Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

[*Author’s note: There will be 11 or 12 pieces of evidence against heliocentric theory when this article gets revised in a few months. I’ve deleted the erroneous path of the Sun one.]

+++
There are four pieces of solid evidence that heliocentric theory is wrong (that I know of). The first one requires a bit of visualization but is very difficult to explain otherwise. Three others are 99.99% certain bordering on the ridiculous. You would literally have to make stuff up to try and counter them (and they have!). So without further ado, let’s begin.
+++
Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?
Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling
Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax
Exhibit D – Scientific experiments
Conclusion
+++

Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?

The density of the Earth has been calculated at 5,515 kg/m3 (whether accurate or not is unknown). The density of air is 1.204 kg/m3 at room temperature, 4580 times less dense than the Earth.

A denser solid object does not carry a less dense gas along with it when it moves. This is self-evident as it is the basis of aerodynamics as shown in the video below.


dog out window
A moving solid object (100km/h car) leaves a gas (air) behind, creating a 100km/h wind in the perceived opposite direction of the moving car.

When the solid planes are more perpendicular, it will push gas (such as air) away from the solid object, such as a fan. The Earth, although a spinning squashed globe, would push a little air out into space due to its slight undulations but by and large it would be very aerodynamic, as this man spinning a basketball shows.

spinning ball
A very aerodynamic globe.

Heliocentric theory states that the Earth rotates at 1675km/h at the equator, 1049km/h in London, and 231km/h in Alert, northern Canada. This rotation would cause winds of almost equal speeds on the Earth’s surface… constantly.

The fastest wind speed known to man is a F5 Incredible tornado with wind speeds of 420-511 km/h. The tornado in Oklamohma in 1999 which killed 38 people and destroyed 8000 homes traveled at 486km/h; the devastation of which we can see below.

Tornado- Oklahoma
If 486km/h winds did this, what would 1675km/h do?

There is nowhere on Earth that has a constant wind speed of between 1675km/h and 231km/h. If there were, nobody living below Greenland could venture outside. We would be all living underground in caves.

Sometimes there are days of no wind, sometimes a mild breeze. The wind travels in all kinds of directions, sometimes changing by the second. Clouds move with the wind and can travel in any direction, but mostly go from West to East. This contradicts heliocentric theory as the Earth is supposed to rotate West to East, which would create winds going in the opposite direction East to West. Oops!

Another piece of self-evident incredulity. There’s more.
+++

Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling

Even more obvious is the fact that the Earth does not rotate under hovering objects. A helicopter which hovers above the ground at ANY height from 1 meter all the way to its upper limit of around 8000 meters NEVER experiences the ground traveling 231km/h to 1675km/h West to East, or in any direction in fact.

hovering1
Nope, the Earth is not moving.
hovering2
Still not moving. Who’d a thunk it.

The same applies to those machines which traverse the sky, such as airplanes. The only differential between a one-way and return flight is changes in wind speed and direction.

+++

the rotation of the Earth has no effect on the travel time of an aircraft… it is the headwinds and tailwinds that cause the change in travel times… a mere 65 mph wind is more than enough to cause a difference in travel time of five hours when you are traveling long distances!

+++

Let’s check a flight along the equator just to be sure. Maldives to Singapore and back fits the bill. Singapore Airlines has two flights come up. Maldives to Singapore (West to East) takes 4 hours 45 minutes for both flights and Singapore to Maldives (East to West) takes 4 hours 30 minutes and 4 hours 25 minutes respectively.

The Earth is supposed to rotate at 1675km/h West to East at these locations which are 3388km apart. A Boeing 777 travels at 885km/h at 10,675m. Do I really need to do the math?

Flying from Singapore to the Maldives would take about an hour (including take off and landing) if the Earth were rotating under the plane. Going the other way, it is worse as the plane can only fly half as fast as a rotating 1675km/h Earth and so you would have to continue flying all the way around the globe East to West just to get back to Singapore. This is an obvious fallacy.

asia_ref_2000
Singapore to Maldives is a one-way trip with a rotating Earth.

So, we have gone from 8000m to 10,675m altitude and still the Earth does not move under our feet. If we go any higher there won’t be many air molecules left to be magically Velcroed to the solid Earth’s surface by a mystical and yet unknown force which there must be for heliocentric theory to exist. But let’s go higher anyway.

As mentioned in my first post on the mysterious disappearing stars at high altitude, amateurs can now send weather balloons up into the stratosphere as high as 36,000m. At these heights only about 1% of the air is left, but these few air molecules must also magically stick to the solid surface of the Earth. All these different densities and all somehow staying with the Earth.

Look at the time these balloons are in the air and the difference in distance between landing and take-off. Here’s the first one: Launched at 13:07:38, hit the ground at 16:04:40, highest altitude 29.78Km, distance from launch 108.4 Km! Launched in Maine, USA would give a rotating Earth speed of 1181km/h (45° latitude). That means the Earth should have moved 3500km under the balloon making it land in the middle of USA, but it did not. (The second example on that website page is even worse!)

Let’s go higher. Felix Baumgartner on his world record free-fall jump reached 38,969m altitude and spent 2 and a half hours ascending, 4:19 minutes falling to the ground, and 7 minutes parachuting the rest of the way down. His distance from launch:

Felix-Baumgartner-Landing
70.5km!

So, the 1% of surface air density and all the other air densities on the way to the ground and Felix himself being obviously heavier than air all moved with the rotating Earth in tandem, by some magical mystical force unknown to man. At what height would Felix have experienced the Earth rotating below him? 50km? 70km? 100km? The heliocentric advocates will have to make up a magic number. Why not, it is all fantasy after all.

Let’s continue.
+++

Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax

The stars revolve 360° in 24 hours in an anti-clockwise fashion around the north polar star in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise around the southern star in the southern hemisphere. Photographers take photos with very long shutter speeds to show this effect.

startrails
Rotating stars in the sky at night.

This, you may think, is a good case for a rotating Earth; but on it’s own it is also a good case for a geocentric one, as it demonstrates that either the Earth is moving or the heavens.

However, after 6 months, those EXACT same stars are at the EXACT same location, as can be seen with the naked eye, at which they had been 6 months previously. The annual change in the position of stars in the sky is called stellar parallax. You can demonstrate this lack of parallax by following this experiment devised by Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic Astronomy.

+++

Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the Earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the Earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the Earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.

+++

Traditionally, stellar parallax has been notoriously difficult to measure with even the best of modern equipment.
+++

The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec.

+++

There are 3,600 arcseconds in 1 degree, 180 of which cover the sky at night. No wonder we can’t see any movement with the naked eye. Even so, movement for only a tiny fraction of the stars can be measured at all even by modern equipment!
+++

In 1989, the satellite Hipparcos was launched primarily for obtaining parallaxes and proper motions of nearby stars, increasing the reach of the method tenfold. Even so, Hipparcos is only able to measure parallax angles for stars up to about 1,600 light-years away, a little more than one percent of the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. The European Space Agency’s Gaia mission, due to launch in 2013, will be able to measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from Earth.

+++
There are an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe (which is bunk, as there are no galaxies) each with up to 100 trillion stars! So being able to detect movement in 1% of the stars of our own galaxy is a miniscule amount. We also know about our space agencies’ weird and wonderful orbiting machines, so even this 1% is unlikely to be true.

This is a big problem for heliocentric theory which states that every 24 hours the Earth rotates on its axis at 1675km/h, revolving around the Sun at 107,000km/h, which in turn moves around the center of the galaxy at 900,000km/h, which moves in the universe at 2,160,000km/h!

Apart from the atmosphere disappearing at these speeds, how is there no stellar parallax, especially considering that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well. The sky must be a right mess! Each new day must bring a brand new unique constellation in the sky at night with some new stars getting nearer so they can be seen with the naked eye and some traveling further away and disappearing never to return for thousands or millions of years.

Before we move on, this lack of stellar parallax is the reason why advocates of heliocentric theory give the unbelievably enormous distances the heavenly bodies must be from Earth. They can’t measure it! The stars must be thousands and millions of light years away (with the Milky Way 100,000 light years across, 1 light year being 9.46 trillion kilometers!) because there is no (or little) detectable stellar parallax; otherwise heliocentric theory would be definitely wrong.

+++

It is clear from Euclid’s geometry that the effect would be undetectable if the stars were far enough away, but for various reasons such gigantic distances involved seemed entirely implausible: it was one of Tycho Brahe’s principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars).

+++

Not only is there no evidence for such astronomical distances, but we have now proven that the stars are approximately 4000 miles away!

Does making stuff up to support a theory lacking any observational or experimental evidence sound like science to you?

Speaking of which…
+++

Exhibit D – Scientific experiments

How do we know it is not the heavens or “space” which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called “Airy’s failure”. It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

airy1
The angle stayed the same, proving that the Earth does not rotate.

The heliocentric advocates were now desperate. What was needed was another observable experiment to still offer the possibility of a rotating Earth. Enter Foucault’s pendulum in 1885. This pendulum swings back and forth, each swing moving slightly to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere until, at the poles, one full circle is achieved in 24 hours. It doesn’t move left or right at all at the equator.

California_Academy_of_Sciences_Foucault_Pendulum_Clock
Foucault Pendulum in California

Foucault
Not to scale, but illustrating the movement.

As you have noticed, this is the same phenomenon as the stars rotating every 24 hours around the polar star, which was proved not to be caused by a rotating Earth thanks to George Airy. Unfortunately for the heliocentric supporters, Foucault’s pendulum also had a problem. In 1954 and 1959, Maurice Allais noticed that during a solar eclipse, which lasted 2 and a half hours, the angle of the pendulum changed dramatically by 13.5°. This has been repeatedly observed with positive results on most of the subsequent eclipses, which obviously means that the pendulum isn’t registering the Earth’s rotation, but the motion of something else instead.

With Airy’s failure proving that the Earth does not rotate, the heliocentric theorists needed to quickly show with no further doubt that the Earth rotated. Enter two staunch supporters of heliocentricity, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, who in 1887 set up a device which split up light: one beam in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, and one at right angles. The two light beams then recombined and hit a photographic plate. The difference is speed of the two beams would create an interference pattern. They expected to measure a speed of 30 km/s as that was the speed of the Earth’s supposed rotation, but instead registered a variable difference of between 1 and 10 km/s each time the experiment was repeated. They called this a “null” result. This proves that the Earth is not rotating and at the same time proved the existence of the ether.

M-M experiment
Gosh, the traveling light wasn’t rotating with the Earth. Who’d a thunk it?

It didn’t stop there, Georges Sagnac, and Henry Gale conducted similar experiments, but on a rotating platform, which again demonstrated the existence of the ether, already proved by default in 1871 and 1885 by combining the results from George Airy and Foucault’s pendulum, and also in 1887 by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

How do you think the advocates of heliocentric theory responded? Why, they made something up of course! What else could they do but invent another wild theory to play down these experimental results and lead us further into the cesspit of fallacy. Enter showbiz academic of the 20th century, Einstein and the special theory of relativity.

albert-einstein-colorized
Enter the clowns.

Special relativity was invented to make sure all these experiments still gave heliocentric theory a chance of being correct. It needed objects to shrink to a specific size in direct proportion to its speed. These objects weren’t measured! The concept had never been observed at all. It was metaphysical only. But it had to be correct, otherwise the unthinkable would be true.
+++

The rescue operation was performed by means of a purely metaphysical concept lifted directly from Professors Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who had also been trying to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and renamed by him the Special Theory of Relativity. What was suggested was that if the dimensions of an object in motion were assumed to shrink exactly in proportion to the speed at which it was traveling by exactly the necessary amount, mathematical calculations could be made to show that the Earth was in motion after all. No one has ever seen an object shrink as a result of being in motion, and indeed one of the world’s leading authorities on relativity, Dr. Herbert Dingle, was later to dismiss the theory of relativity as metaphysical nonsense with no basis on what could be observed.

+++

Making up a new branch of mathematics to explain the results of experiments that disagrees with your worldview does not a proof make! As a J.J. Thomson once said:

+++

We have Einstein’s space, de Sitter’s space, expanding universes, contracting universes, vibrating universes, mysterious universes. In fact the pure mathematician may create universes just by writing down an equation, and indeed if he is an individualist he can have a universe of his own.

+++

However, when you make stuff up not based on anything in the real world, it is bound to run into trouble.

+++

Ironically, when Special Relativity failed due to its internal contradictions, Einstein had to invent General Relativity to shore up the façade, and in the process he had to take back the very two foundations he had discarded in Special Relativity, namely, (a) that nothing can exceed the speed of light and (b) the existence of ether. In the end, Einstein’s theories were a mass of contradictions which are covered over by obtuse mathematical equations.

+++

Despite this nonsense, the heliocentric “authorities” pushed it through with all their media power and academic might so that once this new mathematics was firmly established, they had carte blanche to sneak in other bad “science” when experimental observations went against them, like black holes, dark matter, wormholes and other such unobservable and unverifiable nonsense. The worst offence though was trying to tie in the Coriolis effect of a rotating Earth with observable atmospheric phenomena. The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion whereby an object traveling in a straight line is seen to be moving in a curved one instead because the observer is on a rotating platform.

wikipedia_coriolis_effect
The Coriolis optical illusion. You are the red dot. Below is what you observe. Above is what actually happens.

the-coriolis-effect
This is the complete pattern and scale of ANY Coriolis effect on the Earth. If something in the real world doesn’t match this, it can NOT be the Coriolis effect!

They say it is this effect which causes moving objects to be deflected in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere; an example of which are large cyclones. This is obviously false. The Coriolis effect is NOT a force, it is an optical illusion. It cannot cause objects to be deflected; their trajectories remain the same, which is straight. Cyclones do not “travel in straight lines, but just appear to be curved because we are on the surface of a rotating sphere”. Their size ranges from under 222km to over 888km making their curves far too tight and localized. Plus there are very high altitude images looking down on cyclones from above. Is the camera rotating with the Earth to get this curved perspective?

cyclone from above
Is the camera rotating with the Earth? How can a cyclone twisting on itself be a straight line? Is this image even real?

cyclone - Australia
A tropical cyclone in Australia twisting down to Earth is not a straight line.

And what about smaller vortex phenomena like Tornadoes which average only 150m across. Where is the Coriolis effect now?

tornado1
A 150m wide tornado is really a straight line!

If you wish to study further the fallacy of linking the Coriolis effect with atmospheric phenomena then Miles Mathis‘ work is a must. Otherwise, those inclined to understand cyclones and tornadoes would do well to study the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism, and vortex dynamics instead, as even physicists admit that the Coriolis “effect” and electromagnetism is eerily similar. (What a surprise!)
+++

Conclusion

So far we have proved that:

  • The Earth does not tilt.
  • The Earth does not rotate.
  • The Sun moves, not the Earth.
  • The heavens move, not the Earth, which means that:
  • “Space” or the ether moves and not the Earth.
  • “Space” moves in a circular motion (and is probably a vortex).

Heliocentricity is now dead. The debate is over. However, it is only fair to list the arguments for heliocentric theory which we will address in part 2. Unfortunately you will see that they try and attack (one of the models of) geocentrism rather than try and support their own concept, but never mind. Let’s reply to what they have to say anyway.

Bookmark the permalink.

267 Responses to Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

  1. Sathish Kumar says:

    Dear WH,

    I’ve got a question to you. If earth does not rotate, how do planets (eg Mars) exhibit ‘retrograde motion? If I understand correctly geo-centric did not explain well on ‘retrograde motion’

    Thanks

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

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

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

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

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

      View Comment
  2. Chase says:

    Obviosly, we’ve been bombarded with so much disinformation by the
    “Controllers” that our reality becomes distorted. However, there are too many red flags that reasonable people simply cannot ignore. We’ve been manipulated by the church and various government entities. Red flags; unacknowledged Secret weapons and advanced technologies initiated by Germans in WWll, Operation Paperclip, Nazis and NASA, never a Real photo or video clip of Earth from space, Never A Straight Answer, hidden Nikola Tesla theories/technologies utilizing Free Energy, Sun/Moon anomalies…
    Also, the capability to use Holigrams on localized or Mass scale. Some of the Moon anamolies could be explained by Holographic technology. HAARP, cell towers, surveillance cameras at every intersection while streets and bridges crumble…true Earth model info from ancients suppressed!

    View Comment
  3. Han Htun says:

    But the earth is too big and it has gaseous spheres that can have our/its own air system isolated. It could have been carrying most of the gases and contaminants all along. That’s why Green House effect could never get self offset or healed.
    Also the bondage between the gaseous molecules and atoms play a role to carry the air on the earth’s surface.
    You cannot do small model experiment as the earth is very huge compared to your experiment subjects.
    There are other things such as gravitational force that the earth has.

    View Comment
  4. msasterisk says:

    Gravity may be a push, but that doesn’t actually matter. Whichever you assume, push or pull, it has the same effect. And it is pretty clear that it is caused by mass.
    Also, the whole “100km and then it spins” thing is obviously ridiculous and couldn’t possibly be true! Luckily it isn’t. Your altitude doesn’t matter at all. It is instead the relative speed. If you negate the velocity given to you by the surface (assuming the Earth is spinning), the surface will spin under you. And if you negate your velocity relative to the sun given to you by Earth, Earth will speed away. But you need a force to escape Earth’s gravity tugging you along. The key to all this is conservation of angular momentum, which has been confirmed to exist. An isolated system that is spinning will spin forever- no outside force needed. Why did Earth start spinning? The early universe must have been spinning. Why? No idea. But you don’t know how a geocentric universe came into existence either. If you think about it, why shouldn’t things spin? Of all the different speeds and directions the universe could spin in, what are the odds that it would be zero?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      “Gravity may be a push, but that doesn’t actually matter. Whichever you assume, push or pull, it has the same effect. And it is pretty clear that it is caused by mass.”

      How clear? What experiment? Cavendish? Other possible interpretations. Current cosmology is incredibly fragile to the point of a nudge here and a tap there, it falls over. I’ve had enough.
      http://www.wildheretic.com/gravity-observations-and-theory/#Inverted%20model

      “If you negate the velocity given to you by the surface (assuming the Earth is spinning), the surface will spin under you.”

      At what altitude do you “negate” the velocity under you by the surface? 99km, 101km? Is it a sudden relative shift from 1 meter to the next, or perhaps over 100m? No info from the space boys and no clarity. It’s just a bogus theoretical concept found not to exist in reality up to at least 39km, and when they eventually sent rockets up there in the 40s they knew the correct earth model and more. They are lying to you.

      An isolated system that is spinning will spin forever- no outside force needed. Why did Earth start spinning? The early universe must have been spinning. Why? No idea. But you don’t know how a geocentric universe came into existence either. If you think about it, why shouldn’t things spin? Of all the different speeds and directions the universe could spin in, what are the odds that it would be zero?

      It all boils down to a purely abstract concept of “gravity”, which has yet to be detected. Spinning balls forever relies on a big bang theory which goes from bad to worse. What if Newton, as he was sold to you, was wrong and there is no so far undetected force from mass called gravity? It’s all hocus pocus. They have the wrong thought experiment. But they know this. It is we who are the chumps, not they.

      View Comment
  5. Roy Nak says:

    Hi,

    Sorry for my English, it’s not my native language.

    I’m not an expert so I’m not claiming to have any answers.
    I think however the question asked by Geocentric theory believers are legitimate questions.
    All my own senses tell me the earth is not moving at all, maybe I’m wrong.
    As far as I know there are only mathematical equations that will tell you if the earth is moving.
    Every experiment taken can also be explained with a Geocentric model according to the experts.

    Quote from George F. R. Ellis
    People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues.
    “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”
    Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.
    In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.
    What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

    Quote from Sir Fred Hoyle
    “We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only,and that such a difference has no physical significance…”Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense. The two theories…are physically equivalent to one another.”

    Quote from Carl Baugh
    “Again, once more for the record: it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations and physics used by NASA to launch satellites
    are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything, it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism.

    Quote from Paul Davies
    “If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked!
    [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations”

    These are smart people, so how come everyone keeps telling there is only one correct model?

    Furthermore if I read about all the tests performed to end the conversation between both models I see results favoring the Geocentric model. (Michelson Morley experiment, and many more)

    The answer to explain these results are based on a mathematical equation that can never be observed in the real world.

    “Length contraction was postulated by George FitzGerald (1889) and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1892) to explain the negative outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment and to rescue the hypothesis of the stationary aether”

    I’m no mathematical genius, I’m also no a fool:)
    I feel the same about the latest theories regarding the universe, a multiverse??
    To explain all the known different constants in the universe we need a multiverse??
    The answer to explain the multiverse is also mathematical equations that can never be observed in the real world. I thinks this sort of science is philosophical science, there is nothing wrong with that. However the same scientist that study this multiverse theory are claiming that philosophy is dead. There is no need for philosophy, science is the answer they claim. (Stephan Hawking, Lawrence krauss)

    Stephan Hawking and Lawrence krauss both say the universe created itself from nothing?
    What do they mean by nothing?
    When I think of nothing, nothing means nothing. (null, zero)
    Yet they claim that if you have the law of gravity (this is not nothing) you can create a universe from nothing??
    As far as I know laws/rules don’t create anything, if so I would use these rules to create a lot of money:)

    Personally I think that if maybe something looks designed it simply means it is designed

    I think de moderator(s) of this forum are doing a great job questioning the heliocentric model.

    I also have one question, maybe someone already asked this?

    The earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.
    Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado? This due to the fact the atmosphere is supposed to be spinning at the same rate as the solid ground on earth.

    Greetings,
    Roy

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.
      In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.
      What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

      They present everything they say as fact, which is bothersome to me, and dishonest.

      I thinks this sort of science is philosophical science, there is nothing wrong with that. However the same scientist that study this multiverse theory are claiming that philosophy is dead. There is no need for philosophy, science is the answer they claim. (Stephan Hawking, Lawrence krauss)

      The irony. They know this of course. The joke is on us.

      The earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.
      Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado? This due to the fact the atmosphere is supposed to be spinning at the same rate as the solid ground on earth.

      I wondered about that myself. When does the earth suddenly spin relative to the observer? 100km? So at 70km, 90km 95km, 99km I am spinning with the earth, then at that magic number suddenly the earth is spinning below me. Sounds like a tall theory and not one well explained.

      View Comment
    • Sathish Kumar says:

      Good info. Thank you

      View Comment
  6. Jorden says:

    You’re argument about hovering objects is hilarious. It’s like stating that when somebody jumps off of a skateboard that they should stay still in the air while the skateboard rolls away from them, or that they should move and the skateboard should stand still!

    View Comment
  7. Joel Harris says:

    Parallax is not difficult, if you have the equipment.
    http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/tex/BarnardStar/BS.pdf

    Why are meteors more numerous and faster after midnight and looking east? Earth spin, Earth rotation around the sun

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hello “Joel Harris”. How are you? 🙂

      Some stars move a little bit in the sky over the years. Yes that is true. I would expect that.

      But we’ve yet to see any actual evidence of the real definition of the term “parallax”.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nofob-aM7f0

      View Comment
      • Sathish Kumar says:

        Dear WH,

        Sorry for asking such a simple question as I am novice to astronomy.

        If ‘earth’ does not rotate how we feel ‘day and night’ everyday

        View Comment
      • Sathish Kumar says:

        Please ignore my question. Thanks

        View Comment
      • Sathish Kumar says:

        Hello WH,

        Just learning basics What’s your response to ‘Jupiter moons’ and it appears this disproved ‘geo-centrism’?

        Please clariy

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Never heard of that theory. Is this one doing the rounds on the skeptic forums?

          Oh not Jim Smith in Chiapas. lol
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BNhhQSHZI4

          He was the first to have a hissy fit on this blog.

