Is the Sun a light-bulb?

This sounds so outlandish that it has to be farcical, but unfortunately it’s the only reasonable explanation that fits the evidence coming down at us from the sky.

The Sun origin of meteorites
The composition of meteorites
The Sun as an artificial construct
The role of each meteoric element


The Sun origin of meteorites

As already stated in the last article, the moon and planets are likely mirages and the stars are probably atmospheric phenomena; at least I can’t find any verifiable evidence to show otherwise. The only objects in the sky that have been validated as being of real matter is the Sun (because it is hot) and meteorites (because they have been seen falling from the sky and consist of a constant foreign composition than anything terrestrial).

Meteorites are meteoroids which have entered the atmosphere, broken up and landed on the ground. When a meteor enters the atmosphere, at what height is it first visible?

Meteors become visible between 100 and 120 kilometres altitude.


The meteor typically is formed around 100 km altitude. Few particles or meteoroids survive below 80 km.


What a surprise! That pesky 100 km keeps coming up time and time again. When the meteoroid enters the atmosphere (read hits the glass), it is labelled a meteor or shooting star, leaving a luminous trail behind it; and when it lands it is categorized as a meteorite.

shooting star
Shooting stars are meteoroids entering the atmosphere at 100 km.

A meteoroid is a small particle from a comet or asteroid, although a number of them passed through the asteroid belt directly. If comets, asteroids and meteoroids are the same, then they must be made of the same material which also must be white hot as they travel in the thermosphere. But comets are said to be made of

…rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia.

Not if they pass through the thermosphere they are not. Molten rock is all they could be, but meteorites are mostly stoney iron meteorites with 5% of them consisting solely of iron and nickel with sometimes sulfur in the mix. If meteorites come from comets, then comets must also consist of stoney iron. The “stoney” part is silicon dioxide and we know where that comes from… the glass in the sky. This means that comets, asteroids and meteoroids must all be made of iron/nickel/(sulfur) and are ultimately different names for the same objects.

Comets act exactly like shooting stars but bigger and perhaps bounce off the glass instead of breaking through.

Comets and asteroids are the likely culprits of the mass in Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) as these have been theorized to consist of:

The ejected material is a plasma consisting primarily of electrons and protons, but may contain small quantities of heavier elements such as helium, oxygen, and even iron.

Iron? The sun? Fancy that.

As some meteoroids have been noticed to pass through the asteroid belt completely, they must have been released from the Sun with enough force to make it to Earth and hit the glass. Some meteoroids may not have been released with such speed and become trapped in orbit around the Sun, which could explain the asteroid belt. Comets are also said to move around the Sun, also making it their likely origin. These comets move in a direction opposite to Earth meaning they move from East to West, in the exact same direction as the ether. No surprises there either.

However, who is to say these orbiting asteroids and comets actually exist? They could also be a part of the Copernican illusion which has bedazzled astronomers for hundreds of years. The asteroid belt is only detected by seeing if any “stars” have moved more than its background over a one hour period. As there is no verifiable evidence of stars existing beyond the atmosphere, this is hardly conclusive proof of anything, to say it lightly. Comets may also just be mislabeled meteors. Whatever the truth, it doesn’t matter to the theory of this article.

Now we have seen that meteorites have the Sun as their likely origin, what is their composition?


The composition of meteorites

According to Wiki, there are four types of meteorites.

1. The first are the ordinary chondrites which constitute 87% of all meteorites found. These are split further into three categories depending on their iron content.

A. H-type (40% of ordinary chondrites) consist of MgSiO3 with up to 12% FeSiO3 (bronzite), Mg2SiO4 with up to 20% Fe2SiO4 (olivine), FeS (Troilite), and up to 19% of the total metorite content as a Fe-Ni alloy.

h-type ordinary chondrite
H-type ordinary chondrites have the highest pure iron content as iron chondrules. These “droplets” of iron denote the iron being of separate origin to the glass. It must be part of a largish meteor as it melted through the glass layer at 100 km altitude.

B. L-type (40% of ordinary chondrites) consist of (Mg,Fe)SiO3 (hypersthene), Mg2SiO4 with up to 25% Fe2SiO4 (olivine), FeS (Troilite), and up to 4-10% of the total meteorite content as a Fe-Ni alloy.

L-type chondrites have less iron than h-types. These probably originated from smaller meteors than h-types and had more time to blend in with the glass layer making them more glass than iron.

C. LL-type (10% of ordinary chondrites) are made of (Mg,Fe)SiO3 (hypersthene), Mg2SiO4 with up to 32% Fe2SiO4 (olivine), FeS (Troilite), and up to 3% of the total meteorite content as a Fe-Ni alloy.

LL-type chondrites have the least amount of iron and probably originated from the smallest meteors which had the most time to blend in with the glass layer making them nearly all glass.

In all three of the above types of ordinary chondrites, there are also very small amounts of FeCr2O4 (Chromite – 0.02% chromium, which is much lower than what occurs on Earth naturally), NaAlSi3O8 – CaAl2Si2O8 (Na-rich feldspar) and phosphorus in the form of merrillite, Ca9NaMg(PO4)7, and chlorapatite, Ca5(PO4)3Cl. Chlorine can’t possibly be native to the original white hot meteor, as chlorine is a gas above -34 °C. It is however present in the atmosphere to react with the glass and phosphorus and magnesium etc. of the meteorite.

Abundant carbon as graphite has also been occasionally observed in the metal in each type of ordinary chondrites but according to the article there has been no systematic search conducted. This means graphite could be present in a lot more ordinary chondrites than currently known, or even in all of them; especially if it is small or dispersed enough not to be noticed without testing. Carbon has been detected as both graphite or graphite–magnetite with one batch of chondrites yielding 0.03 to 8.4% carbon content, while another showing 0.16% to 0.57%. A dissertation from the University of California on page 1 states that:

Carbon is a minor component of chondritic meteorites: type 3 ordinary chondrite (OC) falls typically contain 0.3– 0.6 wt%


And in Field Guide to Meteors and Meteorites, page 245:

Graphite C A common accessory mineral in iron meteorites, ordinary chondrites and ureilites.

So it seems graphite is present in most ordinary chondrites.

2. A second type of meteorite is the E-type chondrites which account for only 2% of all meteorites found in the world. They are high in MgSio3 (enstatite), but most of the iron in this meteorite is the the form of an iron-nickel alloy and FeS (trollite). The rest of the metal is bound to the silicon dioxide component with minor amounts of schreibersite (Fe-Ni)3P and graphite.

enstatite meteorite
Enstatite meteorites are full of magnesium. The reason for which is explained later in this essay.

3. The third meteorite category is the carbonaceous chondrites. These make up less than 3.6% of total meteorites and lack iron/nickel in its alloy form completely. Instead, the iron is bound in magnetite (Fe3O4) and the sulfur is bound as sulfates, both magnesium and sodium. The silica part of glass is also in soluble form. Unsurprisingly, this means that water is present, which it is; namely 3% to 22%, with organic compounds like amino acids in the mix. There is also carbon present (hence the name) in the form of graphite or diamond (from the pressure of the impact crater).

Carbonaceous chondrites have no iron chondrules. The complete mixing of the iron with the glass denotes a very slow “melt-through” from very small meteors. They are also likely some of the oldest meteorites allowing for the organic material from the Earth to take hold. The thermosphere excludes an extraterrestrial origin of this organic substance.

There are also inclusions of what are called pre-solar grains or “stardust” in all chondrites, from ordinary through to carbonaceous. These consist of the usual suspects already mentioned plus two additional elements: titanium carbide and silicon nitride.

Conclusion: We know the silicon part of silicon nitride came from the glass, and so the very likely origin of the nitrogen is the atmosphere with which the white hot meteor (pre-landed meteorite) reacted as it fell to Earth. It is impossible for water and organic compounds to be present in meteors as not only is the 500 to 1500 °C temperatures of the thermosphere going to boil off any water at normal atmospheric pressure, but in a vacuum, water evaporates at room temperature! Of course, meteors likely originate from the sun anyway, transforming the impossible into the ludicrous.

Others agree, but on different grounds:

But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth’s biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth’s first life. But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem.

According to Engel, several lines of evidence indicate that the interior portions of well-preserved fragments from Murchison are pristine. Engel points to the array of amino acids Murchison contains and to isotope studies to bolster his position. Other scientists are equally convinced that the evidence proves the opposite: that Murchison is now thoroughly contaminated by terrestrial organic material.

Indeed, the results of various experiments performed on Murchison are a bit of a head-scratcher – and a good window into how science works when data are ambiguous.

So far, the materials present in meteorites in order of highest quantity are silicon dioxide (glass), magnesium, iron and nickel (as an alloy), sulfur, carbon (graphite), phosphorus, sodium, aluminum, calcium and titanium. Now, we know that the silicon dioxide part comes from the glass layer in the sky 100 km up there. The magnesium part is always bound with the glass as the enstatite olivine or bronzite; ditto sodium, aluminum and calcium as feldspar. We never see magnesium sulfide or magnesium-iron alloys or nickel-iron-magnesium alloy or sodium sulfide etc. This means that magnesium, sodium, aluminum and calcium must be part of the glass to begin with, before the meteor hits it. Therefore, before they melt through the glass, meteors must consist mostly of an iron-nickel alloy along with trollite (iron sulfide), graphite, titanium and perhaps phosphorus.

With this in mind, it is very likely that a few meteors will be so large that some of their main metallic component breaks through the glass without mixing with it… and lo and behold that is exactly what we see.

4. The fourth type of meteorite is the iron meteorite which constitute 5% of the overall number. These consist of the nearly pure metallic type and the stony-iron ones which are metal with chrondules of olivine throughout. The pure metallic types are made of

nearly 100% metal, although many contain the iron sulfide mineral troilite.

As expected.

The Sikote iron meteorite fell in the Sikhote-Alin Mountains in eastern Siberia. It is 93% iron, 5.9% nickel, 0.42% cobalt, 0.46% phosphorus, and 0.28% sulfur. No graphite this time.
The Tamentit Iron Meteorite was found in 1864 near Tamentit and weighs about 500 kg. The largest meteorites are always pure metallic ones; which they must be, otherwise the original meteor would have blended with the glass layer in the sky creating either stony-iron meteorites, or ordinary/carbonaceous chondrites, the type of which depends on its size.
olivine stony meteorite
The large molten stony-iron meteor fell quickly through the glass layer at a likely more vertical angle taking some of the molten glass with it, solidifying quickly as it cooled down in its descent.
pallasite stony meteorite
This stony-iron meteorite also has glass embedded throughout in a pattern denoting a sudden penetration, flash mixing and then quick cooling.

Is the iron-nickel content one alloy or several?

Nickel-iron metal in iron meteorites occurs in the form of two distinct alloys. The most common alloy is kamacite, named for the Greek word for “beam”. Kamacite contains 4 to 7.5% nickel, and it forms large crystals that appear like broad bands or beam-like structures on the etched surface of an iron meteorite. The other alloy is called taenite for the Greek word for “ribbon”. Taenite contains 27 to 65% nickel, and it usually forms smaller crystals that appear as highly reflecting thin ribbons on the surface of an etched iron.

There are also very small amounts of three other iron-nickel alloys: Antitaenite, Tetrataenite, and Awaruite.

Does this mean that the original meteor consisted of five different alloys? No. There is only one alloy for the original meteor flying through the thermosphere as:

Taenite essentially has a nickel lattice and kamacite has an iron lattice. At high temperatures both iron and nickel are face-centered, and iron meteorites are essentially all taenite. As the temperature drops, kamacite begins to exsolve, expelling nickel into the taenite and forming thin lamellae of almost pure iron.

This means that the nickel content of the original alloy in the thermosphere is probably roughly 30-35% uniformly throughout the meteor. When it cools down in the atmosphere, the nickel concentration becomes unbalanced forming an overabundance in one part (taenite) and a lack in another (kamacite).

Unsurprisingly, graphite (carbon) and iron sulfide is present in most iron meteorites. These occur in the iron-nickel metal as nodules which means that just as the iron-nickel alloy passes through the glass creating metallic nodules of iron-nickel within the glass (called chrondules), which form the ordinary chrondite meteorites, the graphite and sulfur must pass through the iron-nickle alloy so that it forms its own nodules within the metal. Also note that an iron meteorite contains nodules of either iron sulfide OR graphite, but not together as one nodule. This means that the sulfur and the graphite belong to separate “parts” of the Sun (the likely origin of meteorites).

Iron meteorites are composed largely of nickel-iron metal, and most contain only minor accessory minerals. These accessory minerals often occur in rounded nodules that consist of the iron-sulfide troilite or graphite

Also, graphite has often been found surrounding troilite:

…the graphite and daubréclite surround the troilite inclusion.

and on page 78 of Field Guide to Meteors and Meteorites:

…any iron meteorites have nodules of troilite, often surrounded by graphite.

graphite around troilite
The darker colored graphite around a part of the sulfur containing material troilite.
troilite and graphite
The graphite is embedded next to the troilite (FeS).

Phosphorus is also present in iron meteorites as (Fe-Ni)3P (scheibersite) which must be unique to the meteor as it is found in antarctic meteors and these only impact ice, rather than the earth’s crust. Within the iron meteorite, scheibersite is…

…in the form of plates and as shells around nodules of troilite (an iron sulfide mineral). Rodlike schreibersite is called rhabdite and was once thought to be a separate mineral.

The plates in the iron-nickel-cobalt alloy suggest that it is likely already in contact with the original iron-nickel iron as a layer, perhaps even a plated one.

scheibersite needle
A needle or plate of schreibersite inside an iron meteorite.

Also, schreibersite surrounds dark graphite inclusions as well as the troilite and graphite mix, as can be seen in the images below.

schreibersite around graphite
The shiny shreibersite surrounds the dark graphic nodule.
graphite around troilite
The graphite surrounds the lighter-colored troilite, which is in turn encompassed by the shiny schreibersite (Fe-Ni)3P and then followed by the near-black pressurized carbon with a touch of brownish cohenite (Fe-Ni-Co)C around some of the edges.

Not often mentioned is that there is also a very small amount of cobalt present in the iron-nickel alloy at around a few tenths of a percent of the total metal content. This suggests that when the graphite leaves the Sun, it passes through the iron-nickel-cobalt alloy forming cohenite (Fe-Ni-Co)C.

iron-sulfide troilite or graphite …often surrounded by the iron-phosphide schreibersite (Fe-Ni)3P and the iron-carbide cohenite (Fe-Ni-Co)C.


