under the sea.

          We can’t live at the bottom of the ocean like we can at the bottom of our own atmosphere, because we aren’t built for it and are buoyant enough to rest on the denser atmosphere which is th atmosphere of those creatures that inhabit the ocean.

          Just like it takes energy to bring a rock from the bottom of the sea to the top and hold it there. If we leave loose, the rock falls back to the bottom.
          The thing is, that rock at the bottom wll be dense and if we drag it up over distance, it wll become porous because it’s under less and less compression.

          Scientists go on about gravity and how Earth’s mass pulls? pushes us into the centre and yt man has only managed to drill about 6 or 7 miles into the Earth and yet we are told it’s got a molten iron core and all the rest of it.
          We accept this stuff because the people in the white coats told us to, yet have no clue what they are talking about.

          The reason we accept gravity with all the added crap like Cavendishes’ experiment or Einsteins warped space time and all the rest of it. None of which can ever be proved and all of which are simply made up concepts; yet we are told to accept them because they have proof, even though we’ve never directly seen any of it.

          Gravimeter’s and gravitons, detecting gravity and what not. Detecting a force that cannot be explained and yet those same gadgets renamed, would detect the truth. Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object of any description anywhere on and inside Earth, because it’s all stacked from the bottom up.

          So you walk upstairs. Is gravity pulling you back down?
          Why do you get tired?

          Why is it easier to walk a straight path and harder to walk up a hill or stairs?
          Gravity?….or atmospheric pressure working on your body whllst your body works against, it.

          People dupe us into believing all objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum. This is due to gravity they say.

          How about thinking about evacuaton of pressure and resistive force inside a chamber that allows all objects to fall by encounterng little to no resistance.

          People can argue that gravity stll makes them fall but as I explained earlier; energy was required to place the objects density into the atmosphere before that atmosphere was evacuated around that object which is now hangng as potential energy but now does not have the extra resistive force upon it when allowed to drop, so naturally it’s going to drop faster and more evenly, just like a feather would, because tehre’s no atmospheric resistance, or very little.

          Just remember. There is no such thing as a PULL on Earth. We always use PULL to describe things, as in, pull on the rope or pull th cart. The reality is, It’s all PUSH on PUSH due to atmospheric pressure.

          Basically everything on Earth is trying to squash each other. It’s a fight all the way of push versus push or resistance verses resistance or to put it bluntly. It’s a resistance of anything against an energy force pushing onto it.

          You body is a bundle of energy that’s grown into the atmosphere.
          That atmosphere pushes you back and your feet stop it from pushing you into the ground.
          Your own dense body is clamped to the ground by pressure, not gravity.
          When you tak a breath, it’s not gravity that forces that breath back out. It’s atmospheric equalisation.
          You rob the atmosphere of air and that air you take will expand your chest by that amount you took from the atmosphere and now your chest is pushing harder into that atmosphere to make up for what you robbed inside.
          It equalises and it’s always a fight of energy/action and EQUAL and opposite reaction to that acton.

          It’s why you move. It’s why you become more tired when you ascend into the atmosphere, because the higher you go, the less molecles or pressure there. It may appear tiny at forst but your body has to adapt and it does. It expands with every step on ascending, to fill the lower pressure but it makes you tired because you are using much more energy to expand your body to breathe faster to take in more air.
          Not to mention that your knees bend when you ascend which means you have more surface area pushing aganst the upper atmosphere, meaning much more pressure bearing down against your push, as opposed to walking a flat surface with very little bending and also moving your body horizontally.

          Seems pretty basic and boring and unscientific in how I put it out but that’s simply my thoughts and I don’t see any reason in using calculations that have no bearing on anything, which are, in most cases, pertaining to stuff like gravity and space, etc.

          Anyway have a think about this stuff on basic terms. If you can manage to kep a mind on how water works and equating it to how atmosphere works, it may aid in people having a more basic idea of what I’m saying and how the world doesn’t have to be complicated.

          Remember: fixing a bicycle can be a complicated task to those who have no wish to tinker with it. Those who do can see just how simple it is.


          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            The reality is, It’s all PUSH on PUSH due to atmospheric pressure.

            Still doesn’t explain why “down” and not “up” for example. Why isn’t the air floating? For example, a scuba diver can float at the bottom of say 20m of water because he is the same density as the water. No problem so far. But why isn’t the water and scuba diver floating at say 100 km high or 200km or 10 km or whatever. Something is pushing the water to the edge of the Earth, but it is NOT the water itself. Apply the same example to the air and a balloonist if you like, it doesn’t matter.