          The question seems to be more how do things “orbit” in the concave Earth? I can’t fully answer that question. All I know is that the “universe” (cavity) is electric and every other theory is a “thought experiment“.

          We don’t even know what planets are, let alone “moons”. It is all speculation.

          View Comment
  8. BlueMoon says:

    Check this out:
    https://youtu.be/K0-GxoJ_Pcg
    and let me know what you think. I find his channel quite fascinating.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I find the fact that there is no evidence for the Earth spinning and yet the mainstream says it does to be the most fascinating. This raises more important questions than assumptive questions on what would happen if the first assumption were true despite the evidence against it.

      View Comment
      • BlueMoon says:

        Okay, now look up “ballistic cart” and explain that. Imagine that the cart is the earth and the ball is anything on or flying above the earth’s surface. You cite several instances of the earth not moving when people are in the air, but these are all based on your existing assumptions about inertia. You never consider that this might be proving you wrong instead of heliocentric theory. Any high schooler could tell you why the earth doesn’t move while you are jumping. And if you are unable to explain the ballistic cart within the bounds of your theory, remove that section from your article.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          For other readers:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAifrGXkE2k

          Wouldn’t work over longer distances or faster speeds would it. No, why not? Because of air resistance. If I jumped up in the air from a train moving at 10 mph then I would land back in the same position. A 10 mph wind speed against my movement for one second won’t do much. But if I jumped up in the air from a train moving at 200 mph, then that 200 mph wind would push me back over that one second (well I wouldn’t be able to stand up at all to try the jump without being blown off the train) and I would land behind where I started.

          So, yet again all arguments come back to why and how substances of all different densities move in sync with the rotating Earth? Is there an all-encompassing field which moves everything in tandem? What is the force that rotates the Earth and where does it emanate from? Has no physicist in the entire history of “science” ever bothered to ask such a question? Or is the “science” sold to us merely contrived marketing to give us a world-view in the marketeer’s image?

          View Comment
          • BlueMoon says:

            It all ties back to air resistance with you, doesn’t it? The ballistic cart experiment applies to the atmosphere as well.
            The core of your argument is that an object in motion does NOT stay in motion, contrary to Newton’s 3rd law (and don’t turn this into an ad hominem argument against Newton himself; that will get you nowhere.) The atmosphere moves with the earth’s surface because it always has. There’s no magical unexplained force, just initial momentum. That’s why most rocket launches travel east (to capitalize on the momentum) but polar satellites launch to the west (to counteract the momentum.)
            Inertia is a property of matter, therefore it is proportional to mass, not density. This is why a feather and a rock drop at the same rate in a vacuum. That is also the reason why all objects are affected the same way by the earth’s rotation, including the atmosphere. The only “containment” that is needed is the Earth’s gravity, because things on the earth’s surface are not travelling at orbital velocity.
            And I would like to point out that things are gravitationally attracted to massive objects, not dense objects. Your dog gif doesn’t work because the atmosphere outside was never carried with the vehicle. Your basketball gif doesn’t work because A.) the basketball is spinning within an external medium, but the earth isn’t, and B.) a basketball isn’t a planet. The earth keeps its atmosphere because it’s massive and has strong gravity.
            Do you understand now?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            The core of your argument is that an object in motion does NOT stay in motion, contrary to Newton’s 3rd law (and don’t turn this into an ad hominem argument against Newton himself; that will get you nowhere.)

            Correct. It does not stay in motion unless in a vacuum. No point repeating what I said before.

            The atmosphere moves with the earth’s surface because it always has. The atmosphere moves with the earth’s surface because it always has. There’s no magical unexplained force, just initial momentum.

            🙂 That’s it? Because it does. That is not science. That is wishful thinking. The earth moves… because it does! Yes, you don’t feel it or experience it. Yes, experiments of the late 19th and early 20th century showed no movement… but it does! It DOES! Because we say so and you better believe it. It’s ok to say it does, if you have experimental evidence for the observation. Fair enough. Not everything has to be or is explained; but there is no evidence for a rotating Earth. So saying it does, isn’t good enough.

            Initial momentum of what? The solid ground? The liquid seas? The gaseous atmosphere? The only way they all move together in the rotating earth hypothesis is if the momentum encompasses them all equally. Look, I don’t mind that there isn’t an explanation, despite teams of so-called scientists and theoretical physicists looking at this problem over the centuries. Stuff like this isn’t easy.

            That’s why most rocket launches travel east (to capitalize on the momentum) but polar satellites launch to the west (to counteract the momentum.)

            Just as easily explained by a rotating magnetic field (the heavens).

            Inertia is a property of matter, therefore it is proportional to mass, not density. This is why a feather and a rock drop at the same rate in a vacuum. That is also the reason why all objects are affected the same way by the earth’s rotation, including the atmosphere.

            Doesn’t explain it. The bonds between a gas/liquid compared to a solid are weaker. They do not move with the same rotational speed as a spinning solid. The force that spins the earth must spin all the elements together somehow. All of them are captured by this externally caused spinning force, and it isn’t Earth’s gravity. In a vacuum, does a mass of air molecules drop at the same rate as a mass of sand?

            Your dog gif doesn’t work because the atmosphere outside was never carried with the vehicle.

            Correct.

            Your basketball gif doesn’t work because A.) the basketball is spinning within an external medium, but the earth isn’t.

            That is the problem, because it does in your hypothesis.

            and B.) a basketball isn’t a planet. The earth keeps its atmosphere because it’s massive and has strong gravity.

            How does gravity turn all the different densities (with weaker and stronger bonds) at the same speed? In fact, how does gravity cause planets to rotate at all? Where is the rotational energy and how does it work? It isn’t earth’s gravity that causes the earth to spin in the mainstream model, so what is causing the rotation and how does this cause keep all the elements rotating at the same speed?

            Do you understand now?

            No.

            View Comment
          • BlueMoon says:

            AND FURTHERMORE:
            Of course hurricanes aren’t a straight line! The only people who say the Coriolis effect implies that are the people who don’t understand the Coriolis effect.
            The Coriolis effect is all about deflection. In a hurricane, air is drawn to the point of low pressure. However, in the northern hemisphere, the air travelling north is deflected east, and the air travelling south is deflected west. This causes a counterclockwise vortex. As you might know from a bathroom drain, an initial rotation is easily sustained. Tornadoes are too small to be determined by the Coriolis effect. However, there was a YouTube collaboration between Veritasium and Smarter Every Day that actually demonstrated the effect. And, of course, you can see plenty of instances of the Coriolis effect in real life. Would you care to provide an actual explanation?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Steve has already explained hurricane direction satisfactorily.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0HqaYXodCs

            View Comment
        • Ed says:

          Sorry for my English, Ok, there’s a inertia that keeps the movement, because if you throw anything with an horizontal velocity it will keep it if anything force like wind affect it, but… The earth can’t carry the air with its movement, and theoretically if you throw something vertically, at the equator, it will goes with an horizontal speed of 460 m/s approximately, because of the momentum. But the wind will goes away at the same speed and it will stop the inertial speed.
          Also, if you try to probe that wind move together with earth, you may don’t know the centrifugal force, because at the highs speeds of the earth the air will rotate like in a centrifugal machine, the heavy elements like oxygen will go to external atmosphere and the light like hydrogen could keep at the surface, but will doesn’t breath hydrogen, and if you go to the external atmosphere there isn’t oxygen, when because the centrifugal it might have more air that the surface. One probe to the heliocentricity can be that the atmosphere is stay and the earth rotates. Buy all we know that it’s false. I have some others probes, if you like to see that probes tell me. Finally if you don’t know the NASA throw it’s rockets like if the earth don’t rotates, because it doesn’t affect the trajectory, it may be because the earth really not rotates, maybe…. They take this inclination when going out earth not to cancel the momentum, no, its to break the gravity force easily, and to be theoretically stopped when they goes out, it means that the earth moves 1660kmh from the rocket, but it’s relatively and really the rocket is moving and the earth stopped

          View Comment
      • Unimportant says:

        There is indeed evidence for the Earth spinning. It’s called ‘day’. But if you believe inertia and momentum do not exist, then it’s great to say the Sun does that. It’s also great to ignore tidal forces that would produce, eh? :/. Maybe it wouldn’t. But the fact stands, the Earth bringing low density anything along with it is gravity and inertia. Or have you never played on a roundabout? Suppose inertia exists. Then hovering things make sense! Suppose inertia exists. So do tall buildings! I mean, following your theory, our legs should be swept from underneath us :/ (ignoring your silly ‘It bulges but doesn’t spin’ argument)

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          “There is indeed evidence for the Earth spinning. It’s called ‘day’.”

          Maybe there could be another reason for “day” and “night”. If so, what could that reason be?

          “It’s also great to ignore tidal forces that would produce, eh?”

          So far I have “unresolved forces” as heat differential and electrostatic force.

          “But the fact stands, the Earth bringing low density anything along with it is gravity and inertia.”

          Yes, they all say that. No-one has yet observed this necessary gravitational force that doesn’t act like any other observed force in science. But I believe you when you tell me it exists. They are still looking for their waves in the aether – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO, and no the Cavendish Experiment could be equally interpreted invertedly – http://www.wildheretic.com/gravity-observations-and-theory/#Inverted%20model

          “Or have you never played on a roundabout?”

          Obviously the mainstream quacks haven’t.

          “…our legs should be swept from underneath us.”

          And why aren’t they if the earth spins?

          Lots of questions for you to ponder and dots to join. Takes too long in our inadequate spare time, hence our submersion in darkness. if I have enough time I will join enough dots to get a speculatively correct picture.

          View Comment
  9. Keiran Nariek says:

    I am amazed that people are willing to advertise their unintelligence in public :O
    Things that “hover” don’t have the Earth moving under them? Of COURSE they don’t because they have an initial momentum when they take off, as does the air they travel through, all rotating nicely WITH the Earth thank you very much!
    Go back to school…
    (LMAO! these sites are SOOO funny!)

    View Comment
  10. Siobhan says:

    Do you have any video of that? I’d want to find out more details.

    View Comment
  11. B.Mueller says:

    I don’t believe in a lot of things, including ISS, Apollo, vaccines, nukes, etc. But I still do believe the Earth is a planet within the solar system. Your ideas about a flat earth or a heaven made of glass just don’t add up. You provided some useful information here, thx for that, but you mostly seem to connect serious critic with stupid flat earth ideas lacking any common sense. And you do that on the purpose to make serious critic look stupid. Maybe I can explain one thing to you as an example of your wrong thinking: there is no constant wind because everything on the surface including the air moves with the same speed. What happens if you jump within a fast moving train? You will land exactly on the same place because you’re moving with the same speed, the train moves. It’s the principles of inertia my friends. And it belongs to the good old physic which was valid before Einstein entered the stage.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’ve done this moving earth argument a thousand times. See comments below. The moving train is a very poor analogy. 1. If you stood on a train going at 150 km/h, you too would experience 150 km/h winds going in the other direction. 2. helicopters, balloons, and planes don’t jump. They are in the air for hours, not seconds. If you jumped on a moving train and stayed in the air for hours, do you think you would still land on that train?

      View Comment
      • B.Mueller says:

        I didn’t mean jumping on a train but simply jumping inside the train, where you cannot experience any significant air resistance. Everything on the surface of the Earth moves with the same speed. That includes all air molecules. All movement is relative. If you run within the train, you’ll have a certain speed in relation to the train. In relation to the last train station, you will have a different speed. Speed is a vector and a vector has only direction and size and no position or beginning. I’ve been flying around the globe once thanks to air miles. It took three days. The concept of a round planet earth is older than NASA’s lies. Just because NASA keeps presenting to us fake Earth pictures doesn’t invalidate this concept. IMHO the big pseudo-scientific lies started around 1900, where people like Einstein entered the stage. Do you know, Einstein was pretty poor in school, working quietly in an office until 1905 where he between March and June 1905 suddenly presented all his four masterpieces and his PHD work? Wiki describes that as “explosion of genius”. That’s the time all the lies started. But the concept of a solar system goes back to the ancient times and is still valid.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Hi BM,

          The inside a moving car / train analogy is actually worse. Some other fellow mentioned that in the comments deep below. That analogy wouldn’t even work for a concave earth with a glass sky unfortunately because there is no glass in front of me when I am outside on the earth. It would work if I were in my house but I’d probably still hear the hurricane winds outside. The ultimate question is what is doing the moving in that model. Is it the solid earth or an all encompassing field/force which rotates matter of all densities at the same rate. It has to be the latter obviously. That is what needs explaining.

          I’m not sure about the history of round/flat earth to be honest. Karol (youtuber) is more informed on that front. All I know is that Plato thought that we lived inside the Earth (concave) and that there are lots of old maps which show a concave rather than a convex projection (sumstuff52 – youtuber) and the King James Bible shows about 50/50 on/in the Earth quotes. That is all I know.

          The lies go back to the Roman Catholic Church (at least, probably further back yet). The question is of course who started the RCC? is it independent or are we talking about an evolution of progression of organization? I don’t know.

          View Comment
          • B.Mueller says:

            what advantage has the concave (or flat) earth theory in comparison to the idea of a solar system where the Earth is only one of many planets? We observe moving planets and their movement matches the idea of a solar system. Even ancient Egyptians knew about that and could calculate the eclipse precisely. Do you know the Titius-Bode law, which predicts the existence of all planets? The solar system theory is imho the best explanation for all the phenomena we can observe and experience in our universe. The concave Earth theory just seems absurd to me.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Only because it is new. The science says it is concave and so it is, as I go with the geodectic experiment above all else. Every other piece of knowledge has to fit into that paradigm. It’s no big deal for planets to revolve around the Sun in a concave Earth, except that bending light and the electromagnetic condition of being inside a semi-conducting earth cavity have to be taken into consideration with optics and how we view objects. That part isn’t easy for me.

            These strange conditions are brought to light (pardon the pun) when objects are viewed (or lack thereof) from high altitude balloons and even airplane windows. I saw a solar eclipse via a high altitude balloon camera and the sun wasn’t blacked out but its radiance merely dimmed as if its brightness circumference had shrunk. The moon (very rarely visible) also looks tiny. Yet, the Sun looks noticeably larger at high altitude (check out a godrules’ video on that). No stars are ever seen either, including sometimes at airplane altitude (so far consistently invisible during the summer time). So what we see here on the ground with our eyes and our telescopes does not denote a straight forward reality up there at all. That is not to say that what we are viewing doesn’t exist, just that what and where they are is not as straight forward as we have been led to believe. Planets and the moon are still a mystery to me. Stars and asteroids are easier, and the sun is a doddle.

            I’ve got a lot to add against heliocentric theory and add to the glass sky (I can’t keep up with Steven) and concave Earth as well additions to other articles, particular how scientists in the early 1900s thought the sun was made out of iron due to its spectrometry (an Einstein-en type physicist moment saved the day though! haha). Then there is how the sun (and telluric currents) cause earthquakes and lots more horizon problems to add. I don’t get paid for doing any of this and things have become tough of late so this blog is on hold for now. I may venture a little into youtube. There is so much to research including a zillion “paranormal” experiences I have had and atomic theory and how all these subjects really do connect (macro/micro/paranormal). There has to be a third element to matter/light that links the normal to the para. There is a flicker rate involved. I just don’t conceptually understand it yet.

            WH

            View Comment
          • Schreck says:

            So if you had a mini trampoline on the back of a long semi flat bed and you started jumping on it as the truck was traveling at 60mph, if you jumped high enough would you not miss the trampoline and land on the back of the flat bed somewhere? wouldn’t you lose momentum the further in height you jump? does this analogy help aid in proving a stationary plane?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Yes. Wind resistance would slow you down.

            View Comment
    • Adam Jones says:

      So if nukes don’t exist… Explain Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the hundreds of tests carried out.

      If vaccines don’t work… Why do we no longer suffer from the infectious diseases that killed millions just 100 years ago. Smallpox anyone?

      If the ISS doesn’t exist… Why can you see it travelling overhead if you’re in the right place at the right time?

      And Apollo… I’m not even going to get started on that, I’d take all day!

      If you sat down and actually thought through your opinions, you would notice that they’re based on flawed logic. I know it’s hard to change you mind about something you’ve closed off for years, but if you though about it you’d realise how wrong you are.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        I’m sure B.Mueller has an answer for all those already. I’ll answer for him if you like.

        1. Firebombing as the photos of the time show.
        2. Clean water/sewage works.
        3. ISS does exist. It just isn’t what we are told.
        4. I don’t blame you. So much wrong with Apollo I didn’t even bother writing an article about it. Like flat earth really.

        View Comment
  12. parzival says:

    http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth

    what does this mean to your research, which i love, but is this another media hoax?
    cheers, and thanks for your great work.
    Parzival

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      “This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth – one million miles away.”

      The Earth has been animated because it doesn’t move in real life. That is a funny animation, isn’t it? You would have thought with today’s computer tech they could have done a lot better. It’s like something from a x386 computer. It is a terrible fake.

      This is the first time they had to fake the far side of the moon (except the Russians in the late 50s). I noticed someone else in the comments section posted another so called Earth photo, supposedly not from composite. NASA’s marketing department are taking note of these dissenting blogs, forums and videos and such like and are now having to resort to desperate measures.
      http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=e0d3dfe88e10a15dc9475651e817e1128163db51.130599&show=ela

      WH

      View Comment
  13. LSC says:

    WH, can you explain to me exactly WHY you took down the tilted earth/sun path explanation? What was the counter argument against it?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Sure LSC,

      A couple of clever guys on cluesforum took me through it from a slightly different perspective, or a way of working it out, and it made sense. They were concave earthers as well; at least they thought the helio model was bullshit. So, I took it down. Eventually I’ll be redoing this whole article with about 12 anti helio points, some better than others. The stationary earth still stands as well as all the science behind that. There’s a lot more though obviously. I mean the rectilineator experiment is one such piece of very strong evidence for starters.

      The cluesforum guy’s argument I think is in the comment section under this article. (I might be wrong there though)

      WH

      View Comment
  14. Andrew says:

    Hi guys, can any of help? I have failed to find a reliable answer to to this question.
    I am taking an imaginary flight from the North Pole to an airport on the Equator. Now my Earth spin speed at the North Pole is zero but when my flight arrives at the Equator my plane will need to be travelling in a west to east direction of over 1000mph in addition to its southerly direction. Now if i flew in a straight line by the time my flight got to the my airport at the Equator it would not be there as it would have revolved perhaps 180 degrees so even the flight path must be a huge curve to combat the “Coriolis” effect.
    I am not aware of pilots taking into account this affect and fly as if the Earth was stationary. How could my plane even gain the 1000 mph of east to west speed needed in order to land?

    View Comment
    • "Observer" Steve says:

      Well, according to the (false) ConVEX Earth Claim, pilots of flying machines like helicopters and airplanes don’t need to factor in the spinning of the earth, because supposedly the spinning of the earth also is like glue moving a huge ball of the molecules around as well, and those molecules make the flying machines spin with the earth, thus the earth doesn’t spin relative to a floating helicopter, the earth and the molecules glued to the earth all spin together and makes the helicopter and all other things in the air spin with it. Haha.

      So your imaginary airplane starting from the north pole would get pushed into a little bit of “spinning together with the spinning Earth” movement as soon as it started, and that “spinning together with the spinning Earth” movement (pushed by spinning air molecules glued to the Earth of course) would gradually increase, so that bottom line your straight line path would put you exactly where you want to go without you having to think about this spinning factor at all, and yes, without even having to think about the fact that the spinning is less at the north pole and more at the equator. Haha.

      Meanwhile, back in reality, the Concave Earth Reality is that the Earth doesn’t spin at all, the air molecules aren’t spinning either, the only thing spinning is the 12,000km tiny ball of “inner space” in the middle of the Concave Earth.

      But c’mon bro, you should know the Convex Claims and the Concave Reality already, if you actually read all of WH’s 21 articles linked on the left side there. 🙂

      View Comment
      • Andrew says:

        I do Steve, just trying to find some irrefutable arguments to use against spinning ball believers as a starting point for the conversation before going any deeper.

        View Comment
        • "Observer" Steve says:

          Yeah, I understand what you mean, brother Andrew. I simply meant that the argument of “if the earth is spinning, how come planes heading straight from the north pole to the equator arrive so smoothly” will be quickly answered with the bullshit explanation of “because the spinning earth also makes all of the air molecules and planes within the air molecules spin with it, so the planes automatically get spun together with the earth.”

          Hmmm, so yeah, what evidence of the non-spinning Concave Earth Reality is irrefutable?

          I currently think the best points to start with, to help people begin to open their minds to this surprising reality, are:

          “The ‘Horizon’ remains perfectly at eye-level no matter how high in the sky you go, which is impossible if the earth were convex.”

          and

          “Modern cameras allow us to zoom in and see the bases of ships 14 kilometers away, which is impossible if the earth were convex.”

          But even those powerful easily-tested-and-proven-correct facts can be ignored with the simple idiotic answer, “Um, well, those MUST be mirages or something, the earth MUST be convex no matter what, because otherwise you’re suggesting that the entire pyramid of intelligent altruistic peer-reviewed scientists are wrong. Those far ships and the always-eye-level-horizon MUST have a convex explanation. I refuse to accept the Concave Earth unless it were to appear in a Royal Society approved publication. THEN I would accept it wholeheartedly. But right now, you’re telling me think for myself and look at the evidence myself. I simply don’t have enough trust in my own mental abilities. I will leave the thinking and testing up to the elite scientocracy. Take your tin-foil conspiracy theories elsewhere. I wouldn’t want to disagree with the majority of humans, even if what you are saying is true. I simply prefer to go along with the mainstream, because I am scared of being ridiculed.”

          So, I think that PHYSICAL proof might be better, like the “7-kilometer rope being pulled tight across a lake, with the middle being higher above the water level than the ends” proof.

          But even then, the majority of leader-following-monkey-mentality humans mentioned above would probably STILL be fooled by some Royal Society publication claiming “Well, the rope being high above the water in the middle, instead of under the water, is proof that wind pushes the rope up in the middle, which we now have a name for, the Rope-Effect, yes, that’s the ticket, and in addition to that most of the people doing such tests are using special rope which increases the Rope-Effect, yes that’s why the rope is highest in the middle, it’s because the taut rope is bent higher in the middle, yes yes, so totally disregard this Concave Earth proof, and simply go back to sleep.”

          “Space is vast and infinite. Here are some more NASA images. Back to sleep, you simple-minded, tax-producing, gold-mining, strawberry-picking, order-following, loosh-producing slaves. Back to sleep. We are the deservedly wealthiest elite middlemen closest to the ultimate truths, and you simple idiots who couldn’t handle the truth even if we revealed it. Back to sleep now. Watch this officially approved documentary. You are tiny. You can not and should not start an internal mental revolution, nor an external physical revolution. Let’s simply keep the current unequal distribution of resources forever, and never come seek out and kill the richest slave owners controlling this plantation. Shhh, shhh, go back to sleep now. You definitely are NOT living inside a 12,742 km cage. Your children may someday be able to freely explore the vast infinite outer-space. Just give NASA more money and someday you will be free. Don’t simply head down to the South Pole with millions to escape this Concave Earth right now. That is silly talk. There is no escape hole being blocked by the military there. No way. Shhh, shhh, back to sleep now, little slaves. 7,000,000,000 of you little slaves could never find and kill the wealthiest 700,000 masters. Here, fight amongst yourselves about various theories and ideas. Don’t simply kill us and redistribute the 99.999% of earth’s resources we are hoarding. Instead argue about how inequality is somehow fair and natural, and that anyone who encourages killing of the wealthiest 700,000 is some kind of communist or socialist or anarchist or something. Don’t rise up. Stay down. Fight the other slaves working in the plantation. Argue and split hairs. Talk about theories, and take no action. See, now you’re getting sleepy, as you should. Go back to sleep. The Concave Earth cage is no longer something you want to even think about. It simply is too big a subject for your tiny self-limiting mind to comprehend. The implications of who built this tiny cage scares you, due to your fear of being ridiculed, right? Go back to sleep, and as you doze off, argue a little more with the other slaves online, about tiny details that don’t matter. Remember, don’t storm the gates. Don’t think about where the wealthiest 700,000 masters live. Don’t think about trying to find the underground tunnels to other worlds. Go to sleep little slaves. Do nothing. Die without trying. Die wondering. Die a slave who never attempted to physically be free. Focus on the messenger’s flaws instead of the message, or focus on the message’s flaws, without ever creating your own message, or create your own message but make sure your message doesn’t advocate any actual physical action. Keep it all philosophical. Never kill the top 700,000 masters. Never go to the south pole. Back to sleep now. Shhhhhhhh… do nothing forever.”