The cohenite can be found on its own and around a dark carbon layer surrounding the schreibersite.

…the outermost layer on the schreibersite corona which surrounds the nuggets of troilite and graphite.

cohenite in iron meteorite
Cohenite nodules.
graphite and troilite
Shiny schreibersite surrounds the troilite (left) and a little bit of the graphite (right). The schreibersite is surrounded by the near-black pressurized carbon followed by the last layer of brownish cohenite (Fe-Ni-Co)C.

Also, in amongst the iron-nickel-cobalt alloy is a trace amount of precious metals (a few parts per million), especially iridium; at least in higher concentrations than found naturally on Earth.

Overall conclusion: As meteors come from the Sun, the Sun itself must be made of iron meteoritic components and in its ratios. Thereby, the Sun is mostly made of an iron (65%)/nickel/cobalt/trace precious metals alloy. There is also a separate graphite component which must be in contact with the very small titanium part as titanium is only present in meteorites as titanium carbide (stardust). The graphite area is also in contact with the sulfur part as graphite often surrounds the iron-sulfide nodules in meteorites; the graphite doesn’t react with the sulfur however. The iron-nickel-phosphide (schreibersite) component is likely to be a part of the Sun as is, because phosphorus cannot exist on its own as a single element in extreme heat. (The same applies to sulfur, but we will see its role later). Schreibersite is found in plate form and so it is likely plated to the common iron-nickel-cobalt alloy already mentioned.

Also, since graphite and troilite are present in most (iron) meteorites (the former often surrounding the latter) and that they are in the form of nodules in the iron-nickel alloy, all meteors must start life as expulsions of graphite-encompassed sulfur (or occasionally just sulfur) which then hits the schreibersite (Fe-Ni)3P plated layer of the main iron-nickel-cobalt alloy which constitutes the bulk component of the Sun. The sulfur has a low melting point and so quickly reacts with the iron from the alloy forming iron sulfide (troilite). This super-high temperature (5500 °C) mass of graphite and sulfur melts the schreibersite layer and then melts into the main iron-nickel-cobalt alloy behind it. This molten mass is then ejected away from the Sun in a probably centric fashion (like the Phi curve?) until it hits the glass layer at 100 km up. At this point the size of the meteor and/or the angle with which it hits the glass determines how much glass the iron meteor picks up and how the glass mixes with the meteor, whether through very rare total blending (carbonaceous meteorites), common varied blending (ordinary chondrites), rare no blending (stoney-iron meteorites), or rare iron meteorites containing no glass at all, even in chondrule form.

Now we understand the process, what kind of object does the Sun sound like to you?

The Sun as an artificial construct

Pure metallic iron alloys are extremely rare in nature. The only example of a naturally-occurring iron-nickel alloy is called telluric iron, found only in Greenland. Even then, the composition of this iron is vastly different to that of the meteoric one. In Neutron activation Analysis of Metals, a case study:

For example, the nickel content of the Cape York meteoritic iron is about 8%; and that of the telluric iron lies in the range of 1% to 3% (with one specimen of 6.5%). The carbon content should also be useful in this respect, as the Cape York meteorites contain less than 0.08% while the telluric Ovifak iron ranges as high as 10%.


In the Cape York area of Greenland there is 58 tons of the meteoric iron and over 500 tons of iron meteorites found on Earth so far. The Sun is still in the sky which means it consists of an incredible amount of iron-nickel-cobalt alloy whose composition does not exist on Earth at all. In fact, chondrites consist of other minerals unique to themselves.

There are generally many inclusions of assorted minerals, including nickel-iron grains, iron sulfides, magnetite, and many other minerals, some unique to asteroids.


Schreibersite is very rare on Earth, where the only known occurrence of the mineral is on Disko Island in Greenland; but it is common in meteorites. The amount of precious metals, especially iridium, is much higher in meteorites than normally found naturally.

Conclusion: The Sun consists of a humungous amount of iron alloy with a unique composition, where iron alloys themselves are nearly never found on Earth naturally. Other materials are also unique to the Sun or are otherwise very rare compared to the same elements on Earth. All meteorites consist of the same very few components in different ratios in the same pattern and format and consistency. Also, iron meteorites are easily confused with rusted pieces of man-made iron and steel. Not forgetting, there is a humungous amount of almost-pure glass in the sky 100 km high, the composition of which is never found on Earth naturally.

What are the chances that the Sun is an entity of natural formation? Next to zero I would say. The Sun must be a technology. What else can it be? If the Sun is a technology, let’s look at the properties of the materials of the different parts of the Sun and how they are used in today’s man-made technology to see if we can determine what kind of apparatus the Sun is.


The role of each meteoric element

The main mass of the Sun is the iron-nickel-cobalt alloy. The ratio of nickel in the original meteoric alloy is somewhere between 30-35%. This alloy has what is called the Invar effect:

In 1897 Guillaume1 discovered that face-centred cubic alloys of iron and nickel with a nickel concentration of around 35 atomic per cent exhibit anomalously low (almost zero) thermal expansion over a wide temperature range. This effect, known as the Invar effect, has since been found in various ordered and random alloys and even in amorphous materials2.


Low to zero thermal expansion over a wide temperature range? Funny that. How do we use this alloy in our every day technology?

Iron, nickel, and cobalt-based alloys used primarily for high-temperature applications are known as superalloys. Iron-based superalloys are characterized by high temperature as well as room-temperature strength and resistance to creep, oxidation, corrosion, and wear.


High-temperature applications? No surprises there. Are there any other uses that could match the Sun’s disposition?

The thermal expansion property of this alloy is almost identical to that of hard glass and ceramics. It also generates a very low level of foams when used for hermetic sealing of glass. In addition to these characteristics, the alloy is low in outgassing while it provides outstanding machinability; therefore, it is widely used for vacuum vessels, CRT electron gun electrodes, and various other precision products.

CRT electron gun electrodes
Iron-Nickel-Cobalt alloy is used as electrodes in CRT electron guns (old-style box televisions and computer monitors).

Vacuum vessels? Electrodes for electron guns? Outstanding machinability! It is as if this alloy has been perfectly made for the Sun, which operates in the vacuum of space. If you think these facts are overbearing co-incidences, read on. We haven’t even started yet.
2. The high concentrations of precious metals (compared to terrestrial standards) in the iron-nickel-cobalt alloy, such as gold, platinum, and iridium probably also have a purpose. Today’s technology uses these metals in a variety of ways.

(Gold) it is almost invariably alloyed with other less expensive metals, such as copper, zinc, silver and nickel. Important commercial uses include wiring in electronics, semi-conductors in tiny computer chips (when combined with silicon and/or other metals) and printed circuits… Platinum is also used in electronics, while its incorruptibility makes it ideal for crucibles. As an alloy with platinum (containing about 1% rhodium), it is used in thermocouples, electrical equipment and man-made fibre production… The most corrosion-resistant of all elements, iridium is also used to make crucibles and high temperature lab equipment. Iridium is usually alloyed with platinum (with iridium being less than 20%). The alloy is then used in robust electrical contacts, precision resistance winding.

iridium spark plugs
Iridium is 6 times harder, 8 times stronger, and has a melting point 1200 degrees higher than platinum making it an ideal material for the electrode of a spark plug.

So, we have electronics, electrodes, crucibles and high temperature lab equipment. It is the same theme again and again… electrics and high temperatures.
3. Carbon (graphite) is also part of the Sun, from which all meteors likely originate. What properties does this material possess?

Graphitic substances, due to their exceptional thermal resistance and light weight, can suitably tackle this situation. Some application of graphite in aerospace industry includes engine cases, blast tubes, rocket nozzle, nose cone, different edge components, thermal insulator etc.


Yet another material of the Sun that has exceptional thermal resistance. How do we use this in our every-day technology?

This particular structure of graphite in a single layer makes it one of the most stable and unreactive materials that can retain its strength and physical properties at a temperature as much as 2200 degree Celsius. The atomic structure of graphite reveals that, it poses delocalized electrons which are mobile and is responsible for carrying heat and electricity. A very pure form of graphite is pyrolytic graphite which is desired for its anisotropic properties. For its superior conductivity and stability pyrolytic graphite has many advanced use, for example, ultra-high vacuum crucible, missile components, thermal insulator, rocket nozzles, and aircraft’s brake.


Yet another material used in a vacuum, just like the Sun. It isn’t just used in vacuum crucibles, however; its main technological purpose is as electrodes for industrial electric arc furnaces used to melt scrap iron and steel.

Graphite electrodes carry the electricity that melts scrap iron and steel (and sometimes direct-reduced iron: DRI) in electric arc furnaces, the vast majority of steel furnaces. They are made from petroleum coke after it is mixed with coal tar pitch, extruded and shaped, then baked to carbonize the binder (pitch), and then graphitized by heating it to temperatures approaching 3000 °C, that converts carbon to graphite.


Interestingly, the carbon turns to graphite at close to 3000 °C which would perhaps explain why the carbon of the 5,500 °C Sun is in this form.

Carbon electrode
A large graphite electrode used in an electric arc furnace.

So what information do we have so far? The Earth is surrounded by a 99%+ pure glass layer which is then followed by a vacuum and then a radiating artificial light. What kind of technology does this sound like to you? You have several of them in your home right now.

vacuum Kirby lightbulb
A Kirby vacuum light-bulb. Is the Sun a filament technology in glass somewhat similar to the light-bulb above?
carbon marconi filament
A carbon Marconi filament. At the end of the 19th century light-bulbs had carbon filaments encased in a vacuum rather than a noble gas… nearly the same as the Sun.

If the Sun is a light-bulb, then the originating component of meteors: carbon, is likely to have an electrode role. Electricity is never smooth and even in its transmission through a wire or an electrode. There are surges every now and then.

They are produced by the random movement of charge carriers, caused by thermal agitation, and by other physical processes in matter that stem from the discrete nature of electricity, as well as by the random variations and instability inherent in a circuit.


It stands to reason that the electric current powering the Sun light-bulb would also have varied surges throughout its “shelf-life”. This would explain solar flares. In fact, these surges may be what causes bits of the graphite electrode to break off and melt through the iron alloy and then on to Earth as meteors. This is supported by the fact that coronal mass discharges (CMEs), of which iron has been speculated as an element, have a very strong correlation with solar flares and that both CMEs and solar flares typically erupt from what are known as the active regions on the sun where magnetic fields are much stronger on average. Could these stronger magnetic fields be where the carbon electrodes are placed? Very likely.
4. This leaves sulfur as the only possible component for the filament part of the light-bulb, especially as graphite is often found in contact with or surrounding iron sulfide in meteorites. To be honest, I had never heard of sulfur as a filament and thought I was barking up the wrong tree, until I found that sulfur lamps had already been invented and exist right now.

sulfur lamp
Original sulfur lamps of the 1990s. Note the left one is a flattened spherical shape, coincidentally similar to the Earth.
sulfur lamp sun
A typical modern sulfur lamp has a parabolic reflective disk behind the filament bulb to increase the illumination. This would also seem a likely shape for the Sun, as we see the Sun as a circle in the sky.

Sulfur lamps were first researched as a project in 1986 taking four years to fully develop. However, being too expensive to manufacture they were never commercially available until quite recently. A 1994 article mentions them below.

The brightest prospect of that kind is a revolutionary prototype bulb developed by Fusion Lighting of Rockville, Md., in conjunction with DOE: a tiny closed quartz sphere containing argon gas and a pinch of elemental sulfur. When zapped with ordinary kitchen-grade microwaves, the bulb gives off intensely bright and relatively cool rays that are remarkably similar to sunlight.

The sulfur bulb gets so hot that it has to be rotated at 300 to 600 revolutions per minute to prevent the quartz from melting, which it would do “in about 2 seconds” if uncooled, says Fusion Lighting Vice President Michael Ury. (Early prototypes also required two fans per bulb; later versions have eliminated that need.)


A sulfur lamp is remarkably similar to sunlight and needs to be rotated to avoid melting the glass. Is this why we have day and night, to avoid melting the glass in the sky? If so, each rotation of the sulfur lamp would be equivalent to one Sun rotation, which is 24 hours. That means that 300-600 rotations per minute is equivalent to 300-600 days or 1 to 2 years. Is 1+ years for us equal to one minute of the engineers’ time? Two seconds before the glass melts is equivalent to 10 to 20 days Earth time. If the sun is at full power and stops for 20 days, then we could be in trouble.

Also, what kind of temperatures does a sulfur light-bulb produce to melt the quartz glass in 2 seconds? The answer: 6000 Kelvin or 5,500 °C. Mmm, where have we heard that temperature before? Oh yes… the Sun of course. The temperature of the corona of the Sun is also 5,500 °C.

Because of the sulfur lamp’s remarkable similarities to Sunlight, hobbyist and indoor growers are building the lamps themselves. You tube authors often describe these lamps as “The Sun on Earth” and “a true full spectrum“.

sulfur lamp growhouse
A hobbyist built this sulfur lamp himself for his plants.
sulfur lamp2
A modern sulfur lamp using a reflective parabolic dish, probably very similar to the Sun.

What does full spectrum mean?

Full-spectrum light is light that covers the electromagnetic spectrum from infrared to near-ultraviolet, or all wavelengths that are useful to plant or animal life; in particular, sunlight is considered full spectrum, even though the solar spectral distribution reaching Earth changes with time of day, latitude, and atmospheric conditions.


In fact, when comparing camcorder stills of the Sun and those of a sulfur lamp it is very difficult to spot the difference. If it weren’t for the background in the shots below, it would be hard to discern which were which.

sulfur lamp1
A sulfur lamp.
sulfur lamp3
A sulfur lamp installed on a house.
The Sun looking like the spitting image of a sulfur lamp.
If the background were taken away, it would be near impossible to distinguish between the Sun and a sulfur light-bulb.

How similar is the light emitted from a sulfur lamp to that of the Sun?

The Sun has more yellow, orange and blue light in this diagram.
In this diagram, sunlight at the top of the atmosphere peaks at 500 nm and rides the curve down the longer wavelengths very similar to a sulfur lamp shown in the graph next to this one.

The reason for the lack of blue light is unknown to me at this time, but may be because the Sun uses carbon electrodes in a vacuum as opposed to an electrode-less sulfur lamp using microwaves to ignite the sulfur which is surrounded by argon gas. Apparently there is a patent for a lamp which uses electrodes (titanium oxide for example), so electrodes are possible.