            View Comment
          • sceppy says:

            Wild Heretic
            June 2, 2015 at 12:15 pm

            The reality is, It’s all PUSH on PUSH due to atmospheric pressure.

            Still doesn’t explain why “down” and not “up” for example. Why isn’t the air floating? For example, a scuba diver can float at the bottom of say 20m of water because he is the same density as the water. No problem so far. But why isn’t the water and scuba diver floating at say 100 km high or 200km or 10 km or whatever. Something is pushing the water to the edge of the Earth, but it is NOT the water itself. Apply the same example to the air and a balloonist if you like, it doesn’t matter.

            sceppy says:
            Down and up are just a representation of how we go with the balance of ourselves and how we think of up and down. Gravity doesn’t do it either. It is simply UP and DOWN as simply words to call ourselves for positional awareness.

            The water is a sort of mirror image of what happens to us on land against atmosphere.
            For a diver to go down into the depths he needs a craft to power him down. The trouble is, as he does, the craft will be crushed, eventually as more and more water is stacked and the more of that stack that the craft (submarine) has displaced.
            The problem is, the sub can only go so far before the air inside of it becomes so compressed that anyone inside of it is crushed.

            Think of it like putting you inside a steel suit and then pumping more and more air pressure into the suit, above your normal atmospheric resistance of 14.7 psi. You’re going to be crushed to death and your eyes and innards are going to pop out and turn to mulch. This is because the suits strength in resisting the extra air pressure is equally going to be transferred to your body and we are no good at resisting much more than atmospheric sea level pressure.

            Eventually, IF the energy was strong enough to push your sub further down, your sub would simply implode because the air inside cannot hold back the structure of it.

            The opposite to this is your so called astronaut in atmosphere inside his craft (rocket).
            At lift off, he is under 14.7 psi sea level pressure. His rocket is fllled with fuel and is also under 14.7 psi of pressure all around it.

            inside of it; in oxygen tanks, it will be under much more pressure ready to release the fuel to be ignited against the atmosphere in order to push the rocket up.
            Now just like the sub but in the opposite way, the rocket must overcome sea level pressure to achieve zero psi in so called space.
            In doing this the under pressure astronaut inside the rocket, plus the fuel and oxygen, now become more of a force against the rocket because the outer atmosphere is not compressing the rocket walls and tanks to stop those tanks from expanding and basically exploding, unlike the sub which would implode.

            Now remember, this isn’t about rockets in a vacuum, as such. This is showing you what atmospheric pressure is and why it’s required for us to survive and for Earth to actually be the energy cell it is.

            To create a pressurised environment for life, you have to seal/enclose it. To do this, you need a skin and a pressure build that is even for that environment, which you get as a dome due to stacked matter and it’s this stacked matter that’s the key to understanding why we live under the pressure and why everything works as it does.

            The problem is in tryng to get people to understand it because most just dismiss it due to not understanding it – because they revert straight back to gravity…a name given to a supposed force and something that is not understood, yet accepted simply because it’s of mass opinion.

            When people think of – and accept scattered particles and a spnning globe that somehow loses helium and hydrogen into space as it spins and yet somehow holds in the atmosphere…then I can’t explain anything to people like that because it’s just not worth it.

            If people can try and understand that the atmosphere must be stacked to create pressure and also to create a dome due to this stacking, then they should also understand that the Earth is stationary in terms of no free movement through what people think, is space.
            All Earth does is expand and contract into a true vacuum. Does this make the Earth rubber?….nah, nothing like that. Just like you can form a skin on a soap bubble or an ice mound or fart in the bath and watch a bubble form on the top.

            Now think of the Earth farting out elements and those elements arrangng into their respective densities; the heavier being the foundation to the lightest being the roof.

            What’s the lightest elements?
            Well, we can look at hydrogen/helium and what not. This stuff expands through the dense mass below us due to energy from the Earth sun in the centre of Earth…not in space.

            We are living under pressure because the molecules are more compressed, which means more in abundance at sea level and are constantly being squashed as they resist those above and below them.
            Those above are merely stacked pressure upon those below and the molecules below the ground that are pushed up due to energy releases, push into the molecules at sea level, creating what looks like an agitated beer belly fight among all molecules that are all attached with no free space at all.

            A key thing has to happen for any movement up into the atmosphere or down into the depths of the ocean and that is: whatever you expend in energy to gain in movement, you will create the equal reaction to that action.