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            So, I think that PHYSICAL proof might be better, like the “7-kilometer rope being pulled tight across a lake, with the middle being higher above the water level than the ends” proof.

            I was on YouTube arguing with someone who brought up the “bridge towers further away at the top” argument and thought of a simple experiment similar to what you have mentioned. I haven’t looked at or done the maths to determine how much shorter a taut rope or straight bridge should be shorter than the water depending on the bridge’s height. But, what could be measured is a taut rope along the surface of the water which ends directly at each bank. Take the same rope and put it across a straight bridge ; or maybe at a high elevation (as you suggest) and see if there is a difference in length.

            WH

            View Comment
      • Schreck says:

        If this “spinning together” phenomenon is real, (such as the aether idea) then does it only work for the earth and not objects in a blender or vacuum cleaner? amusement park rides like the “rotor/hell hole” that stick you to the side of the wall disproves this since you don’t move with the spinning air, it is the centrifugal force that moves you while sticking to the wall.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          That idea was entertained by a few people for explaining gravity in a concave Earth, but doesn’t work because of the higher gravity at the poles than at the equator. There wouldn’t be much gravity at the poles in this case I think.

          View Comment
    • Hank says:

      It’s all academic though, isn’t it?

      View Comment
  15. SPACE says:

    @LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind

    very interesting point in video about pendulum. If pendulum is in point A, it cannot be at the same time at point B. But if pendulum moves very quickly it appears to human eye as blurred picture. High speed or frequency, like Einstein said, if human reaches speed above light, it don’t gets old anymore, stays the same, nirvana 🙂 Like WH said, UFO’s this way can cheat human timeframe.
    I seen some videos about sound: if put some sand on membrane and load music, it paints various pictures.
    And that’s why buddhistic and Christian monks always pray, they always have this sphere around them.

    View Comment
    • LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind says:

      Yes, indeed. I like the idea about reality being like a holographic movie and within that movie there are occurences that are below the human threshold. The entities/UFOs that inhabit that subliminal reality can “cheat” our normal timeframe perception like you and WH said. I read a bunch of John Keel books a 3 or 4 years ago before I had even heard of Concave Earth, and it is fascinating to try and integrate all of the UFO type info into the Concave Earth model – The North/South Pole holes makes me wonder what is really “outside” Earth.

      As for the sound aspect as WH pointed out in the Bible it says “in the beginning was the Word….”, it also says elsewhere in scripture (Hebrews 1:3) “…upholding all things by the word of his power”. Jesus is also called “the Word”. It is also mentioned on numerous occasions in the New Testament that a Christian should sing spiritual songs etc. Also, like you said regarding Christian and Buddhist monks praying – it must be like the gym for the soul!

      So, from the creation angle, it is a very simplistic notion, however, I will throw it out there: God creates through sound, by speaking creation into existence in some form of code. If sound is spherical then the Heaven is created first, then Earth, both basically spherical. You also have this creation (the Heavens, sun, moon etc) preserved through a vortex magnetic H field which I think has a torus shape (WH, correct me if I am wrong please!). I know this is all speculation, however, I was thinking how the center of the Celestial Sphere where Steven Christopher has the Octahedron, I was thinking that it could maybe be a Heart shape instead and function like the heart itself – being the mechanism that keeps the Creation ticking along. Frank Chester has found the actual geometrical shape of the Heart and it is a most interesting presentation if you have never seen it:

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

      View Comment
  16. SPACE says:

    In Hebrew midrash on Bereshit (Genesis) is: when it’s written “And God created Heaven and Earth”, when used word “created”, it means, that God created something material.
    Then: “And God said, let there be light”. When used word “said”, it means God created something immaterial, spiritual.
    Science defines light as “moving of photons”. I don’t know, is it means material or immaterial.

    View Comment
    • x2m says:

      ‘Said’ can mean just ‘sound’.
      As in the sonoluminiscence case in the cavitation phenomenon.
      With sound, light is created inside a bubble.
      And cavitation might well be have an important role in the quick creation of life.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brnx1I4Jyi8

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Isn’t there something in the Bible about in the beginning was the “word”? http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

        I always found that a bit strange. Could they mean that in the beginning was vibration and God created the world through vibration – sound?

        View Comment
        • SPACE says:

          Everything is vibration, I think Tesla said that. More subtle, invisible vibrations are considered spiritual. Visible – to touch, measure – material. Though modern devices, for example Wi-Fi wireless internet, I consider spiritual. They can measure, what human don’t sees.
          Let’s take known example: animation film of 5 min. represents running man. As known, human sees 1 frame, but at this time passed 24 frames. If take each frame, man don’t moves, only changes slightly position. But if frames move quickly, human sees movement. Does movement really happens? Big question. Most things are optical illusion.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Great question. Long before CET (2003) I was having the same thoughts. I was thinking along the same lines of reality as a roll of film. It could explain teleportation perhaps. Let’s say our normal sensory frame rate is say one out of every 10 frames. This includes all speeds that involve inertia within that one in 10 framerate. If I slip into the next frame (2 to 11, rather than 1 to 10) I have passed into a parallel world disappearing from the original frame structure. If I want to “cheat” and go faster than the usual “rules of physics”, I could achieve a frame rate of one in 1000, instead of one in ten. In my reality I took just one step forward (one foot forward in one and ten reality), but I really went 100 times that distance in the same “time” it took to put that foot forward. To get visible again, i would need to go back to the old frame rate. Maybe this could give a conceptual understanding of UFOs as interdimensional vehicles that are able to do this frame rate change.

            It is only a very loose analogy not to be taken seriously, but who knows?

            View Comment
          • LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind says:

            Hello WH and SPACE!

            Pertaining to your discussion about sound, I was wondering if you had encountered this information?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkIxpuF43o&list=LLN58YHoz12c6nuHvl6OfKvg&index=5

            http://cymascope.com/

            It is basically saying that sound has a spherical shape and they appear to have the technology to be able to “map” it.

            View Comment
        • Andrew says:

          As later revealed in the the NT Jesus is the Word (logos) by which the world was created. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Word-God.html

          View Comment
    • Schreck says:

      The Massoretic text uses “reyshiyth” for “in the beginning” and if you use the first two letters as an aramaic word and then convert the rest of the letters into pictographs you get the phrase: “Son of G-d destroyed by own work on a cross.” how prophetic is that for a beginning?

      View Comment
  17. R.E. says:

    Hi WH. I was thinking some experiment like the Tamarack mines one could be reproduced above ground using something like lead fishing weights on a long line. It would be done indoors so wind wouldn’t be a concern.

    You could do something similar outdoors with a crane but people would just blame the wind for any unexpected result.

    The distance between the line holes at their origin would be measured against the distance between the lead weight points at their ends. I don’t know of many (any) tall spiral staircases here in “the States” but I bet there are some in Europe. :>

    Here is a photo (not mine) of something like what I mean.

    http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b481/missionroad4/Mobile%20Uploads/wp_ss_20150517_0002_zpsb0caefcy.png

    If the link doesn’t work let me know and I will figure it out and repost.

    View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      …Although I suppose the real die hards would just use the USGS / world seismic monitoring reportage to discredit any fractions of a millimeter findings in their disfavor.

      I would like to see experiments done by many people all over though, and their findings. The main issue as I see it is finding a long enough undisturbed distance between a pointed weight and its origin measured against the distances or adjacent bobbed lines, and getting accurate readings.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m not sure the height could be large enough to measure accurately? I was thinking more elevator shaft in a skyscraper.

      Even then, I’m not in love with TM type of experiments. They found falling objects in a very deep shaft never reached the bottom, but always clung to the east wall at some point in their decent. Why I don’t know. But it shows that there is an as-of-yet unknown force affecting the falling object which adds another variable. (Got this from Jon‘s site: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzRIx6p9pjw1TlExSEJBaWVzRGs/view?pli=1)

      View Comment
      • R.E. says:

        WH said “Even then, I’m not in love with TM type of experiments. They found falling objects in a very deep shaft never reached the bottom, but always clung to the east wall at some point in their decent. Why I don’t know. But it shows that there is an as-of-yet unknown force affecting the falling object which adds another variable. (Got this from Jon‘s site…”

        Wow I did not know that!

        View Comment
  18. riomar9 says:

    If the earth is constantly, and so powerfully pulling the moon towards itself, the moon, being smaller, (so they say) would’ve come crashing down towards the earth a long time ago. Also, if that is the case, than we would not be able to even jump up any distance whatsoever…we would simply be splattered on the ground like a freaking pancake, but actually we would not even be here at all!

    View Comment
  19. SteinMetz says:

    Furthermore, the example of the helicopters and the “flight” of Baumgarter are really conformations of the heliocentric theory.

    I mean, when a helicopter takes of from the Earth , it already “has” the same speed as the rotation. As the Heliocentric theory states that the atmosphere has the same speed as that of the rotation of the earth. The helicopter would always stay at the same position as from which it took off. Al factors have the same speed. You don’t smash in the back wall of a train when you jump.

    That explains also why Baumgarter is “only” 70 km away. Because, the ground as well the atmosphere, move in the same speed. So does Baumgarter.

    Otherwise:
    IF the atmosphere would NOT rotate at the same speed as the rotation speed of the earth ( 1675 km/h )

    If you would stand next to a chopper. And the chopper would take off vertically. The very first second that the Helicopter is off the ground. It will be about 450 meters away from where you are standing. 1675 km/h is about 450 m/s.

    Again I really have no idea how it would be possible to have a atmosphere travelling with the same speed as the rotation speed of the earth, due to difference in density.

    But if you take the radius of the earth, which is about 6371 km (3959 miles) and the atmosphere is ” only” about 100 km (621 miles) high from the face of the earth.

    It would be more then likely that the atmosphere would be more effected by the earth’s rotation. And so the difference in density between air and a solid, could be playing no significant part in this case.

    Does this proof the Heliocentric theory, no way. But this examples to proof it to be 100% wrong…………………………no it only backs it up.

    The only way to proof the heliocentric theory to be wrong is to examine path of the sun / moon / earth. Especially during the solstices and equinoxes.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Exactly. (See my previous post). It proves that the atmosphere must move with the Earth. Therefore the question is how and why? What is the mechanism?

      It is the difference in density between a solid (the ground) and a gas, let alone between the Karman line (100km) and sea level (the density difference here has been calculated at one million times less dense at 100km BTW). All of this from the solid Earth, to the watery ocean, to air density at sea level, to air density at the Karman line all rotate with the Earth at the same time. Sometimes in the balloon videos there is no wind. Sometimes there is lots. No wind at 30 km? Wind at any altitudes can go in different directions… and none even gets close to the alleged frictional speed of 100s of mph of a rotating solid ball Earth. There is zero evidence of earth rotation from jumping up from the top of a high mountain right up to 46km balloon altitude. The Earth doesn’t not move under us, and yet it should.

      The rotating Earth makes zero sense whatsoever, but nobody thinks about it. We are all subconsciously brainwashed fools Steinmetz. All of us.

      View Comment
      • ProperGander says:

        The gases would be subject to centripetal laws and would follow along in a squared root type proportion so that as the radius (distance from the surface of the Earth) doubles, the velocity along the arc is only 1.4x as great Yet the distance along this arc is doubled. So it would take a cloud in the upper atmosphere that much incrementally longer to reach the same point that the Earth’s surface rotates into. It would not follow exactly along like the rotating land mass does.

        Brings up the whole reason for the Earth’s spin and how that and gravity work together.

        The spin is due to cooling or something like that in the mainstream thinking as far as I can tell.

        So if the spin was less, the centripetal force would pull us to the Earth more. That is, the effect of gravity would be increased. If the rotation of the Earth would increase, the pull of gravity would lessen. At least according to centrifugal/centripetal law.

        Mass effects gravity. So mass effects the centripetal or real force. The spin or rotation is the result of inertia, so centrifugal is a false force of sorts. The curvature, the result of centripetal force pulling on a mass that would like to fly off into space in what would seem to be a straight line.

        Centrifugal force is an illusion. Centripetal force is real and in this case it is gravity – the pull towards the center of Earth’s center.

        This force is what defines the shape of the arc or orbit. That is, the closer to the Earth, the more this centripetal force is going to pull and the tighter the resulting arc of orbit becomes. Atomic clocks proving Einstein right, show the different potential of the gravity field at different heights.

        This means more energy is required to make the same turn at the same velocity. The larger the radius, the less energy required to make the same turn. And if there is the lag due to centripetal force, and the velocity does not double like the distance, then would we not assume the higher object would lag the object on Earth’s surface and not lead like Newton and Galileo claim?

        And if the force of gravity is such that the atmosphere can cover that distance in the same time as the Earth’s surface, then we’d expect a bomb to fall exactly where it would as if the Earth was unmoving (sans atmosphere). As the centripetal force tightens the arc and the apparent velocity of our object will be adjusted accordingly.

        The same energy, in this model, is a spin at the Poles and a tangential velocity at the circumference. It is the combination of inertia (IE the cooling of the mass) and the effect of the mass curving ‘space time’ that gives the globe its motion and shape.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          And if the force of gravity is such that the atmosphere can cover that distance in the same time as the Earth’s surface…

          Except that the atmosphere has a much lower density and friction than the surface, therefore “gravity as a property of mass” would affect the air very differently than the surface.

          View Comment
          • ProperGander says:

            I’d assume that in this model, the atmosphere would follow the laws of fluid dynamics and act like you suggest.

            The basic point is that centripetal and centrifugal type experiments and math, clearly show that Newton was wrong in applying a model of fluid dynamics to the apparent motions of the stars and planets. His cannonball thought experiment is as nonsensical as the Einstein thought experiments.

            The very model they use, precludes things like the Coriolis effect.

            View Comment
          • ProperGander says:

            Just to clarify. I’m posting what the mainstream ‘heliocentric’ theory is and how it works and why I think it can be proven to be flawed.

            The atmosphere, in this theory, is supposed to possess the same inertia that causes the rotation of the globe.

            Gravity, in this theory, is what keeps the gases from flying off the globe. Gravity is the centripetal force that produces the illusionary “centrifugal” force as a result of the effects of inertia. The latter effect would cause the gases of the atmosphere and all matter of the Earth, to fly off into space, were it not for ‘gravity’.

            So in this theory, the gases move with the Earth according to centripetal /centrifugal motion. The mathematical equations show the square distance rule at work.The velocity at double the radius is not 2x but 1.4x as great.

            The gases of the atmosphere are subject to the very same force of gravity an apple is.

            Newton was incorrect when he applied fluid dynamics to the motions of the heavenly bodies and the presumptive motions of the Earth. The mistake is forgetting how centrifugal forces actually work.
            The other mistake is ignoring demonstrable ballistics.

            We cannot reproduce in a lab on Earth, the result of his famed cannonball thought experiment.

            View Comment
    • klaw says:

      Abey chutiye the speed of earth is in consideration based on heliocentric model. So if earth is really rotating at so much speed like u said the chpper must’ve moved 450m/s even if twas just hovering but it don’t. This process that earth don’t rotate at that speed. In fact strengthening geocentric model.

      View Comment
  20. SteinMetz says:

    I have an open mind and willing to listen AND think about any other vision about reality. Cause I believe the reality and facts are really different than what we are taught. But………to the whole plane and flight time “proof”, it really proofs nothing.

    You leave one thing out of your proof. That is that the plane already has the same speed as the rotation of the earth. Flying from Maledives to Singapore. Or West to East. Results in the fact that the plane already has the same speed as the rotation of the earth. Otherwise is would role back on the ground. So it total speed is 1675 + 880. But cause the earth is travelling at 1675 km/h the plane travels 880 km/h from its starting position.

    Now the other side around. Plane ” has the speed” of 1675 km/h on the ground, due to rotatation of the earth. Takes off and flies with 880 in the other direction. So the plane travels in the West direction with a speed of 1675-880 = 795 km

    So 3388 km between Maledives and Singapore. From East to West = 3388 / 800 = 3,85 hours. And from west to east is 3388 / 795 = 4,25 hours

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Of course. The point is how does the plane stay with the rotation of the Earth when it leaves contact with the ground (a solid) only to be “held” in place by air? The air therefore is also moving with the Earth. At what density and altitude does the air not move with the Earth, and why?

      The only answer is that there must be an all-encompassing force or energy which contains all matter allowing it to operate as one within this field. What is this energy? Is this the super weak force we call gravity? How can that work for less dense (lighter objects) like air?

      See the problem. Either the Earth doesn’t move, or there is unknown “planetary” field, which also stops abruptly at some altitude to let the Earth move under orbiting objects. I know which one I go for.

      WH

      View Comment
      • ProperGander says:

        I believe the mainstream physics answer is the object possesses the inertia of the area it originated from.

        A projectile shot north from the Equator possesses some 1000 mph velocity compared to say 900 mph some distance north.

        Same reasoning holds true for mine shafts and bombs. The velocity higher up is greater than at below sea level, for example.

        Not very satisfying when you think about it, but there it is.

        They seem to forget about gravity and centripetal force law.

        View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      SteinMetz, NASA does not account for planet rotation in their takeoffs. In practice, nor does any airline. Hope that helps.

      View Comment
  21. J says:

    I’ve read through a lot of your site over the past few days – you raise some intriguing points – the whole rectilineator experiment is fascinating.

    But “exhibit A” on The Path of the Sun is incorrect. The common heliocentric model describes the path of the sun just fine. The “tropic lines” are 23.5 degrees (due to axial tilt) north/south from equator and are the furthest points away from equator where the sun will appear DIRECTLY OVERHEAD. Any further north of tropic of cancer and the sun will always appear in southern half of sky and any point south of tropic of capricorn the sun will appear in northern sky ALL YEAR ROUND.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Yes, indeed. This article is up for revision. Unfortunately I am one man only and cannot do everything at once. This article is scheduled for revision after the glass sky one and the satellites one.

      View Comment
  22. ScottAlmighty says:

    Me and a couple buddies came across the concave theory quite by accident yesterday, and while our first reaction was to dismiss it, we were soon blown away by how thorough the theory is. I don’t want to say that we’re convinced–if I had to bet on it, I’d still put money, at this point, on the convex model–but I will give this thing credit for being able to stand up to at least the most preliminary questioning.

    All that said, we’ve come up with a few questions that we want to give you guys a fair chance to answer. If these are answered in any of your videos, please, direct me that way and I apologize for being lazy.

    1 – As I understand it, the pull-force gravity of the convex model is replaced in concave theory with a pushing-force emanating from the “space.” If this is true (and please correct me if I’m wrong), do you believe that non-NASA telescopic observations made from earth show moons circling Jupiter? If so, how does the gravity model of concave earth theory explain this rotation?

    2 – Many concave earth theorists on youtube appear to be creationists. Is this a requirement of the theory, or is there a non-theistic formation theory that corresponds to the concave hypothesis?

    3 – You provide some convincing evidence about problems with wide-angle lenses and misrepresenting the curvature of the earth. What, however, is the explanation for the blackness we see above the horizon in these images? Shouldn’t the earth surround space according to this theory? Why do we see what appears to be empty space beyond the “edge” of the earth?

    4 – GPS and other systems depend upon predictable calculations which themselves are (supposedly) based on the heliocentric, convex standard model. Unlikely as it is that all satellite-based companies and systems are in on a conspiracy to suppress the concave model (though of course its not impossible), is there some explanation consistent with the concave theory that would also explain why these unfounded estimations and calculations still work? We were able to think of a few possible reasons, but I wanted to see if the “official” theory had an existing explanation.

    Anyway, I appreciate any information you can provide and, if nothing else, it’s been fun to think about. Looking forward to hearing from you.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      1. Gosh, I haven’t come to that part of the theory yet as I am not 100% sure myself. However in my concave Earth model (Steven, Karol etc. may speak for themselves), it is the magnetic h-field which spins the Sun around and everything else that is orbiting the Sun whether solid objects or not. Why they don’t fall to the ground though is a guess, and my guess is they are electric.

      2. Not a requirement at all. I am a non-theist. (but not an atheist). I have nothing against theism.

      3. Bending light causes the horizon. (There is an article or two about it on this blog)

      4. My take is that GPS satellites are really stationary and sit on the glass. They don’t orbit anything. There is certainly hard evidence for stationary satellites that are said to to be orbiting, but I will leave that to the two new articles I am putting together. I find it very hard to believe that a network of GPS satellites can triangulate their own positions with the ground and each other quickly enough or accurately enough when whizzing around at 7600 m/s constantly in different directions. Stationary makes a lot more sense. I also remember reading some geocentric website a long time ago mentioning that their calculations are really geocentric, but don’t quote me on that.

      No probs. Hope to get the next article out soon.

      View Comment
      • rusty says:

        I think they use reflection on the ionosphere/glass sky for most of the stuff that is attributed to “communication satellites”. I always wondered how those flimsy solar panels were supposed to create that much energy for transmissions over such a long distance.

        GPS is ground based, mainly. AFAIK that’s acknowledged, and that’s also one of the reasons why you have those “cellphone” towers even in the remotest areas. Ionosphere/glass sky reflections could be used for oceanic areas, where precision is not that crucial.

        For some reason I don’t like the idea of something attached to the glass sky, but I wouldn’t be on it.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I actually think most satellites are on the glass, rather than attached to it.

          The exception is polar satellites. They are a different breed altogether. Through a sheer stroke of luck I’ve found out how they really work. 🙂

          View Comment
          • R.E. says:

            “most satellites are on the glass, rather than attached to it.”

            Can you clarify what you mean? What do you say is the difference between “on” and “attached to”?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Yes. The clarification will be coming soon anyway in the articles to come. What I mean though is the rocket melts through the glass (going practically horizontal – well, nearly – to the glass) It is already on its parabolic curve. It keeps going and to cut a long story short with stage 2,3 or even 4 rockets, the rocket lands on the glass and does not melt through on re-entry but stays there on the glass. The initial glass melt slowed it down enough so that it can’t melt through again. When stationary, the payload fairing (clam shell) bursts open revealing the satellite.

            Notice how the shuttle melts through the glass twice, yet rockets only once. IMO, that is why the shuttle goes at a much faster stated speed than rockets do. (17,500 mph compared to rocket’s 9-11,000 mph I think). It is also because of the one way trip of rockets that I doubt very much that anyone has ever been inside one.

            View Comment
    • ProperGander says:

      GPS can be explained with simple electromagnetic type transmission towers set up at set distances along the surface of the Earth. Like say cell towers or the wireless base stations.

      Wires can and are run across the oceans. The world might simply be wired like your home or office network.

      Then there’s the idea of the ionosphere and using that to transmit radio waves. This idea goes back to the early days of radio.

      View Comment
  23. pfftt says:

    Im still a student so im just going to give my opinion.
    Heliocentric Theory is a Theory, which means that a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Meaning its only an hypothesis. Some of your “IDEAS” come up because of your sources to prove your argument. Physicist has their reliable source and they have scientific calculation for their research. Can i ask u something? Do you have mathematical solution that could prove your idea? Even if you have do you think your sources could prove your mathematical solution?
    Also you become bias. Read the theory of relativity!
    This Blog you made is really stupid.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      This article will be revised. It was written very quickly in the early days. A more mature damning article needs to be written to rip the throat out of the beast once and for all.