The excess blue light is really only for sunlight above the atmosphere. A sulfur lamp’s light wavelengths are tested in our atmosphere. Is the very small scale of the man-made sulfur lamp the reason for the excess blue light absorption in the air between itself and the detector? If a small sulfur lamp were in the vacuum of space, would it also show an excess of blue light to 250 nm? I don’t know.

The lack of yellow and red light is more easily explained and brings us on to the next material.
5. The Sun is very likely a parabolic disk which is made of a iron-nickel-cobalt alloy. This is further plated with a schreibersite (iron-nickel-phoshide) layer with a hardness of 6.5 to 7, which is somewhere between pyrite and quartz. There is a strong correlation between the hardness of the material and its melting point as hardness demonstrates strong molecular bonds, which is also the reason for a high melting point. This makes the melting point of schreibersite somewhere between 1200 and 1700 °C, but it could be a lot higher as Tungsten has a hardness of 7.5 and a melting point of 3422 °C. This might not seem high enough to resist the 5,500 °C temperature of the Sun, but schreibersite is highly metallic in its lustre which means it is extremely shiny. This would mean that the Sun disk would look something like a solar cooker, with most (95%) of the hot infra-red rays being reflected back out, and schreibersite, according to Buchwald V.F. (1975) Handbook of Iron Meteorites, Vol. 1, “ is yellow in reflected light“. This plated layer is the likely reason for the increase in yellow and red light emitted from the Sun, and also perhaps why the Sun can be sometimes seen to be yellow/white in colour.

parabolic solar cooker
Put a sulfur filament in front of this solar cooker, but plated with schreibersite, and you’ll get something akin to the Sun.

Perhaps after many years of discharges, the schreibersite layer has reveled some of the iron-nickel alloy underneath which is adding to the extra blue light seen in the sunlight spectrum?

6. The last component of meteorites is the tiny amount of titanium carbide present. Since titanium is always in the form of a carbide, it must be attached to the carbon electrode of the Sun. The role of this element is unknown to me, but due to its very low quantity, a guess would be that it is used as a place holder for the carbon electrodes; but that is purely speculative.
7. We have covered all the components of iron meteorites and therefore finished with the Sun itself. However, there is still the mystery of the incredibly large quantities of magnesium that is attached to the glass layer in the sky; as well as small amounts of calcium, sodium and aluminium. In meteorites, magnesium is always attached to silicon dioxide in some form as an enstatite, but what is it doing there? Let’s look at how magnesium is used in industry to give us a clue.

Large transmitting and specialized (vacuum) tubes often use more exotic getters, including aluminium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, strontium, cesium and phosphorus.


What are getters?

When a vacuum tube or an electron gun is pumped to a near-vacuum state, not all the air can be physically expelled. To mop up any remaining gas, a highly-reactive substance, usually a magnesium ring, is added inside the vacuum tube or electron gun and heated up.

purple getter
The broken tube on the left has a ring getter; the right ex-vacuum tube has magnesium added to the tip giving it a silvery appearance.

This is the reason why there is so much magnesium on the glass layer in the sky. The engineers pumped out (or let gravity take out) as much of the air as possible and added a magnesium getter probably close to or attached to the Sun as the magnesium needed to heat up and react with the remaining gas that was left. With such high temperatures the magnesium would have evaporated, fell, and then lined the glass.



None of the evidence presented so far is conclusive, but it does make the theory likely. You may be thinking, well, what about those pictures of the Sun that show dark spots, like this one below:

h-alpha filter sun
A photo of the Sun taken with an h-Alpha Solar filter centering on the 656.281 nanometer wavelength of light.

How can photos like this be taken of such a luminous object, that clearly has no dark spots when seen with the naked eye? A hydrogen-alpha filter is added to the camera lens so that only a very narrow frequency of light can be viewed. How narrow?

H-alpha has a wavelength of 656.281 nm. A hydrogen-alpha filter is an optical filter designed to transmit a narrow bandwidth of light generally centered on the H-alpha wavelength

…These layers are selected to produce interference effects that filter out any wavelengths except at the requisite band. Alternatively, an etalon may be used as the narrow band filter (in conjunction with a “blocking filter” or energy rejection filter) to pass only a narrow (<0.1 nm) range of wavelengths of light centred around the H-alpha emission line.


Under 0.1 nanometer of light centered around 656.281 nm! Of course the Sun has dark spots; if by dark spots they mean areas of the Sun that don’t emit wavelengths of light under 0.1 nm either side of 656.281. Take a picture of a sulfur lamp, or even an ordinary tungsten filament light-bulb with the same filter and you are bound to see something similar. The dark spots of the light-bulb mean that the light-bulb in your living room is really a spherical solid object generating millions of degrees in temperature because of the nuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium producing 5,500 °C at its corona… obviously!

sun like a sulphur lamp
Do you see any dark spots?

It’s such a non-nonsensical and deceptive proposition that the Sun has dark spots, but we are easily fooled without investigating it ourselves. Undoubtedly, it was a way for the Copernicans to try and uphold their illusion of solid spheres whirling around each other millions and trillions of kilometers away.

Interestingly, scientists thought the Sun was solid and even partly made out of iron in the early 1900s.

In principle, it seemed that one might obtain the composition of the stars by comparing their spectral lines to those of known chemical elements observed in laboratory spectra. Astronomers had identified elements like calcium and iron as responsible for some of the most prominent lines, so they naturally assumed that such heavy elements were among the major constituents of the stars.


This was no doubt a little worrying for the heliocentric natural philosophers. Galileo’s assumption that the entire Sun must be made out of gas because sunspots move around the Sun at different speeds can’t be wrong after all.

Galileo was the founding father of the gas model theory of the sun. He observed the sun through a relatively primitive telescope and noticed that sunspots did not rotate uniformly across the surface of the photosphere. He also observed that this visible “surface” rotated at different speeds near the equator than it did near the poles.

From his study of sunspots and their uneven rotation pattern, Galileo surmised that he must be looking at some type of gas atmosphere. He was correct in that assessment, although today we know that the photosphere is a form of hot ionized plasma. Unfortunately however, Galileo also “assumed” that no other solid layers existed, or could exist, beneath the visible layer of the photosphere.


If a light-bulb has an electric plasma around it, the whole light-bulb must be made out of plasma… so goes the logic. That is not to say that the original early 1900s’ idea of taking the entire spectrum of the sulfur lamp Sun and then breaking each wavelength down so that it would encompass practically all the elements of the Earth was not exactly a good one. Don’t forget, this is sunlight that traveled through the glass layer 100km high and all the different gases of Earth’s atmosphere underneath, so they might be forgiven in using this kind of methodology.

In fact, Henry Norris Russell at Princeton had concluded that if the Earth’s crust were heated to the temperature of the Sun, its spectrum would look nearly the same.


Ok Henry, really. Never fear though. Galileo must be correct. What we need is some Einstein-esque mathematical makerupery to make sure a broad spectrum of elements magically turns into just one or two gases. The first person to do this will get a statue of themselves and a prize. Enter Cecilia Payne:

Cecilia Payne, who studied the new science of quantum physics (uh-oh), knew that the pattern of features in the spectrum of any atom was determined by the configuration of its electrons (of course she did). She also knew that at high temperatures, one or more electrons are stripped from the atoms, which are then called ions. The Indian physicist M. N. Saha had recently shown how the temperature and pressure in the atmosphere of a star determine the extent to which various atoms are ionized.

Payne began a long project to measure the absorption lines in stellar spectra, and within two years produced a thesis for her doctoral degree, the first awarded for work at Harvard College Observatory. In it, she showed that the wide variation in stellar spectra is due mainly to the different ionization states of the atoms and hence different surface temperatures of the stars, not to different amounts of the elements. (Or it is due to the absoption of the glass / layer and all the atmospheric gases underneath). She calculated the relative amounts of eighteen elements and showed that the compositions were nearly the same among the different kinds of stars. She discovered, surprisingly, that the Sun and the other stars are composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, the two lightest elements. All the heavier elements, like those making up the bulk of the Earth, account for less than two percent of the mass of the stars.


Problem solved. How on Earth did Indian physicist M. N. Saha know the pressure and temperature of stars? He didn’t. It’s just pure guesswork in their heliocentric model of assumptions.

Meghnad Saha‘s best-known work concerned the thermal ionisation of elements, and it led him to formulate what is known as the Saha equation. This equation is one of the basic tools for interpretation of the spectra of stars in astrophysics. By studying the spectra of various stars, one can find their temperature and from that, using Saha’s equation, determine the ionisation state of the various elements making up the star.


Assuming starlight through the glass and Earth’s atmosphere gives an accurate spectrum of the stars’ composition and that the equation has a true basis in reality.

The Saha ionization equation, also known as the Saha–Langmuir equation, is an expression that relates the ionization state of an element to the temperature and pressure.[1] The equation is a result of combining ideas of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics and is used to explain the spectral classification of stars. The expression was developed by the Indian astrophysicist Meghnad Saha in 1920,[2][3] and later (1923) by Irving Langmuir.[4]


Mathematical makerupery again. Let’s combine ideas and make something up – don’t study the composition of real things (only things) from space: meteorites; instead let’s circle jerk together in maths.

“Saha had concentrated on the marginal appearances and disappearances of absorption lines in the stellar sequence (not in the upper atmosphere), assuming an order of magnitude for the pressure in a stellar atmosphere and calculating the temperature where increasing ionization, for example, inhibited further absorption of the line in question owing to the loss of the series electron. As Fowler and I were one day stamping round my rooms in Trinity and discussing this, it suddenly occurred to me that the maximum intensity of the Balmer lines of hydrogen, for example, was readily explained by the consideration that at the lower temperatures there were too few excited atoms to give appreciable absorption, whilst at the higher temperatures there are too few neutral atoms left to give any absorption. ..That evening I did a hasty order of magnitude calculation of the effect and found that to agree with a temperature of 10000° [K] for the stars of type A0, where the Balmer lines have their maximum, a pressure of the order of 10−4 atmosphere was required. This was very exciting, because standard determinations of pressures in stellar atmospheres from line shifts and line widths had been supposed to indicate a pressure of the order of one atmosphere or more, and I had begun on other grounds to disbelieve this.”


The priesthood are a waste of space. They are forever “surprised” when real data comes in to smack them in the face repeatedly. Instead of all the heliocentric assumptions, temperature suppositions, pressure guesses, made up equations, just compare the space spectroscopy of the Sun to a sulfur lamp and its composition to iron meteorites and voila, problem solved (just about). No doubt, the high-ups at NASA and certain elements within the US military know the truth of our situation, at least they knew what the Sun really is sometime between 1979 (launch of the space shuttle) and 1986 (the start of the development of the sulfur lamp). The U.S. Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. has installed them and the Hill Air Force Base hanger (US) has many spherical ones littered under the roof. They know.

air and space museum sulfur lamps
Long sulfur lamps in the U.S. Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
More sulfur lamps in the Hill Air Force Base hanger, US.

If the Sun is a light-bulb filament and there is glass in the sky, then natural philosophers (scientists) will be turning in their beds, as to them a very small technological “universe” is the equivalent of garlic to a vampire. It is rocket fuel to the God-botherers though. Nevertheless, everything may not be 100% artificial; at least the Earth may have already existed before it was molded and terraformed to the engineers’ specifications (or maybe not).

We still don’t know the purpose of this terraforming and who did it (and if we were told we would need some kind of a back story as we have no references). Are these engineers still around? It sounds like we are in someone’s grow house, a bit like an indoor vegetable or weed grower’s garden.

indoor gardening
Are we the plants in someone’s garden?

Also, what powers the Sun lamp? It is the turbulent ether wind which rotates the lamp around itself, probably in a vortex fashion as the ether spins East to West (not the Earth spinning West to East) and vortexes (cyclones) are also very common weather patterns. It is the turbulent ether which seems to account for all “unresolved forces” and so it is extremely likely that this is what also powers the Sun. Considering how much power the Sun gives the Earth in terms of heat and light to enable the life cycle on Earth to function (not including the infinitesimally tiny amount of energy people harness from solar power), the ether must possess virtually unlimited energy; at least energy as we know it, (largely manifesting itself as movement; whatever that is). Obviously we need to find out how to tap this unlimited energy river directly instead of relying on the indirect byproducts of the Sun machine or the wind.

How long has the Sun been in the sky? When was it manufactured and switched on? How was it manufactured? What is the lifetime of such a piece of equipment? Man-made sulfur lamps last indefinitely (forever), but the Sun lamp is losing a little bit of itself all the time (meteors) due to power surges through the graphite electrode. Does this limit its shelf-life? probably… or maybe not. Who knows? Maybe the engineers don’t know themselves.

Lastly, if the Sun is a light-bulb with the Earth coated around the glass, then we must be on the inside of the crust looking in. It looks like the concave Earth theorists are right after all. Cyrus Teed may still yet get to rejoice from the beyond.

concave earth
This is our likely set-up.

Is there any proof that we live inside a concave Earth, apart from the theory that the Sun is a light-bulb? Surprisingly there is, but more on that in the next article.

Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Is the Sun a light-bulb?

  1. Andrew says:

    If you look into the sun at 6pm, you could notice that sun is darker than its edge.
    It looks like our sun is just a lampshade and the real light is coming from behind.

    View Comment
  2. Dan says:

    If you team up with flat earthers & concave earthers on different channels and forums, you can create a gofundme page for the construction of a rocket that may take years to finish, but will provide the ultimate information to either prove or disprove your theories.

    What I’m speaking of, is not an advanced rocket. It’s a rocket that we, non-NASA non-ESA people can create, given time and money. It will be capable of doing flight to 100 km, where the glass is located, if it does exist.

    It should be equipped with several information gathering devices such as pressure meter on the top of the rocket, hit detector, altitude meter and video recorder, among others. It sounds far off, but I see no reason why, if united, we could not perform such a thing.

    So whatchu think?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Costs a lot of money. Then we need accurate altitude meters which is a little problematic. To be sure of a glass sky, a rocket could be made to get to a supposed altitude meter reading of 200km, but that would be very costly I would have thought. Something to look into if you want to.

      View Comment
  3. Donald Sarty says:

    Are Octahedrites expelled pieces of the big generator(suns power source) ?
    Amazing complex structure

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      They are pieces of the Sun itself Don. Its magnetism allow it to oscillate (in my model) as it moves in the magnetic h-field of the Earth cavity. This movement powers the Sun.