            What does this mean?

            It means that if I (pretend it was possble) was to stand in space and lift you up by a rope from the land under your feet, your body would expand to equalise the lower pressure it finds itself in with every lift on my rope.

            Just lke a helium ballloon must do the very same for it to rise into the atmosphere, only it’s expandng to equalise pressure – and in doing so, it’s actually being squeezed up by the denser air under it and around it and as it moves it means it’s alway unbalanced in reaction to action due to less pressure pushing on it’s sides as there is squeezing from below, meaning it has to expand to fill that discrepancy.

            The opposite happens in water. Push a football into water and that football will encounter heavier resistance from the water against the air inside of the football and this wll compress that air and the ball. It will do this for as long as the ball is PUSHED against the denser water below until the ball releases the air inside it. If this happens, then you get the similar thing to the helium balloon, except in bubble form as the compressed air is released from the burst ball and is allowed to expand bigger and bigger all the way to the top of the water.

            So here’s the key. If a scuba diver could be made to float up into the sky on a balloon, then that scuba diver could, theoretically, hypothetically….potentially, in fantasy land of science reach as high as his buoyancy would allow him to into the sky due to him blowing up lke a michelin man due to his body cells, under little external resistance to the internal expansion of his cells; fill the space to equalise that lower pressure making him huge in area, just like you can walk on snow much easier if you put on snow ski’s instead of walking shoes, or reading the paper in your swmming pool on your air bed in comfort as opposed to lying on your bare back with a soggy paper. lol.

            Yes I’ve went off on one and you might not appreciate the lengthy reply but I like for other people to try and get a grip on it to see if they can see what I’m getting at.

            Look, I’m not saying I’m 100% correct. I’m not saying that other people’s thoughts and works are pointless. We all have our own thoughts and to be fair, I take onboard all other’s.

            As long as people don’t adhere to gravity, then I’m open to viewing anyone’s thoughts. I have no time for gravity as I know it’s bullshit.

            Now, if for some reason I haven’t given you a satisfactory answer to your up and down…all I can say is, up and down is smply a term that we made up. We look up to the sky and we look down to the ground.

            View Comment
  12. Nobody says:

    What if we are not observing gravity but observing Density….. Hot air balloons rise, helium in balloons rise and ect….

    View Comment
    • sceppy says:

      In my opinion it is that simple.
      The problem us meek humans have is that we were baffled by the bullshit from an early age. We can’t do the mind numbing equations that lead to the truth because those equations lead us all down a garden path with a locked gate.
      We simply accept the ridiculous notions about warped space time and black holes and molten iron cores , plus mass attracting mass and blah blah blah and yet we (or most) refuse to use our own logic and common sense for what’s in front of us.

      It’s as simple as this. This is the easiest way I can tell it to save typing.

      A sponge weghs very little when put onto a man made weigh plate because the atmospheric pressure pushing onto it, is very little because most of the sponge’s area is already absorbing the pressure and the only parts that are not, are the fibres.
      So realistically the atmospheric pressure upon the density of that sponge is tiny.
      Squeeze that sponge as hard as you can with a vice and you will get a grain sized density of fibres thata re comp[ressed and this is all that’s resisting the 14.7 psi pressure upon it.

      Now imagine a gold bar, The whole bar is virtually non porous, give or take. It’s very dense and shows it on the scale because it’s density is resiting the 14.7 psi upon just about all of it’s area apart from microscopic air pockets that absorb some.

      No gravity needed. It’s all atmospherc pressure upon any dense object.

      View Comment
  13. el guapo says:

    Just a thought but couldn’t “gravity” simply be the result of atmospheric pressure? We are in an enclosed and pressurized environment (glass barrier with breathable atmosphere below)…might not this pressurization be experienced by us as a downward pushing force? Could it be that simple?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I had thought about that and Screppy is of that opinion. But I don’t think so. There is a lot less air pressure not that high up and I think gravity doesn’t change with this less-pressure gradient.

      View Comment
  14. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’ve added Joseph’s great alternative explanation for the Cavendish experiment in a concave Earth with extra detail of my own using Bernoulli’s principle.

    View Comment
    • Observer says:

      An ode to TheWildHeretic, whose level of truth-seeking and truth-sharing courageously states, “The earth is neither flat nor concave, to limit your question to those two options would be a patently false dichotomy: we are living within a convex ball (proven by the fact that the “horizon line” remains at eye-level no matter how high in an airplane one goes) and thus located within our convex ball is a 12,000km-diameter finite black center which the NASA scientocracy uses digital fakery to invert & magnify to successfully accomplish the greatest hoax of all, the ‘concave earth surrounded by infinite outer space’ hoax.”