      Yes, I have a mathematical and mechanical solution for the Sun. It is under “Concave Earth thesis”. I don’t have such a model for the night sky as of yet. This is because the Sun is far more important in a concave Earth than the night sky. It is the other way round for heliocentric theory as the world is the universe which is near infinite, therefore studying the stars is studying the “world”.

      View Comment
  24. Kaymu.pk says:

    Other exclusions could apply.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’ll be redoing this article completely later. Just trying to figure out south polar satellites at the moment. Then I’ll revise the glass sky then this article in that order.

      View Comment
  25. Sam Crawford says:

    Have you submitted any of this to a scientific, peer-reviewed journal?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m going to revise this as it was one of the first articles I wrote.

      Scientists aren’t my peers as I am not a scientist. However in the future, if having conducted many experiments, perhaps I could then be called one.

      For the moment I am just a blogger who is looking for some truth.

      View Comment
  26. Antony says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L777RhL_Fz4

    There is a lot on nasa, space and astronomy in this vid.

    View Comment
  27. R.E. says:

    Am I posting quotes that you have on your pages WH? If so I apologize. It’s beginning to be a blur to me. If you don’t already have it, here are reported claims of eyewitness accounts from hot air balloon travelers about 2 miles high. Found this from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm:

    “Another curious effect of the aërial ascent was that the earth, when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared CONCAVE, looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such as we naturally expect to see it. . . . The horizon always appears to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight becomes so marked that the earth assumes the anomalous appearance as we have said of a CONCAVE rather than a convex body.”–Mayhew’s Great World of London.

    “The chief peculiarity of a view from a balloon at a consider-able elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear CONCAVE instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.”–London Journal, July 18th, 1857.

    Mr. Elliott, an American aëronaut, in a letter giving an account of his ascension from Baltimore, thus speaks of the appearance of the earth from a balloon:–

    “I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aëronaut may well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial BASIN, the deeper part of which is that directly UNDER ONE’S FEET. As we ascend, the earth beneath us seems to recede–actually to sink away–while the horizon gradually and gracefully LIFTS a diversified slope, stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aëronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded terrestrial BASIN below.”

    and more

    So, everyone who has been very igh up in a hot air balloon would see this view unobstructed by possible illusory effects of glass, such as airplane windows or camera lenses. Two miles seems rather high up for a hot air balloon. Wikipedia does not have information about typical hot air balloon travel altitudes nowadays. I winder if they used to go higher in the 1800s, and this is not recommended now.

    View Comment
  28. Anon says:

    Some of Charles Fort’s musings:

    ‘All data upon this subject that I know anything of are interpretable as indications that this earth is stationary ‘

    ‘ Current Literature, Sept., 1924 — that, 50 miles up, the air is ten times as dense as used to be supposed, and that it is considerably warmer than at lower levels ‘

    ‘ See Nature, Feb. 27, 1908, and following issues — experiments with balloons that carried temperature-recording instruments.(5) According to Mr. W.H. Dines, about 30 balloons, which had been sent up, in Great Britain, in June, 1907, had moved through increasing coldness, then coming to somewhat warmer regions. This change was recorded at a height of about 40,000 feet ‘

    ‘ It is said that, according to observations upon light-effects of meteor trains, there are reasons for thinking that, in their zone of from 30 to 50 miles above this earth’s surface, conditions are mild, or not even freezing ‘

    ‘ According to data collected by the Naval Research Laboratory there is something, somewhere in the sky, that is deflecting electro-magnetic waves of wireless communications, in a way that is similar to the way in which sound waves are sent back by the dome of the Capitol, at Washington.(7) The published explanation is that there is an “ionized zone” around this earth. Those waves are rebounding from something. More was published in the newspapers, May 21, 1927. The existence of “a ceiling in the sky” had been verified by experiments at Carnegie Institution. Sept. 5, 1930 — a paper read by Prof. E.V. Appleton, at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.(8) The “ionized zone is not satisfactory.(9) “The subject is as puzzling as it is fascinating, and no decisive answer to the problem can be given at present.” From Norway had been reported experiments upon short-wave transmissions, which had been reflected back to this earth. They had come back, as if from a shell-like formation, around this earth, not unthinkably far away ‘

    ‘ Because it has been discovered that the earth does not revolve about the sun and does not rotate on an axis; because the “stars” have been found to be lights only a few miles away; because almost every pronouncement from this hall of learning issued since its corner-stone was so solemnly laid has been a mistake, a joke, an error or a hoax — the older and more susceptible of the professors who once played whilst here in the shadow of the refracting telescope have gone away to die of chagrin while the younger of us take a short trip to what we have so often jokingly referred to as “the constellation Orion”. Back in thirty days.

    (Signed) The Astronomers ‘

    All of Charles Fort’s non-fiction books are interesting. Most are free online

    The above can be found here:

    http://www.resologist.net/loei.htm

    View Comment
  29. Robert Sissons says:

    I did another experiment using the supposed 93,000,000 miles between earth and sun. Observing (which is true science) that the sun moves the distance of its diameter in 3 minutes, 365 day revolution, and circumference of a 93,000,000 radius circle I get the sun being a diameter of 3,333 miles. So science is wrong on the distance to the sun or the diameter of the sun. True science includes observation not faith which is why most scientists use their beliefs to try to disprove God.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Very interesting. Thanks for posting. How did you work that out? I’m not a maths orientated person really. I worked out the first bit I think. Sun is about 0.5 degrees apparent size, so the 180 degree sky makes the Sun 1/360. For a full revolution for night and day, that is 1/720. 1440 minutes in 24 hours. That makes it 2 minutes per 0.5… or have a figured that out wrong?

      View Comment
      • Robert Sissons says:

        I just drew a large circle around the sun. 93,000,000 miles is the radius of the circle. Circumference = 2*pi*radius. Earth supposedly travels 365 days around circumference of sun. 365 days = 526,000 minutes. From this earth travels 1,111 miles/min around circumference of circle. 3 minutes for sun to travel its diameter = 3,333 miles for diameter.
        By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.

        View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      Robert I was wondering about this same thing last night. I was going to ask someone here to calculate that afresh (and not just look it up online).

      I mean, if Earth is really millions of miles away from our sun, how does it take only one year even at read hot speeds to circle it? If the earth is say, 93,000,000 miles away from the sun, then earth must travel
      584,336,233 million miles within 365 days to complete one revolution, or 1,600,921.18 miles per DAY. Wikipedia’s “Earth’s orbit” page is worth a look for the way they phrase this feat:

      “Earth’s orbital speed averages about 30 km/s (67,000 mph), which is fast enough to cover the planet’s diameter in seven minutes and the distance to the Moon in four hours.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit

      Ha ha “don’t worry, we know this sounds doubtful but the earth is going fast enough to cover that incredible distance, we promise!”

      Do YOU all believe that the earth is speeding through space at 1.6 million miles per day?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        No, I don’t believe in their nonsense at all.
        http://www.wildheretic.com/gravity-observations-and-theory/#Gravity%20and%20orbiting
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCYp1O_ZjPY

        I can’t believe I used to fall for that crap all those years ago (not too many years either).

        View Comment
        • R.E. says:

          Don’t feel bad, WH. You’re in good company. The world’s sacred scriptures are a lampoon of mankind’s conceit and advise that the way out of this mess is to make oneself low. Doesn’t most misery stem from a basic idea that “I am right”? Yes, everyone knows that they are right!

          I was watching a marathon on YouTube of that TV show about airplane disasters. I noticed a pattern: in several episodes, the black box revealed that the assistant pilot was not vociferous enough about their concerns, and this got whole jumbo jets full of people killed. The main pilot was arrogant to the point of yelling at his “inferiors”, and his arrogance proved deadly to himself and others.

          Magicians say that the hardest audience to fool is children – their eyes go everywhere, and they ask inconvenient questions.

          View Comment
        • Robert Sissons says:

          If you send me an email I will send you a Word file where I collected information from various sources that explains why the geocentric universe makes much more sense than an a-centric universe.

          Objection: In the geocentric universe the outer stars would have to be revolving around the earth at exorbitant speeds to make a complete revolution in 24 hours. How is this possible?

          Answer: The Geocentric universe has a medium called aether that permeates all objects and is what is spinning around the earth which is immobile. According to Ernst Mach and Lense-Thirring, supported by Einstein himself, the gravitational effects of a rotating star system around a stationary earth are exactly the same as the gravitational effects of a rotating earth in a stationary star system.

          The stars don’t have to travel huge speeds themselves as would be required in the helio-centric universe, rather, they are carried in an aether medium that satisfies almost all the speed demands. It is the aether that moves and carries the planets and stars.

          This means that the sun, relative to the aether, is not moving at 24 million miles per hour, but is hardly moving at all. The independent movement the sun makes relative to the aether, however, will allow it to transcribe a path through the zodiac each year. Hence, as the aether rotates once per day around the earth, the sun rotates with it, and the sun will come back to almost the same position each day, except that it will be 1/365th ahead of where it was the day before. As for the rest of the stars, they also rotate with the aether, and thus they are not moving at exorbitant speeds, rather, the aether is rotating. Since the aether is at Planck dimensions, it can withstand such speeds.

          However, the heliocentric system demands that the sun move around the galaxy at a half million miles per hour, and that the Milky Way galaxy move about 100 times faster than the sun around clusters of other galaxies, and that the outer most galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. Now that’s getting into the science fiction realm! Thus the heliocentric system DEMANDS these impossible speeds for the stars.

          View Comment
    • Steven Christopher says:

      keep shrinking it.

      View Comment
  30. Alex says:

    I must say, although I find these theories ridiculous, I cannot help but admire the calm way you present your opinions in the face of opposition. You are very respectful of others and that is a very fine trait. I wish the best of luck to you in gaining the knowledge you desire.

    View Comment
  31. R. E. says:

    Funny that Einstein is THE poster guy of genius still. It’s vital that every living, breathing person is thoughtbombed into agreeing apparently. No wonder so many people in academia are competitive depressed petty bastards: the people in this world are encouraged to chase after nothing and go into debt doing so. All that’s left is crumbs of validation from wherever.

    Authentic wisdom is mocked and pitied as its obscene imitation is celebrated. Jesus was right. Grotesque.

    View Comment
  32. R. E. says:

    Here and there I notice people guessing that the earth’s crust is thin, say a bit more than ten miles citing tHat Russian drilling issue.

    Surely the concave surface slash crust is thick because of the millions of oil barrels pumped from it daily year after year?

    View Comment
  33. R. E. says:

    Does this all mean that bumble bees can fly now?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      They probably have their own “anti-gravity” geometry somewhere on their body or wings. It’s like when you cut the web thread of a spider and it slowly gently falls to the ground. Reminds me of that Russian zoologist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJXE4FCm7Q

      View Comment
      • R.E. says:

        Cool levitation video WH. I’ve seen a low flying “saucer” during the day, with other witnesses, so I’ve been curious about this very thing.

        I got a levitation game for my nephew, but it uses an air pump to levitate a lightweight ball. However, it DOES read the mind to do it.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          What do you mean “read the mind”? I’ve had a couple of very strange mind to computer interactions about 12 years ago, which showed me that we can alter our environment a lot easier than I previously thought.

          I’ve seen UFOs back in the day too. You can sometimes still get the light balls in the sky in the corner of your eye occasionally as well. My most recent one was probably 18 months ago in Egypt over the Sinai mountains. For one whole second (felt like an eternity) from the hotel swimming pool area I saw an armada of ufos over those mountains in different stages of being lit up. Some were clearly visible and looked very large and obviously machines (disk shaped), others were pure white light, and others in 2 stages in between, but I can’t remember their exact shapes or brightness. They became visible to me as I was pointing at the moon and wondering if I had witnessed an anomaly. Turned out I hadn’t, after I looked up what I saw on the web.

          It doesn’t surprise me that they were over mountains as I have read that they are most commonly seen coming out of mountains and lakes. I think there is a connection to a portal or “underworld” or something like that.

          View Comment
          • R.E. says:

            WH, this is what I got my nephew. You wear a headband that reads brainwaves. You use thought to levitate those blue balls (it’s just air). I’ve done it. It works. Mindflex:

            http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-T8498-Mindflex-Duel-Game/dp/B004GHNFKK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1423965182&sr=8-2&keywords=levitation+game+mindflex

            This is what I saw. There were many witnesses. I did not take the video, and I was in the American SW, not Mexico, but this is more or less what we saw. These were very low flying and it was obvious they they were not balloons, or being blown by the wind as they would stop motionless at times. They were close enough that someone with a decent arm could hit one with a baseball. You cannot tell from the video but it was clear that they were not balloons.

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

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I’ve heard about that. I think what they do is initially record the brainwave pattern when you think something, so when you produce that pattern again, it sets of a programmed response in the object.

            View Comment
          • R.E. says:

            I just wrote to my friend who is in all of those extremely high IQ societies that have like, 80 members worldwide. I wonder if he’ll call me crazy after he reads my letter (who doesn’t like getting snail mail these days?). I told him about what is discussed here. For years I have been playing with the idea that the earth is stationery, not hurling through space, but I was not sure how to picture the accurate model of our universe. Hew may call me delusional.

            He’s dropped hints over the years that Not All Is As It Seems. He is vocal about believing in beings from other worlds visiting Earth (he says that they have nothing to gain by bothering with us for the most part) and says that Einstein wrong about TOR (I thought so anyway), and that this universe is something of an optical illusion. He believes in God (as do I) and does not believe that a so called “missing link” between humans and another animal species exist (neither do I). So, he is comfortable talking about somewhat taboo subjects.

            However, I recall that he also talks about light years and stars being millions of miles apart, though I am not sure if he actually believes it. Hmm. Well I won’t automatically agree with him if he believes in the convex earth theory, but I will post his response here if I get one.

            View Comment
  34. Egor says:

    Hi, WH, when I read comments about air rotating simultaneously with Earth, I imagined what would happen when this 1600 km/h flow hits the mountain. I presume it would hit it hard and as the mountain have a slope it will move upwards, and I presume no one could even think about standing near the top, also no snow cover at the peak will withstand such a flow. Also we would see a lot of snow from one side and none from the other where the flow hits.

    View Comment
    • Kyle says:

      To answer your question, the air rotates with the earth.. It is contained within the atmosphere, and the atmosphere maintains consistent rotation with the planet. Therefore, relative to the planet surface, the air is relatively stationary (not including winds and other things like that).

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        No it does not. Read all the comments below before commenting. It is all explained. I’m not going to repeat myself for the fourth time.

        I’ll be revising this article soonish putting all the silly nonsense arguments against a stationary earth underneath. You can then argue with that to your heart’s content.

        View Comment
      • Miriam says:

        If I think your thought through – and alas I am a total layman – , then as an example the helium in a kids’ ballon should be ‘held’ together by nothing. But we know, that a gas spreads. It needs to be IN something AND stopped from exiting – otherwise it would literally go up in the air. As far as I’m concerned, nothing can be ‘contained’ without any ‘walls’ of whatever kind. So, when you say, the air is ‘contained’ within the atmosphere, then what exactly IS the atmosphere to even be able to ‘contain’ something like air? Either there is a hull around the earth (glass, etc.) to keep (contain) a gas from exiting or the heliocentrc theory is proven to be bollocks. And I see more facts proving it to be bollocks than the rotation of gas.

        View Comment
  35. SPACE says:

    Just thought to add, in Talmud it is stated, that Tornadoes never happen at night, only at day.
    Now, when they show in weather forecast, computer generated images, somewhere near Florida, cyclone-tornado moves constantly towards continent. Where it disappears at night?

    View Comment
    • R. E. says:

      That is interesting. It also states that the world is stationary and the sun moves in a spiral pattern.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Just ignore exhibit A (although sounding convincing) has an explanation. I’m just doing the gravity chapter before I can revise this one.

        View Comment
      • SPACE says:

        Yes, earth is stationary, Sun moves mostly in circle, spiral – interesting theory. Earth crust is very thin, about 15 km I would say. Planets order from earth outward: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
        What about this experiment: somebody rises in helicopter in Bombay in India at midday and flies towards Mexico. Sun moves kinda slowly, but always go with the Sun and you always will get day. So where’s night?

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yes, I guess you would always be in the Sun’s light until you had to refuel.

          View Comment
          • SPACE says:

            Let’s presume, helicopter got refueled in the air.

            Also one more proof, that Sun moves in circle, but not around globe. How would you prove to people living in northern Canada, northern parts of Russia. They see Sun always in southern horizon. In summer it rises slightly above horizon, in winter it’s almost hidden by horizon line.
            If take Egypt pyramids as centre, Sun rotates in circle around it.

            View Comment
  36. jeranism says:

    Thanks for this blog… I am so happy other people refuse to simply accept what we were told is true. It is impossible to have a conversation with anyone about this as I am called an idiot, a retard, etc. etc. But I don’t fucking care! I know when I find truth and when I ponder the man space program, the NASA stories etc. I see the opposite of truth…

    On to your evidence. 2-5 are legit reasons to dispute the heliocentric world but I am interested in the first clue because I saw it and said boom! There is the proof! So, I placed a little figure on my globe facing north as I do out my bedroom window. The sun always rises from my window from the East to the Northeast and then back again. So, on my globe, I placed a piece of paper facing North. (the pole). Then I placed the globe (which is tilted of course – Bullshit) toward the sun. I placed the figure in California and start the globe going in the counter-clockwise direction. As I see the sun begin to rise it is to the right of my figure (east) and by noon the sun is above my head, then as it finishes the turn, the sun sets to my figures left (which would be the West) so I am either failing to understand the model but what the globe experiment shows is what I see in life.

    I’d appreciate your opinion. The reason I feel we aren’t tilted is pretty simple. Even in my model, the North pole is directly being hit by the sun and remains there. So, how would this be ice unless it was the top and bottom of the earth? I appreciate your time.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Don’t worry, I’m going to overhaul this article very soon and make it one to remember. 🙂

      I’m just going through the motions with the next article in the thesis, then I will take a break from that and concentrate on revising the old articles, starting with this one.

      View Comment
      • Chris says:

        Hi WH, What part of Exhibit A needs revision? If there is something wrong with Exhibit A it should be removed until it has been corrected. Could you tell me what is incorrect about the path of the sun Exhibit A? I dont want to be passing along incorrect information. Thanks for the help.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Someone on cluesforum found a way to visualize Exhibit A in the helio model correctly, so unfortunately Exhibit A isn’t valid.

          Soon, I will add more though. It will be part 1,2, and 3. There will be 6 points against, then the evidence for (all of it I can find).

          Then you can pass it on. The part about the stationary earth is the best point so far, but I will introduce an even better one soon.

          View Comment
          • Chris says:

            Thanks WH for the reply. Your work is great and I really want to share it with my friends and the world and I can be very convincing if I believe in something, but if the information can be challenged it puts me in a very weak position with some of my intelligent friends that will check the evidence I use to argue the case of a concave earth. Mistakes are a normal part of any investigation as long as they are pointed out and corrected once you realize something is off. Thanks again, you deserve of praise for all you are doing.

            View Comment
          • Chris says:

            typo…… should be

            you deserve lots of praise for all you are doing

            View Comment
  37. Simon says:

    The so called ‘northern arc’ ,isn’t. The observer moves relative to the sun in an arc ,but as you can see from your diagram of a rotating Earth, the observer never moves ‘South’ of the point where the sun is directly perpendicular to the earth’s surface, and thus the sun never appears to be in the North, in accordance with observation. The direction of apparent movement varies with that arc, and ,indeed, at summer solstice, the sun rises to the north of west, and thus starts the day with what might appear to be a southern element to it’s movement. What you call a northerly pre-noon element is to normal people an upward element , with the Earthly direction opposite to the sun’s position varying throughout the day, so it would be more ( relatively)accurately called easterly moving around the compass through northerly, then to westerly, and all points in between. Combined with the persistent Easterly movement.
    Obviously these various apparent directions are not the same as destinations in any moment one might chose, and as I say are better described as ‘up’ and ‘down’.

    View Comment
  38. Andrew says:

    But atoms or objects say at the equator on the Earths surface have inertia/velocity of X, then the higher one goes the faster the atoms or objects have to move to stay in the same spot over the Earth, there circular velocity must be X plus the increase in the radius. How can an atom of air pass on to another atom a velocity greater than it’s own which must become increasing difficult the higher one goes as the air density gets thinner and thinner. Likewise assuming no wind and shooting a bullet 10 miles vertical into the sky, in order for it to come down exactly where it was shot from, its circular velocity would have have to increase on the way up and decrease on the way down, what exerts this force on the bullet to do this because even we assume some gravitational locking, it seems there is far too little friction to this in the short time it would take bullet to rise and fall again.

    View Comment
  39. Noname117 says:

    Alright, your point about the Earth’s axial tilt being wrong is wrong, and it will take more visualization. So, for this thought exercise, imagine the convex Earth model orbiting the sun (as you probably were when you wrote the article), put your reference point in the same place you put it before (northern hemisphere, above Tropic of Cancer, in the middle of summer. I’m keeping everything constant here), and draw an imaginary line from you to the sun. I recommend picturing your location from a view of earth in its entirety. During sunrise, even though you will be higher relative to the sun than in midday, because of the axial tilt the sun would actually appear roughly East. Imagine a line tangent to your location, but in the direction the earth is rotating, extending from the earth into space (not across the surface) Do not picture your line of sight to the sun at this time. This line should go straight east from your location. Now imagine a perspective of the (full) planet from the side where it is half day, half night. First , draw the Tropic of Cancer. It should just appear as a straight, diagonal line across your current image. Think of your image as 2d right now, imagining the earth to just be a circle. Put an imaginary point where the Tropic of Cancer meets the outer circle of earth. This point is the point receiving the most sunlight on earth. Draw a line perpendicular to the tangent line of that point (aka, straight up if you were standing there). Make this line extremely long, and put a point at the end labeled “the sun.” Now put a point on the day/night line of earth of where you pictured yourself to be standing. Draw a line parallel to the Tropic of Cancer line including the above mentioned point. Extend that line out past the sun’s point. The position of the point of the sun should be north of the east line, which means sunrise should occur in the northeast in the summer. According to your above “southern path” diagram, it does. Though in my 2d visual model it would appear more north, but this can be corrected by applying the points to a sphere (essentially you have a second angle correcting the extra “northness ” of the sun).

    Now picture the sun midday. It is neither east nor west , but because you are above the Tropic of Cancer, and thus north of the point where the sun directly shines on the earth, the sun should appear south in the sky, which, again matches what is observed here on Earth. Then you just repeat the image process you used for sunrise with sunset, and find that the sun sets in the north west.

    So, in the tilted earth model, the summer sun in the northern hemisphere should appear to move west-west south then west-west north, which is exactly what we see. Though I do have to give you credit in making me have to use space engine to visualize why the sun appears to move the way it does in the sky.

    Also, about the rest of the article, evidence pieces b and c can be explained by inertia and friction, as I explained in a different reply, for d I just have to prove that stars are far away and that spacecraft can orbit successfully. For e, there is an explication, which you just decided was entirely made up based on what? It seems you just said “because it was different than another possible conclusion based on the evidence.” For the Coriolis effect, I was going to say that it is an optical illusion when the objects have no impact on one another, but the article you linked makes that prior statement less likely. So I’ll need to do more research on the subject before I tackle it.

    Also, if you were having trouble visualizing what I described, I can make some diagrams for you.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      A diagram would be appreciated. In my literal line of thinking the Sun arcs don’t work.

