The horizon in a concave Earth has two possibilities: it is either how light travels or how the eye or camera lens receives light. I had an attempt at the eye theory being solely responsible for the hull first effect, but it is disproved by the camera lens also picking up the same phenomenon as the video immediately below shows. This leaves bending light; and in a concave Earth this is always upwards. Let’s have a look at this phenomenon and compare it to the convex evidence.
The convex Earth has the Earth’s curvature as the cause of the horizon. The ship going over the horizon hull first is said to be evidence of this as the video below shows.
(Click to animate). A ship disappears over the horizon, hull first. Notice the ship takes about 1 hour 15 min for most of its hull to drop below the horizon.
Observers have found this assumption to be invalid. Objects, such as ships, have been seen with the naked eye to pass over the horizon only to reappear again when using a magnifying lens. The first quote is from Morrow in the book Cellular Cosmology on page 68 to 72 and 73 to 76:
The whole of two further targets of dimensions 21×27 and 26×38 inches 7 inches above the water were even seen 5 miles away with the naked eye (the eye was about 30 inches above the water). When the observer lowered their head to 15 inches above the water, the targets became invisible. However, when a telescope was placed even lower, at 6 inches above the water, the targets were plainly visible.
On August 16 1896 from the Shore of lake Michigan, a very small portion of the top of the masts of a 40-feet high schooner were seen 12 miles away at 30 inches above the water with the naked eye. Opera glasses allowed half the height of the sails to be visible, whereas a 40x telescope enabled the vessel to be seen, including the hull. At 12 miles distant, the bottom of the hull would be 60 feet below the horizon of a convex surface; a clear 20 feet below the top of the mast.
A modern day observer has noticed the same:
The ferries between Tenerife and Gran Canaria sail quite often so you can make a couple of experiments on one day. I used my binoculars, not too strong (10/35), and a a tourist telescope fixed on a viewpoint. The experiment showed the same thing this guy you’re arguing with said. When the chimneys of the ferries disappeared under the water I used my binoculars. The ferry popped up again. When it disappeared in my binocullars I switched to the telescope immediately. The ferry appeared in its entirety again.
I implore readers to do the same and see for themselves. The obvious conclusion is that it is not the Earth’s curvature which causes the horizon; instead it is an observer’s horizon. How could this work?
The size of the Earth circle is 3000px and the light circles 1500px in the above diagram (ratio is greatly exaggerated for demonstration purposes). The distances of the horizon is limited by the amount of curve of upward bending light and in 3D is shaped like a circus tent with the observer at the center point.
In 3D, the bending light is a “circus top” shape, already discussed in the equinox article. Johannes Lang‘s illustration is probably the best depiction (page 172), demonstrated by Steve.
This “circus tent” shape also causes the bottom of tall objects to disappear from sight first as the distance between the object and the observer increases. Due to this bend, only the front of the object is seen, never the top face, which is a common counter argument from flat earthers. This is based on light traveling towards the center of the Earth cavity via magnetic pathways as demonstrated by engineers.
The lowest ray of light from the bottom of the object before it hits the ground is in red. The lowest ray of light from the top of the object before it hits the ground is in yellow. The same concept is shown in the skycentrism V video at 2 min 35 secs and in Steve’s horizon video.
Light traveling towards the center of the cavity via magnetic pathways does not allow an observer on the crust to view the top face of a tall object (e.g. a tall building) unless the observer is above the object.
Notice the distance between the two rays is about 4 times the height of the tall object. This is for light rays as circles with half the diameter as the Earth (3000px/1500px). The ship takes 1 hour 15 minutes for most of its hull to disappear. We can estimate about 1 hour 45 minutes for the entire hull to disappear (but not the sails). The speed of the vessel is unknown, but it is fair to say that it sailed a lot further than 3 and a third times the height of its hull over water during this time. This means that light rays bend at an angle much closer to the Earth’s diameter; this is of course assuming that light travels as a circle towards the center of the cavity. How much less is unknown unless the speed of the ship, height of its hull, and an accurate time for the hull’s disappearance are known. This very slow increase in curvature (at the start) also agrees with the “circus tent” shape of light.