      WildHeretic has thus progressed far beyond most humans (and far beyond even CluesForum’s current ability to admit) about the surprising reality of the convex ball we are trapped within, the tiny finite black portion in the center which we see at night, the black center which emits the pushing-force which currently is incorrectly labelled “the mass-based pulling-force of gravity”, the ionosphere glass barrier which currently prevents humans from exploring that 12,000km-diameter black center, and the convex ball prison we live in having a main exit hole located at the currently highly-militarized southern pole.

      WildHeretic’s highest-level “convex loosh-farm prison” truth revealing writings deserve even more respect than the second-place “image-forgery” truth that the CluesForum admits, that almost all purported-recordings ever shown by the mainstream news outlets are in fact image-forgeries.

      Bottom line, any human who still hasn’t realized the physical reality of the environment we live in, or refuses to admit it due to fear of that bold admittance causing all of their lesser revelations to suddenly be disregarded by association, have an intelligence+courage combination lower than a human who realizes and admits that we live within a concave ball. 🙂

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Thanks for the support.

        “convex loosh-farm prison”

        That is my leading theory too. However I have a feeling that even beyond that, consciousness is here to play this reality like a game… and there is no game like this one! (I view consciousness and “physical” worlds as two separate but inter-influential realities, like the film “Avatar”).

        View Comment
        • Observer says:

          Log back in to CluesForum sometime, you’ve got PMs.


          View Comment
        • Observer says:

          Hey WildHeretic, did you ever contact the man who recorded this beautifully simple yet powerful convex-disproving experiment?

          View Comment
          • Observer says:

            His Youtube account no longer exists, and he stopped posting to his Google+ account in February.

            I just need to know the name of the island 10 kilometers from the shore. The-Abyss-is-open, please reply! 🙂


            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I asked him when his video was still up to give me the exact location on the river Humber. I looked on Google maps and hard a few possible candidates. He said he would make a new video with all the details included. As far as I am aware, there is no video with those details as of yet.

            View Comment
          • Observer says:

            Hey WildHeretic 🙂

            Thank you for that reply, I’m very glad to at least know the general river Humbler location.

            Now, big news, I logged in to CluesForum today, I noticed you sent me a reply to my private message, thank you so much for that! 🙂

            And yes, I promise to keep the contents of ANY private message or e-mail sent to me private forever, that goes for everybody. Thank you so much for trusting this promise enough to share some deep private thoughts with me non-publicly.

            But now, I have big news, I didn’t even get a chance to READ your private message to me yet, because just as I was about to go read whatever you sent me, just as I was about to click send on a long powerful post (reading your reply to me was going to be the “dessert” after submitting this long letter to the CluesForum “Universe” thread, suddenly when clicking the submit button, I received this message:

            “The specified user is currently inactive” (!)

            It appears I have been banned!

            For what? To prevent my long powerful post from being posted?

            To prevent me from reading that private message you sent me?

            Perhaps this is a simple “mistake”?

            Perhaps somebody tried to log-in to my account with the wrong password a few times, and thus my account has been locked-down as a preventative security measure?

            If that security lock-down were the case, wouldn’t I have in my personal e-mail inbox a letter telling me so, and a link to reset my password?

            I don’t know what CluesForum is intending, by preventing me from posting there right now and preventing me from reading your message there right now, but I hereby am publicly “contacting an administrator”:

            Hoi, Simon, please reply. Why am I suddenly locked out of my Observer account at Clues Forum?

            Meanwhile, while I wait for this strange happening to be explained, I am going to post the long post which I wrote, right here (thank goodness I saved it BEFORE clicking the submit button, this is one of those posts that would be frustrating to have to re-write in its entirety.) Here it is:

            In defense of Simon –

            (who I have been kinda’ rude to lately, basically implying “If you don’t admit the ultimate truth that we’re living within a concave ball, you must be either stupid or cowardly or an extremely far-hanging gatekeeper who reveals 99% but doesn’t go ALL THE WAY!” – Ha! The irony of me calling anyone stupid or cowardly, when I don’t share my real name online, and I couldn’t even keep straight the difference between conCAVE and conVEX at first, haha, I’m gonna’ start admitting and laughing at my imperfections a little more honestly and openly from now on.)