      View Comment
      • Rusty says:

        Maybe you’d like to take a look at my explanation on cluesforum posted some time ago:
        http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1222&p=2386043#p2386043
        You know I’m all for the concave earth, but I hold there are no major geometrical errors with the heliocentric model.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I’ll have a look over all the old articles again in due time as nearly all of them will get a revision and additions. I can’t spend time at the moment on old subjects as I’ve still got two big fish to fry so to speak, but I get what you mean, and yeah it looks like that could work. What did Jon Gault say as he is the source?

          I’m going to add three major additions to that article and revise the rest after I’ve finished the solstices and perhaps have a go at the stars.

          View Comment
  40. Joell Strevens says:

    The hovering helicopters and lack of constant wind are caused by inertia: the air and helicopters were moved by the Earth, and inertia means that they keep moving forward. Unlike most inertia stuff and things, the helicopter does not slow down and start moving round and round the earth because it does not have friction: the air around it is also moving around the earth.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That explains it Joell. Thanks for telling us.

      Could you please explain to us though the physics of how the air over all its densities up to 100km keeps to the exact speed of the rotating Earth?
      Also, if you have any links to experiments which show this new physics I would delighted.

      Of course there is that possibility that there is a new force which physics doesn’t know about which keeps matter of all densities in exact alignment with itself when spinning. I am open minded, but maybe not that open-minded. 😉

      View Comment
      • Noname117 says:

        I may just have to reply to this one, but once that air is moving there isn’t really anything to slow it down. So you just have to get the air moving to those speeds and you’re good. Current theories state that the atmosphere formed over time, which would mean every atmospheric atom originating from earth would already be moving at the speeds needed. Atoms introduced to the atmosphere at different speeds would experience friction with other atoms, speeding them up. Actually, if you were to spontaneously give an earth without an atmosphere an atmosphere not rotating with it, friction from the earth would speed up the lower atmosphere quickly, whose atoms will come in contact with those higher up to transfer energy to them, and after awhile the entire atmosphere would be moving at the same rpm (rotations per minute, though you can put in any time unit for minute and it will still work) as the earth. Which technically does not mean the same speed, as the atmosphere would speed up slightly the further up you go. So a helicopter in the lower atmosphere is not going to have the earth rotate under it (because air will keep it moving at the earths rotational speed) but a balloon or rocket launched straight up into the upper reaches of the atmosphere would experience slight rotation under it, though not really too significant.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I may just have to reply to this one, but once that air is moving there isn’t really anything to slow it down. So you just have to get the air moving to those speeds and you’re good. Current theories state that the atmosphere formed over time, which would mean every atmospheric atom originating from earth would already be moving at the speeds needed.

          Would it though? If I keep spinning a basketball for millions of years (assuming the Earth is millions of years old) will the air eventually move at the same speed as the basketball? No. So a new physics is needed. That is your “get-out clause”.

          So a helicopter in the lower atmosphere is not going to have the earth rotate under it (because air will keep it moving at the earths rotational speed) but a balloon or rocket launched straight up into the upper reaches of the atmosphere would experience slight rotation under it, though not really too significant.

          Invent a new physics so that a gas will rotate at the same speed as a spinning solid. That’s your way out.

          View Comment
          • Noname117 says:

            Firstly , the earth is billions of years old, unless the entire fossil record is faked or the radiocarbon dating process is flawed, it is pretty hard to prove otherwise. Secondly, you don’t need a new form of physics to put an atmosphere around earth. The air is not going to spin around that basketball ever because it does not have the gravity to do so. If you filled it with lead, put it in a vacuum, put a little air around it, spun it slightly, and removed all other matter from the universe, assuming gravity exists, the air would rotate with it. The reason why the basketball on earth does not have air rotate with it is because its gravity is so minuscule compared to the earth’s that the air is more attracted to the earth’s gravity. Again, according to the current theory the atmosphere was formed over time, so the first few atmospheric particles would easily come into contact with the earth itself due to gravity, and with that friction. If they were moving slower than the earth, then they would speed up to the earth’s rotational speed. If faster, than the energy would go to the earth and both would be traveling at the same speed. Gravity would prevent it from escaping. Repeat until you have a small atmosphere. Now put a particle on top of that atmosphere, not moving at all. It would come into contact with the particles below it, speeding it up but slowing the other particles down, which would in turn slow more down (but would speed themselves up). Eventually, a lot of particles would be going just slightly slower than before, but friction with the earth would cause those which were slower to speed up. Keep adding layers onto the atmosphere, and the same effect continues to happen, at least until the height where rotating with the earth would be enough to propel the particles farther into space. But our atmosphere is nowhere near that height. Also remember that outside the atmosphere is a vacuum, so there isn’t much to slow it down from that perspective.

            Now, the basketball example is a bad one because the environment it is in overpowers the effects of the gravity it has and the friction with the air it produces. So I came up with a couple other good examples with something else acting as the pulling force of gravity. Sticking with the basketball theme, imagine spinning a basketball covered with dried glue, the glue acting as an atmosphere. The glue is extremely sticky because it has a lot of friction when dried, because it dries in all the little valleys and bumps on a surface. In this case, the friction both acts like gravity, the stickiness keeping it on the ball, and the friction causing the atmosphere to rotate with the earth, for essentially the same reasoning, except for it being solid.

            The other good example would be a blender, with some sort of liquid in it. The glass acts similarly to gravity, as it keeps the liquid from escaping, while the rotating blades act like the friction the spinning earth exerts on the atmosphere because they exert a rotational force on said liquid. The only reason why the liquid farther from the blades is moving slower is because of friction with the glass (which , if it wasn’t strongly attached to the blender, would probably spin too). If the glass was spinning or frictionless, all the liquid inside the blender would eventually be spinning at the same rotational speed as the blender itself.

            Oh, and thirdly I am about to work on the diagrams for the other example. I’ll also have to reply to your last response on the “sulphur sun” page soon. Should be one of my shorter ones.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Alright this is my last post noname as we aren’t going to agree on anything I can see that now.

            Firstly , the earth is billions of years old, unless the entire fossil record is faked or the radiocarbon dating process is flawed, it is pretty hard to prove otherwise.

            Not at all. They have no idea how old the Earth is. It is far too long and big a topic to get into here. Why do you accept every mainstream theory as being true? Research these things yourself properly and you’ll see gaping holes everywhere, especially the fossil record and carbon dating. Here’s a contradiction for your analysis: http://www.icr.org/article/sun-shrinking/

            John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour.”1 The diameter of the sun is close to one million miles, so that this shrinkage of the sun goes unnoticed over hundreds or even thousands of years. There is no cause for alarm for us or for any of our descendants for centuries to come because the sun shrinks so slowly. Yet the sun does actually appear to shrink. The data Eddy and Boornazian examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, though small, is apparently continual… The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales.2

            If you filled it with lead, put it in a vacuum, put a little air around it, spun it slightly, and removed all other matter from the universe, assuming gravity exists, the air would rotate with it.

            Nonsense. It would be far worse. The solid is now even more dense than the air. If you can show me the experiment to back this claim up I’m all ears.

            The reason why the basketball on earth does not have air rotate with it is because its gravity is so minuscule compared to the earth’s that the air is more attracted to the earth’s gravity.

            Even the current seemingly false idea of “mass as gravity” doesn’t attract less dense (and hence mass) air as much as mega dense earth. The solid earth has a greater mass than gas air and so the gas is much less attracted to the solid earth.

            Again, according to the current theory the atmosphere was formed over time, so the first few atmospheric particles would easily come into contact with the earth itself due to gravity, and with that friction. If they were moving slower than the earth, then they would speed up to the earth’s rotational speed.

            More nonsense. The friction between molecules of a solid are nowhere near the same as friction between molecules of a gas. Come one, stop with this clutching at fabricated straws rubbish. You aren’t paid to write here are you?

            Sticking with the basketball theme, imagine spinning a basketball covered with dried glue, the glue acting as an atmosphere. The glue is extremely sticky because it has a lot of friction when dried, because it dries in all the little valleys and bumps on a surface. In this case, the friction both acts like gravity, the stickiness keeping it on the ball, and the friction causing the atmosphere to rotate with the earth, for essentially the same reasoning, except for it being solid.

            Good Lord, are you having a laugh at my expense? I don’t even know where to begin with this comment.

            The other good example would be a blender, with some sort of liquid in it. The glass acts similarly to gravity, as it keeps the liquid from escaping, while the rotating blades act like the friction the spinning earth exerts on the atmosphere because they exert a rotational force on said liquid. The only reason why the liquid farther from the blades is moving slower is because of friction with the glass (which , if it wasn’t strongly attached to the blender, would probably spin too). If the glass was spinning or frictionless, all the liquid inside the blender would eventually be spinning at the same rotational speed as the blender itself.

            No no no. That’s an irrotational vortex which proves that the atmosphere does NOT move with the crust. What is an irrotational vortex? One where the center moves at a much faster speed at the core and gets increasingly slower further out from the core. Examples are whirlwinds, and all water vortices, i.e. blenders (they are strictly speaking rankine vortices where the core itself moves at one speed). An example of a rotational vortex is any spinning solid object such as a spinning wheel or funwheel or roundabout at a park. This solid vortex spins in tandem from core to circumference. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vortex#Irrotational_vortices

            Why do spinning gases and liquids not move in tandem throughout their vortex compared to spinning solids? Because the molecular bonding between the molecules (or “friction”) is much much weaker in gases and liquids than solids obviously! It has nothing to do with friction of the glass on the outside of a blender.

            No more nonsense noname. I haven’t got time to waste on this.

            WH

            View Comment
  41. Anonymous says:

    In my initial post I asked if there was any Biblical scripture that suggested that we live in a concave earth. The following scripture from Job 22:14 may just do that – here are 3 biblical versions from the same scripture. You’ll note that there are 3 different words used for the same thing: vault, circuit and circle which comes from the Hebrew word “chug” (2329) meaning: circle, circuit, compass.

    New American Standard Bible
    ‘Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; And He walks on the vault of heaven.’

    King James Bible
    Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible
    Clouds veil Him so that He cannot see, as He walks on the circle of the sky.”

    ◄ 2329. chug ►
    Strong’s Concordance
    chug: vault, horizon
    Original Word: חוּג
    Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
    Transliteration: chug
    Phonetic Spelling: (khoog)
    Short Definition: circle
    NAS Exhaustive Concordance
    Word Origin
    from chug
    Definition
    vault, horizon
    NASB Translation
    circle (2), vault (1).

    Brown-Driver-Briggs
    חוּג noun [masculine] vault; — only of vault of the heavens חוּג שׁמים התהלך Job 22:14; בְּחֻקֿוֺ חוּג עלֿ תהום ׳פנ Proverbs 8:27; הישֵׁב עַלחֿוּג הארץ Isaiah 40:22.

    Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
    circle, circuit, compass

    From chuwg; a circle — circle, circuit, compass.

    see HEBREW chuwg
    Source: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm

    Discover The Nazarene Code (www.NazareneCode.com)

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for the research anon. Much appreciated.

      WH

      View Comment
      • RSKJ says:

        Hi WH!
        I am always coming back, anxiously waiting for your next article. Keep up the good work.
        I could never understand why NASA seemed to be a huge masonic enterprise, but your ideas tie things up very neatly. I am still a bit confused by the science of it, since it requires us to reexamine some very basic concepts.
        Thanks for this great blog, it is great to exercise the imagination for a change and not simply be told what is =)

        View Comment
      • G Instinct says:

        If there is a variation of 27000 miles distance due to the moon’s eliptical orbit. Why do solar eclipses always look the same? Plus, if you have observed the transit of of Venus in 2012, it looks like a golf ball passing in front of a coffee table in scale.
        However, when the moon passes in front of a sun that is over 93,000,000 miles away, we have an eclipse, which blots-out a large percentage of day light. Surely, compared to the images of the Venus transit, and the distance the sun is from the moon and earth, the sun, even looking about 30% smaller due to earth’s further distance away in comparison to Venus, the sun should still take up a huge percentage of our sky and only a large black dot in the sky should be seen in a solar eclipse? Looking at any solar eclipse, it looks like the sun is of a similar size to the moon and only a short distance behind it. Just a thought….

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Thanks for your thoughts G.

          You have a good point for your first thought. You may have a point about the second one too, but I suppose we’d need to know the supposed size and distance of Venus and the relationship to its apparent size to try figure that one out. However, you’re right about the moon blocking out most of the sunlight. It’s tiny size in front of the Earth should only produce a shadow on the Earth only with respect to its size. If you look at the eclipses here it looks like half the earth experience one in 1935 if I have understood that correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse#Occurrence_and_cycles

          View Comment
          • G Instinct says:

            Thanks for your prompt reply. Your theory that we may live in a concave earth. Would that be on a flat or semi-flat surface like a disc? with a snow-dome effect sky/aether above us that contains a moving universe?
            The ice wall question may have some validity as I read once somewhere on-line that a British maritime expedition sailed the circumference of the southern ocean, yet it was a distance over 29000 miles.
            However, looking at flight times in the southern hemisphere, I have doubts about the original flat earth map.
            The photos of Venus as it begins its transit in front of the sun make the planet look translucent (?) by the way!

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            No G. I am not a flat Earther, mainly for the reasons you just mentioned about flights.

            I believe we live inside the Earth with a glass sky 100km up and a sulfur lamp sun very nearly in the middle of the cavity.

            Do you have a link to the southern ocean 29000 so I may investigate this further? Steve interviewed someone whose dad or granddad in the air force told them that the Earth itself is bigger than generally measured, but I cannot vouch nor necessarily believe that.

            WH

            View Comment
          • G Instinct says:

            A fascinating site. However, the arc of the sun could also be a circular motion in the sky. I’ve seen time-lapse photos of the sun moving in a straight line as it sets or…in a flat earth model, goes out of vision with the refracted (spotlight) light effect. The horizon is also constantly at eye-level no matter how high we travel. Does this fit in with the concave earth model too?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Yes it does fit in, but more difficult to visualize. The horizon in a concave earth would be caused by light bending upwards rather than any perceived curvature of the Earth.

            The Sun setting vertically is interesting. I have a few ideas in my head why this is so, but it seems the horizon being straight is directly related to this phenomenon and so I am tempted to band it together with bendy light theory. Actually now I think of it, I think it is because the sun is wobbling as it rotates at various angles throughout the year. I’ll go into the wobble in the article after next.

            View Comment
          • WH, I don’t believe the earth is bigger than the universally agreed upon circumference, that being @ 25,000 miles. Teed’s measurements in the rectilineator, I feel need to be continually inculcated. Also I received a letter from an individual who did thorough investigation into discovering the correct world model, passing from convex geocentric, then to flat, then finally resolving to spherical concave…. Here’s the letter…

            “Steve,

            Just thought that I would drop you a line of encouragement. Thanks so much for your web site. I have learned so much from you. Here’s a little bit of my journey. I am currently working as a civil engineer, although I was a pastor for a number of years. Therefore I have interests in both science and the Bible. About seven or eight years ago, I again became interested in cosmology. I first came to believe that geo-centricity was true. Then I was a proponent of the hollow earth theory for a couple of years. I saw Jan Lamprecht’s book Hollow Planets as fairly objective and very well researched. I had also read Matt Taylor’s book, The Land of No Horizon at about that same time. Then I stumbled onto flat earth theory and was a proponent of that for a couple of years, doing a fair bit of reading and researching into that. However, it wasn’t until I was trying to prove or disprove flat earth theory in reading James Clark Ross’s voyage that I came to see that flat earth theory was untenable because Ross’s sailing distances in the southern hemisphere were consistent with spherical trigonometric distances of a spherical earth. This got me to searching again for a valid explanation of the shape of the earth when I came across Rolf Kepler’s and your web sites on the concave earth theory. That was a couple of months ago, and I have watched most of your videos since. Kudos to you for your passion at spreading the truth!

            God bless my friend,
            Mark”

            If you care to, you can read up on Ross’ voyage and his sailing distances in the southern hemisphere.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Thanks for reminding me about the Teed experiment Steve. I sometimes forget the relevance it has regarding both the shape and size of the Earth.

            Great letter too. Maybe I’ll have a little look at Clark’s voyage later, but it puts that to bed at least.

            WH

            View Comment
  42. Anonymous says:

    The following video demonstrates that the earth has 4 Magnetic Poles – does this strengthen or weaken the argument for a concave earth? If it strengthens it, how does it do that and on the flip side, how does it weaken the argument for a spherical earth?

    ALERT EARTH HAS 4 MAGNETIC POLES!!!!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9hCL8ZpXM9E

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I had a quick look at the 4 poles business but it doesn’t weaken or strengthen the arguments that I have so I left it alone.

      Certainly an interesting titbit.

      WH

      View Comment
  43. Anonymous says:

    There is no denying stars “disappear” above the glass sky/100 km Karman line – is this also the case for galaxies and planets? If so does this imply they are fixed images on the glass dome or hovering as fixed discs on the atmospheric globe within the concave earth?

    I have no idea how astronomers measure distances in AU or light years – but it would be astonishing if someone in that field came forth who supports the concave theory and sheds light on how exactly said measurements are conducted and/or “perpetrated”.

    On a biblical note, in a convex world we then must understand that when the fallen ones were cast from the heavens (firmament?) they were all trapped within the glass dome. No ET’s whatsoever. “bogeys”, UFO’s/Aerial phenomena, drones, holograms and beings all trapped within the Karman line.

    BTW – not sure if you’ve seen this video – but it is extremely odd that a woman who was physically and psychologically prepared for space travel would be so overcome by either talking in front of a crowd or was it perhaps the mind-bending reality of the world we truly live in (literally) she is forbidden to disclose ?

    Astronaut Faints Twice During Press Conference
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDST7EePXQ

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I don’t go with the idea that stars are on the glass dome. Others do, but that’s ok. Galaxies caused by scars on the glass is an interesting idea.

      Stars disappear not too high up it seems according to flight reports so far… sometimes visible by pilots, sometimes not. The moon or some kind of bigger light was spotted in a couple of the balloon videos but looked a lot smaller than usual.

      Yes, I’ve seen that video.

      WH

      View Comment
  44. Anonymous says:

    OK WH – If you are correct that the star field patterns in reference to the equator should be entirely visible at the equator, then the following video purportedly taken at the equator should show that:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M4q2V9X-rU

    At the 8:49 mark, the star trails ARE NOT centered NOR “complete” as you claimed – instead there is an unexpected centered dividing line of the bottom of 2 funnel vortices which are perpendicular to the horizon. The effect according to the Polish author is “Skycentrism”. Ironically, the film producer claims that we live INSIDE the earth with a sky globe in the center. Worth watching from start to finish.

    Can you or someone you know construct a 3D model that “covers” and explains the complete star field patterns and addresses other issues that others raise that would help prove and visualize the concave earth theory better than what is currently on YouTube since they still leave many unanswered questions ?

    The one other problem I encounter is the universally recognized multiple light-year distances of celestial bodies that would be impossible in a concave earth whose focal point is supposed to be only 4000 miles above. Other than claiming that astronomers from all over the world for many years have been falsifying the distances to light years when they are supposed to be only a few thousand km away, how do you explain such a monumental discrepancy?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That’s right. The dividing line would be the equator of the tiny spherical star field. I’ve seen all the skycentrism videos.

      Yes to the second question. Next article for a lot of it. Nearly there. Hopefully September. Depends on how deep I go concerning gravity… and also what turns up.

      Not falsifying, they are just guessing based on their model. If the model is wrong then so are the distances. Light may slow down the further we get towards the center which an aether theorist has already postulated (he isn’t a concaver either). The onus is on the “astronomers” and their incredible claim of zillions of light years away when we have strong evidence that light bends.

      You tell me how astronomers know that stars are x light years away. Tell me how they do it. What method do they use? How do they know the distances involved? A constant speed straight line traveling light? Even then, they are just adapting their readings for their model, which is heliocentric. If that model is wrong, so are their distances. It is not the readings and data that make the model. It is the model being used as a basis to understand the data.

      WH

      View Comment
  45. OneOfTheSheeple says:

    http://rt.com/news/181472-iss-marine-plankton-space/

    There is sea plankton in space folks……..Its in da news…..

    View Comment
  46. Anonymous says:

    Here’s a couple of star trail videos below – my point is that if one is standing on any part of the concave earth – regardless where that may be – one should be able to see the entirety – or very near its entirety – of the star trails since they must be produced WITHIN the inner space of the concave earth. But this is NOT what is happening. The videos demonstrate that if we lived in a concave earth, the stars would either be emanating FROM and/or descending INTO the earth – and we know this is impossible for the simple reason that they would be visible before our very feet.

    Vortex Spiral Star Trail Timelapse in Winnipeg Manitoba (Astrophotography Canon T3i)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2rapQJiXCE

    Joshua Tree Star Trails – How We Shot It
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYqGACbjpec

    The above star trails could ONLY occur in a bowl-shaped, disk/flat-earth or spherical albeit stationary earth (I believe we live in a geocentric universe).

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      No. We shouldn’t see the entirety of the star trails unless we are on the equator at the equinoxes. Why is that? Because as soon as you move above the equator you can’t see the other side of the small sphere of the star field which I believe the stars to be. I think the star field is right in the middle of the earth cavity and very small, even closer to the center than the Sun actually is.

      I didn’t want to broach my idea of the shape of the star field just yet as I wanted to think things through properly. So far I have it as the wall of a tiny sphere in the center of the Earth. It may not be this so I’d rather not discuss this yet.

      You don’t seem to understand how celestial objects work in a concave Earth which is understandable as nobody has thought it through because there aren’t many concave earthers lol 🙂 Some flat earthers or geocentrists thinks light travels in a straight line and therefore there is a small glowing ball of light orbiting around the (flat) earth everyday. That is what they see with their eyes therefore that is the reality and there is nothing that can sway them otherwise.

      When I have finished with the Sun properly I will then be much better equipped to deal with the light from the stars. It isn’t easy though once you figure out the sun path and the electromagnetic Earth cavity mechanisms to visualize what we see at night. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it though.

      WH

      View Comment
  47. Anonymous says:

    As a follow-up to my my “5 questions” what is probably a better description for question 3 is “outermost” stars (i.e., those pictured furthest to the left and right that are not complete circles but rather semi-circles / arcs whose pattern “ends” as they “strike” the earth. In a concave earth, we would essentially complete circles barring a mountain range for example.

    Besides the concave earth theory, does the evidence point to any other possibility – for example a bowl shaped earth which might explain the “disappearance” of the concentric circles I mention above and perhaps allows for those inexplicable phenomena that don’t fit the concave theory? Is there any ancient and/or biblical reference that might support it?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Which inexplicable phenomena are those?

      I bet I can explain them… probably.

      No, the earth is not a bowl. The increasing curve of the Earth in the rectilineator experiment matches the inside of a sphere perfectly.

      Those semicircle patterns at the end of the star fields both left and right when looking at the sky at night at the equator on the equinoxes are the north star and its absent southern equivalent, right? I had a brief look into it, but I am not sure yet as to what they exactly represent shape wise so I am going to just work through the path of the Sun slowly but surely first including the electromagnetic earth cavity, then perhaps the last article on the concave Earth will be the star field. I’m in 2 minds whether to look at planets properly or comets etc.

      Remember the star field and the Sun are intimately related. I’ll post the facts we know about the star field and make my best guess a bit like the moon article.

      View Comment
  48. Anonymous says:

    5 questions:
    1. If the sun is at the center of the concave earth, how is it that the entire earth is not illuminated 24/7?
    2. Regarding the moon, would not one side of the concave earth be facing its dark side which could be photographed by either infrared, radio-wave or some other technological means?
    3. in the image you posted on this page, Heliocentric Theory is Wrong Pt 1 “Rotating stars in the sky at night”, if we are in a concave earth, how then could the furthest most stars be “disappearing” INTO the “shell” of the earth?
    4. What size then is the sun in reality within a concave earth and how does one prove that against the accepted heliocentric model “accepted” size?
    5. If the stars are sonoluminescent phenomena, how does one disprove the measurements that they and galaxies are millions if not billions of light years away that even creationist christian astronomer Hugh Ross claims?
    Thanks !