      View Comment
      • Donald Sarty says:

        Thank You WH, it has been awhile since i went over your great work 😉

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Even though I could, I’m not going to add to the blog’s articles or revise them or add new ones just yet. I’ll gather as much first hand data as possible and then publish in one big wammy. I already know how the moon works now which is a great. Hopefully things will start to make even more sense this year.

          View Comment
          • JMAC1978 says:

            cant wait for the findings!!! would love to know any new info you’ve found out by watching the Moon this last month.. Sneak peak? lol… guess i’ll wait..

            View Comment
  4. PartOfYou says:

    Thanks Wildheretic for all this research and your time! i saw this article long time ago, but there was so much that i couldn’t be bothered to go into it… But after few years of research i have learned to concentrate my attention and slowly digest everything… although i haven’t check all the data, but i like your theory which is not based only on empty assumptions! I assume you are open to many suggestions and assumptions and real science – thats why i really like you.
    I wish most of researchers were like you!

    What are your thoughts about Venus and Sun relation ship?
    From numerology stand point and other data i have theory which lead me to think that those to objects has something very in common. Even if sun is solid or not, i think Venus can somehow powering the Sun. As you might know Sun = 365 in Chaldean numerology. And Venus = VE (versus) + backwards NUS = SUN = 225 (if you do it bankcards).
    Check some of my videos about Venus, just type on YT:
    How Venus is illuminated? [little trick]
    Plus stuff like this is worth to know:

    I am looking forward to do experiment with sun and sunspots. Try to film sun at 12 noon in different locations of earth and see what data we would get. if sunspots will differ drastically it is undeniable proof that sun is much, much closer.

    View Comment
  5. BlueMoon says:

    If I may ask, why do you choose to be a conspiracy theorist?
    Is it the smug satisfaction over people who are blind to your facts? Because I get that too. Is it because you get to be a part of a larger community? Because I have that in spades. Maybe because you wholeheartedly believe your own explanations? Same here! Really, we could probably each give similar reasons for why we align the way we do. But since most of the population believes in heliocentric model, you will always be at a disadvantage and I will always be at an advantage, except on these forums. So what does concave earth give you that convex earth doesn’t, besides adversity?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      If I may ask, why do you choose to be a conspiracy theorist?

      The evidence.

      Why are you against everything on this blog and uphold the mainstream when there is evidence that the mainstream is fraudulent? A rational person only looks at the evidence and pieces it together. Not everything in this blog is controversial, and only a few things a conspiracy (NASA’s marketing fraud).

      Either you are not rational or have been hired to waste my time.

      So what does concave earth give you that convex earth doesn’t, besides adversity?

      The truth. I want to know the truth and how things work and where we really are and our relationship to that reality. The mainstream have often failed in that regard, but not always. It depends where things take me.

      View Comment
      • BlueMoon says:

        But many of the conclusions you reach could only be reached on the presumption that NASA is lying. Which brings me to my other question: why do you primarily focus on NASA? Being from Ireland, which falls under the ESA, it’s surprising that you haven’t really recognized it. Sure, NASA was the agency that landed on the moon and has the Hubble, but the ESA has its own slew of accomplishments. Do you seriously expect that they could both seamlessly maintain a conspiracy?

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:


          The whole “scientific” and non-scientific world used to think the earth was a spinning globe. If tested otherwise (i.e. a repeat of the 1897 experiment) then the whole world consensus will have been proven irrevocably wrong. The likelihood therefore is that the space agencies know this experimental truth, which will reveal to the people that this “conspiracy” is indeed international. Which of course will lead on to further questions. It isn’t pleasant for a lot of people, but it is coming to the time now when everyone will be held to account.

          View Comment
  6. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    I’ve added a small section near the end of this article to show how they came to the idea that the sun is a ball of helium/hydrogen gas.

    View Comment
  7. sully says:

    Not to always be the Bible thumper, but Revelation chapter 16 states clearly that at the very end of times, the sun will become much hotter- “scorching men with fire.”

    Many of us do feel it getting more intense, and turning more white than its former yellow….

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That is probably where LSC got his end times scorched earth prophesy, were Australia is the only country not affected. I can’t see how only Australia would not be effected as the Sun can only shine on half the earth, but anyway.

      It really all depends on how quick this mag reversal process happens. Does it happen in five minutes, one hour, one day etc.? And also how much residual power the Sun has when either the h-field lessens or it slows down and stops. If the reversal is one hour, then there may be enough leftover or residual power in the Sun. If there is no residual power, then there will be no sun output at the exact moment of reversal (sun stopping).

      If there is enough residual power, then let’s go through the process with that in mind. As the h-field slows down and stops, the Sun still moves around as there is no friction in center of space. When the h-field reverses in direction, the Sun which was still spinning around the centre east to west as normal now slows down as there is an opposing current. Eventually the Sun will stop, but the h-field reversal may have reached its now full speed. The sun’s movement is necessary for its electrical power in the h-field, but if there is enough residual power to cover the reversal process then the sun will always be shining and it will stop at some point.

      If there is no residual power, then the Sun dims, goes out (stops), dims again, and then is back to full power going west to east.

      I agree that the Sun is now white rather than yellow. Could this be because most of its shreibersite layer has now worn off due to all the electrical activity which produces meteorites? Is it a change in atmospheric conditions? Holes in the glass? Parallel universe? (ha ha) etc.

      At the moment though, the Sun is not scorching men with fire. In fact, forecasters who I trust predict global cooling rather than warming due to the turndown of sun output (merely a 300 year cycle, nothing biblical here).


      View Comment
  8. steve says:
    don’t put much faith in the bible written by the romans..

    View Comment
    • LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind says:

      Did “the romans” even exist?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Funny you should mention that. The “Romans” may be a lot more recent than first thought. I stumbled across this gem from a blog on an unrelated topic:

        “Yet, the history of Rome that claimed to rule the world (orbis terrarum) stood at the opposite end of the world from the strikingly similar Han Dynasty (206 BC—220 AD) in China, which also claimed to have ruled the world (tianxia). There is the History Book for Tang-Dynasty in China covering the period 618-907 AD. The text mentions 17 times what appears to be the Roman Empire and describes an envoy that sent by the Roman Emperor to China. The Roman Emperor was recorded to have been “Anton“ or Marcus Aureius Antoninus. The account of such an envoy visiting the older Han Dynasty predates the Venetian traveler Marco Polo (1254-1325 AD) by more than 1,000 years.”

        This shows us that the dates are likely wrong. In what direction and by how much is not known, but they seem to be wrong.

        View Comment
      • David Vincent says:

        Yes, Anatoly Fomenko is brilliant. Him and his team have done the most extensive research into history/chronology. I get siked every time I see someone mention his work. Now the Romans certainly did exist but not 2000-3000 years ago, the Romans most likely no older than 1000-1200 yrs old and may even have been the culture of the Renaissance. Fomenko suggests that ancient history was created during the past 1000-500yrs ago by various governments/religious groups as analogous to their own contemporary history. Fomenko compares hundreds if not thousands of events in ancient and medieval/Renaissance history, and shows that “ancient” history are events from the medical/Renaissance approx. between the years 1000/1200 to 1700/1800’s except the names and descriptions of the events are changed to create new stories based on their own contemporary history, the new stories were then labeled as “ancient” history with the use of some old artifacts & etc to “prove” the ancient history is real, when in fact the history was fabricated. Fomenko & his team have an insane amount of information+research to back their work in case anyone thinks it’s fake. (The New Chronolgy series is 7 books long each book 600-900 pages plus another 30-40 more books on different parts of history/culture) To be clear I’m not stating this idea is 100% irrefutable, obviously each part of history is context dependant, I’m just streamlining part of Fomenko’s work so people can get an idea of it.

        View Comment
  9. Steve says:

    I am beside myself with curiosity. I stumbled on your website, but not by mistake. You see, there are two reasons the way I think that there is this questioning we have that leads us to behave like we do:
    1-because we are seeking to know the truth
    2-because we want to know that we exist for a reason
    I do not go down the path of irrational thought when it comes to science, but that’s because science proves constantly the existence of God the Almighty. Why? Every time you take further steps to alleviate the contrived notion and programming of our existence, it seems there is something more unanswered that makes us realize there’s still more we cannot answer that we perceive we must satisfy. There are so many thing’s beautifully and wonderfully made….how could anyone disregard how this environment exist to promote life, but not let life overshadow it’s magnificence. In and of itself, if more people we’re allowed to let their questioning lead them to open doors like you have, this world would be better off for it. I appreciate your insight, knowledge, and logic. But I cannot agree you do not see God in all of this. Yes, not interpreting the Bible correctly may have lead us astray and we may yet be able to right the course, but the best way to do that is acknowledge that we have many answers that do not qualify everything as a natural occurrence. Once we let that go, we can equate our existence to one important factor—someone wanted us to experience all the good thing’s this life has to offer and He is good and loves us very much. Here’s the kicker, some on this Earth, only have one purpose and one point to their existence-to lead us astray with the obvious reason is to profit from it. Think of it, that’s their sole purpose! They take from those unable to separate from their fairy tale pursuit. And it’s getting worse every day, every year we exist. So, thank you for being one of the few to give a f**k and stand out from the rest to set some perspective on this life. He has a purpose and your fulfilling a need. Don’t you feel grateful He used you?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Thanks for that. My current philosophy of the Earth is that it is completely artificial – the exact opposite of natural philosophy.
      God is a very tricky subject for me intellectually. The subconscious mind knows and says some things out loud occasionally without me understanding it intellectually. You can get a feeling that says God is with you, but I don’t know what that is. I don’t think my mind will ever know, at least while I am alive. The day before this blog started, I was fed up with all the lies cluesforum had revealed and I said out loud “I’ve had enough of these Babylonian whores. It is time to end this.” I don’t who or what a Babylonian whore is but I later read there is supposed to be a connection to the bible (which I have never read; only snippets online). The bible old testament god to me is not the god that is with me. My interpretation of the bible god is more like one of many people with a great deal of fantastic technology and probably interdimensional abilities who owned, used, exploited and created (some of) the primitives of the time for their own selfish needs and wants. They lacked responsibility completely (love and caring) and hopefully have learned from that lesson in history (we hope).

      View Comment
      • sully says:

        The Bible does address at some length the “whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation. (Revelation is really a culmination and blend of many many themes dealt with throughout the entire Bible.)

        Essentially, it is this worlds system of corrupt (evil) political/financial control, used to exploit and deceive people. It is spiritual in origin, and Babylon represents the negative/anti-God system of powers.

        It has always been in opposition to God, good, health, caring and sharing. Contrasted with His Kingdom, which is love, life and light.

        View Comment
  10. sully says:

    Re: the firmament

    Speaking from the Genesis perspective, you must account for the pre flood and post flood conditions. Which is to say, there WAS a massive amount of water up there (before the flood, perhaps above the glass??)i.e., the ‘firmament’ of Genesis, but it fell down to the earth’s surface as the source of most of the flooding.

    Which then turned the earth into mostly water covered, when it had been mostly land surface pre flood.

    So, we are no longer in the original condition, but in a different one now. The glass could still be up there. I believe Stephen holds to this theory as well, that holes or cracks formed in the glass, allowing the water to fall.

    Genesis clearly describes the waters “above’ and the waters ‘below.’ In the creation account. Again, that all changed with the flood.

    BTW, next time it will be by fire…

    For what it’s worth.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I also believe today’s environment was not Earth’s original condition. Most of the water I think came from below though which polluted the Earth with heavy and semi-heavy water which I think is the real cause of our short lifespans today.

      View Comment
      • sully says:

        Based on my studies, I think the majority of the water came from above, but yes, there was also water that sprung up from the earth as well.

        Also, the loss of the waters above removed a lot of the protection from solar radiation, etc. that pre flood people enjoyed. So lifespans were greatly shortened by the change.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I suppose it depends on how much water I guess. The watery/ice layer couldn’t be too thick as the sun has to shine through it. I know others will say, the water is behind the sun and is the celestial sphere, but I don’t think that is what the celestial sphere is at all or that the sun is in front of it, but I’m open to reason.

          View Comment
    • Truth seeker says:

      Bible does not talk about Earth creation nor flooding. Bible is about the Word of God, the divine word, the divine seed and all books in it talks about that seed (which is in us as men, not women) and how we use/should use it aka sex. God is in men, Lord in women.

      The great flood is nothing but a coitus intercourse as in the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Revelation et al.

      View Comment
  11. Q says:

    I’m in agreement that this site would benefit if there were an area to discuss the scriptural implications of these theories. Much appears to be in accordance with the bible (earlier translations anyway).
    WH, the fact that your blog doesn’t dismiss or embrace God as a possible engineer keeps me reading. I’m a believer and feel the Bible is taken too literally. Its interpretation IMO.
    As Science is surely a religion (I first heard Hovind say this) requiring so many leaps of faith just to swallow what’s fed us.. Have you considered possibly that some “Scientific Fact” is made up to intentionally contradict Scripture? (Hovind reading led me to LSC and he lost me at “I am the Second Coming”, and he led me to you, WH.
    Stepping away from the normal content for a brief moment in this post, what is your take on the mention of what appears to be space craft in the Bible? In Indian tradition? In Chinese myth concerning dragons able to travel instantaneously from point A to point B? Its occurred to me that these ‘craft’ could be maintenance vehicles to keep the mechanism that is this world operating continuously.
    Just because this world was ” created ” doesn’t seem to negate the evidence of mechanics in the Sun. God, if indeed all knowing, all seeing could have “built” this world as easily as humans today can make a cellphone smaller than our hand.
    Is it obvious to you that the technological breakthroughs of this century have been around much longer than we’re to believe? And we’re given access as the powers that be allow?
    If this is the case, how do the pyramids in Egypt fit in? LSC mentions them in his videos as an energy source. Paintings of what appear to be light bulbs and batteries are seen in tombs.
    And WH, you mention the Maya on several occasions. They too have “crafts of flight”. Figurines that, supposedly if build in a larger scale to exact specifications of the tiny “toys” are capable of flight.
    Myth must hold much truth. It simply must. I can’t imagine a few men manufacturing these stories to occupy a bedtime ritual or even to entertain a campfire crowd.
    Not to be a conspiracy theorist or even a fanatical Christian, but some things just make more sense when a little imagination is allowed. We’ve been programmed HOW to think for so long one must question the entire premise of religion. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your own spirituality, I like how your works don’t attempt to contradict the Bible as blatantly as Science does and in fact much of your information here helps to prove, at least in part, Intelligent Design. Whose design? Who’s to say. But I find some comfort In the idea that there’s a plan. A reason. A purpose.
    Thank you WH for your blog. I’ve very much enjoyed the ideas proposed as they have been similar to my ideas, though much less exact in its science. Some are given the gift of math, Im not one. I’ve no way to prove or disprove your evidences but I can’t discard you as another protagonist simply because it fits into my long thought notion that Science is basically a fabrication. You said I believe that ideas built on ideas and presented as fact because to deviate from the mainstream brings ruination of sorts. How on this damn earth can some of these “facts even have been proven?? How DO we measure the spin of Earth? The distance to the sun, as we’ve not been there… Hogposh. But fact because we little people have no way to check their ” evidences .”
    I’m learning a plenty. Thank you.