            Assume just for a moment, just as a mental journey, that Simon is honestly sharing an actual experience, and that his memory is clear, and that his drawing correctly depicts what he saw. Now, as Simon requested, can we please attempt to figure out HOW Simon could have seen what is shown in the illustration AND the Concave Earth still be true at the same time?

            Well, as Hoi was wise to quickly point out…

            (and which by the way proves to me that Hoi actually has read WildHeritic’s 18 pages thoroughly, which really IS a prerequisite to participate in the Concave Earth conversation with any kind of sufficient understanding of the Concave Earth model (I’ll start saying “model” now instead of “reality”, just to try to appear a little less biased about this subject, heh-heh, to pretend to be a little more neutral, until actual empirical “personally-tested-with-my-own-hands-and-eyes-outdoors” evidence starts to come in)

            …BENDING light spreading out from the (surprisingly small and surprisingly close and surprisingly half-disk) sun, is a vital part of the Concave Earth model.

            This bendy-light concept is big initial roadblock for those who are strongly biased on the “I’m not willing to even consider letting go of the conVEX earth model” side of the spectrum, because those folks’ initial reaction to the bendy-light aspect of the Concave Earth model usually reply basically, “The bendy light idea MUST just be a cop out, a cop out to explain why we don’t see cities in the sky Elisium-style, I’m not opening my mind up to the possibility that the “light travels in a straight line” assumption” is false. No way. Light travels in a straight line, I’m sure of it, so the convex model describes reality correctly. Case-closed, now shut up, you crazy Concave Earther.”

            Going now back to Simon’s claim (which is not so outlandish at all, it’s not like Simon said he saw something that we ourselves can’t test, this is something simple and plainly available to test, something that ALL of us reading here right now are going to look for ourselves the next time we venture to a beach)…

            I think that some of us will come back with reports (and photographs please, with plain non-fish-eye, flat-as-possible lenses please) like this, “Yep, I saw (and recorded) exactly what Simon saw and drew! Check it out, there is an ocean bulge in the middle, look how close the water comes up towards the horizontal steel rail here, and look how the water is comparatively lower on the left & right, just as Simon said.” and yet at the same time I think others will come back with reports and photos of the rail and ocean lines appearing quite parallel.

            And that would cause us to start calling each others’ photos faked, haha. But how about the idea of this bendy light ALSO having the property of making things appear different at different times of the day (morning, afternoon, night) and perhaps even season), thanks to Hoi for bringing these ideas up, and thanks to WildHeretic for bringing these ideas up before him…

            (and thanks to Steven Joseph Ciummo [[url=]his birth name[/url]] for bringing it up before him, who before you go looking him up, I have to give upfront full-disclosure right now, although this guy makes the BEST Concave Earth animations in current existence, animations which take in to account the bendy light idea AND the changes due to time and season, even going so far as to have animated exactly how the sun within the Concave Earth model would need to move to match exactly what we see with our eyes (namely, the sun will spinning within the Concave Earth doesn’t merely spin around in a perfect circle, instead it spins around in a helical motion up, and then in a helical motion down, WHILE pumping out this bendy light) although this guy provides WildHeretic with a LOT of what is in WildHeretic’s 18 pages of evidence against the convex model and for the concave model, I’ll go ahead and say it now: one should NOT suddenly disregard the Concave Earth model just because THIS CRAZY CHARACTER [possibly an actor, possibly a sim, possibly an actual combination of honest Genius plus absolute Loon] has so strongly attached himself to the model. The Concave Earth model can be right, and the convex model can be wrong, REGARDLESS of the fact that this character – who has renamed himself Steven Joseph Christ, and maintains that he is the reincarnation of Christ and a messenger/mouthpiece of… ahem, you know, and who has supposedly served time in prison for having posted online that he was on his way to Washington D.C. with the intention to assassinate President Obama. (!) Seriously, that’s the character’s story, I’ve laid it out plainly here to get that character’s TOTALLY SULLYING effect out of the way upfront, so that we can proceed to focus on the Concave Earth concepts, and totally disregard the character of that lovely-animation-creating, mind-blowing-idea-providing, “messenger” who has placed himself right in the middle of this Concave Earth model. And oh yeah, he also has placed an unneeded Pyramid in the middle of his animations, so let’s disregard that distraction as well.)