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Aha, more problem solving. Let’s give it a whirl.

      1. A sulphur lamp only shines on one side.

      2. I don’t know what the moon is, whether it is a real solid object or not. If it is, I have all light being drawn to the Sun near the center. So if the moon is a solid object it may be away from the center further away from the dark side of a concave Earth and so no light is emitted. Another possibility is that dark sides of celestial objects don’t emit infrared because it is only a crust phenomenon. Lots of possibilities there.

      3. I don’t think so. I have all the stars in the centre (at the moment). The hard part or danger of leaping from the current model to the concave one is finding out what, where and how we see in the sky relates to a cavity. Light plays a big issue and the medium in which it travels. For instance I have the Sun in the center and yet it traverses the sky in an arc.

      4. Not sure about that. I made a stab at it in a comment somewhere else, maybe in the comments section of the concave Earth theory article. I don’t trust the size of celestial objects with their apparent closeness though. Light is throwing up too many surprises in this electromagnetic Earth cavity for me to have 100% faith with the size/distance relationship.

      5. The sono theory is steve’s, not mine. The issue is still open. My idea (not a theory at this point) is that they are parts of the Sun broken off and caught in the central vortex. They don’t know what galaxies are, let alone where they are. How do they measure their distance?

      View Comment
  49. Sinister says:

    Thank you for your great explanation. Though it’s obvious (to the careful reader) that you’re still watering down the truth somewhat to try and reach more of the indoctrinated masses. Of course planets and stars do not exist! They are a projection, cleverly made and added to the historical record to give the illusion that people in the past (before projector technology was available) could see anything in the night sky except the moon. Again, of course we know the moon is a hollow space station containing the bulk of our master race, apart from the few creatures busy in their tasks of governing us.

    They tell us that the sun is 100 times bigger than the Earth – look in the sky! How big does it look? I can cover the whole disk of it with my hand. So now my hand must be 500-1000 times bigger than the Earth. I’ve got the whole world in my hands now….

    Keep your eyes and ears wide open people!!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Personally I think stars exist, but planets and the moon are another thing altogether.

      View Comment
      • Bob says:

        It is not too far fetched to think some debris might have got caught up in the same force that is holding the sun up. That neutral gravity area between spheres. Would explain meteors, asteroids, planets etc. as smaller than we grew up being told. Just that they are not much farther away than the sun, if not even closer, some of them. Like Jupiter might just be a few miles around or even less. Seems to me it should be pretty easy to measure with a telescope. Since it doesn’t take much magnification to see anything in the sky. 50-100x with a Dob is plenty. Rarely is more than 300x used on any telescope. Someone good at algebra could figure this out. Like measure how much bigger Jupiter gets from 100x to 200x or 200x-400x, whatever can give a good reading. And then solve for X being the size by a little trial and error on the distance Y perhaps.

        View Comment
        • Bob says:

          clearly from 100x-200x it will double in size lol what i mean is to calculate the SCALE of its growth.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Is that possible Bob? I’m intrigued.

            View Comment
          • bob says:

            this is in response to your comment below for some reason i can’t comment to it directly.

            Yes absolutely possible, in fact this is how they came up with the figures we are told now for everything in space. The big difference is NASA and the gang ASSUME the sun at 93million miles THEN calculate SCALE.
            Here is a fun calculator I found for it:
            http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/SS/SolarSystemModel.php
            You can plug in different values for the Sun diameter and see the results. But you CANNOT change the distance to sun value as that is the ASSUMED value in every bit of math I have ever seen on it.
            In these type calculators when you type in a diameter for the sun they still ASSUME it is 93million miles away.
            I would love to see some math that assumed the sun to be a bit closer.
            Some trigonometry and algebra should do the trick.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            That´s interesting Bob. I would love to see the math done properly too. I´ve got a pretty accurate distance of the sun. We know its apparent size is about half a degree arc in the sky. There is no reason it couldn´t be done. The only question I have is if the apparent size is a true depiction of its size or an unknown property of the aether.

            View Comment
          • bob says:

            well it looked like i couldn’t comment to it directly lol…
            can delete this comment and the ‘this is in response to…’ line out of the original response to keep the section clean is cool with me^^

            View Comment
          • bob says:

            Here is how the Copernican do it:
            http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/ssm_advanced.html
            notice the line:
            “For convenience, astronomers use a unit of distance called an Astronomical Unit, or AU. One AU is the size of the Earth’s orbit.”

            How convenient it is to ASSUME lol

            This assumption is based on a Sun distance of 93 million miles.
            They always plug that number into the equations for everything in space.

            View Comment
          • Bob says:

            “The only question I have is if the apparent size is a true depiction of its size or an unknown property of the aether.”

            I think the only size differences are the difference between looking at the sun normally (with glare around it) and looking at it through a solar filter. With a solar filter it is breathtakingly easy to see a few things.
            1. the sun is NOT on ‘fire’
            2. It is about exactly moon sized.
            3. It is very ‘calm’

            If there was some effect of the aether we would see that as it traveled to the side from over our head. When I observe that it appears to be simply the distance away that it is, in relation to its size in the telescope. But there is definitely an atmospheric effect (light curving and magnification) going on as well that could be aetheric in nature. Visible when the moon is low on the horizon as well.
            If there was an effect of aether I would guess it to be minimal (or at least obvious) also due to the fact that what we are observing is very well lit.
            I would take it at face value AS MEASURED WITH a solar filter at noontime (with it right over your head as much as possible).

            If you observe the moon when it is up in the daytime you will notice it tends to ‘reflect’ UPWARDS and then appears to ‘twist’ downwards towards the setting sun as it sets. THAT may well be an effect of the aether or curving of light in the ‘bowl’, as we see it never matches with where the Copernican model should have it. In fact it is the direct, albeit subtle, opposite of that. A measure of this effect may increase the accuracy of our calculations.

            So based on what you know to be its size and distance how big would that make the moon and the other ‘planets’?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I’m not sure about the planets and moon. I don’t know where they are in the sky distance wise, or at least their reflections if that is what they are. I had a brief look at the 5 planets from the viewpoint of their visibility during the year etc. without looking at Stellarium as sumstuff had suggested, but it was very confusing. If the appearance of the planets works in the same way as the Sun, then only Mars could possibly work out. Some planets like Venus only decide to be visible in short times in the year and then sometimes visible for years on end if I remember that rightly. I may have a proper look at it a lot later, but I don’t think I’ll ever get to know what they are unless God grants me their grace.

            View Comment
  50. dmitry says:

    can we calculate distance – how far we (observer) move away from Sun in the summer relatively of winter Earth position.
    As far as i understand, following heliocentric theory, this distance determine our seasons?
    E.g. … hot summer, and we move Earth from Sun for X km far away. Will it change season form suumer to winter? And winter to superwinter?
    Is it range of Goldilocks Zone?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      The heliocentric theory determines seasons purely by the “tilt of the Earth”, i.e. how high the Sun is in the sky. Distance is a big problem for them as the Earth is supposed to be nearer the Sun in winter, and the equinoxes I think as well, than the summer. You can check this on the timeanddate.com website. This is because they say the Earth orbits the Sun in elliptic orbits (Keppler’s second law), the speed of which varies depending on the time of year. (This latter fact of varied speed will be a positive proof against heliocentric theory which I will publish later).

      My concave Earth theory actually has the Sun one hundredth of a degree (thereabouts) closer to the Earth on the June solstice than the December one and of course the equator is slightly further away on the equinoxes than the tropics of cancer and Capricorn is on the solstices due to the concave shape of the Earth.

      Climate will be the last issue I will deal with in the article I am slowly putting together at the moment.

      View Comment
  51. Anonymous says:

    While I am in fact open-minded to geocentric theories due to recent evidence collected by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, there are clear explanations for many of the objections made in this article.

    1. Why do hovering objects, relative to an observer on the Earth’s surface, not travel in a direction opposite the rotation of the Earth at the same speed?

    The objects do not travel backwards because the atmosphere surrounding the Earth rotates at the same angular velocity as the Earth itself.

    2. But that’s already been mentioned! What would cause the air to move? The atmosphere surrounding the Earth is significantly less dense than the Earth itself, so the rotation of the Earth should have no effect on the movement of the atmosphere, given that the Earth is aerodynamic.

    Yes, but that’s given that the Earth IS aerodynamic, which it’s not. It has mountain ranges and canyons. At one point the air on the Earth probably WAS stationary, which would result in the strong wind effect that you mentioned, but eventually the friction caused by the collision of tall objects would eventually cause the air to accelerate until it reaches a terminal angular velocity, which is the angular velocity of the Earth.

    3. What about the upper atmosphere? Why does that move?

    Because there is still friction between the air in the upper atmosphere and the air in the lower atmosphere, especially when temperature changes temporarily alter the altitude of a given air pocket.

    4. There’s no stellar parallax!

    Yes, but that’s because most of the stars we see are countless light-years away, so the effect of a change in angle is barely noticeable. Imagine standing directly in front of a skyscraper. If you take one step to the right, the angle between your position, the sky scraper, and your old position is quite large. If you are standing twenty miles away from the skyscraper, however, one step will barely change the angle at all. If a star is light-years away, the angle change that would result from the Earth’s movement would be barely noticeable and could only be detected by an instrument with precision to a ridiculous degree.

    5. But that’s been mentioned, too! The large distances are clearly made up, since there’s no experimental way to determine how far the stars are!

    Not true. Scientists use a method called luminosity. Visible light can be divided into different sets of frequencies, which in turn corresponds to different colors. When different frequencies interfere with each other in different combinations at a given magnitude, they create new colors with unique shades. Scientists can observe the color spectrum of a star and use light diffraction to determine how much of a given frequency of light is being omitted. Using that data, the scientists can then determine, to a reasonable degree of accuracy, the chemical makeup of the star. If scientists know the chemical makeup of the star, they can also determine the age of the star and can thus make accurate predictions about how might light it should emit. Based on the luminosity (the brightness) of a star, scientists can determine, quite accurately, how far away a star is given its age since objects that are farther away appear dimmer.

    6. What about Airy’s experiment?

    That experiment only holds true if people accept the “aether” theory, which is false. Light is not like sound in the sense that it is a series of compressions in a medium; light is a wave that is caused by magnetic fields acting in a perpendicular direction to electric fields, hence the term electromagnetic radiation. Fields do not require a medium to travel in. The electromagnetic nature of light has been clearly established and is no longer debatable. Radio waves, infrared waves, ultraviolet waves, and x-ray waves are also electromagnetic in nature, and all travel at the speed of light.

    7. The light experiment clearly demonstrates that the Earth doesn’t move.

    No. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, including light. That’s why Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity suggests space and time dilation to account for the possibility of a uniform velocity for light.

    8. But Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity contradicts itself and it is made-up math!

    Not necessarily. We can’t completely discard the General Theory of Relativity because it made unqiue predictions that were experimentally confirmed. For example, it should be impossible for light to travel in anything but a straight line, but we have witnessed light curving near strong gravitational fields. This effect is called gravitational lensing and is so well modeled that we actually use it to determine the location of stars. Additionally, relativity predicted that objects moving at a speed relatively faster than the Earth should have time slow down. This has actually been experimentally confirmed. Atomic clocks, which are incredibly precise, actually slow down relative to clocks on the Earth when they travel even at the speed of a jet over the Earth’s surface. Also, weird movements in Mercury’s orbit were explained by General Relativity.

    I should also mentioned that the motion of the planets would not be easily explainable if they were to orbit around the sun. We would have to go back to Ptolemy’s model of “circles moving within circles,” which makes no sense unless there is an unseen object providing a gravitational field for each object to orbit around while it is orbiting around the Earth. Also, Ptolemy’s model, though it was surprisingly accurate and predicting the positions of the planets in the sky, was problematic because it suggested that the moon came closer to the Earth, so much so that the moon would actually appear to be twice as large as it usually is at certain points in the year.

    That said, there are certainly some good points that are in your favor. The effect that a solar eclipse has on a Foucault pendulum is not easily explainable. There are also problems with the General Theory of Relativity that lead to the dilemma of dark energy and dark matter, as well as the creation of infinities in nature when the theory is combined with Quantum Theory.

    The structure of the universe appears to be based on axes that travel all the way across the universe through the Earth; one through the equator and the other through the Earth and sun, at the Earth’s angle of declination.

    The explanation of the Coriolis Effect is also clearly faulty.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      1. Why do hovering objects, relative to an observer on the Earth’s surface, not travel in a direction opposite the rotation of the Earth at the same speed?

      The objects do not travel backwards because the atmosphere surrounding the Earth rotates at the same angular velocity as the Earth itself.

      (I’ve been through this a couple of times before. )

      How? What is the force which moves every different density of matter from hydrogen to lead around with the earth at the same speed? Has this effect ever been witnessed in nature or manufactured by man? A while ago I came across this little cracker of an answer:

      “The atmosphere rotates with the Earth for the same reason that water inside a bucket will eventually rotate with the bucket if the bucket is rotated. Friction between the solid surface and the contacting layer of fluid sets the fluid into motion; the internal viscosity of the fluid then ensures that adjacent layers of fluid will eventually move together.

      Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D., M.Ed.
      Department of Physics and Astronomy
      University of Wyoming”

      Mr. Barrans is suggesting we live inside the bucket Earth. I didn’t know he was a closet concave Earth fan. Of course, objects in the heavens move at different speeds, such as stars moving nearly 4 minutes quicker. This strongly suggests that it is the “water” moving and not the bucket.

      Yes, but that’s given that the Earth IS aerodynamic, which it’s not. It has mountain ranges and canyons. At one point the air on the Earth probably WAS stationary, which would result in the strong wind effect that you mentioned, but eventually the friction caused by the collision of tall objects would eventually cause the air to accelerate until it reaches a terminal angular velocity, which is the angular velocity of the Earth.

      If I spin a circular saw, will all the densities of matter spin at the same velocity as the circular saw within the little edges do you think? What about something much more pronounced in scale like a cog wheel? I tell you what, the top of those mountains must have 500-1000mph constant winds 🙂

      If I am on an ocean (as the Earth is mostly water) where are these barriers also? The coast of south Africa must be a constant hurricane zone… at the very least! And those Pacific Islands are no-go zones.

      3. What about the upper atmosphere? Why does that move?
      Because there is still friction between the air in the upper atmosphere and the air in the lower atmosphere, especially when temperature changes temporarily alter the altitude of a given air pocket.

      Friction between air molecules is absolutely tiny. Come on. How about friction between air molecules and a top of a mountain?

      4. There’s no stellar parallax!

      Yes, but that’s because most of the stars we see are countless light-years away, so the effect of a change in angle is barely noticeable. Imagine standing directly in front of a skyscraper. If you take one step to the right, the angle between your position, the sky scraper, and your old position is quite large. If you are standing twenty miles away from the skyscraper, however, one step will barely change the angle at all. If a star is light-years away, the angle change that would result from the Earth’s movement would be barely noticeable and could only be detected by an instrument with precision to a ridiculous degree.

      I know that. The tiny amount of stellar parallax means that in a heliocentric Earth, the stars MUST be lots and lots of light years away. Wait a minute… that reasoning relies on evidence for a heliocentric Earth to be correct. Oh shit.

      5. But that’s been mentioned, too! The large distances are clearly made up, since there’s no experimental way to determine how far the stars are!

      Not true. Scientists use a method called luminosity. Visible light can be divided into different sets of frequencies, which in turn corresponds to different colors. When different frequencies interfere with each other in different combinations at a given magnitude, they create new colors with unique shades. Scientists can observe the color spectrum of a star and use light diffraction to determine how much of a given frequency of light is being omitted. Using that data, the scientists can then determine, to a reasonable degree of accuracy, the chemical makeup of the star. If scientists know the chemical makeup of the star, they can also determine the age of the star and can thus make accurate predictions about how might light it should emit. Based on the luminosity (the brightness) of a star, scientists can determine, quite accurately, how far away a star is given its age since objects that are farther away appear dimmer.

      That is of course assuming that stars are giant suns. What if they are not?

      6. What about Airy’s experiment?

      That experiment only holds true if people accept the “aether” theory, which is false. Light is not like sound in the sense that it is a series of compressions in a medium; light is a wave that is caused by magnetic fields acting in a perpendicular direction to electric fields, hence the term electromagnetic radiation. Fields do not require a medium to travel in. The electromagnetic nature of light has been clearly established and is no longer debatable. Radio waves, infrared waves, ultraviolet waves, and x-ray waves are also electromagnetic in nature, and all travel at the speed of light.

      Oh it is debatable. But this is something I will have to delve in much deeper when I am finished with the present stuff. The fact already stated as well as Airy’s failure as well as new found gigantic problems with heliocentric theory (not yet published by myself) shows that it is the heavens rotating. What is doing the rotating of the heavens however is up for debate and would have to be thoroughly looked at both theoretically and experimentally. The “aether” is the obvious choice so far, but may be an immature way of looking at it.

      7. The light experiment clearly demonstrates that the Earth doesn’t move.

      No. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, including light. That’s why Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity suggests space and time dilation to account for the possibility of a uniform velocity for light.

      Oh I think I see what you mean. So what you are saying is that the light is traveling with the Earth’s rotation also? That’s why Albert Michelson and Edward Morley got a null result? So it isn’t just matter of all densities which are velcroed to the Earth, but light too!

      8. But Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity contradicts itself and it is made-up math!

      Not necessarily. We can’t completely discard the General Theory of Relativity because it made unqiue predictions that were experimentally confirmed. For example, it should be impossible for light to travel in anything but a straight line, but we have witnessed light curving near strong gravitational fields. This effect is called gravitational lensing and is so well modeled that we actually use it to determine the location of stars. Additionally, relativity predicted that objects moving at a speed relatively faster than the Earth should have time slow down. This has actually been experimentally confirmed. Atomic clocks, which are incredibly precise, actually slow down relative to clocks on the Earth when they travel even at the speed of a jet over the Earth’s surface. Also, weird movements in Mercury’s orbit were explained by General Relativity.

      Funnily enough, I think I was being a little harsh on GR as I have found out that light does bend after all, but right here on Earth parallel to the ground as Wilhelm Martin has shown: http://www.rolf-keppler.de/lichtkrumm.htm

      Gravtiational lensing assumes that there are giant “balls in space”. This blog is pointing out that this assumption is invalid.

      That said, there are certainly some good points that are in your favor. The effect that a solar eclipse has on a Foucault pendulum is not easily explainable. There are also problems with the General Theory of Relativity that lead to the dilemma of dark energy and dark matter, as well as the creation of infinities in nature when the theory is combined with Quantum Theory.

      Fair enough. I know nothing about quantum theory. Theory is interesting, but is only useful if it can be used in engineering which I view as near-definite validation of the theory. Can QT bridge the gap? Or is it more of a philosophy?

      I should also mentioned that the motion of the planets would not be easily explainable if they were to orbit around the sun. We would have to go back to Ptolemy’s model of “circles moving within circles,” which makes no sense unless there is an unseen object providing a gravitational field for each object to orbit around while it is orbiting around the Earth. Also, Ptolemy’s model, though it was surprisingly accurate and predicting the positions of the planets in the sky, was problematic because it suggested that the moon came closer to the Earth, so much so that the moon would actually appear to be twice as large as it usually is at certain points in the year.

      Again, this assumes that the Earth is a spinning ball moving around a giant Sun. I grand assumption indeed, which has been shown to be false. There needs to be evidence that the earth is convex let alone spinning around a giant Sun. I would suggest conducting an experiment to determine the shape of the Earth first; then if it moves; then look at the sky and any physical objects that come down from the sky (e.g. asteroids) and then form a model which can predict what is observed (including the substance found in asteroids); then apply the maths; then use this knowledge in the micro for engineering purposes.

      What I would not do is form a model, apply the maths and not conduct any experiment whatsoever to determine the Earth’s shape and if it moves. How did modern cosmology go about this process? Quite.


      The explanation of the Coriolis Effect is also clearly faulty.

      Ok great. Explain.

      View Comment
      • Anonymous says:

        The explanation of the Coriolis Effect is also clearly faulty.
        Ok great. Explain.

        Sorry, I meant that you made a valid point. I was agreeing with you.

        Again, this assumes that the Earth is a spinning ball moving around a giant Sun. A grand assumption indeed, which has been shown to be false.

        Again, while I am open-minded to geocentric theory, I would not go as far as to say that we have “disproven” heliocentric theory. Many of the predictions put in place by geocentric theory have not yet been verified.

        And sorry, I worded my original comment wrong. Ptolemy’s model was a geocentric one that predicted the movement of planets to be circles within circles; the planets traveled in concentric circular orbits around the Earth, within planetary spheres, and within those orbits traveled in circles. (The principle is similar to how we currently understand the motion of the moon around the sun.) But no law of physics can explain this motion, unless the planets are orbiting around an unknown mass within a circular orbit around the Earth.

        I would suggest conducting an experiment to determine the shape of the Earth first

        The ancient Greeks already did that. In fact, they actually determined the radius of the Earth using shadow experiments and trigonometry.

        Here’s another question: Why else would the sail of a ship disappear on the horizon, unless the Earth is round?

        Fair enough. I know nothing of quantum theory.

        It’s not just a theory. It’s been applied practically for engineering purposes. Quantum theory has allowed us to build quantum computers, ultraprecise thermometers, ultraprecise clocks, lasers, and transistors.

        Essentially, quantum theory states that particles at the subatomic level act both as particles and waves. This has been experimentally supported by experiments with photons (light) and experiments with objects cooled to near-absolute zero temperatures. Quantum theory ties together matter and energy.

        But, like General Relativity, it has fundamental problems, such as the fact that it ambiguously classifies “observers” and “systems” in nature. Both theories have problems and both theories can’t be reconciled with one another. It’s the greatest puzzle facing cosmologists today.

        That’s another reason why I’m open to geocentric theory; the two theories, though they both possess merit, need to be altered, and geocentric theory might just be the solution.

        Funnily enough, I think I was being a little harsh on GR as I have found out that light does bend after all, but right here on Earth parallel to the ground as Wilhelm Martin has shown:

        Why would light hitting higher on the board suggest that light is bending? The Earth’s curvature should place the board “lower” than the light emitting tool.

        Oh it is debatable.

        No it’s not. Light can travel in a vacuum. The theory of “aether” was invented because scientists who supported materialism didn’t like the idea of fields; they wanted to explain light in the same way that they explained sound, which would require light to travel through a medium. But light doesn’t have to travel through a medium, as we have experimentally demonstrated. And the theory of “aether” has significant errors, such as they fact that aether supposedly interacts with light but doesn’t interact with other matter, and aether supposedly makes up most of the content of the universe, even though it hasn’t been observed. (That problem sounds quite similar to the problem of dark matter and dark energy. It’s a good sign that it’s a made-up principle used to make the numbers work in a theory that’s becoming increasingly unlikely.)

        Oh I think I see what you mean. So what you are saying is that the light is traveling with the Earth’s rotation also?

        No.
        Consider this experiment. A man is sitting on a train travelling due east at 7 m/s. His train car has a mirror on the ceiling. The man pulls out a flashlight and shoots a beam of light at the mirror at a perpendicular angle. The light returns to the man. Theoretically (though not practically) he can use the distance between the flashlight and the mirror, as well as the time it took for the light to return to the flashlight, to experimentally determine the speed of light.
        Now consider a man watching this experiment from outside the train. He should witness the light returning to the flashlight, just as the man in the train witnesses, but, due to his relative speed, he should witness the light hitting the mirror at a different angle since the man in the train car is moving.
        The path that the man outside of the train car witnesses is greater than the path that the man inside the train car witnesses. Since the speed of light is constant, the man outside the train should witness the light hit later than the man inside the train. However, this doesn’t happen because time dilates at relativistic speeds to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
        Essentially, length and time might appear different to various observers, but the velocity that observers measure will always be the same.