The above model of curved light relies on the ground blocking the rays to give us both the horizon and the appearance of a ship sinking beneath it. There are cases where we can see much further than we should over water on a clear sunny day, especially with magnification. Both 19th century authors Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Cyrus Teed both could see a few miles further than the supposed convex Earth 3-mile standard while looking over water on a clear day and through a telescope. Rowbotham even mentioned that lighthouse lights could be seen many miles further than they should with the visible eye from sailing ships between Ireland and England, with plenty of other examples referenced. He also mentions coastlines being visible with the naked eye on a clear sunny day which are too far away for the convex Earth scenario to be true. I can also attest to such stories told to me about the Isle of Man which could be spotted from the shore of Blackpool, UK on very rare clear sunny days. The poster, Andrew, has spotted the majority of the land including the dishes of GCHQ Bude on top of the Hartland peninsula on the horizon with 10X50 binoculars from the shoreline of Mother Ivey’s Bay on Trevose Head in Cornwall 54km away. The peninsula is only 99m high. The entire peninsula should be 229m below the horizon at a viewing distance of 54km, making the visible GCHQ Bude facility 130m below the horizon.
The distance between the two shores is 54km and yet a poster on the southern shore saw most of the northern cliff face; the top of which should have been 130m below the horizon.
There are more observers noticing the same horizon “problem” that mathematically shouldn’t exist on a convex ball with straight light. On Concave Earth forum, the poster Primalredemption could see the shoreline on another Hawaiian island 26 miles away from a Sandy Beach on Oahu.
I could actually see the waves crashing against the shoreline of Molokai all the way from Sandy Beach on Oahu. All the way down to the shoreline. “ho that’s Coo bra”. “Yups it’s coo” until you realize that Molokai is 66 miles away, which would put the shoreline 2900 feet beneath the horizon on a convex Earth. And behind my view of Molokai was Maui, with a clear view of the North Shore. I’ve driven across that North Shore; I know how high it is above sea level. From my view, I was seeing the coast all the way down to the shoreline. According to the Convex Earth, that should have been 9000 feet beneath the horizon since Maui is 116 miles away.
The distance is really 26 miles, not 66 miles. This is still a big problem.
Sandy Beach on Oahu is 26 miles from the shoreline of Molokai.
How far under the horizon is a 26 mile shoreline? The curvature of the Earth drops from the horizontal by 8 inches per mile squared. So 26 miles is 8 x (26×26) = 5408 inches or 450.6 feet. The shoreline should be 450 feet below the horizon. A 6 foot man can is only supposed to see 3 miles, not 26! If we take that away from 26, we get a 23 mile “beyond the horizon” distance for a 6 foot man, which is 352.6 feet below his “calculated” visible horizon. He also says that the shoreline is always visible no matter the time of day or day of year.
Shorelines have even been spotted to be too far over land, not just water at 11 miles distance. On the David Icke forum a previous mainstream model believer “Spock” posted that a friend of his has spotted Blackpool Pleasure Beach (amusement park) from Ainsdale beach on Merseyside 11 miles away across the beach itself (low tide – no water). Blackpool Pleasure Beach should be 80 feet below the horizon. A 6 foot man can see 3 miles, so 8 miles too far (nearly 3 times) which is 42 feet below his supposed visible horizon. As the photos below show, it is clearly not.
Rhino Binoculars used to spot a shoreline 11 miles away.
The Blackpool shoreline across the sand is seen 11 miles away.
YouTuber Joeseph Winthrop has conducted tests with a blue and a green laser at 20 miles distance across mostly water at night. The height of the lasers was 45 feet. The cameraman is on a pier 15 feet above the water. This is a total of 60 feet elevation which should see a maximum 9.5 miles. The naked eye was able to pick up both lasers, but only the camera was sensitive enough to register the blue laser pen 20 miles away. Unless light is bending around a convex Earth to allow for the 100% increase in observable horizon, then this feat is an impossibility.
(Click to animate). “The cameraman detects two very faint direct streaks of blue light. The cameraman was otherwise able to see this laser with his eyes, and most noticeably when the direct hits were made.”
Another interesting case is the lights of Milwaukee being seen at night across a large lake 136 km away in Grand Haven from an elevation which looks like the observer is just above the beach. This agrees with what Wilhelm Martin found that light bent the least at night. The picture below isn’t clear enough to make out exactly how much of Milwaukee is visible; however, the tallest building in the city is 601 feet. Only 32 buildings are above 230 feet with all but 5 of those between 230 and 400 feet tall. An observer height of 5 meters is supposed to see 8 km distance. Take that away from 136 km and we have 128 km (79.5 miles) beyond his “convex-straight-light-assumption-calculated” horizon. 79.5 miles equates to a drop below the horizon of (8 x (79.5 x 79.5) / 12) = 4213.5 feet. That is over 7 times more than the tallest building in Milwaukee.