            Actually, on that note, can we super-open-minded faith-based-belief-system-DESTROYERS here at CluesForum please promise ourselves from now on to ONLY focus on concepts, and not allow ourselves to be swayed one way or the other merely based on the dirt we find on the characters of people (or characters of sims) who attach themselves to any particular concepts, because as you can see, it is SO EASY for the elite old-belief-system-MAINTAINERS to set up a crazy actor or a crazy sim or a dirty actor or a dirty sim. It’s easy as pie to sully a correct concept in this way, so it is totally illogical for us thinkers to say, “I’m against this concept because, uh, I’m against this CHARACTER who pushes this concept.” It’s absurd to say, “I’m going to disregard all of the evidence that the 9-11 images were faked, because, uh, Simon’s Dad’s old job, or because of Simon’s brother’s jobs” just as it is absurd to say “I’m going to disregard all of the evidence that the conVEX data throughout the past centuries were faked, because, uh, the guy who makes the best animations on the subject is either crazy or shilly.” We must always judge each concept neutrally and rationally based on each concept’s evidence, and disregard the sullying effect of characters attached to each concept. Let’s discuss ideas, not people.

            So, back to the beach now, if we CluesForum readers individually separately go to the beach and bring back conflicting evidence, how will that be explained?

            I would like to propose that any of us who actually go do this, set up a beach chair behind the railing and actually sit there from sunrise to sunset (yes, I know, now this getting troublesome, but c’mon, bring a friend, bring a few friends, bring your favorite food and drinks etc, make an all day party of it) to record if there is a difference between how the ocean-to-railing edges look depending on the time of day. Perhaps mornings might show evidence of convexity, while noon might surprisingly show contrary evidence: evidence of non-convexity, while evenings might flop back to showing evidence of convexity again. So a camera on a tripod filming all day, which we then later watch a fast-forwarded version of the ocean-to-railing side-difference-to-center-difference comparison throughout the day would be a much better experiment than simply taking one photo and walking away. And oh yeah, even if the fast-forwarding of the entire day shows NO changes, then before you stop thinking about this forever, come back and repeat the experiment once each season, to see if there’s a certain season in which the change is more noticeable.

            What I’m saying in the paragraph above really boils down to this: if the above experiment DOES show any kind of CHANGE-over-time, in the ocean-to-railing side-difference-to-center-difference comparison, this would still NOT disprove the Concave model, this would still not disprove the Convex model, but it WOULD shockingly disprove the “light is always a constant, steady, straight line” assumption which humanity currently holds.

            Remember, the Concave Earth model also has a glass barrier added in there, which helps create rainbows and reverses the apparent direction of sun and moon movement (actually, if we want to get technical about it, the newest animations of the model shows at least 3 layers of glass ball barriers in between us and the center ball of “space”, so it gets all confusing. I suggest we need to put a tiny camera within a few models of glass, some with just one glass ball barrier in there to simulate the 100km one, and others with 2 or 3 barriers in there, to simulate what DOES it look like, from the point of view of a camera sitting within a concave ball, looking “up” at the “sky” through one or two or three layers of balls of light refracting glass. Perhaps this physical construction re-creating Steven’s computer simulations will help us see WHY we don’t see other cities in the sky Elysium-style.

            And to finish this overly lengthy (but all on-topic) post, let me just say one thing about Teed and Morrow’s rectilineator experiment (again, please disregard the irrelevant-to-concept fact that they were believers of some stupid book) – their rectilineator experiment has in fact been replicated in a strangely accidental different way, according to the flat-earth model advocates, by the railroad engineers. The railroad engineers have built tracks over some long flat salt-lake-style distances, of supposedly perfectly horizontal beams connected together supposedly WITHOUT any convex (nor concave) factor being added in, which makes one wonder HOW this is possible. Meaning, in the hilly areas, they supposedly use slightly varying connectors that take into account the hills, requiring slight variations in the connectors of the rails there, but when going across “perfectly straight long flat salt-lake-style distances” they use the standard perfectly straight connectors, creating a huge long beam that, oops, seems to accidentally prove the flat earth model right. I don’t like any flat earth evidence, because it threatens to puncture a hole in my much loved concave earth air balloon (an air balloon, by the way is something we should all go individually ride in, to verify for ourselves that from an air-balloon, without the plastic and glass lenses of the airplane windows, one can more plainly see the concave curvature of the earth.) OK, about the flat-earth model “proving” railroads in some locations being “perfectly flat for much longer distances than the convex curvature model allows for”, I guess I’m gonna’ just have to say that perhaps the engineers don’t bother to factor in the convex (nor cave) curvature of those long flat areas because the “perfectly straight” connectors themselves allow a little leeway one way or the other. Yeah. That must be the explanation. There, I escaped that flat earth point. Whew. Both convex and concave lovers can thank me for that one.