        It’s a strange principle to think about and it’s easy to deny, but again, it’s been experimentally demonstrated that time slows down for fast-moving objects with respect to slower-moving objects. An atomic clock in a jet travelling at 100 m/s will actually run slightly (and I mean very slightly) behind a clock on the Earth’s surface.

        That is of course assuming that stars are giant suns. What if they are not?

        Because, using telescopes, we can see that they have planets orbiting them. And, like I said, using the spectrum of colors we can determine the physical make-up of the stars. We have witnessed the life-cycle of stars and have seen many of the same predicted effects in our own sun. We also have been able to replicate nuclear fusion in scientific experiments, which produces results that we also witness taking place in the stars.

        And the simple fact that we have more elements than hydrogen and helium supports the principle that stars are also suns, since nuclear fusion creates new elements.

        Besides, what evidence would suggest that stars aren’t other suns?

        Friction between air molecules is absolutely tiny. Come on. How about friction between air molecules and a top of a mountain?

        Not if we take air pressure and the amount of time that collisions have been happening into consideration.

        If I spin a circular saw, will all the densities of matter spin at the same velocity as the circular saw within the little edges do you think?

        No. But the movement of air molecules on a large scale would be similar to the movement of electrons in a wire; due to collisions, they would eventually achieve a nearly uniform average drift velocity.

        Mr. Barrans is suggesting we live inside the bucket Earth.

        No he is not. The principle is the same.
        The water begins to move because of friction. But why does the water travel in a circle? Because the edges of the bucket provide a normal force that pushes the water molecules towards the center of the bucket; the bucket provides a centripetal force that causes the water molecules to change direction but not tangential speed.

        The same principle applies for air molecules. Friction would cause the air molecules to move, but instead of a normal force like a bucket, the gravitational force exerted by the Earth on the molecules would act as a centripetal force to result in circular movement, just like a bucket.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Again, while I am open-minded to geocentric theory, I would not go as far as to say that we have “disproven” heliocentric theory. Many of the predictions put in place by geocentric theory have not yet been verified.

          And sorry, I worded my original comment wrong. Ptolemy’s model was a geocentric one that predicted the movement of planets to be circles within circles; the planets traveled in concentric circular orbits around the Earth, within planetary spheres, and within those orbits traveled in circles. (The principle is similar to how we currently understand the motion of the moon around the sun.) But no law of physics can explain this motion, unless the planets are orbiting around an unknown mass within a circular orbit around the Earth.

          I agree. I too don’t believe in the geocentric model.

          The ancient Greeks already did that. In fact, they actually determined the radius of the Earth using shadow experiments and trigonometry.

          Yes. What they did was measure the arc of the Sun (and their mariners used Polaris I think) to determine latitude and came to the conclusion that the Earth was a sphere… and they were right, except of course that we are on the inside of it. Cassini then found out that the arcs of the sun wasn’t in 100% correlation with a spherical latitude and claimed the Earth was an ellipsoid. Half right. He assumed that the Earth was a ball spinning around the Sun and so naturally came to the logical conclusion that it must be the Earth that is ellipsoid. However, if we use another model of a perfect spherical concave Earth and a spinning sun just behind the center of the central axis, then the sun moves exactly as newton measured. I am writing about this right now in fact. What timing!

          It’s not just a theory. It’s been applied practically for engineering purposes. Quantum theory has allowed us to build quantum computers, ultraprecise thermometers, ultraprecise clocks, lasers, and transistors.

          Essentially, quantum theory states that particles at the subatomic level act both as particles and waves. This has been experimentally supported by experiments with photons (light) and experiments with objects cooled to near-absolute zero temperatures. Quantum theory ties together matter and energy.

          But, like General Relativity, it has fundamental problems, such as the fact that it ambiguously classifies “observers” and “systems” in nature. Both theories have problems and both theories can’t be reconciled with one another. It’s the greatest puzzle facing cosmologists today.

          I won’t talk about this as I have only a scant knowledge. If it is still a puzzle though then something is drastically wrong.

          Why would light hitting higher on the board suggest that light is bending? The Earth’s curvature should place the board “lower” than the light emitting tool.

          Both boards were of equal height “in water” hence no land height variation.

          “Es geht in diesem ersten Versuchsabschnitt nur darum 2 Nullmarken an den Messbaken A und B zu bestimmen, die sich “im Wasser” auf gleicher Höhe befinden. ”

          They used a Nivelliergerät to determine the height which uses a Wasserwaage.

          No it’s not. Light can travel in a vacuum. The theory of “aether” was invented because scientists who supported materialism didn’t like the idea of fields; they wanted to explain light in the same way that they explained sound, which would require light to travel through a medium. But light doesn’t have to travel through a medium, as we have experimentally demonstrated. And the theory of “aether” has significant errors, such as they fact that aether supposedly interacts with light but doesn’t interact with other matter, and aether supposedly makes up most of the content of the universe, even though it hasn’t been observed. (That problem sounds quite similar to the problem of dark matter and dark energy. It’s a good sign that it’s a made-up principle used to make the numbers work in a theory that’s becoming increasingly unlikely.)

          Of course light travels in a vacuum. The aether would be impossible to observe if we are made of it and exist in it. It may be an immature concept anyway and other terminology may be more exact such as “charge field” or whatever you want to call it. I use the word “aether” in this way. It is early days for me in this field and no doubt better understandings will come to light the deeper I delve so I may name it better.

          No.
          Consider this experiment. A man is sitting on a train travelling due east at 7 m/s. His train car has a mirror on the ceiling. The man pulls out a flashlight and shoots a beam of light at the mirror at a perpendicular angle. The light returns to the man. Theoretically (though not practically) he can use the distance between the flashlight and the mirror, as well as the time it took for the light to return to the flashlight, to experimentally determine the speed of light.
          Now consider a man watching this experiment from outside the train. He should witness the light returning to the flashlight, just as the man in the train witnesses, but, due to his relative speed, he should witness the light hitting the mirror at a different angle since the man in the train car is moving.
          The path that the man outside of the train car witnesses is greater than the path that the man inside the train car witnesses. Since the speed of light is constant, the man outside the train should witness the light hit later than the man inside the train. However, this doesn’t happen because time dilates at relativistic speeds to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
          Essentially, length and time might appear different to various observers, but the velocity that observers measure will always be the same.

          It’s a strange principle to think about and it’s easy to deny, but again, it’s been experimentally demonstrated that time slows down for fast-moving objects with respect to slower-moving objects. An atomic clock in a jet travelling at 100 m/s will actually run slightly (and I mean very slightly) behind a clock on the Earth’s surface.

          Ah, you are putting forth the argument of the theory of relatively to invalidate the MM experiment. Well, you know my take on that already in the next article. The gist is that it is very, very far from verified and full of evidential and experimental contradictions.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y09KQxcSjc

          Instead when we conduct an experiment, let’s call a spade a spade and not make up some math to try and shore up a belief in the heliocentric model.

          Because, using telescopes, we can see that they have planets orbiting them. And, like I said, using the spectrum of colors we can determine the physical make-up of the stars.

          Assuming stars are fusion balls of energy gazillions of km away. By the way, do you have a picture from a telescope of a planet that is not in this solar system? I would like to analyze it.

          We have witnessed the life-cycle of stars and have seen many of the same predicted effects in our own sun.

          Again assuming stars are giant balls of fusion energy. Which in a concave Earth they are not.

          We also have been able to replicate nuclear fusion in scientific experiments, which produces results that we also witness taking place in the stars.

          No, the closet technology that the Sun represents is a sulfur lamp.

          And the simple fact that we have more elements than hydrogen and helium supports the principle that stars are also suns, since nuclear fusion creates new elements.

          No. It supports that stars are merely tiny ionised parts of an iron/nickel/cobalt sulfur lamp that have broken off due to electrical surges and remained in the core of the spinning vortex. 😉 Let’s stick to the shape of the earth and see if it moves first and then talk about stars as giant Suns.

          Not if we take air pressure and the amount of time that collisions have been happening into consideration.

          None of the atmosphere moves constantly between 1675km/h and 231km/h anywhere or all over the Earth at any altitude. Same for the water. You need to do some serious convincing in this regard.

          Besides, what evidence would suggest that stars aren’t other suns?

          A concave Earth! 🙂 Again you assume giant balls whizzing around in an unimaginable space is the correct model. But it is not. The evidence all over this blog for a start!

          No. But the movement of air molecules on a large scale would be similar to the movement of electrons in a wire; due to collisions, they would eventually achieve a nearly uniform average drift velocity.

          Why associate air molecules to electrons moving in a wire? Bizarre. This assumes that there are electrons moving “in” a wire of course, but that is another topic. Why not associate air molecules to air molecules and spin a non-aerodynamic object and see for yourself.

          No he is not. The principle is the same.
          The water begins to move because of friction. But why does the water travel in a circle? Because the edges of the bucket provide a normal force that pushes the water molecules towards the center of the bucket; the bucket provides a centripetal force that causes the water molecules to change direction but not tangential speed.

          The same principle applies for air molecules. Friction would cause the air molecules to move, but instead of a normal force like a bucket, the gravitational force exerted by the Earth on the molecules would act as a centripetal force to result in circular movement, just like a bucket.

          No. It is not the same. The water is on the inside of the bucket. In other words, if we were inside and it is the bucket that is spinning the atmosphere would spin in unison with us. You understand that don’t you or are you being deliberately problematic? If the water were on the outside on the bucket what would happen do you think>? Heliocentric theory states that we are on the outside of a sphere or “the bucket”. His analogy is even poor for a concave Earth as the Sun and the stars, asteroid fields, comets etc. are orbiting the center at different speeds, the water is not uniform and therefore it is the water that is doing the spinning not the bucket.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Well, we know that an atom is mostly made of empty space. There is a nucleus at the center of the atom and an electron cloud surrounding the atom. This is the basis of chemistry and particle physics.

            It means much more than that. In fact we don’t know the atom exists. The jury is still out. No, the Rutherford experiment didn’t prove this.
            http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

            That means nothing. It’s a simple matter of electromagnetic induction. If a closed loop or solenoid is placed in a changing magnetic field (subjected to magnetic flux) an electric field will be induced that in turn creates an electric current in the loop or solenoid.

            No it doesn’t mean induction! That is the whole point. I also assumed what you did and thought it was merely induction, but it turns out it does not obey Faraday’s laws of induction at all, only a spinning conductor does. Spend time on de Palma and enjoy it. A spinning magnet is the entire basis of his N-machine of 300% efficency.

            Why? The force of gravity is only dependent on gravitational mass and distance. The movement of the object has no effect on its gravitational pull.

            Wrong again. Study de Palma. He carried out experiments that spin did have an effect. Oops.


            Four debatable experiments that have not been reproduced do not “prove” that the Earth is concave.

            Correct, but it is seriously close to it, especially the rectilineator.

            There is a multitude of evidence that suggest the Earth is convex that is easy to reproduce.

            Bullet point them and let’s discuss them and see.

            Besides, the shape of the Earth can be determined using simple trigonometry.

            No. The arc of the Sun can determine that the Earth is a sphere, not whether we are on the inside or out and definitely not giant balls in space around a giant sun theory :)!

            View Comment
  52. sumstuff52 says:

    Stellarium Proves Heliocentrism And Geocentrism Is Bullshit, An Artificial Universe
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFjqmGhelBk

    See the insanity of the cosmic system, neither heliocentric or geocentric, an artificial cosmos, as the days pass by the same pattern emerges, the cosmos is not acting in a heliocentric or geocentric manner, Stellarium proves this, get stellarium and see this madness yourself
    Watch the closest Planet/Star(s) next to the moon they are contributing to the MOONS HOLOGRAPHIC IMAGE as seen in my videos, there is a pattern, when the moon is near full moon all the stars/planets contribute to the illusion, when the moon is less illuminated the closest neighbor will be the moons projector and be very bright also, outshining the other objects

    View Comment
  53. Jiom Smith says:

    I have an new video that mentions your website. You’re invited to reply, but be sure to read to the end to understand the terms.

    Astro-Cranks! Take the “Eclipses of Jupiter’s Moons” Challenge!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-RPbzwUjh8

    Since you’re so convinced that heliocentrism is wrong, and that real astronomers are lying frauds, you’ll certainly be eager to present your own calculations so that you can be vindicated by real observations of Jupiter’s moons this Fall.

    View Comment
    • scud says:

      Mr. Smith. Do you not think that ‘fakeclouds insky’ (a recent commenter on your YT thread) has a pretty pertinent point? That we humble, non PTB, non equipped with giant terrestrial telescopes, or even better ‘space telescopes’ would have any chance of corroborating the results of your challenge, fairly and independently?

      The best amateur shots of Jupiter that I’ve seen show her Moons as nothing but an ill defined pixel (after digital enhancement…and never more than two of the supposed 67!!! ).

      Ok, since you’ve laid down the gauntlet to us ‘astro-cranks’ to dis-prove the unprovable on our part, my challenge to you is a relatively straight forward one and involves zero, ‘questionable technology’. Define what you mean by ‘heat transfer’ in your rebuttal to WH’s assertions (and everybody else’s…including the delectable Wikipedia, NASA) that temperatures exceed the melting point of all but the scarcest of metallic elements in the upper Thermosphere.
      If it’s because the ‘atoms are so far apart that they cannot convey much heat’ scenario then please tell us Mr. Smith what is causing these ‘sparse atoms’ to be of such extreme temperature in the first place….the Sun, radiative energy?…just a thought.

      View Comment
  54. Cail says:

    WH, I continue to refer people to this website.

    I haven’t posted here in months, but I wanted to let you know that I have had exactly a dozen AWAKE people visit you, all of them super-skeptical, and I can tell you that at least 10 of them have bought in, one will NEVER buy in because he’s an asshole like that, and the 12th is still mulling it over, but to me that’s the same as buying-in since he was the 2nd most vocal from the lot against “all of this.”

    Thank you again for your research and keep up the good work.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      No problem Cail. I’m just trying to figure things out like all of us here. There’s tetrabytes of info out there and I only have 1 megabyte of ram in my brain (and that’s being generous) to try and make some kind of sense of it. I’ll get back to the next article in 2 weeks time when my internet connection is back up.

      View Comment
  55. sbobet says:

    I love it when folks come together and share ideas.
    Great site, continue the good work!

    View Comment
  56. I trust all of these points, but you forgot about one major piece of evidence. I made a few experiments in my super secret laboratory of mad science, and I came up with some good results. Apparent ally, the Earth does not spin nor revolve around the sun. This can be seen in volcanoes erupting. Due to the coriolis effect, the magma shot out of the volcanoes exhaust pipe would theoretically curve in an arc. My extensive testing of the path of volcano projectiles has proven that this is true with all objects except Hypabyssal igneous rock. I believe that this is due the crystallization patterns on the interior of the substance.

    Chao!
    Smithy

    View Comment
  57. Deleuzeans says:

    This website is fascinating! I began reading cellular cosmology and and also Miles Mathis after seeing them linked here. I have a question. What is the standard answer for why we don’t feel the earth spinning. I could think of two possible answers but neither seem satisfactory. First, you could say we don’t feel it because we are all moving together, but doesn’t this only apply to inertial reference frames, and isnt rotational or circular motion acceleration by defintion? I have my questions about that too… If a rolllercoaster is moving in a circle you definitely feel it! Also, you dont feel the wind when moving at constant velocities if the air is moving with you. But this typically only occurs when the air is enclosed by something solid, such as a closed container like a car or airplane. What keeps the air spinning at exactly the same rate as the more solid earth? Does the standard answer to these questions depend on gravity? Your comment about the moon pulling the water but not the air is spot on. Sorry if you have answered this elsewhere. I haven’t yet read all of the comments and am stilll digesting your posts, but I got stuck on this question. Do they even have an adequate explanation for why, in their theory, everything is spinning? Newtons explanation of the orbits, as ridiculous as it is, doesn’t even apply. Looking forward to your next post!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks Deleuzean.

      Celluar Cosmology can be a difficult read (well I could get bogged down in it), so kudos for doing so.

      The standard answer to the Earth spinning question is as you have already stated, well, when I am in a car going 100kpm I don’t feel the wind etc. I don’t think the readers of this blog are that thick that this excuse needs an explanation. I don’t recall being encapsulated by glass as I walk around town. Gravity can’t hold substances of different states of matter at the same speed. We see that ourselves when we spin objects. We form irrotational vortices when we do. Oooo, now there’s a giant whopper of clue. The differences in speed between a gas and a solid when a solid is rotated is too great and we would definitely notice!

      I’m not sure I was the one who said that the moon pulls water and not the air. Maybe another poster? I don’t think the moon pulls anything – an indicator or marker of some other process “behind the scenes” – sure.

      I’m not sure how they would explain the idea of everything spinning without evoking something like the aether. If they say it is gravity that causes the spinning, how does gravity do so and what is it? Gravity is a property of mass – why? What is the mechanism? There always has to be a mechanism, otherwise it is at best just an idea or a baseless statement. It’s difficult to probe too deeply. An initial mechanism is enough for me, but we can get bogged down in the layers of the hows and whys (are they the same question?), e.g what is the aether? No idea, as I don’t know what the aether is not, but we can work out its mechanism etc. Or why are there vortices? Maybe it is something to do with pressure, but why should something move from high to low pressure etc. etc. It can be a total mindf**k if you let it. Hopefully over time things will start to become a little clearer at least.

      View Comment
  58. Matt Kleinschmidt says:

    If the Earth is flat, it would either be day or night time consecutively throughout the world. Ex) Midday in Asia is the same time as Midday in the North America.
    Also, if the Earth is flat, why can you travel to another continent going east or west? Ex) Flying east south-east from the US all the way to Australia, or flying west south-west from the US to Australia (past Hawaii). Another great example is flying from Canada to Russia, heading north (past the ‘north pole’)
    Another point: Every celestial object we can observe is spherical, why would we be any different? It’s just because we’re special? :3 No, grow up.
    Just one last question; where are the edges of this ‘flat earth’?
    Oh, I forgot we just kind of fall off into the abyss if we reach the edge.

    By the way, here’s an image taken standing on the Earth. You can clearly see the curvature of the Earth. http://www.funwallz.com/image/curvature-of-the-earth-erezmarom-hd-wallpaper-37446.jpg
    Please don’t even try to do the “This image never existed, it’s fake.” like you did with the pictures of Earth from space. Stop trying to focus attention on yourself by going against what has already been proven thousands of times over.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I agree with you. The Earth isn’t flat. 🙂

      The only part I disagree with you is this part:

      “Every celestial object we can observe is spherical, why would we be any different?”

      Actually, planets and moons don’t reflect light like a sphere should. My guess is that they are lens or bowls or some kind of projection – maybe kidney shaped. Also, there is no need to guess the shape of the Earth as an excellent experiment determining its form has already been done in 1897.

      View Comment
    • Skeptizoidal says:

      Barrel distortion from a wide angle lens – put the horizon in the precise middle of the photograph and the curvature will disappear. It is an optical distortion.

      Even if the earth was a ball, you would never see a curve. Each part of the horizon would be the exact same distance from you and therefore look flat. Think what a flea would see if he sat on top of a basketball. The wouldn’t be any curve. Airplane windows have multiple layers of glass which amplify this effect even more.

      View Comment
  59. Will says:

    hahahah I needed a good laugh! Ok here we go
    Exhibit A. In response to your claim that the Earth does not rotate, please respond to how this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZcafg-meJA video shows the Sun rotating about the horizon during the summer at the North pole. The Sun very clearly bob up and down, which would indicate that the camera point is rotating about an tilted axis
    Exhibit B and C. It seems you have forgotten how momentum and velocity work. Air has mass, as do helicopters and Felix Baumgartner. on the ground, they all have the same velocity as the earth, yes? Moving vertically does not affect your rotational vector. Felix fell so close to his starting point because he, too, was spinning about the earth. Here is a simple example. If you jumped out of a speeding car, would you a) immediately stop moving, or b) momentarily fall through the air next to you car, only slowing as you tumbled across the ground behind your car.
    However you are correct about the spinning globe! The earth would spin air out into space! Except for that little thing called gravity. You know, why the Earth is round and why you fell to the ground after doing a duck-and-cover out of your car.
    Exhibit D. I’m really not sue where to even begin here… First of all, stars do change position. Just because the differences are so small that you cannot see them does not mean they are not there. The reasons stellar parallax is so small is that these are vast unbelievable distances. Why else would those stars be so small in appearance? Or so dim? This exhibit seems based on the fact that “the numbers just don’t seem right”
    Exhibit E. Oky doky. First of all, Airy’s Folly is a fallacy, plain and simple. Changing a medium for the last meter or two over a distance of lightyears is so insignificant that there is no way one could detect it. Lets take the Orion Nebula, for example. at 1,344 light years away, or 1.17688973 × 10^19 meters, a one meter water filled tube represents 8.4969728e-20%, or .0000000000000000000849%…. That is what we call statistically insignificant. If you are depending on changing the speed of light for that insignificant bit in the 1800s, of course you are going to say there isn’t stellar parallax. There is no way you could detect that with you eyes.
    I really couldn’t figure out what you were trying to say about the pendulum.
    As for the light experiment, try the updated one. http://www.livescience.com/17619-lasers-measure-earth-rotation-wobble.html
    Can’t blame those silly 1800s scientists for not having the precision technology we have today 😉
    Not even going to touch General Relativity.
    And for the Coriolis effect, you clearly do no understand how it works. It causes minor fluctuations in overall weather patterns. A tornado twisting into a wobble is not governed by the Coriolis effect anymore than the direction the water in your toilet spins. Other effects, local wind patterns, terrain, temperature differences, etc. In fact, hurricanes and the like will NEVER cross the equator because the Coriolis effect falters there and therefore does not give them the spinning effect.
    Good try though 🙂

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      It’s late so I probably won’t reply fully. but let’s have a preliminary stab.

      “hahahah I needed a good laugh! Ok here we go”

      The previous two upset posters from the educational establishment also kept telling me they enjoyed comedy.

      “Exhibit A. In response to your claim that the Earth does not rotate, please respond to how this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZcafg-meJA video shows the Sun rotating about the horizon during the summer at the North pole. The Sun very clearly bob up and down, which would indicate that the camera point is rotating about an tilted axis”

      It doesn’t. (I am including the same video in my next post to demonstrate another point lol). You are too early in the blog and are far behind our thought processes, but I am sure you will catch up. It will take too much time to explain it here, except to point out that visible light must bend and what you are seeing is the variation of curvature of this bending with the noon Sun having the least curvature showing the Sun’s true position. The Sun wobbles on its axis at 23.4 pointing upwards. I’m busy writing this in my new article and will explain it logically and fully in a step-by-step process that doesn’t do it justice with this reply.

      “Exhibit B and C. It seems you have forgotten how momentum and velocity work. Air has mass, as do helicopters and Felix Baumgartner. on the ground, they all have the same velocity as the earth, yes?”

      No. You have made a grand hypothetical assumption. The Earth doesn’t move. Clearly. If you can show me an experiment to prove this I would listen. You only think the Earth moves because that is what you have been told by your teachers, but where is the evidence? I don’t see any.

      “Moving vertically does not affect your rotational vector. Felix fell so close to his starting point because he, too, was spinning about the earth. Here is a simple example. If you jumped out of a speeding car, would you a) immediately stop moving, or b) momentarily fall through the air next to you car, only slowing as you tumbled across the ground behind your car.”