Wilhelm Martin’s experiment showed that light bent the least at night, which may contribute as to how the Milwaukee lights were seen at such fantastic distances just above the beach.
The distance between Grand Haven and Milwaukee is 136km!
The news readers claim 136 km can be seen because of “super refraction”. Refraction on a convex Earth can only account for an extra 8% distance according to surveyors. What temperature and humidity difference would be needed in order to see a 600% increase in observable distance? Answers on a postcard.
The following four YouTube videos also show the same effect; and there are others like these if you look for them, such as the ones Karol has collected and a few of those belonging to the flat earthers.
(Click to animate). The shoreline 50 miles distant can be seen with very little elevation. Big thanks to Don for finding the video.
(Click to animate). Nothing is visible on the camera sensor on the horizon at all until the user zooms in and captures the full image of the rock and the windmill. Notice the lack of crisp image due to only some of the light being less bent. Distance is 15km and camera height is said to be 3m only.
(Click to animate). Nothing is seen on the horizon by the camera sensor until the optical zoom is used and then the waves and boat become visible.
(Click to animate). A larger boat is completely invisible until the zoom is used.
Another YouTube user “The-Abyss-is-open” is standing on a promenade (3m?) next to a beach at Hull looking down the River Umber. His total height at eye level is about 4.8m maximum. Behind an island there is a ship on the water in a harbour with most of its hull visible above the tops of the trees of the Island. There is water to the left, right, in front of, and behind the island, which means everything floating on water is the same level. Unless the ship is floating on water in a dock which is sealed off from the river with its gates closed, and the dock is filled with enough water to rise the ship considerably higher than the island itself (very tall gates, 12m+ perhaps), then this should be impossible. At 4.8m elevation, the camera should see 7.8km, or 4.84 miles until the horizon. To see the muddy beach of the island in front (6 miles or 9.65km distance) the elevation has to be just over 7m, yet he is no more than 4.8m high (probably less).
(Click to animate). The dock is 6.5 miles away. Observer height is 4.8m maximum, yet most of the ship is higher than the tops of the trees on the island in front.
The reader Scud has also found modern lighthouse anomalies:
But the lights that can be seen from the greatest distance are the bulbs on top of the Empire State Building in New York City. Each of these bulbs has the power of 450 million candles, and can be seen from the ground from as far away as 80 miles . . . and from an airplane from as far away as 300 miles!
The very top of the Empire State’s spire is 1250 feet. According to this website, a light could only remain visible out to 43.3 miles, not 80.
As water nearly always seems to be the common denominator, how does it cause this beyond the horizon effect on visible light? It cannot be refraction through water with the light ray bending up out of the ocean as visible light doesn’t travel very far through the ocean – about 200m in fact.
What have we so far found out in this article that links water to light? That’s right, you’ve probably already guessed it – electromagnetism. It is well-known that magnets and electrons affect water.
(Click to animate). Static electricity from a comb bends flowing water towards itself.
(Click to animate). A magnet repels water
We have seen that light bends like an electron around a magnet inside an electrified cavity of silicon. Static electricity (the negative electron flow towards the center of the cavity) moves flowing water towards itself. The ocean can’t move up to the “electron” field, but the electrostatic field can move down towards the ocean. Since light seems to be heavily influenced by the upward moving negatively charged field through which it travels, water must also have an effect on light. If we can see further over water than we should, then this water must attract the light (or rather the electrostatic field in which light is being influenced) so that there is less curve on light bending upwards. Because, this phenomenon is mostly demonstrated by magnification, only a small portion of the available light is affected; which is perhaps why a sunny day is always needed so that enough light is available when magnifying the image.
The dotted lines are circles 2000px wide to denote some of the light bending less because the medium in which it travels is attracted to the water. The second observer can see the entire object further away than the first one.
Although the ocean can’t rise up to the electric field, there are actual scientific observations of water levels in a well rising at sunrise and falling at sunset:
In the field observations it was found that water level in the well rises during sunrise, when ionosphere is excited by solar radiation, and drops during sunset (relaxation process in ionosphere). Moreover, it was shown that the water level in well correlates with geomagnetic field perturbations during geomagnetic storms.
