Introduction to CET

The following 8 article thesis is based on two premises which have been taken as facts:

The Sun as a sulfur lamp is only relevant for the Electric Sun – mechanism article yet to be published.

The gist of this entire thesis is largely speculative with the exception of Bendy light – the evidence which does not require any model of the Earth to be correct and therefore is the hardest to rebut.

There is even a “hidden” article (not in the side menu) on an electromagnetism hypothesis which attempts to connect the magnetic H-field of the holes near the poles and the Sun. This is purely hypothetical is merely a curiosity not to be taken seriously. It also needs badly updating.

Update 2: I had planned on completing the article “Gravity – anomalies and speculation”, but a revision of the first few articles is more urgent. I’ll start with NASA’s weird and wonderful orbiting machines as new important information has come to light which solves any possible issues and completes the circle.

I hope you get something useful out of what is posted so far, whether you agree with them or not. The journey is not yet finished.


Wild Heretic

Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Introduction to CET

  1. Bob says:

    I’m having a super hard time posting, I keep getting error that I am a spambot… Hopefully this works:

    I ran across some interesting data:

    It got me to thinking.
    The Sun is positively charged.
    The Moon is neutral.
    The Ground is negative.

    We live inside an Atom (of Hydrogen apparently).

    The concept that the electron ‘shell’ is a whirling bit of tiny electrons replaced with an actual (possibly metallic) shell.

    This shell would have certain magnetic properties allowing it to ‘bond’ with other ‘Atoms’

    So when CERN is smashing atoms together it is actually destroying worlds.

    Food for thought^^

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I like that idea. I also thought that the concave Earth could be the same as an atom. The magnetic h-field toroid being the “electron shell” etc. I know that images of atoms in materials (first one in 1985 I think) show atoms to be very near spheroid shape – slightly squashed, just like our Earth funnily enough.

      If the Earth cavity has formed from the attraction between two magnetic polarities, then are atoms formed the same way? Are atoms just h-fields? You are probably thinking, well where are the magnets either side of the atoms? Well, if all that we can sense (see) are magnetic fields (atoms), then we can’t see the “magnets” can we? Are the magnets the holodeck? 🙂 Ooooo food for thought right there.


      ADD on: OK, it won’t be perhaps as simple as that, but it could be a basic gist at least. I’m not sure where standing waves and atomic frequency (oscillation) come into that. Perhaps the atom is an h-field which is being rapidly switched on and off (flickering)… more ideas of thought. Could the differing flicker rates give rise to different elements?

      I was thinking a little about this “atoms as alternating magnetic fields” idea a bit more. As the Earth’s field is said to reverse every so often, what if the magnetic fields of atoms do the same but on a much shorter time scale – like a zillion times a second for example. Here is a possible image of an atom which looks like an h-field, although they had to energize this atom to get this image –

      This idea could be taken further but then we would have to explain all the bonding between certain elements (or lack of it – noble gases) and the different properties of those elements (e.g. melting point, hardness etc.). That is not to say it can’t be done with a lot of time and dedication.

      Also, the experiments would have to be separated from the model (like heliocentric theory). For example, the Stern–Gerlach experiment –

      Atoms of silver were fired through a magnetic field which was slightly stronger at the top than the bottom. The atoms registered as either repelling or attracting by the same amount on the screen. There was no random scattering.

      Each particle would be deflected by a different amount, producing some density distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern–Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount.

      This could be interpreted that the silver atom has an alternating magnetic field. Depending on how many times a second its field alternates, the length of the tunnel, and the speed of the atom would depend on how many “triangular wavelength” paths the atom makes as it passes through the tunnel. Either way, the silver atom will never be directed anywhere else than either up or down by a specific amount.

      Now that is a different way of looking at that experiment, no?

      Perhaps each element has a different frequency of alternating field? If the two frequencies match perfectly, then you could have a very strong bond. For example, element one (E1) alternates its mag field once per second (it would be much faster, but just for simplicity’s sake) and element two (E2) alternates once every two seconds. The south mag pole of E1 is at its strongest at the exact time the north mag pole of E2 is also at its strongest. The next two seconds E1 is back to the same polarity, whereas E2 is opposite which means they repel. Two more seconds later, they attract again. Could this be molecular oscillation, at least one type of it, the one between bonds?