    P.S. In your opinion, why is it that Hollywood seems to be leaking “hints?” Also, why do you suppose we have we been deemed unworthy of such information such as the shape of our world etc?
    What do they lose by telling us the truth? They being our world leaders. What possessed them to lie in the first place? Ah. Perhaps possessed is the key word here 🙂

    View Comment
    • Q says:

      You mentioned somewhere ‘human nature, if we’reve beenwe’re to the moon, we haven’t returned.’
      Is it quite possible that these meteorites are pieces of the moon cast off or such during excavation or whatever method they are using to strip the moon if they are in fact doing so?
      Without knowing what the moon is or even the sun, I guess its all conjecture until someone actually reaches the sun bulb.
      Stardust as well. Imagine our terrestrial mining expeditions. Begs the question.
      I myself can’t accept that we went to the moon when they say we did. Technologies were lacking. We couldn’t have a cell phone but we could create a spacesuit that .. Idk just seems so SciFi ridiculous. Makes me feel silly just trying to imagine this moon landing a reality.

      WH is your model of a concave Earth at all similar to LSC? If I’ve missed it please provide a link. I’d like a visualization.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Never thought of that. You know what, that fits with the moon being the back of the sun. Craters caused by electrical surges whose debris is meteors/asteroids that sometimes crash to earth.

        My CET model is the same as LSC, except that he has a “back-to-back” pyramid in the middle with the sun further out. I have no pyramid with the sun in the middle. Nobody knows what the truth is. What we can test here on Earth is CET and the horizon.

        I am unsure about multiple glass layers as of yet. Some things indicate yes, others no; so I don’t know.

        View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I’m in agreement that this site would benefit if there were an area to discuss the scriptural implications of these theories. Much appears to be in accordance with the bible (earlier translations anyway).

      Maybe in time I could russell up a small article on the bible and CET just to make it a stepping stone for discussion. Why not?

      WH, the fact that your blog doesn’t dismiss or embrace God as a possible engineer keeps me reading. I’m a believer and feel the Bible is taken too literally. Its interpretation IMO.

      The bible sure is a hot potato. IMO the book isn’t lying or false, it is just that a lot is missing, maybe incorrectly translated (context and many meanings), other interpretations possible etc.

      As Science is surely a religion (I first heard Hovind say this) requiring so many leaps of faith just to swallow what’s fed us

      I have found that what is promoted is just marketing based on core untested assumptions (sometimes not being able to test them at all). I think it is done to protect and promote atheism/hermiticsm/kaballa. Having said that, I had a brief read of one of the hermetic texts and it could easily be applied to concave Earth. Karol and Godrules have videos on that subject.

      Have you considered possibly that some “Scientific Fact” is made up to intentionally contradict Scripture?


      what is your take on the mention of what appears to be space craft in the Bible? In Indian tradition? In Chinese myth concerning dragons able to travel instantaneously from point A to point B? Its occurred to me that these ‘craft’ could be maintenance vehicles to keep the mechanism that is this world operating continuously.
      Just because this world was ” created ” doesn’t seem to negate the evidence of mechanics in the Sun. God, if indeed all knowing, all seeing could have “built” this world as easily as humans today can make a cellphone smaller than our hand.

      Why not? My take on those ufos identified as unknown “nuts and bolts” craft is that the 50s and 60s sightings of the “model t-ford” type were German (nazi). Later on, they were American/British (possibly Russian). Before then and still present they belong to a previous cycle tech from long ago holed up in another dimension/underworld. Anything left I put in the other universe (reality) or cavity box.

      Is it obvious to you that the technological breakthroughs of this century have been around much longer than we’re to believe? And we’re given access as the powers that be allow?

      I have the same suspicions. I suspect a lot of technology is introduced by either other world trading partners/overseers/military research or mixture of all three.

      If this is the case, how do the pyramids in Egypt fit in? LSC mentions them in his videos as an energy source. Paintings of what appear to be light bulbs and batteries are seen in tombs.
      And WH, you mention the Maya on several occasions. They too have “crafts of flight”. Figurines that, supposedly if build in a larger scale to exact specifications of the tiny “toys” are capable of flight.
      Myth must hold much truth. It simply must. I can’t imagine a few men manufacturing these stories to occupy a bedtime ritual or even to entertain a campfire crowd.

      I’m not sure about the purpose of the pyramids. If you are into alternative wild theories and alien/ufo/extra dimensional types then I read an extract from a book a long time ago mentioning this. I think it was that book that Nexus magazine used to advertise on its inside magazine cover the whole time. The author is from New Zealand – Alec something or other. Large pinch of salt required, but still fun to read.

      Not to be a conspiracy theorist or even a fanatical Christian, but some things just make more sense when a little imagination is allowed. We’ve been programmed HOW to think for so long one must question the entire premise of religion. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your own spirituality, I like how your works don’t attempt to contradict the Bible as blatantly as Science does and in fact much of your information here helps to prove, at least in part, Intelligent Design. Whose design? Who’s to say. But I find some comfort In the idea that there’s a plan. A reason. A purpose.

      What worries me is the reason why we are programmed how to think. Is it merely to save certain careers and maintain the power structure or is there a far deeper and more relevant reason. I don’t know.

      View Comment
      • sully says:

        I think the thing to keep in mind with the Bible is that it is designed and intended and executed to primarily convey spiritual truth. It was never intended to convey other more basic physical and scientific information, like this blog explores.

        But, a lot of that essential info is included in scripture incidentally, or indirectly. I think ancient peoples knew all the basics, handed down by word of mouth. A lot of that knowledge got lost along the way- the flood, collapses of empires, deliberate suppression from the masses, etc.

        And then, of course, mistranslations, lost content, etc. But the Bible is perfect at fulfilling it’s primary intended purpose- leading any sincere person to spiritual truth and life. Just don’t expect it to be a textbook. It’s nothing like one, and never was supposed to be.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Yeah, that’s true. I think the old testament was more like an “alien” invasion record and the history of their subsequent human creations of that area. The new testament I am not sure about to be honest. It sounds like a bit of a good cop/bad cop thing going on. Not sure.

          What I find interesting is that in the KJV of the bible it is “God” which creates the Earth and animals and everything else but not humans. Then on the next page of genesis we have the “LORD God” written instead of “God” when it comes to the creation of man in every sentence. Odd no? I’m not an expert in ancient hebrew (lol), but I read that “God” in the first page of genesis is “elohim” which is a plural form unless the pronoun explicitly states otherwise. In genesis it does not, therefore the “gods” created the earth and the animals and plants etc. LORD God however I think was written as YHVH or Jehovah. A LORD god in ancient Sumeria was also called a “baal” supposedly.

          So we have two separate creation stories here. We have the gods, and we have a bloke called Jehova. Did Jehova belong to the gods of page 1? Or does this entity deserve a completely different grouping altogether? Was there a corporate take over of the earth? Or was Jehova merely one of the original gods of page 1 but responsible for the creation of man or one race of man at least (middle eastern?)?

          I remember the recently deceased Lloyd Pye mention that that there are over 4000 recorded genetic errors in humans, but none in animals. I don’t know if this is correct, but if it is, it would certainly weigh against Jehovah being one of the original creator gods and merely a human scientist of old and perhaps from elsewhere. Sumerian literature (not from Sitchin) mentions there being many attempts at creating man before they got it correct and it was the black face which differentiated their creation from the creator. Does this mean then that black people were created by “LORD god” or more likely perhaps by another “LORD God” responsible for another region? I do not know.

          Food for thought.


          View Comment
          • LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind says:

            Hi WH, regarding the Gen1/2 God/Lord God:

            “God” creates man on Day 6 (Gen 1 v 26). Genesis 2 gives more details in verse 4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens”. So from the English it is clear that “God” and the “LORD God” is the same Creator that made the earth, heaven, animals and man.

            I really don’t know what to think of the “ancient” Hebrew or Greek anymore since running into Fomenko’s stuff. However, the English seems clear enough in this case.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Thanks for that. So there is a very good chance that man’s creator belonged to the same group that created the earth, according to the bible. Of course, maybe a big group of gods did all the creation, but the LORD god was the head of that organization? A bit like saying Donald Trump built this giant skyscraper, when really it was his company which hired building contractors to do it. He just gave the order to his employees to go ahead. That may reconcile the contradictions perhaps.

            View Comment
  12. Bill Grau says:

    You guys are complete nuts, like the Flat Earth nutters,
    a flat earth, a concave earth, the sun as a lamp, no stars,
    it’s like stepping in the twilight zone, or a novel by Terry Pratchett,
    any turtle holding the earth?

    View Comment
  13. JJ says:

    Hi, simple questions-

    If the Earth is concave, why do we see a sunset, a sunrise? Shouldn’t we be able to see the sun all the time, and not just see it gradually disappearing at sunset and appearing at sunrise?

    Come to that, why do we have night? Shouldn’t we just be able to see the sun all ‘night’ just further away, smaller, and dimmer?

    Alternatively, if the sun is simply ‘switched off’ why is it day-time in other parts of the world during our night-time?


    View Comment
  14. SPACE says:

    Didn’t you find strange, that during solar eclipses planes flights are not cancelled. Solar eclipses happens quite often, every year in some place, but people from the planes never reported seeing eclipsed sun. It proves, that sun is very low, bellow clouds, bellow plane.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Or more likely that the eclipse effect is an atmospheric one! Wow. There is a video posted somewhere here of the recent solar eclipse where someone sent up a balloon to try and capture the eclipse at about the same time and failed. It is a very short clip though.

      Mmmm, maybe the eclipse is an interference from something else. The plot thickens. Things aren’t what they seem at all.

      View Comment
    • R.E. says:

      SPACE said “Didn’t you find strange, that during solar eclipses planes flights are not cancelled. Solar eclipses happens quite often, every year in some place, but people from the planes never reported seeing eclipsed sun. It proves, that sun is very low, bellow clouds, bellow plane.”

      Yes basic, available observation supported by basic arithmetic has always supported the near-sun and near-moon model, while highly complicated mathe– well, us peons just couldn’t understand it. Best leave it to abstract theorists, and never question the famous proponents or their credentials. They are famous and people buy posters of their faces, not yours. To merely question the greats instantly marks you as crazy, unstable. This is also normal. Don’t question it or you will lose everything of you talk about it.

      Can you imagine the predicament the educated pros who KNOW about one or two lies, are in?

      View Comment
      • SPACE says:

        modern education is for money, it not gives real knowledge. if you are good boy/girl and follow this robotic system, you will get certain salary.
        also people cannot catchup, technology evolved very quickly. compare 18th century and 20th century, it’s like stone age and futuristic new world order.
        lets take year 1740, someone rises with hot air balloon, people would say, they did it with help of devil.

        View Comment
  15. Bob says:

    found this which is helpful in establishing that the sun is both electrical and positively charged.

    Cheers ^^

    View Comment
  16. Miriam says:

    Just can’t stop reading 🙂 While reading THIS article I am just reminded of a few times where I hat the feeling the sunlight went ‘out’ for a milisecond. Just like someone switched a lamp and off and on quickly. If the sun really is some sort of light bulp, well, then this experience is not all too off I suppose. Some glitch in the production of light flow, or so. I’ve had this experience about 4 times the past 15 years. I always put it down to a plane flying perfectly between me and the sun. But it still left a shallow feeling behind. Maybe someone here reading this has had a similar experience. And lately whenever I walk in the sun it just felt like an artificial light source for very strange reasons. And now I am reading this … simply mind boggling. Don’t know if it’s true, but, hell – life is SOO interesting!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I know what you mean about the artificial light source. It feels like it even more to me now. Do you remember when the sun was yellow? It seems to be white these days. I wonder if it is ozone depletion.

      View Comment
      • Miriam says:

        I know! And it even seems to me, that the sun’light’ is even more ‘blinding’ than I remember it to be. As if it changed. It might be ozone depletion, but since I have strong doubts about this ozone story anyways, I have to ponder more about possible explanations.

        View Comment
      • James says:

        Is there any truth out there. What do people gain from telling lies. I know there are theories out there but will we ever find the truth. I need some truth because im beginning to not care about this universe and the all stories that were created.

        View Comment
      • --daniel says:

        I remember when the sun was yellow and the skies were blue without being covered in the white of chemtrails (chemical contrails)… like most everything these days, astronomy is backwards–the sun is getting hotter and moving towards a Class F (white) star. Take a read of Geoengineering, Chemtrails, HAARP, World Orders, Time Lines and Ascension. You might find it “interesting.”

        View Comment
  17. Antony says:

    Here is “3 suns” video from Russia, same place where meteorite hit few years back.

    View Comment
  18. Bob says:

    Happy Birthday to our beautiful electric Sun and Merry Christmas you guys!

    Oh and happy bday to you too Steve 🙂

    Thanks for returning from the depths of winter after 3 days of not moving at all since the winter solstice began on the 22nd.
    Summer will come again! our village is saved!

    View Comment
  19. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Our ELECTRIC SUN in action, plasma ball anyone 🙂

    W.T.F Is Interacting With Our Sun Causing Chaos NASA

    View Comment
  20. SPACE says:

    oops Exodus 9:24

    View Comment
  21. SPACE says:

    Messages from Talmud: Were it not for the heat of Orion the world could not endure the cold of Pleiades; and were it not for the cold of Pleiades the world could not endure the heat of Orion. Berachoth 58b
    As I understand, Sun reflects rays of stars.
    In Talmud meteorites are referred as Zikin, also means shooting-stars, sometimes comet. And is made out of ice particles. More here

    Except in Exodus 9:18 behold, I am going to rain down at this time tomorrow a very heavy hail, the likes of which has never been in Egypt from the day of its being founded until now.
    And Exodus 9:And there was hail, and fire flaming within the hail, very heavy, the likes of which had never been throughout the entire land of Egypt since it had become a nation.
    Here hailstones fall ice & burning rocks at the same time, accompanies by loud, thundering noise.