There is also evidence that other longer wavelengths of light bend less.
1. Infrared photos
You’ve already read about the specially-made camera for the military in the 1950s that used infrared film and could see 20 miles distance at a ground height of 39 inches. There is also the infrared photo showing the horizon at a distance of 533km from an airplane at a height of 7000m. At this height, the horizon should be 296km, not nearly double at 533km. That is pretty wild refraction! The actual visible light distance was quoted as only a few kilometers even with binoculars due to reasons not specified (bad weather?) (Source: Die Hohlwelttheorie by Johannes Lang 1938, page 35, 154 and 175, taken from Die Frankfurter Illustrierte Zeitung no.30/1932.) Johannes even mentions other infra-red photographs such as one of London, showing the background rising above the foreground like the New York picture below (but nowhere near as impressive).
Mount Shasta is 533km away, fully visible on the horizon in the background.
2. Superimposed infrared/visible light video
There is also an issue with those modern infrared cameras, such as the FLIR E4, E5, E6, and E8 Infrared Cameras with MSX®, which allow their sensors to pick up both light in the visible and infrared wavelength. When the option is chosen so that the two images are superimposed on one another by the camera’s viewfinder (the MSX technology), the images are never exactly aligned.
The Flir E series with the msx technology which superimposes the image from the visible light camera on to the infrared image in order to add extra clarity to detail.
Before and after shot showing how the infrared and visible light image do not align without software.
This is a known issue with the manufacturers, who have added software to the camera to compensate for this misalignment so that the two images can match up as one. Unfortunately some users have problems using MSX as the software doesn’t always line up the images correctly.
The msx effect by the camera manufacturer Flir has to align the visible light image with the infrared one which sometimes doesn’t work giving a ghost image.
Even more interesting, one user upgraded his software to 1.19.8 on his E8, but still states:
The further away I am, the more drastic the ghost image is off center. (The ghost image is the visible light image added for clarity.)
It is hardly proof positive, but the increase misalignment with distance of the visible light image from the infra red one, denotes that one of the wavelengths bends more than the other.
3. Radar range
Radar also seems to suffer from this “problem”, even more than infrared. One of the readers, both here and on cluesforum.info – Scud, noticed that the radar antennas on top of boats have a range of 120 nautical miles or 222km.
A civil marine radar, for instance, may have user-selectable maximum instrumented display ranges of 72, or 96 or rarely 120 nautical miles, in accordance with international law… and maximum detection ranges of perhaps 150 nautical miles.
The company Raymarine uses radar with a law-enforced maximum range of 72nm or 133km. According to this website, the height of the open array radar would have to be 1400m high to see 133km in the visible light spectrum! A visible light horizon from a 5m height is supposed to be 8km, not 133km. Radar must refract through the air 16 times further to get this horizon distance.
The radar isn’t bounced off the ionosphere as only radio waves of the AM bandwidth (3 and 30Mhz) do that – skywaves.
Marine (small-boat) radar typically operates at frequencies of 9.3 to 9.8 GHz, with most operating at 9.3 and 9.5Ghz.
This phenomenon is well-known and blamed on what else but refraction of course.
The radar beam would follow a linear path in vacuum, but it really follows a somewhat curved path in the atmosphere because of the variation of the refractive index of air, that is called the radar horizon. Even when the beam is emitted parallel to the ground, it will rise above it as the Earth curvature sinks below the horizon.
Refraction comes to the rescue again! Standard refraction adds 8% on to the horizon, and dispersion doesn’t work either if you keep on reading. So it is not the curvature of the Earth, but the varied curvature of the wavelengths of light that is to blame; and they curve upwards.
There is also the over-the-horizon radar explanation:
Surface waves have been used in over-the-horizon radar, which operates mainly at frequencies between 2 and 20 MHz over the sea, which has a sufficiently high conductivity to convey the surface waves to and from a reasonable distance (up to 100 km or more; over-horizon radar also uses skywave propagation at much greater distances).
These frequencies are said to be only used for coastal radar stations, not small marine boats and so skywave propagation is ruled out. As for the “high conductivity across the sea”, water is a very poor medium for radar waves which is why sonar is used instead. As for a concave one, we have already seen that the likely reason is the effect water has on the electrostatic field which lessens the upward curve of light.