            Now to really, really, end this novella, I would like to propose, that after reading all of the comments below WildHeretic’s 18 pages, the test suggested within those comments that seems best to me is this: attach a rope to one side of a sufficiently long lake, and then use a boat to drag the other end of the rope to the opposite side of the lake, and then tighten tighten tighten that rope until it is totally taught, and then look in the portion of rope in the exact middle of the lake: is the rope higher-than-the water-level in the middle (for example, 7 centimeters) than your connection points at the 2 shores (for example, 3 centimeters). If so, then you have just proven to yourself that we live WITHIN a concave ball. This experiment would finally help one throw away the old faith-based assumption that all of the authorities’ data about the convex earth was indeed faked. This indeed would be personal, self-tested, empirical evidence that the biggest media fakery every perpetrated was the forgery of convex earth images from “outer-space”. And this, my fellow thinkers, is why I think this subject, of personally disproving the convex model, truly belongs on this Forum, which seeks to disprove ALL media hoaxes, no matter HOW many years of our lives we were carrying around a particular faith-based assumption.

            Me personally, I just want to know the truth. I don’t care if that truth involves shocking revelations that make me feel like a fool for having been fooled for almost 40 years now, I would rather my mental and verbal painting of reality to match reality to the highest degree possible, regardless of how crazy my painting might seem to the masses around me who simply parrot the mainstream consensus. If the general consensus is A, and I know the general consensus is warped by stupidity and programming by clever liars from the top down, then chances are very high that the reality is not A, the reality is probably B. So just the mere fact that the general consensus is convex makes me biased from the start that the reality is more likely to be Concave.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            dizzib says the same about a slight bulge in the middle higher up (above eye level), which is above the middle horizon line lower down. This is because of the spotlight effect of bending light in the concave earth he thinks. He could well be right.

            The thing is, observations may change slightly, from very flat to a slightly raised middle bulge depending on some variable factors. It is interesting all the same.

            Interesting experiment about the rope. I think that could work. I mean a taut rope must be straight, musn’t it? Just making sure it is solid. Is it possible to carry that out without injuring anyone? Would the lake have to be shut down to others while the rope is pulled taut? Would fishing wire be better because it is lighter (no sag in the middle)?

            View Comment
  15. Arturas says:

    About orbiting planets also have no working plan, i heard Lagrange and Laplace try solve gravity perturbation problem, but no calculation was done zero. Al Sci-fi movies what happens when planets align with earth lose their goldilocks orbit and will die. Two body problem is not solved till this day with superfast computers, planets cannot orbit sun, superposition principle of gravity force summation planetary system destroy in 2 years. Black hole escape velocity is nonsense different calculation have different answers, Schwarz(Rotchild) radius also uses E=MC^2/2 formula not E=mc^2. So S. Hawking quantum cosmology uses Newton classical laws. So CERN multibillion taxpayer money still even bigger to compare NUKE BOMB HOAX stealing.
    You will never win against government corporate Bureaucracy, high echelon bureaucrats’ and functionary members have all time in “expanding” universe.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for that Arturas. I’m not knowledgeable in this field and we need people with this kind of knowledge that are questioning the current paradigm.

      It is interesting that not even supercomputers are able to successfully get planets to orbit the sun with current calculations. I guess they are Newtonian. They won’t throw out their spinning ball model though, will they? No. They’ll do mathematically gymnastics until it can possibly work. They haven’t managed even that yet it seems.

      View Comment
  16. R.E. says:

    I think there is an effort to continue the ruse >for the benefit of those who choose to believe it<.

    When I was just starting out in life, I had an injury that I paid out of pocket to treat. The doctor enjoyed acting like a gregarious Nice Guy who liked to chat with patients. He was in his forties and complained that he would be paying for his medical school student loans for years to come. He would even have barbecues at his office on sunny summer days and invite patients to grab a bite.

    One day at my appointment, I informed this doctor that I went to a soft tissue specialist across town and felt much much better. I was excited about the technique the specialist used and thought that the doctor would be curious about it. After all, he liked to chit chat and went into medicine because he wanted to help and heal people, right? He was not the least bit curious about it. Didn't even ask the name of the methods used. Didn't care. He wanted to continue using his expensive and complicated methods even if it wasn't what was best for his patients.