      E2 would be attracted to either pole of E1, but repelled by the other atom of E2 if attracted to the same pole – hence a “Y” formation of the molecule. The two E2 molecules would also oscillate together because of this. We may be able to build up all molecules this way.

      I think this theory is worth looking into properly, even though I have just pulled it out of my arse.


      View Comment
    • "Observer" Steve says:

      Hey WH, I wonder how much money in contributions this guy has managed to pull in so far, by pretending to have authored YOUR work:

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Copying is a form of flattery so I don’t mind 😉 It is a bit annoying though that they don’t give the source of the information. That is only fair. I do it whenever I read something on cluesforum or somewhere else, even the comments on this blog that aren’t my research.

        I’m going to change one bit of the ISS part though. Concave Earth forum has shown that a “concaver” has photographed the ISS, but it isn’t exactly the said shape (more satellite-like) and has also been shown to be not that high when compared to the same magnification of a jumbo jet with the same size moon in the background. I’d estimate 20-30 km, probably more like 20 km… unless the ISS is not really the same size as a large Jumbo (as they say it is), and more satellite size, then it is about 10 km up there.

        So it looks like the ISS ruse is a cover, maybe for “special” technology they don’t want the public to know about. They probably couldn’t hide it completely as astronomers may photograph it, so they used a cover story.


        View Comment
  2. Miriam says:

    Last night at around 1 AM I was ticked off to this thesis and have been reading all day now! Can’t stop! Amazing! Just not knowing where exactly to place my question that has been burning in me for about 5 years now:

    Why are we in the year 2015? Or why and who decided to count history backwards until 0 and then counting forward, when it is alleged the ‘earth’ is over 4 billion years old? … I know the standard answer to the year 0 would be Jesus, yet, it was discovered he lived a couple of hundred years later if I remember correctly. So, no explanation for the counting process. It seems, Jesus was put there by someone/-thing to fullfill a certain role – quite obviously when looking at the religion. However, there must be a connection between biblical accounts, counting fashion (to use a more childlike term) and the flat earth theory. I don’t expect answers but would appreciate any thoughts on this to push me in the right direction 🙂 Keep up the great work! I have been laughing hard at times today! Thank you!
    Greetings from good ole Switzerland

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Glad you like it. I’m busy revising the old articles at the moment, so the thesis will have to be put on hold. I’ll write a comment when I have uploaded the revised Nasa’s weird and wonderful orbiting machines part 1 and 2. It’s basically about separating the marketing from the industry which is like separating Siamese twins sometimes, but the line has been drawn and it seems to work so far.

      View Comment
  3. scud says:

    A very merry Christmas WH!

    Many thanks for your hard work and insightfulness over 2014.
    Thanks and best wishes also to your regular contributors particularly LSC whose thoughts and computer skills continue to amaze!!

    Cheers fellas!

    View Comment
  4. Bob says:

    Great job man! The radar data, the light following magnetic flow, the concentration of lightning away from the poles (holes), the vortex at the holes, the B field, the H field, 23.26 miles and all the rest! Even got boiling water with a song haha fantastic work!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks Bob. The electrosphere info was down to you. If you hadn’t pointed out that the crust is negative and the space positive I never would have twigged what was going on.

      Yeah, the boiling water was a little extra bit that I found when looking at sound. Just goes to show that sound is a very underrated and underutilized energy, at least in public. A million to one the military have more potential uses for sound though. They probably have it weaponized to some degree.

      View Comment
  5. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Great timing i just started my vacation 2 days ago
    I have been quiet the last 4 months too busy 🙁
    Thanks again WH

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Enjoy it Donald. Most of it is here. It’s the best I can do to my ability. Don’t worry about the arithmetic too much in the first two articles. The rest aren’t like that really.

      Have fun.


      View Comment
      • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

        Just read it all wow what piece of great work there WH what a thesis indeed
        learned quite a bit the last 2 days thx man
        I’m sending this to my teacher friends

        View Comment