4. AM radio curve
AM radio has the lowest frequency out of the four examples given here at 520 to 1,710 KHz. Therefore logically, it must also bend the least giving us the longest horizon so far… and it does.
Medium wave and short wave radio signals act differently during daytime and nighttime. During the day, AM signals travel by ground wave, diffracting around the curve of the earth over a distance up to a few hundred miles (or kilometers) from the signal transmitter. However, after sunset, changes in the ionosphere cause AM signals to travel by skywave, enabling AM radio stations to be heard much farther from their point of origin than is normal during the day.
“Diffracting around the curve of the Earth”? Diffraction means “to break up or bend”. So their own official definition is stating that light is bending around the curve of the Earth. According to an ex-Navy electronics technician, this range varies from 100 to 300 miles (160 to 482 km). This variation of range again agrees with Wilhelm Martin’s experiments on bending visible light, which also varied at different times on different days. Corpernicans actually believe that visible light is a perfectly straight line that only varies its angle by refraction when it enters a medium of different density… yet light of a lower frequency (AM radio) bends around the curve of the Earth up to 482km? Are Corpernicans serious?
What about at night? Wilhelm showed that visible light bends the least at this time. Shouldn’t the AM radio horizon therefore also be massive at night? It is. At night, AM radio is said to be able to bounce off the ionosphere and become a skywave which allows it to travel across continents. This may or may not be true, but there does seem to be a contradiction. Supposedly, radio waves are absorbed by the electrons in the ionosphere which in turn emit them in the opposite direction back to Earth. However, the ionosphere is ionized during the day due to the Sun, thereby increasing the number of electrons available for absorption and emission… and yet distant AM radio fails during the day only to return at night. Wiki says “high-frequency (HF) radio waves are significantly damped within the D layer by collisions with electrons“; and “At night, the atmosphere becomes drained of its charge, and radio signals can go much farther with less loss of signal.” So electrons are needed, but not too many? Is that it? It doesn’t make much sense.
It makes sense though if AM radio waves bend much less at night… just like visible light funnily enough. It also offers a clue as to the cause of bending light itself – namely atmospheric charge, which again agrees perfectly with modern engineered silicon micro-cavities that when electrified, bend light as if it is following magnetic lines of force.
It doesn’t stop there. According to the ex-Navy electronics technician and the Great Yarmouth Radio Club, the horizon depends on the frequency of light (and of course on its intensity or amplitude):
Given two signals of equal strength and different frequencies, lower frequencies travel further than higher ones.
The ground wave follows the curvature of the Earth and its range does not depend upon the height of the antenna. However, the range does depend upon the transmitter power and also upon the operating frequency. Low frequencies travel further than high frequencies. Thus under ideal low noise conditions (noon, during winter), it is possible to communicate over distances of about 500 nautical miles at 2 MHz by using a 100 W transmitter. At 8 MHz, under the same conditions and using the same transmitter power, the maximum range is reduced to about 150 nautical miles.
Note that ground wave propagation is much less efficient over land than it is over sea because of the much lower conductivity of the ground and other factors. Consequently, ranges over land are greatly reduced.
Ground wave communications vary daily and with the seasons. Greatest communication ranges are achieved during the daytime in winter because background noise levels are lowest during these hours.”
Just like radar and visible light, radio waves with an even higher frequency than AM radio have a further horizon over water. And, exactly as Wilhelm Martin has demonstrated, the horizon varies daily.
So, the distance to the horizon depends on:
- time of day and day of year
- light frequency
- light intensity
And this variation over those four factors is absolutely massive. This is a very important concept to understand and cannot be overstated.
Now tell me this, how in the world is the “ship going over the horizon” and the “Bedford Level Experiment” suppose to show the Earth as a convex ball when the horizon is determined by the extremely varied curve of the EM wave? It simply isn’t.
The horizon is an observer’s horizon.
It is not determined by the geometric shape of the Earth.
Refraction and frequencies
A counter argument is that these much greater horizons at lower frequencies have been caused by the change of the refractive index at differing frequencies. This phenomenon is called dispersion. This is described more in terms of resonance between the EM wave and the refractive material:
“In a typical material like glass this will correspond to electronic excitations, and will be in the UV. As you increase the frequency of the light and get nearer to this natural frequency the magnitude of the induced oscillations increases, and hence the interaction with the light increases. This is no different from any driven harmonic oscillator. As you pass through the resonance and carry on increasing the frequency the interaction strength, and hence the refractive index will fall again.”