    That was a lesson for me: some people will justify anything if there is money to be made even from an unworkable process. How easy is it for someone to just toss everything they know into the ocean after they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of sacrifice to obtain it? They're going to make it all pay off dammit! This guy didn't even have a wife or kids. And the strange thing was that he, being a doctor, could use any technique he chose to. What it came down to is money.

    You really don't need thousands of people out there with their hands in various pies continuing a Big Lie. These things self regulate to same degree.

    There may be more money in lies.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I was thinking the same thing. There is also pride and recognition amongst peers as well (self esteem issues). My grandad had a similar experience in 2002 (now deceased) at an NHS doctor’s surgery in the UK where he promoted another person’s holistic methods that really helped him. He ended up holding the doctor up against the wall after the doctor’s clear lack of interest. That was the end of that. But it was an eye-opener for sure.

      I’ve heard someone say on another forum that they had to choose between helio or geocentricity all that time ago, but I think that is nonsense. They didn’t have to choose between anything. All they had to do was conduct geodetic scientific experiments to determine what was what, and they didn’t… and even then they could say that this strongly indicates that blah blah; not that this is the gospel according to us. That is the shame. Cosmology came from religion and never really left. They pretend it’s scientific though, another irk of mine.

      I’d just like to add that the biggest problem with the professions is the legal straightjacket that they immediately find themselves in. Today, the regulations and injury lawyers stop anybody getting “out of line”, i.e. do something different than their peers. This completely stops all progress in said profession with a sledgehammer. Even if you follow the indemnity insurers’ protocols to the letter, the fact that you are doing something different than your “peers” means they’ll only insure you for astronomical amounts (usually completely unaffordable). This leaves you with two choices: Choose another profession or follow your peers… regardless if what your peers are doing is still in the stone age, or extremely harmful.

      The regulations are there to haul you up in front of kangeroo courts held by the profession’s “council” on any accusation by anyone. And on what standard do they judge the poor “maverick”? On his peers of course. It’s all a big joke to keep the progress of mankind to an absolute minimum. The regulations are doable for a fighting maverick, but it puts off 99.9999% of everybody else in the profession. The injury lawyers kill everyone dead however. No-one escapes the indemnity insurance. Career-ending stuff right there. Indemnity insurance is a legal requirement of course. Pure fascism.

      Imagine if the government decided that nobody should have a messy garden and made it a legal requirement that everyone hire a gardener for 2 hours every week. It could only be from their approved gardeners list of course and the regulations and hoops to jump through and expense to get on this list made it all but impossible except for those gardeners who already exist in your area. The local gardeners would be flat out and charge astronomical prices for their services which you have to pay by law.

      It sounds completely stupid doesn’t it? But that is the state of affairs in many industries. It is just fascism with a large “F”. Hitler had nothing on this.

      I know about the indemnity problem from those close in my family, not my own experience.

      View Comment
      • R.E. says:

        Yes WH, I think we as people are lousy at unemotional problem solving for the most part. We tend to agree with opinions and worldviews that suit us most, be it out of laziness, or financial or social gains, or because we wish it to be so. Based on their arguments, proponents of the heliocentric / 1.6 million miles per day theory agree with it on an emotional level from what I have seen. Rather than discussing the math and physics of it,, their counterpoints are emotional and quite resemble cult “thought stopping” techniques.

        I do imagine that peer approval can be addictive and even lucrative (books etc.) in the academic sphere. Even someone with lots of integrity would have trouble giving that up. Whistleblowing doesn’t pay well, and whistleblowers are shunned and lose everything.

        You mention insurance. Recall that the Virgin CEO guy not only is involved in commercial space travel (or so it was announced) but he also did the high altitude hot air balloon race across the world to set a record. Hmm.

        View Comment
  17. R.E. says:

    Yeah it’s not in the best interest of any government to empower their worker bees with the whole truth about anything, so why would they? I can think of many reasons why “they” would conspire to lie to us in the interest of national and global security. Does this make them evil? Our enemy? Likely not, especially since each person could opt not to believe what they are told, and instead use reason. Since when do governments consider that they owe their people the truth about trivial things? Yet they come clean about much more important issues? Ha.

    THAT is much simpler and easier to understand than their unworkable math, unworkable distances and speeds.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The frightening thing about it all is that they will never ditch their model that they promote as truth, no matter what data comes in, the model is always sacrosanct. I understand it in terms of protecting your academic careers and having to feed your kids etc. but enough is enough already.

      View Comment