      No. He wasn’t spinning about the Earth. Show my what physical force is tying him, the helicopter etc. with the Earth’s mythical rotation. Or have you just made that up and declared it as fact? You will probably say gravity, but there is no experiment or proof that shows that this is true, unless you can show otherwise. Common sense and your eyes tell us otherwise. But it gets worse… What is the difference between a speeding Earth and a speeding car? The glass in front of course blocking the air hitting you in the face at the opposite speed of your car. Where I am I think the wind speed should be a constant 400+ mph if the Earth were rotating. There is no difference between the air speed when I am in the house or outside (unless it is very windy). How can that be? What force is sticking all these molecules and atoms of different states and densities to the speed of the rotation of the Earth. It certainly isn’t gravity. A new undiscovered force perhaps?

      “Exhibit D. I’m really not sue where to even begin here… First of all, stars do change position. Just because the differences are so small that you cannot see them does not mean they are not there. The reasons stellar parallax is so small is that these are vast unbelievable distances. Why else would those stars be so small in appearance? Or so dim? This exhibit seems based on the fact that “the numbers just don’t seem right””

      You said it. Making shit up to “prove” a philosophical viewpoint (Kant’s philosophy BTW) not based on any evidence whatsoever does not a truth make.

      “Exhibit E. Oky doky. First of all, Airy’s Folly is a fallacy, plain and simple. Changing a medium for the last meter or two over a distance of lightyears is so insignificant that there is no way one could detect it. Lets take the Orion Nebula, for example. at 1,344 light years away, or 1.17688973 × 10^19 meters, a one meter water filled tube represents 8.4969728e-20%, or .0000000000000000000849%…. That is what we call statistically insignificant. If you are depending on changing the speed of light for that insignificant bit in the 1800s, of course you are going to say there isn’t stellar parallax. There is no way you could detect that with you eyes.”

      No. The starlight is significantly slowed down by the water and wouldn’t even be seen by the eye piece, let alone at a different angle if the Earth were moving at 30km/s.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87M2i61N1cU

      “I really couldn’t figure out what you were trying to say about the pendulum.”

      Read about Maurice Allais yourself on the internet. It is very easy to understand, even for a layman like me. Therefore you must be choosing to ignore this.

      “As for the light experiment, try the updated one. http://www.livescience.com/17619-lasers-measure-earth-rotation-wobble.html

      Congratulations. You have just demonstrated the existence of the aether.

      “Can’t blame those silly 1800s scientists for not having the precision technology we have today ;)”

      The old trick that the science of the 1800s was rubbish, yet the most important experiment in the world from 1897 was never repeated.. we all know why.

      “Not even going to touch General Relativity.”

      I don’t blame you. Neither would I.

      “And for the Coriolis effect, you clearly do no understand how it works. It causes minor fluctuations in overall weather patterns. A tornado twisting into a wobble is not governed by the Coriolis effect anymore than the direction the water in your toilet spins. Other effects, local wind patterns, terrain, temperature differences, etc. In fact, hurricanes and the like will NEVER cross the equator because the Coriolis effect falters there and therefore does not give them the spinning effect.”

      I do understand how it works and I have clearly demonstrated that in my post. Read Mathis article on the Coriolis effect. He explains it in more detail. Weather patterns move in a vortex, in fact just about ANYTHING liquid or gaseous moves in a vortex fashion, including plasma and electromagnetism and magnetism itself, your own circulatory system etc. (the list is endless). All demonstrated and proven. Nothing in the natural world moves in a straight line. A hurricane DOES NOT move in a straight line for goodness sake, but just “appears” to move in a vortex and yet this is what the Coriolis effect clearly states! If everything that can move, moves in a vortex, do you not think it rather odd that larger vortices are really straight lines caused by a completely unproven assumption that the Earth moves? Now that is laughable. It isn’t even clutching at straws. It is completely desperate and extremely unlikely. Shame on them for teaching such shite.

      “Good try though :)”

      Thanks. You weren’t too shabby yourself. I’d give you reply a 6/10 and the article an 8. But heliocentric theory gets a 0.5, with a distinct “must do better” on the establishment’s report card. A bit late now I know, as they are all in.

      Toodaloo

      WH

      View Comment
      • Dave says:

        > No. The starlight is significantly slowed down by the water and wouldn’t even be seen by the eye piece, let alone at a different angle if the Earth were moving at 30km/s

        Actually, it’s slowed down to about 75% of the speed of light in a vacuum. Taking the speed of light in a vacuum (and essentially the same speed in air) as 299792458m/s and based on the refractive index of water (1.3330) light slows down to 224900569m/s as it travels through the medium.

        Therefore for a water filled telescope, 1m in length we can calculate the amount of time a wave of light entering the telescope at one end will take to travel through the meter of water contained inside: –

        v = s / t

        t = s / v

        t = 1 / 224900569

        t = 4.45×10^-9 seconds

        an unbelievably small amount of time. Using your figure of 30km/s for the speed of the Earth the telescope would have displaced: –

        s = v*t

        s = 30,000 * 4.45x*-9

        s = 1.33×10^-4 m

        That’s about 133 µm (micrometers) or a little more than half the width of a human hair. for the time the wave of light takes to traverse the 1 meter of water. This is a distance so small so as to be unperceptible to the human eye.

        I have no comment at this time on any of your other evidence but the inclusion of this particular “evidence” is damaging to your claim, it is simply bad science.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          You could be right. Airy’s failure needs to be looked at again. I’ll read up on it in more detail at a later date as soon as I sort out these other website problems.

          It’s basically a question of how sensitive were Airy’s and Hoek and Klinkerfusz readings?

          To be certain modern equipment needs to be used and this experiment repeated. I quote this geocentrist (I’m not one of them btw).

          “In principle, Airy’s experiment can be brought to bear on the quandary. Theoretically, a water-filled telescope, installed on the equator, and accurate enough to measure fractions of seconds of arc, can settle the matter. For it will have to be tilted about 0”.14 more than our air-filled one because of the earth’s daily rotation relative to the stars. Whether this test is practical, I do not know; but another experiment that convincingly demonstrates the earth’s immobility has been conducted. It was sensitive enough to measure changes in the speed of light through space of less than 25 m/sec. Performed at 49° north latitude, the rotational speed of the apparatus was 305 m/sec. It registered no rotational effect whatsoever.”

          http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

          I assume he is talking about Sagnac experiment in the latter part of the paragraph, but I’m not sure.

          View Comment
      • Elimos Saryu says:

        The amount of pathetic in this article and your comments is disconcertingly high.

        If you’re inside your car, you close your windows, and you throw a ball in the air in front of you, doesn’t it move only vertically up and down, or does it smash into your face due to the car moving at high speed?
        You don’t feel the Earth rotating because all the air above you is dampening the forces, you fucking moron.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          You fucking moron.

          Insults belittle you. Normally I respond to logic and reason, but this time I’ll make an exception as I understand your predicament being thrown head first into this information.

          If you’re inside your car, you close your windows, and you throw a ball in the air in front of you, doesn’t it move only vertically up and down, or does it smash into your face due to the car moving at high speed?

          There is no sheet of glass when I walk around town to protect me from these 1000kph winds.

          You don’t feel the Earth rotating because all the air above you is dampening the forces.

          Oh of course, it is the air above me traveling at 1000kph, not sea level. How stupid of me… Except of course there are no constant 1000 kph above my head is there, or any constant wind at all at any altitude. You need evidence to back up an opinion before you pluck something random out of thin air and state it as fact.

          View Comment
    • Icecoldsun says:

      Exhibit B and C
      It should be obvious that granity can’t play a role in why FB only landed 70 km away from his launching site. The very fact that an object is moving up shows that gravity has been overcome, if not, it should fall, don’t you think?
      So if gravity has been overcome, it can not at the same time “hold the object relative to its position on the ground”. That would be “mysterious gravity” or “gravity 2.0” – you see, you’re not the only one who needs a good laugh sometime. (BTW, this very sentence of you right at the beginning of your “statement” shows that you aren’t actually interested in good conversation, but someone having fun in ridiculing hard work and hunble presentation. Just for you to know not everyone that has different opinions from yours is as stupid as you think.)
      So when gravity is overcome, it also cannot annihilate anymore the centrifugal force which has to exist on a rotating sphere, so if the earth rotated at this incredible speed. one should very soon see it drift away from the upgoing object. But – as we all know – it magically doesn’t. Your problem to explain.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        And to make matters worse – if you look at the link which has the data of the amateur balloon experiments, I chose the first balloon. But if you look further down their page, you can see a second example which shows an absolute miniscule difference from position of take off to landing. I can’t remember it exactly, but it is tiny!

        View Comment
  60. Sean Holman says:

    The path of the sun point is wrong. I think the problem is the conflation of up/down with north/south. For example the quote

    “At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South”

    does not make sense. The earth always rotates to the east. The fact that east is down in your picture does not mean that east is now south.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi Sean,

      Sorry it has taken me so long to reply but I was away for the weekend and now this week is turning out to be a very busy one.

      Yes, I understand your point now. It wouldn’t matter which way the Earth is orientated as people on it would still be traveling East if the Earth was moving East. It is just in relation to the Sun that it would matter, which was the point I was trying to make.

      But I know what you mean. You are right, strictly speaking the Earth isn’t moving East-East-South, but always East.

      I’ll probably have to revise this first point maybe at a later date to make it more exact, although every time I try and visualize the movement of the Sun within any model my brain usually melts. I’ll leave it as it is for now.

      View Comment
      • volli says:

        I don’t get it whether You have revised Your illustration(s) in “Exhibit A” or not, but they do not make any sense. Around the Summer Solistice the Sun will be overhead in the Tropic of Cancer, hence there is no way it can ever be in the northern part of the sky if one is standing north of the Tropic of Cancer (but south of the Arctic Circle, but thats another point) whatever the Sun’s apparent trajectory in the Sky. (NB! no hint whatsoever as to if the person is standing on a sphere or on a flat surface, it’s just a question of latitudes and angles.)

        I guess Your point will be more understandable if You, in addition to the Sun’s trajectory, also depicted the Sun’s position at the local noon. So, in a scientific fashion, a corrigendum should be filed in any case.

        Another thing I noticed. You quoted some things from http://www.scribd.com/doc/146324242/The-Gentleperson-s-Guide-to-Forum-Spies and reading that document and reading up on Your text, I really can’t help but feel that the rhethoric You use to present Your subject is exactly the same.

        View Comment
        • volli says:

          Come to think of it, it actually does not matter whether one would tilt the Earth’s axis by 23.44 deg (and leave the Sun stationary) or the angle of the plane of the Sun’s movement (and leave the Earth stationary) the apparent trajectory of the Sun in the sky would still be the same. Because this is just the matter of latitudes (the viewing position) and angles the Sun would appear in the Sky. So It follows that with Your “Exhibit A” – given it was indeed drawn with any logic in it – would actually dismiss the geocentric theory aswell with the same argumentation.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Good thinking volli. I hadn’t thought of that lol. Must think that through sometime. It looks like skycentrisim it is.

            It’s funny though that each other Earth theory has its own merits and contradictions, but they all beautifully gel together in concave Earth theory. It’s only draw back is the continued exploration of the bendy visible light and an explanantion of the horizon effect.

            I mean heliocentric thoery in terms of the movement of the “planets” around the Sun is actually correct, as long as you don’t involve the Earth lol. Flat Earth even has its merits but unfortunatley relies solely on optics (which must be straight) and the path of the Sun and other things is a real problem. Geocentrism is right in that the earth doens’t move (in the general sense of course), but that is it.

            EDIT: I realised after logging off what you meant. As far as I am aware, heliocentric theory states that the Earth tilts and spins on its axis to give us 1 day. I put forward the notion that it is the Sun which WOBBLES on its axis – it does not turn over on its axis, except on the equinoxes – at varying angles until it reaches its highest or slowest wobble at the solstices. It must do, otherwise there would be no midnight Sun etc. Therein lies the difference. Hopefully I’ll get the next article up soonish to demonstrate this.

            View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I’m not a spy. 🙂 The Sun’s position is just a generalisation. I’m going into the very detaield specifics in the next article and how it would fit with the theory that the Earth is concave with a rotating sufur lamp in the centre. We can even roughly work out exactly where in the centre at what time of year the Sun would be located. I found it interesting that the Sun must be below the centre and to the right but pointing up at the Decemebr solstice and the reverse for the June one (although the June one is less away from the centre). This is roughly worked out because of the midnight Sun latituduinal contradictions at either poles at these times which the consensus blames on refraction, but isn’t.

          View Comment
  61. Schpankme says:

    I agree that the clowns along with the celebrities are controlling what people think and see.

    Best regards

    View Comment
  62. Schpankme says:

    Based on your findings, “Exhibit A – The path of the Sun”, please provide a diagram showing the path taken by the Sun about the Earths equator, within the 24 hour period? Thank you

    http://www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/observable-summer-solstice.gif

    Best regards

    “The most dangerous creature on the face of the earth is an educated idiot.”

    View Comment
  63. Thanks for finally talking about > Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1) – The Wild
    Heretic < Loved it!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      You are welcome. I realize now while writing my current article where both the flat earth and heliocentric ideas have come from, namely optics.

      Unfortunately, optics are completely unreliable when showing the shape of the Earth (or rather space), as I’ll hopefully show soon.

      View Comment
  64. Does Universe still exists? If our heaven is showing a picture, which is millions years old, how we can be sure that stars and galaxies still exist today!? Great, very informative web site!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      My opinion is that there is no universe, at least in the form we are constantly being told it is. The pretty lights that telescopes magnify are extreme close-ups of atmospheric phenomena. The moon and planets are probably reflections of some kind, but I am unsure of that.

      The Sun, glass, and vacuum are real though and it is 99% certain that we live inside a concave toroid Earth (I’m researching concave earth theory right now).

      View Comment
  65. HeliobabbleoniaN says:

    do a search in you tube this jim guy is just a you tube bore, obviously this JimSmithInChiapas has no job and proclaims to be a teacher although he spends all his time arguing and tutoring nasa rubbish on youtube, jim is just a nitpicky instigator with an agenda, Total recall is doing a great job, i am spreading the word also through facebook and other means, good work sir

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Thanks Heliobabble for your support.

      I’ve had enough of “Jim Smith” or whatever his real name is. Polite constructive criticism is more than welcome as it can help “tone up” an article if there are weaker points; namely the NASA gravity map misinterpretation and Jon Galt’s second contradiction having a heliocentic explanation, albeit purely hypothetical with no evidence to back it up mind you.

      However, Jim’s very aggressive ad hominen (insults) attacks and straw man arguments that if I had made one mistake, then all the rest of the research is called into question are tactics of a shill. He also tried to invoke authority with a very arrogant attitude, which I wouldn’t let him do as, as you have read so far, heliocentrists have NO authority on the truth, to put it mildly!

      I won’t tolerate this kind of behaviour on my blog. Any posts demonstrating such won’t be approved for display.

      Here’s a good link on shill tactics.
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/146324242/The-Gentleperson-s-Guide-to-Forum-Spies

      4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

      5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy,though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’,’sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

      8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

      View Comment
  66. Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

    I have edited the article by deleting the lack of evidence of centripetal force. This still stands as I cannot find actual gravity readings of differing latitudes, but unlike the other pieces of evidences it is not a slam dunk; so for special effect I have left it out.

    If anyone can point me to experiments done which have actually measured latitudinal gravity differences, I would be grateful. I know longitudinal ones have been done: Eötvös effect.

    View Comment
  67. Elaine Cooke says:

    Ha! Fun stuff! Have you ever thought about the astronauts leaving earth’s atmosphere while “travelling” to the moon? They would have to exit a big ball jetting along at 67,000 mph and rotating 1000 mph and not get crushed when they hit space going exactly 0. Even if there was no impact because space is a vacuum (the theory), once they exited the earth rotation and high speed trajectory, they would be hard-pressed to catch the earth barreling away at breakneck speed and probably have to wait for a whole year until it returned back to their vicinity via its particular orbit. Unless of course, their space ship does better than 67,000 mph. Yee haw! Imagine air-travel if that existed! Dinner in Paris and back to the states in under an hour!

    View Comment
    • JimSmithInChiapas says:

      “Have you ever thought about the astronauts leaving earth’s atmosphere while “traveling” to the moon?”

      The objections you (and Wild Heretic) raise were valid ones that honorable, intelligent people raised against heliocentrism until shortly after Newton published the Principia in 1687. The responses that many supporters of heliocentrism on YouTube give to your points are not correct. The right ones are presented (along with a historical account of how hard this whole subject was to sort out) in “The Birth of a New Physics”, by science historian I. Bernard Cohen.

      View Comment
      • JimSmithInChiapas says:

        Edit: “The objections you raise (which were also raised by Wild Heretic) were valid ones that honorable, intelligent people raised against heliocentrism until shortly after Newton published the Principia in 1687.

        View Comment
      • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

        And what evidence does Newton have of his theory that mass is the cause of gravity? This is after all the crutch that heliocentrism relies on, does it not? A theory which assumes that those little circular plates seen in the sky through a telescope are really massive heavy spheres whizzing round each other at astronomical speeds, millions of miles away. Now that does sound laughable, but it didn’t stop them making mathematical models with it.

        Certainly gravity may (and very probably) is “square lawed” (not necessarily inverse square lawed); but where is the evidence that it is mass causing this effect? There isn’t any because only the space agencies are allowed to go into “space” which makes their evidence unverifiable and on top of that, as we have seen in my other articles, laughable. In fact, there is experimental and observational evidence that gravity is a push, rather than a pull, but that is another topic and fits in nicely with an article I’ll be writing further down the line.

        View Comment
        • daznez says:

          or maybe gravity doesn’t exist at all (newton was science’s pop star before einstein after all,) and everything is held together by electro-magnetism, or as us spiritual common sense hippies like to call it, consciousness. possible?

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            daz,

            I agree with Steve that gravity is just pressure, not a force at all in that regard. In fact, I have the mechanical explanation for it in the next article; well at least my own stab at it lol.

            I visited freebritain just now and don’t worry, the revolution started in 2009 and is now accelerating as a whole multitude of crypto-currencies are developed every year. No need to ban any central authority as their power will wane over the coming years and decades. No more fractional reserve lending for them! 🙂 or at least not on the same par as it was before.

            View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Yes, it’s magic that when above 100km, the Earth is suddenly rotating beneath them. Good comment about the 67,000 mph. There is even a funnier piece of evidence against the orbiting nonsense, but I’ll explain that in my next article. it is laughable for sure.

      View Comment
  68. JimSmithInChiapas says:

    1) You misunderstand what a “Gravity Anomaly Map” is. A gravitational anomaly is a deviation of the observed value of the gravitational acceleration in a given place, from the value that that place would have according to a specified model. That model includes the effects of latitude and rotation (http://www.ukm.my/rahim/G-Gravity%20Methods.pdf). In other words, those effects are part of the “baseline” used for constructing the diagram and video that you show. That map and video show only the deviations from that baseline. That is why the map and video don’t show a latitude dependence.

    2) Your figure “Northern hemisphere summer solstice” shows the side of the Earth that’s rotating into night time, not daytime. People who are on the terminator (the line that divides the sunlit half from the dark half) will see the Sun in the West. For example, someone in Vietnam will have to look in the direction of Cambodia (i.e., toward the left side of your diagram) to see the Sun. About 12 hours earlier, those same people were on the “back side” of your diagram, watching the Sun rise. To see it, they were looking east, over the South China Sea. Therefore, the Sun traveled from East to West, as it always does.

    3) What is more, Southern and Central Vietnam are at the same latitude (10-15 degrees north) as Mesoamerica, where I live. Contrary to your claim, the Sun, on the day of the Northern Hemisphere Summer Solstice, follows a Northern arc (i.e., is north of the zenith at noon) in every location between the Equator and the Tropic of Cancer (latitude 23° 26′ 15.143″ north). That region includes both Vietnam and Mesoamerica. Where I live, the Sun follows a northern arc on every day from mid-May to mid-August.

    I hope that in the future, you will seek critical input from knowledgeable people before publishing such articles.

    View Comment
    • Ahem says:

      “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

      Small stuff in the big picture, the space programs are a joke and some people are catching on and abandoning their current beliefs, this is a good thing, look at all the animations nasa uses and admit they are real, the joke is on the people and the followers, some of us have a keen eye and perception, this is the 21st century not everyone is blind by these tactics.

      View Comment
      • JimSmithInChiapas says:

        Edit: “If you have such a keen eye and perception, then why didn’t you **catch** his blunders yourself? “

        View Comment
      • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

        Absolutely.

        It has been a huge risk for them, so the stakes must be high. I have an strong inkling why, but I’ll leave it at that.

        What was Hitler supposed to have said? “The bigger the lie, the more they will believe it”… or something like that.

        View Comment
      • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

        “My only “tactic” was to demonstrate that Wild Heretic’s “100% foolproof” refutation of heliocentrism (i.e., the one about the Sun’s path) is laughably wrong.”

        Oh contraire. It is laughably correct.

        “The ones I treated in my first post aren’t the only ones he made. Did you catch his error about the dates of the Equinoxes? See also my answer, below, to Elaine Cooke.”

        I apologise if I have made a careless error. I believe I wrote “The equinoxes are the two days of the year directly in between the winter and summer solstice, usually around March 20th and October 22nd.” The picture has those same dates, but with September instead of October.

        http://www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/earthtilt.gifequinoxes

        I’m glad Jim is there as my editor 😉

        “If you they want to let incompetents and nutcases talk them into going back to the Dark Ages, that’s their business. But if they want to accuse honorable scientists of complicity in fraud, they should expect to be called on it.”

        A. Fomenko reasonably and astutely argues that the dark ages never existed, but that is another topic. I so far have honorably never mentioned the “scientists” involved (except Einstein I think) in this fraud as the names don’t matter, only facts. If they are complicit, then they are complicit. A spade is a spade after all. The only question remains as to whether their intentions were good (but mistaken) or sinister. That would be a very interesting topic of further research.

        View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Thanks for dropping by Jim. I expected the critics a little sooner, but you are welcome just the same.

      1. I haven’t looked into your explanation properly but it sounds right. I’ll be the first to admit, I nearly deleted that lack of centrifugal force as evidence after I later self-deleted a third reason in that category which wasn’t completely sound, however I let the other two points stand. I should really edit the opening paragraph of the article as it doesn’t belong in the 99% category, but interesting all the same. Hey, I was so excited at debunking heliocentricity I got carried away.

      You say “the value that that place would have according to a specified model“. That is my beef with this area in that I only could find the 0.3% less gravity at the equator according to what it would be if the Earth were spinning. Well, clearly it is not. I was looking for actual gravity readings along latitudes, not mathematical models, but I couldn’t find any.

      2. Yes, but imagine being on the other side of the Earth as it moves anti-clockwise. You would be always moving downward from daybreak to noon and then upwards until dusk. This is a southern arc. However, the Sun appears to move in the opposite direction to the observer (who is above the Tropic of Cancer), which is clockwise (East to West) and upwards until noon and downwards to dusk, which is a northern arc. I admit, it is a little tricky to visualize, but once you do, it is foolproof.

      3. Sorry I wasn’t more specific. I was new to writing then. When I say northern hemisphere, I mean above the Tropic of Cancer. Likewise the southern hemisphere would be below the Tropic of Capricorn. The equatorial region would be between the two tropics and the equator would be the line that divides them.

      IMO, it is best to publish first so that more people can see it and then agree or disagree. This isn’t a peer-reviewed dissertation for post graduate studies, although it is starting to feel like it.

      I’ll quickly reply to other people and then let it slide as I really have to spend my spare time writing the next two articles to complete what now feels like a thesis. lol

      View Comment
  69. wow man says:

    where are the naysayers NOW ?

    View Comment