This means there is a rise and fall of the amount of refraction as the frequency of the EM wave gets closer to the matching frequency of the refractive material. This isn’t a one direction relationship between frequency and refraction, it’s a resonance point. It gets worse. The greater horizons at lower frequency can only be explained by refraction in the convex Earth, if these lower frequencies bend more around the Earth. This means that lower frequencies must refract more than the higher ones to diffract around the Earth. It turns out the opposite is the case.
If we actually look at the calculations of the amount of dispersion of visible light of different frequencies through air at the same pressure and temperature, refraction increases for the higher frequencies (shorter wavelength). The refractive index is 1.000268479 for a wavelength of 1700 nm (long wavelength/lower frequency) and 1.000286581 for 300 nm (shorter wavelength/higher frequency) for example. Yet, for the greater horizon distances in a convex Earth, all frequencies below visible light (i.e. radar and radio waves) must have a greater dispersion. This shows that the resonance point of air is below 300 nm, i.e. above visible light frequency.
The amount of refraction is also far too small to possibly account for such an increase in horizon distance. The above example shows about a 1/13 increase in refraction when the frequency is increased by nearly 6 times. Flint glass shows to have an increase of the refractive index by about 1/6 when the frequency increases by about 4 times or more – again the wrong way for either convex or concave Earth. Hyper physics confirms this low amount of difference:
“The values given are approximate and do not account for the SMALL variation of index with light wavelength which is called dispersion.”
We have already seen that the difference in horizon distance between 2 MHz and 8 MHz (four times) at the same power is over three times – 500 nm to 150 nm. Dispersion through air (or any other material) doesn’t get these ratios with visible light.
- A ship going hull first over the horizon is said to be proof of a convex Earth. However, there is anecdotal evidence that says otherwise.
- The only option left is that the horizon is caused by bending light and not the curvature of the Earth. This curvature is estimated to be very close to the curvature of the Earth (within horizon distances) thanks to experiments done by Wilhelm Martin.
- There are numerous examples of being able to see a horizon far beyond the Pythagorean convex supposition, but so far nearly only over water. This has been theorized to be caused by the electrostatic upwardly moving negatively charged field which bends towards water (as the ocean can’t move towards it) and thereby bending light less.
- This far-horizon phenomenon is even more pronounced at night, usually very dramatically, experimentally demonstrated by Wilhelm Martin.
- Two infrared photos show horizons over land and water far in excess of what should be possible with visible light. One photo taken by a specially-made military camera shows the background to be vertically above the foreground.
- Infrared FLIR cameras with MSX technology that superimpose an infrared image on top of a visible light one need software to align the images correctly. Sometimes the software doesn’t work, with one user stating “the further away I am, the more drastic the ghost image is off center.”
- Boat radar has a law enforced range of about 133km, 16 times further than it should according to the maths.
- The various reasons given for this incredible range are 1. skywaves – but the radar frequencies to allow this are way off; 2. refraction – standard refraction adds a mere 8% on to the horizon. 3. conducts vast distances through water – radar can’t penetrate water very far, hence submarines use sonar.
- AM radio has a varied horizon between 160 and 482km during the day and an intercontinental one at night.
- AM radio is said to bend along the curve of the Earth during the day (groundwave) and bounce of the ionosphere at night (skywave).
- Instead of skywave, which offers a contradiction, AM radio may travel further at night because of less bend as Wilhelm Martin demonstrated with visible light.
- According to reliable sources: “Given two signals of equal strength and different frequencies, lower frequencies travel further than higher ones.”
- Dispersion is said to possibly account for the differences in the bend of light at different frequencies. This falls down on three grounds: 1. Dispersion has a resonant frequency point, it isn’t linear in one direction. 2. For both air and glass, refraction increases with higher frequencies, not lower ones. 3. The amount of dispersion is far too low to explain the vast horizon differences.
With the articles so far, we’ve covered all physical phenomena inside the concave Earth with the exception of why the sky appears to curve around our heads. Bending light explains it, but not conceptually, or fully. I’ll leave that responsibility to others, such as Steven. The night sky has also not been touched upon yet.
Where does gravity fit into all this? Could gravity be an electromagnetic aspect, rather than a mystical property of mass as current theory dictates. Very possibly; and in a concave Earth, extremely likely.