    View Comment
  22. Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

    Found this ages ago, but thought it appropriate to this article as I was scanning through old links I had accumulated.

    “The sun is the roundest natural object ever precisely measured, astronomers say.

    The sun is very, very round, so it’s difficult to measure any deviations in that roundness,” said study leader Jeffrey Kuhn, a solar researcher and physicist at the University of Hawaii.

    If the sun were a meter-wide (3.3-foot-wide) beach ball, Kuhn said, the variation in the sun’s shape from the highest to the lowest point would be about 17 microns—less than the width of a fine human hair, according to the SDO measurements.”

    Mmmm… except if it isn’t natural at all. 🙂

    View Comment
  23. Noname117 says:

    Sorry, but I’m going to have to prove you wrong on this one. Although maybe the sun and a sulfur lamp do bear resemblance in visible light, that’s about it. Comparing “sunlight” to “sulphur lamp” on Wikipedia made me discover that the sun emits 43%-42% of its light in the visible spectrum, while a sulphur lamp emits up to 73% in that spectrum. 52%-55% of the sun’s emissions are infrared, while sulfur lamps are going to emit somewhere around 25% or 26% in the infrared. And do the math to find that the ultraviolet emotions are different too. On top of that, the sun emits many kinds of waves (X-Ray, radio, etc) which I am pretty certain sulfur lamps don’t emit, for they haven’t been banned yet.

    View Comment
    • Noname117 says:

      Alright, I will admit that due to limited research and commenting time, the entire above statement was touched on in the article, so please disregard it as my current argument. What I will now call my proof that the sun indeed has nuclear reactions is the presence of emitted neutrinos, tiny neutral particles which only result from certain types of nuclear reactions, which have been detected and proven to exist since 1956. On top of that, solar flares are known to release gamma rays (along with all other types of waves across the spectrum), which are almost always created from nuclear reactions. Sorry to say it, but the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        Under my theory, I fully expect “nuclear” reactions to be taking place, not just “in” the Sun, but around it as well. These reactions will be taking place in the outer Van Allen Belts. The Earth (through the holes near poles) is throwing up a massive amount of negative energy which includes all negatively charged particles (at least negative in orientation to the Sun, which is negative to us as well, as I later theorized that it is the Sun’s positive electric field which is gravity). These neg particles (electrons, neg neutrinos etc.) are rising up from the Earth to the Sun becoming more densely packed all the time, as the cavity is shrinking the further they rise. Above the glass they spin faster and become more energetic. I read the reason for this is because the Sun’s spinning EM field is spinning the particles at the same frequency (like pushing on a swing at the correct time), which makes them spin faster and faster with each “push” of the Sun’s field. So near the Sun we have tightly, super densely packed particles of incredibly high energy coming together. There are going to be reactions like gamma rays being emitted and everything else besides.

        The only mistake made by the current mainstream theory of the Sun is that it is these “side-effects” of the densely packed super energetic particles colliding which powers the Sun. No. It is the spin energy from the neg particles exciting the sulfur which causes it to emit light.

        The Sun must emit not just positive neutrinos (and lots of them), but also positive protons and all the rest. If a particle is positively charged, the Sun will be emitting it.

        View Comment
        • Noname117 says:

          Then how do you respond to the composition of the sun already being known? There is this thing called spectroscopy, the study of how light reacts with matter. Each element (and I thing molecules) has its own unique signature in radiated energy. Using prisms to separate the spectrum out and show “holes” in the spectrum is an easy way to identify elements, but there are numerous other techniques spanning the entire electromagnetic spectrum (and even going into other types of energy). Sulphur is going to have a different set of qualities when compared to hydrogen or helium, and it shouldn’t be hard to distinguish between them when observing a heat and light emitting object. Actually, this can be applied to other stars too, which is why my response to “disappearing stars” is half finished in my notes section of this iphone

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            The composition of the Sun isn’t already known (well, not in open circles). The light emitted by the Sun is the same as a sulphur lamp. Here are a few examples of wavelengths from other elements. There aren’t many wavelengths for hydrogen or helium are there? And helium is nearly all blue (UV) wavelength

            Here is sulphur:

            Sunlight above the glass is an exact replica of sulfur emissions. Below the glass there is far less UV. I’ve touched on this in another comment.

            View Comment
          • Noname117 says:

            For some reason I cannot reply to your comment, so I’ll just leave my response as a reply to mine. Although you can get fairly close to the amount of light emitted in the hydrogen-helium sun model with the sulphur lamp sun model, you will still not be able to perfectly emulate it, unless the creators of the sulphur sun (by what I’m hearing, your current model is artificial) intentionally constructed it to fool us. Even by adding extra light emissions to the sulphur model, you would have to have those exactly match those of a 70-some percent hydrogen and 20-some percent helium (with a few heavier elements thrown in) sun model. Plus, the unique spectra of elements extends into the entire electromagnetic spectrum, so not only must you get it exactly right in visible light, but in ultraviolet, infrared, x-rays, radio waves, and all the rest of the sections of the spectrum. So although maybe the entire composition of the sun is just an estimate, the corona’s composition is easily observable.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I don’t understand you. The spectral emissions follow sulfur, not hydrogen or helium as I have already shown you. If you superimpose sunlight emissions on top of sulfur lamp emissions you get a match. It’s not perfect, but close enough.

            As I’ve already said, background radiation comes from the source powering the Sun. There’s a maelstrom of densely packed charged particles powering the Sun and interacting with it. The difference in the Sun’s spectrum could be, and most likely is, caused by its energy source interacting with itself and the other elements with make up the sulfur lamp.

            Let’s look at helium:
            It is nowhere near the quantity or variation of the Sun’s emission spectrum.

            Now hydrogen:
            Also, nowhere near the Sun’s emission spectrum.

            They say there are other elements present to make up this mega shortfall (no kidding!), but that helium and hydrogen are the main ones, and don’t forget that all elements will be gaseous at 6000°C. Gases can’t be a ball, exploding, imploding, fusing or otherwise; and nuclear fusion has never been produced in the lab. The Sun as a nuclear reactor is a very far-fetched theory with no experimental evidence.

            …difficulties in demonstrating fusion in the lab have so far proved overwhelming.


            It’s just a very weak theory to try and uphold its mother – heliocentric theory, which itself has more than serious problems.


            View Comment
          • Noname117 says:

            It isn’t that the spectrum emitted is different per element, it is that the spectra, where the gaps in light are. The balmer lines are very important in this regard, and are an extremely reliable way of showing how much hydrogen is in something: “The Balmer series is particularly useful in astronomy because the Balmer lines appear in numerous stellar objects due to the abundance of hydrogen in the universe, and therefore are commonly seen and relatively strong compared to lines from other elements.

            The spectral classification of stars, which is primarily a determination of surface temperature, is based on the relative strength of spectral lines, and the Balmer series in particular are very important. Other characteristics of a star that can be determined by close analysis of its spectrum include surface gravity (related to physical size) and composition.

            Because the Balmer lines are commonly seen in the spectra of various objects, they are often used to determine radial velocities due to doppler shifting of the Balmer lines. This has important uses all over astronomy, from detecting binary stars, exoplanets, compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes (by the motion of hydrogen in accretion disks around them), identifying groups of objects with similar motions and presumably origins (moving groups, star clusters, galaxy clusters, and debris from collisions), determining distances (actually redshifts) of galaxies or quasars, and identifying unfamiliar objects by analysis of their spectrum.

            Balmer lines can appear as absorption or emission lines in a spectrum, depending on the nature of the object observed. In stars, the Balmer lines are usually seen in absorption, and they are “strongest” in stars with a surface temperature of about 10,000 kelvin (spectral type A). In the spectra of most spiral and irregular galaxies, AGNs, H II regions and planetary nebulae, the Balmer lines are emission lines.” -Wikipedia. So yes, there is a reliable way of telling how much hydrogen is in something, which means that the hydrogen content of the sun is observable. Also, about the sun being a ball of gas, think about pressure for a moment.

            View Comment
          • Noname117 says:

            Quick addition to the last comment: the sun is a giant ball of plasma in the current model, with a core 150 times denser than water and a temperature of 15.7 million degrees kelvin. Also, the balmer lines are essentially the spectral emission/radiation lines of hydrogen, calculated to high accuracy. Since hydrogen is so abundant in the universe, these lines tend to show stronger than the lines of other elements, which gives a reliable method for determining hydrogen content. Similar tactics can be used for all other elements, which means that either the sun is a plasma ball of mostly hydrogen and helium, or few scientists have bothered to check the contents of the gigantic shining light in the sky and those who have are successfully hiding it from the public for no good discernible reason. In the age of leaks and hacking, which sounds more likely? Guess this update wasn’t so quick after all.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            …the sun is a giant ball of plasma in the current model, with a core 150 times denser than water and a temperature of 15.7 million degrees kelvin.

            Makes perfect sense. 15.7 million degrees Kelvin! Of course, what else could it be? 15.7 million degrees kelvin!!!! Reminds me of the zillions of light years distance of stars. A core 150 times denser than water and 15.7 million degrees kelvin!!!! Sounds so probable and realistic. Come on. It’s pure bullshit.

            … or the sun is a sulfur lamp with a temp of 6000 degrees C and powered by an electric “universe”.

            Which seems more likely? (Your words)

            or few scientists have bothered to check the contents of the gigantic shining light in the sky and those who have are successfully hiding it from the public for no good discernible reason.

            There is no conspiracy in this regard. They just haven’t thought of alternatives. You know the educational establishment. One assumption built on another and if you put a toe out of line your career is over… that is if they have managed to think differently at all, which is very rare.

            It’s all built on the pure nonsense heliocentric philosophical assumption. Take that away from them and it all falls apart very quickly.

            View Comment
          • Noname117 says:

            So you’re telling me that scientists, who have pinpointed the spectral lines of most of the elements, and all of the natural ones, cannot see that there is a strong sulfur emission spectra coming from the sun and have instead confused it with a strong hydrogen emission spectra and a relatively strong helium one? Although there is maybe a lot of light unaccounted for in the heliocentric theory (attributed to fusion, as you stated above) the spectral emission lines of the sun compared to a sulfur lamp, even if you do compensate for the extra ultraviolet and infrared light, will still be different, at least to the trained eye. A very similar curve will most likely be followed, but the “spikes” and “dips” showing which elements are present will be different. And the scientists do say that a tiny percentage of the sun’s emissions do come from sulfur, so it is not like they are ignoring its emission lines. So unless there is a conspiracy or the entire emission detection process is flawed, at least the photosphere (that is the layer we can see, right?) of the sun does contain large amounts of hydrogen and helium. With hydrogen, helium, and gamma rays (in solar flares and CMEs) present, fusion seems much more likely. Though it could very well be a sulfur lamp with a hydrogen-helium photosphere, at least until I can prove that there isn’t any glass in the sky (been doing research there), that the sun and the night sky is not inside the earth (let’s just say I can use the other planets to wreck so much havoc with the concave earth theory that not even bendy light could do it) and that the earth revolves around the sun. Then I can use gravity to prove that the sun isn’t a sulfur lamp.

            Also, the pressure hint was that the weight of the plasma particles above the core of the sun would be making an extremely dense and hot core, which would have the gravity to hold the rest of the sun together.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            So you’re telling me that scientists, who have pinpointed the spectral lines of most of the elements, and all of the natural ones, cannot see that there is a strong sulfur emission spectra coming from the sun and have instead confused it with a strong hydrogen emission spectra and a relatively strong helium one?

            Yes. It’s their wishful thinking probably to do with upholding the heliocentric theory. What they say doesn’t make sense. A quick recap.

            Helium and hydrogen when heated up emit light in the following spectrum:

            The Sun on the Earth emits light in the following spectrum.

            They claim the Sun is made up of 99.9% helium and hydrogen.

            “You see that hydrogen is by far the most abundant element in the Sun, followed by helium. Those two together make up 99.9 percent by number of the total atoms in the Sun!” –

            All that missing spectrum is just accounted for by 0.1% of the other elements. It makes no sense; a bit like heliocentric theory.

            Though it could very well be a sulfur lamp with a hydrogen-helium photosphere, at least until I can prove that there isn’t any glass in the sky (been doing research there), that the sun and the night sky is not inside the earth (let’s just say I can use the other planets to wreck so much havoc with the concave earth theory that not even bendy light could do it) and that the earth revolves around the sun. Then I can use gravity to prove that the sun isn’t a sulfur lamp.

            The problem with this all is that you and we and us have absolutely no idea what the planets are, what gravity is etc. that it is impossible to debunk. All Newtonian science (e.g. gravity is caused by mass) has to be thrown out the window as several experiments have shown that there is something else at play. It doesn’t even work for heliocentric theory anyway. That’s why relativity and goodness knows what else has to be invented. Planets and the moon could be an electrical optical phenomena that we know nothing about yet. The indications point to this but nothing concrete so far.

            Also, the pressure hint was that the weight of the plasma particles above the core of the sun would be making an extremely dense and hot core, which would have the gravity to hold the rest of the sun together.

            Again, mass as gravity is an assumption which experiments have shown to be extremely wanting. It’s a made-up theory which they’ve used to base their heliocentric model on, which was then found extremely wanting in their space model so they had to make more stuff up like relativity, dark matter and more stuff. They have just made it up to try and support gravity as mass. Even a few mainstream scientists are now questioning this theory. It’s time to stop the inventive patches on Newton and start again. To start again, the shape of the Earth is the first experiment and then work on from there.

            You see, I can “prove” heliocentric theory wrong with mere observation and experiments. To try and prove concave theory wrong, they have to assume their model is the correct one in the first place and “prove” it wrong with theory (such as Newton’s theory of gravity). You see the difference. The first one is science, the second a philosophical assumption of how the cosmos should operate.

            I just remembered too that most of of the missing light when comparing the sulfur lamp to the actual Sun is not one of wavelength, but intensity. This is easy to account for as I have theorized when looking at meteorites that the Sun as a sulfur lamp has the highly reflective shreibersite layer coating the iron/nickel Sun which is the most likely reason for the extra intensity.

            So enough now. I won’t add and refine any old articles until I have finished the next batch.

            View Comment
  24. CaptainCaveman says:

    Do u know wal Thornhill and the Thunderbolts project ?
    This is the best standing scientist for the electric universe with a channel on youtube. I am sure you came across
    Him, Eric Dollard, or Lindeman explain scientifically correctly why there are almost no stars or the sun visible in space or above the upper atmosphere.
    Electric phenomenom for sure it could even be an electric remote control.
    This is perfectly in line with Steinmetz, Tesla or even Planck findings hidden in the classic model dogma.
    Even with Nassim Haramein, David Icke.
    You want to keep this website on scientific level or as a part of unveiling the full extent of the matrix ?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      I don’t know Dollard’s theories for the invisible stars, but I have one of my own. Despite the fact that photons are not supposed to have mass, I think centrifugal force affects their density like any other particle or wave for that matter. That is fundamentally the reason. I’ll go over that theory in article 7 – Gravity – to be published very soon. Articles 1 to 4 are ready now.

      View Comment
  25. el guapo says:

    I posted some comments on x-axis / y-axis geometry … can you explain what happened to them???

    View Comment
  26. bob says:

    and this is fascinating. It turns out we are correct. There is a sphere within a sphere thing going on because gravity is CAUSED by OPPOSING magnetic forces. And it is NEGATED by the same thing^^
    just put 2 magnets where they oppose each other with a strong enough field to counter the magnetism of the earth spheres and voila! you are weightless^^ and can blow through a straw for propulsion if you need it now 🙂

    So concave earth theory also explains how anti gravity works haha!

    It has been patented:


    And of course this also explains the power generation system for the sun^^ We live in a giant electric generator. The shells are the negative ground and source of magnetism and the air and space is the positive and the ‘wires’ that spin in the field to create the electricity. I am not sure the technicals but i do know it has been proven ALL space is positively charged.

    More clues for the mystery^^

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Good call. I had head about that experiment also. I hadn’t thought of gravity on those lines, but now I will. I’ll be looking into that soon.

      That reminds me… Howard Johnson showed that when two opposing magnetic vortices come together they create their own new vortex, where two attractive magnetic vortices do not. I have it that gravity is just essentially a vortex and a spinning one compressing us to the Earth. I’ve made some headway, but I haven’t cracked the relationship between sunlight, the electrical field, the magnetic field and gravity 100% yet… at least enough for my peace of mind.

      Good theory on the Earth being a giant electrical generator. The great thing about CET is that if we can understand it enough we can micro engineer it ourselves.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Bob, I really like the opposing poles theory, but I need clarification. The Earth is said to have a north and south pole and a compass needle aligns with it to show direction. Doesn’t this fact negate both poles being the same in order to oppose each other? Or are you saying there is a very small sphere in the center of the Earth cavity which also has a north and south pole?

      View Comment
      • Bob says:

        This all comes down to the method or process that orginally magnetized the spheres, their true shape (as in not perfectly circular), and how the positioning of them effects their rotation (or simply the rotation of the sky). The Searl motor seems to be a crude model of this. The rotor magnets simulating atmosphere and the stationary magnets simulating the spheres. Halley claims these spheres rotate slowly creating the magnetic pole shifting effect. Is it a properly balanced system? Is it ‘controlled’ rotation? is something holding them up?
        Hard to say from our perspective.
        To get massive sized spheres of rock to float within each other is a pretty amazing feat of technology. So the logistics behind it may be equally amazing. I am looking for simple explanations in an area where the true answer may be highly advanced. It is quite a trick to pull off, but so is suspending the Earth in a vacuum of chaos with a magically spinning atmosphere ‘glued’ to it. lol…
        We know there are many anomalies associated with the magnetic north and south poles.
        They move, you are not allowed to go to them, pilots are not allowed to fly over them. You can zoom into the Whitehouse lawn on google maps but not on an empty field of ice at the south pole?
        Something weird going on there.

        It is widely suspected that the poles are entrances to the ‘hollow Earth’ and rumored that these entrances are quite large.
        So it is possible that having holes for poles might be what actually stabilizes the magnetic system. To hold them ‘upright’ as it were and facilitate their slow rotation.

        And since we are talking about layered magnetic fields of unknown specific shape, polarities, and intensities, we will need to get our hands on a LOT more raw data to make heads or tails of it I am sure.

        The way it makes sense to me is start with a big cave. Line the cave with lets say northern magnetically charged rock. Now make another layer of rock also northern magnetically charged in a smaller diameter enough so that you know the field strength will suspend that ball in the cave no matter which way it faces. Stabilize it somehow (Good question, by shape? Mass? or by arrangement of magnetic fields? or all of the above? ). Then inside that cave repeat the process making alternating layers of magnetically charged rock and magnetically charged atmosphere.

        this would leave us with a world where compasses would not always exactly point the same ways (they would shift as is commonly recorded) and would seem to have a south pole when maybe that is just one of the other spheres or magnetic field alignments necessary to keep the whole place stable and steadily producing electricity. As Halley describes it we have multiple north poles and south poles. So is our compass picking up one of ours for north and another sphere’s inside for south? Is there an alternating layer of magnetism in the rock itself? Hard to know until we can measure another sphere and even then we would need to measure ALL the local spheres that had a pull or push on us. To look at Halley’s raw data closely may provide some clues to this. Also Symmes swore up and down this was the case too, might be some data here as well.

        Magnetism appears to be related to electricity, gravity, and even time. Time travel sure seems more possible on an earth that does not move through space haha

        One more supposition on this:
        Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

        So imagine a swiss cheese universe with no gravity in most areas.
        You come across a HUGE cave of rock and in the center of it is filled with mix of water and air free floating all around.
        You position and switch on your gravity device (that makes a sphere of gravity waves (magnetic or effect whatever it is) going away from itself each direction.
        The waters ‘below’ your device gather on the cave walls and form oceans ‘revealing’ the land (cause it was pretty foggy before that lol)
        The rest of the water goes inward and makes a giant sphere of water in the middle.
        So our center sphere might just be a big ocean. It is a pretty blue when it is lit up haha
        And it is pitch black when you look through the deep of it just like the ocean here is.
        No sunlight could get through that.
        Now how do you magnetize water? I have no idea. Maybe there is a land mass inside that water? And dolphins really are the smartest creatures and made all this haha
        But it does go along with Genesis to have an ocean in the sky.
        Then those stars are just reflected light off material suspended in the heavenly ocean. Perhaps it is anti-water like anti-matter water that reacts opposite to gravity waves as well. A 5th element.

        More carrots for the rabbit hole^^

        View Comment
        • Bob says:

          this would support the sonoluminescence theory as well. As the stars would be resonating better in an ocean of water than a vacuum. And I realize no amount of sunlight could ‘reflect’ through thousands of miles of ocean water.

          View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          I have a problem with a big layer of water up there. A little bit of ice on the glass, no problem, but lots of water? I’m not sure how light would get through it as you say.

          I also like the holes in the poles idea, especially as a possible mechanic for turbulence. Not necessary to concave Earth, but may offer a mechanical solution. I’m working through the magnetic/electric field and gravity and the sun cycle and I think I have cracked it in a concave Earth. Hypothesis only of course.

          View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          We know there are many anomalies associated with the magnetic north and south poles.
          They move, you are not allowed to go to them, pilots are not allowed to fly over them. You can zoom into the Whitehouse lawn on google maps but not on an empty field of ice at the south pole?
          Something weird going on there.

          I didn’t know planes weren’t allowed to fly over the magnetic poles. Wow. That is really interesting.

          As Halley describes it we have multiple north poles and south poles.

          I wonder if he got that data by recording the mag poles at different times of the day and year so that what he was really detecting was the one mag pole shifting throughout the day (rather than the traditional little bit of shift over centuries). Probably not, but worth investigating.

          So it is possible that having holes for poles might be what actually stabilizes the magnetic system. To hold them ‘upright’ as it were and facilitate their slow rotation.

          I get something like that too. I get the sun rotation as a varied wobbling precession, which means there is varied pressure on the spin.

          Magnetism appears to be related to electricity, gravity, and even time. Time travel sure seems more possible on an earth that does not move through space haha

          I’ve no idea about time travel. My thoughts aren’t advanced enough for that, but I think I have the others cracked in a concave Earth.

          One more supposition on this:
          Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

          That passage in the bible is very strange. I can’t reconcile water up there. big problems with the Sun and all that.

          Thanks for your thoughts.


          View Comment
          • Asterix says:

            Water and the sun-…aren’t there elements like magnesium, that can burn under water though?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Sure. Can a sulphur lamp? More to the point, can it shine through kilometres of water even if it were in a vacuum? Not even to mention the thermosphere.

            View Comment
          • Bob says:

            The way I am seeing the ‘ocean in the sky’ is with it being about 1000 miles up and about 7000 miles (maybe 6000 but still needs to be big enough that from our perspective all you would see is blue when you looked up) in diameter with the Sun BETWEEN Earth and this inner ocean (caught in a neutral gravity area between that which is pushing towards the edges and that which is pushing towards the center). So when we see daytime we see the Sun shining down on us, but UP on the ocean above. And then at night time it is on the opposite side of that ocean and is pitch black to us, as all the light has diffused way before it could ever get through a think mass of thousands of miles of water. This makes day and night. This also explains the orange of sunsets and sunrises as they are shooting rays of light BETWEEN two layers of water, as it bounces between the two, it would shift red from becoming longer waves.

            At that size the sun would be making its daily run through the Thermosphere itself (that would explain why it gets so hot up there)
            But it would be below the central ocean by many 100’s of miles still.
            Theoretically this would warm the upper and lower oceans equally. Doubling the heating surface area of your freshly installed Sun from Zortan Manufacturing or whoever made it lol

            Now although the Sun and Moon appear to be manufactured and ‘placed’ objects. There is a plausible natural explanation for a large portion of the Universe.

            Lets say at one point the universe is dark, lifeless, and entirely made up of 1 type of material. An area of ‘God’ particles let’s call it. For some reason, or action, a spark occurs. ZAP! It ALL lights up in an INTENSE plasma field EVERYWHERE (wherever that can be placed lol) Now this Universe is LIT UP. STRONG, powerful, intense electricity, everywhere zapping through all these God particles. And they begin forming with each other in a variety of ways due to the plasma field fluctuations vs resistance, capacitance, forming a path of least resistance. The Rock, Fire, Water, and Air literally precipitating out of this huge, electromagnetic, highly charged plasma field.
            As it all starts settling down from the initial ZAP, we would see areas of rock formed into caves in honeycomb patterns or ‘necklaces’. Air and water and fire (electricity/plasma) naturally filling in the gaps. These gaps (giant Earth caves) could easily form as a long ‘BOLT” hits various forms of resistance along the way making BOOM! HUGE caverns with a hole in the top and a hole in the bottom for the main ‘BOLT’ that went through (making more giant caves as it goes through the mass of stone that precipitated out surrounding it in all directions). Leaving you with a ‘Pearl necklace’ of caves formed by each ‘BOLT’ all with the holes in the ‘tops and bottoms’ being the ‘string’ the pearls are on.
            This process could VERY EASILY naturally ‘CHARGE’ the sides of the cave with one pole and the inner materials formed with an opposite magnetic alignment. This would naturally form a floating ocean above us made of water and/or material ‘polarized’ in an opposite manner to the cave walls from the intense plasma field which created it all. The walls of the cave providing the reflective force to ‘bounce’ the waves of energy INWARD to the center. The pressure inward would reflect outward doing its part to create a neutral gravity ‘ZONE’ between the inner and outer spheres. So the more this plasma field slows down the more layers upon layers of different materials form (forming geological strata). Eventually it starts looking like a plasma ball in the respect that the sky would be FILLED with lightning arcing from any material in the cave to any other material in the cave.
            This explains ALL CRATERS. Craters are A BIG ISSUE. They appear to be ALL made by lightning. And we are learning now that the Grand Canyon and other rivers and mountains we formed this way.
            And now it has all settled down to a mere thousand flashes of lightning per second. We are left with a universe that looks like Swiss Cheese (Plasma made cheese) and all the rock that precipitated out of it is riddled with craters and the whole place is filled with various sized caves connected by the holes through which the GIANT plasma arcs were originally following their path of least resistance. Inside the larger caves you would find material has polarized in opposites pushing the water and air to the walls of the caves, and the oppositely charged or ‘pushed’ water and air to the center.
            This would naturally form the magnetism necessary for a gravitic, electrical, and time perspective unique to that cave but likely very similar to many many others in the local area depending on size, shape, and materials. And they would all have a spherical ‘Neutral zone’ in the middle of the ‘spheres’ where there was no gravity and quite possibly a distortion of time. (I keep bringing up time because it is for sure connected to magnetism as well and I hope in the future this helps us understand something about how that all works. Magnetism, electricity, gravity, and time perspective all appear to be from the same source which is quite possibly magnetism itself.)

            Then you stumble across this huge cavern and find that God has already separated the waters from the waters, already made gravity push in both directions, and all you need to do is install the Sun from Zortan Manufacturing Inc. And a Moon to balance it out and perhaps even be part of what generates power for it or at least stabilizes it (think capacitor).
            Then voila you have a lit up beautiful cave with minimal work ready for your genetic seed experiments to create the ultimate hot chick. An very gullible one that is dumb as a tree stump but DAMN fine is what they are going for I think. You know, the kind that would do anything, even to an old disgusting man, or ‘Alien’, for $100 or some cocaine. Have to have some men to do that so make them fight each other to death constantly while you steal their women folk.
            Makes perfect sense to me lol

            Just a theory…

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Ah got you. I didn’t read all of your post yet, but I see this one.

            But it would be below the central ocean by many 100′s of miles still.

            At first I was thinking it could work that way, but I have the sun shining through the centre which would evaporate any water in front I would imagine… unless infra-red light has a problem like visible light (but not as extreme) and is invisible (weaker) near the sun because of aether density, which is a possibility.

            View Comment
  27. Bobtest13 says:

    I have a theory on the jet stream that applies to this.
    a jet stream of air ALWAYS comes FROM Japan to the USA from WEST to east at 100mph plus or minus.
    This is OPPOSITE to how wind would flow on a spinning object that spun eastwardly as we are told. Somehow it is FASTER than the rotation of the earth why?

    interesting to note is that even though they can split up and trail off in various directions the major flow of ALL Jet streams go west to east on BOTH hemispheres.

    Well if the sun is small and close and electric and IT is moving to the WEST then the front pressure vs back pressure and the fact that where the sun is heading is the coldest it will be all day and where it just came from is the hottest it will be, it would leave a trail of heat ‘pushing behind it.

    And that is what makes the jet stream on a concave Earth ^^

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Great theory Bob. I’m not sure though if 100 mph is faster. They say the Earth is supposed to spin at just over 1000 mph, if I have understood you right.

      Still, that sounds like a great theory for the Jet Stream.

      View Comment
      • bob says:

        yes the earth spins at 1000mph to the east we are told so the jet streams, all of them, are traveling at 100mph OVER the speed of the earth turning in the same direction.

        in other words, for it to appear to us on the ground that the jet stream is going 120mph to the east it would have to be moving around the planet at 1120mph (for equator – just an example)

        obviously the earth is sitting still and it is just the jet stream going at 100 mph but if you believe Copernicus then somehow the entire upper atmosphere rotates faster than the planet ALWAYS in the SAME direction as the planet. and in the case of the jet streams it even goes FASTER that way.
        Simply impossible.

        Therefore the jet streams PROVE the Earth does NOT rotate.

        View Comment
  28. Daniel Date says:

    If the sun was a sulfur lamp why aren’t we able to create Vitamin D from our own sulfur lamps?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Because it looks like UVB 320 nm – 290 nm is not present in a sulphur lamp. UV starts at 350 nm in the sulphur lamp.

      The real question you want to ask is what could the reasons be for the small differences between the two spectrums? The two main differences I can think of straight away would be the reflective backing of the sun (schreibersite) and the amount of atmosphere sunlight has to travel.

      View Comment
  29. alveo says:

    great points altogether, you just gained a emblem
    new reader. What might you suggest about your put up that you made a few
    days in the past? Any positive?

    View Comment
  30. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

    Sun imaging Telescope and easy Schlieren photography Dan’s Version

    This very powerful method of solar imaging also provides the easiest Schlieren photography in the world. It acts as a 30,000mm telescope of the sun. This makes our work are the world’s largest intentional pinhole camera maybe? I say intentional because this effect happens unintentionally every day and few take notice.

    View Comment
  31. sumstuff52 says:

    If the sun is a flat convex or parabolic disc, which i believe it could be, an eclipse could more likely be the sun disc has inverted or flipped temporarily behind the firmament and the moon reflection caused by the sun is seen in front of the firmament earth side, using stellarium has opened my eyes a little more

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Could well be Sumstuff. It’s something I had never thought of before. And why not? An eclipse could be a temporary flipped Sun on its axis due to anomalies in the aether which normally pushes the Sun up and down and around and around only and not flip it on its axis. I quite like that theory actually.

      View Comment
  32. Anna Merkaba says:

    Yes it is. I have been told that the sun is somewhat of a light bulb and that in fact when you are inside of it, it’s not hot at all. As I tend to astral travel I actually saw what’s going on inside the sun. It’s incredible. It’s actually being powered by “computers” Everything that we see is actually artificially created by our own higher selves and intelligence. Think of it as a computer game. It’s fascinating 🙂 But we are the ones that have set it all up and are now living it out. This world truly is phenomenal 🙂 <3 Kinda like a truman show but in a good way .

    View Comment
    • Somebody necessarily lend a hand to make severely posts I’d
      state. This is the first time I frequented your website page and thus far?
      I surprised with the analysis you made to make this particular post amazing.
      Fantastic task!

      View Comment
  33. ObjectiveOne says:

    Found a fascinating website about how the ancient Egyptians used electro-magnetism energy. Scroll down to the Dendera section:

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      That’s an interesting website alright, although I don’t agree on everything it says on the whole of the site as a lot of it is just opinion.

      View Comment
  34. ObjectiveOne says:

    The sun is EM energy that transforms into light on the glass sky.
    The black sun spots are cooler areas. It’s like we are seeing THROUGH the sun, into the blackness of space. Everything outside of the glass is black. The sun is not a burning sphere. It’s a circle of light.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Don’t worry about black sun spots, as in practical terms there aren’t any. They are only measuring a tiny range of wavelength of light. Those spots aren’t dark in the other wavelengths outside of that range. According to wiki, they are more like “cooler spots“.

      Yes I agree. It is a circle of light. Imagine, the Sun is likely to be artificial. Now that opens pandora’s box completely. Where are we really? A greenhouse? A biological factory? A farm? It ain’t Kansas, that’s for sure.

      View Comment
      • ObjectiveOne says:

        Read “The Crystal Sun” by Robert Temple. LOTS of good information in it.

        Pythagoras (569-475 B.C., Ionian) was a mathematician who put forward the idea that the universe is made of CRYSTAL SPHERES that encircle the Earth. According to him, the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars travel in separate spheres. When the spheres touch each other, a ‘music of the spheres’ can be heard.

        View Comment
  35. stentor says:

    Wild Heretic,

    I have to ask you this or else I’ll wind up in the asylum.
    Is there a dark side of the moon really? Or is it true that for a matter of fact it’s all dark?

    View Comment
  36. Icecoldsun says:

    Hi WH, great work so far, really mind blowing.

    I’d like to add two things to your theory of the sun being a lightbulb – one in favor, one of doubt.

    1.) I’m a fan of language, as it sometimes gives us a hint of how things are, or of some connections we could easily miss. As lots of people have pointed out, heliocentrism seems to be the religion that is behind Copernicus, Einstein aso, until this very day. It is – as you’ve pointed out with great dilligence – false nevertheless. Fact. So, in christian thinking, worshipping the sun is like worshipping Satan. But what does the christian faith tell us about Satan or the devil? It’s a being connected with fire and immense, unbearable heat. And what does heliocentric “science” tell us about the sun? Exactly that! (and of course at roughly 6.000 K…).

    And with which element is the devil usually connected? – With sulphur! So that is one cool coincidence, if you ask me… 😉

    And the word “hell” when spoken in German means “light” or “lightened” (in an optical sense of course), whereas the German word MEANING “hell” is “Hoelle” – another cool coincidence, don’t you think…

    2.) On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to the work of Viktor Schauberger, Matthias Haertel and Kaul. They thought of the possibility that the sun isn’t hot at all, and that light as well as heat is only formed within the earth’s atmosphere (oxygen, to be precise). Just think of your theory on stars and where you can see them! In fact, once one realizes that NASA (or any other national space bureaucracy) is no reliable source for ANYthing, how can we be sure that light and heat do not come into being in our atmosphere? Furthermore, I’ve recently watched a guy on YT who was saying that in space you can’t even see the sun, let alone stars.

    All that would make sense as the (hollow!) earth as a whole then needn’t become hotter and hotter so fast. Whith a giant sulphur lamp, where would all that heat go during thousands of years? Furthermore – less heat, longer lifespan, less need for maintenance (which would be appliable both to a “natural” sun – which I doubt as well – or some artificial object).

    Awaiting your response. 😉

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      2.) I think I read about that a while ago. And that guy on YT would be either Eric Dollard or that other fellow at what looks like a brief meeting at a conference (can’t think of his name). I’m guessing their ideas come from the freezing atmosphere as you go higher up. Where they could be right is that there is more heat irradiated nearer the ground due to the denser “greenhouse gases” perhaps, but you would get a “Sun tan” high up too.

      View Comment
  37. el guapo says:

    Dear Wild Heretic,

    Considering the growth of this website, perhaps you should consider publishing some rules or guidelines concerning what, in your sole opinion, is acceptable content on here. This would go a long way toward saving people the time and trouble of posting something THEY think is valuable only to see it disappear into your electronic waste bin.

    One would naturally expect all the various forms of trolling, shilling, and self-promoting dribble, as well as abusive language and profanity to be barred. One WOULD NOT expect scripture to be excluded, especially considering the ultimately spiritual nature of the subject matter. But this is, after all, YOUR website.

    On a related note, perhaps you could consider adding a separate section here on philosophy where people may make postings of an other than strictly scientific nature. There is definitely a need for this within our community. I’m aware that I could develop this function myself. You have, however, already developed this site and acquired a bit of a following. I’m not interested in acquiring a following, I simply want to express myself from time to time.

    Muchas gracias,

    el guapo

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Cheers for the ideas El. I always post your comments (and any others related to the website, good or bad) but obviously not spam. If you don’t see your comment up the next day or so it is because I am away form the internet (just moved house and typing this form the town library).

      I had a forum up, but after I got a traffic spike, I had to unplug it to see if the spike was the cause of the lag of the site. It turns out it was, but I banjaxed the forum plugin (by messing with a config.php file). I’ll concentrate on writing for now, but will look to going back to the forum in time if that is ok. 🙂

      View Comment
  38. el guapo says:

    I’m not sure if this is the proper forum for this comment, but here goes…I was reading through the Bible and I stumbled upon Psalm 19. Many Christians assume that this verse is referring to Jesus but I don’t think so.
    Here it is (v1~6) from the “Today’s English Version”~

    God’s Glory in Creation
    How clearly the sky reveals God’s glory!
    How plainly it shows what He has done!
    Each day announces it to the following day;
    each night repeats it to the next.
    No speech or words are used; no sound is heard;
    yet their message goes out to all the world and is heard to the ends of the earth.
    God made a home in the sky for the sun;
    it comes out in the morning like a happy bridegroom,
    like an athlete eager to run a race.
    It starts at one end of the sky and goes across to the other.
    Nothing can hide from its heat.

    Concave Earth. Amen

    View Comment
  39. el guapo says:

    If the sun were simply a directional light bulb rotating within the earth, wouldn’t it exhibit phases at the horizon? This would be due to the fact that, except for at high-noon, the sun would be at an oblique angle to the observer.

    This would certainly be true if the sun were either flat (a la LSC) or parabolic as presented here. It must have some outer convexity, but even so I think it would exhibit phases to some degree.

    Thoughts? Rebuttals??

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Hi El. Thanks for your thought-provoking comments.

      At the moment Steve and I think it is like a convex lens, but still there should be some difference at an oblique angle… if its light traveled in a straight line. What we’ve kind of stumbled across or rather “into” is that visible light seems to bend with the curvature of the Earth. There is a diagram done by some Russians posted in the comments section on the Concave Earth theory (CET) article showing this curvature of light from the Sun and it is the same as what I have worked out. I’m close to posting the next article on the path of the Sun and how it could possibly work in CET. It was going to be part of something much bigger, but I’d rather post in chunks instead.

      The basic premise is that the noon Sun in the sky shows its actual position because this light has the least curvature, all the way to dawn and dusk where the light bends practically horizontally. I suggest the reason why is that the light cannot shine through the core of this Earth space in which the Sun resides and must bend around it. The reason being that this core is the center of an aetheric rankine vortex (strictly speaking an end-to-end one, i.e. a toroid)… which incidentally seems to explain the square law of gravity and opens up avenues to other speculative musings.

      The answer to your question could do with looking into more thoroughly, but the above is the best I can do for now.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:


      As I was watching Top Gear the other night, they were racing cars in Lapland and I noticed something different about the Sun.

      It seems very high latitude causes the Sun to look elliptical (unlike longitude). Check out the video at 1:20. elliptic Sun

      View Comment
      • el guapo says:

        Ka rol just put up a nice vid here:

        …the ensuing discussion shed some light (at least for me) on this question of why the sun doesn’t exhibit phases. The short answer is that IT DOES exhibit phases at the horizon. That’s exactly what the horizon is…the sun phasing into view.

        We have to think of it in terms of geometry: X axis and Y axis. When an object comes into view (for example, sunrise) it’s at maximum value along the x axis and minimum value along the y. Thus it appears to be at ground level. As the object approaches, the corresponding value along the x axis decreases while the y axis value increases. Thus it rises in our field of view. Eventually the x axis value goes to 0 as the y axis value hits maximum- the object now appears directly overhead (high noon.) The object passes by and starts gaining value on the x axis while losing value along the y…so it drops in the sky. Eventually the x axis value goes back to maximum and the y axis value goes back to minimum…the object seems to disappear into the ground (sunset.)

        What was originally confusing to me was why the sun would seem to rise when in reality it’s dropping down a little as it approaches along a convex track. All credit to Sculelos for helping me to see the geometry of the situation.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          Not that I fully understand it, but it seems like a good insight.

          I have a slightly different point of view for the reason behind the path of the Sun however.

          View Comment
          • el guapo says:

            The essential insight is that the sun is initially an approaching object, passes overhead, and then it becomes a receding object. Approaching objects MUST rise in our field of view and receding objects MUST drop … even if they are sloping up and away as the sun most likely does.

            What is confusing me now is why doesn’t the sun get larger as it approaches and smaller as it recedes? … seems to me that heliocentrists would have the same problem, though, if we were really floating around on some elliptical orbit.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Good point. Never thought of that (Sun size). I see what you mean about the dropping, but I don’t quite get it why it drops below the horizon as a receding object would get smaller and smaller and lower and lower, or closer and closer to the horizon, but if my visualization is correct, it would never touch the horizon. The further away it is, the less the drop so to speak.

            View Comment
  40. Objective One says:

    Sure looks like a light bulb at the very beginning of this video, especially when the leg of the capsule blocks it:

    View Comment
  41. JohnyBravo says:

    The electro-magnetic universe, Tesla, Eric Dollard, and now this video; electric comets.

    It look’s like we really live in the times of Noah with all those
    ‘dis cover’ ies. Man this is getting more interesting by the day!

    View Comment
  42. sumstuff52 (D. Sarty) says:

    Another grand hoax to look into



    View Comment
  43. Scud says:

    Hey TR.

    Stumbled upon the following character tonight (a character, who like Arp, has had his ‘rights’ removed for going ‘off message’). It’s an interesting interview, well worth listening to a few times over as it becomes obvious that what he’s saying is more or less the same as you yourself have concluded in this and ‘Where are the stars?’ thread.

    No ‘Wiki’ page?…that’s strange! Never mind, here’s the good prof’s homepage, though I confess to not having investigated it beyond the title…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Scud, I also stumbled across him a couple of weeks ago. At first I thought crackpot, then I thought “he’s the man”, now I have mixed feelings about him.

      Check out It seems to resonate on my wavelength on a lot of things. Well, those guys are said to have helped Dollard out with time and proper money and got ripped off by his sidekick/promoter. (I can’t believe I only found aetherforce 6 weeks ago).

      This is a very interesting list. It is also on another website. I don’t agree with every point on it, but some really do make you go “mmmmmmm”, especially the one about the iron core! A huge contradiction.

      This is a better video of him (although very long). Here he looks just like David Norris, a senator in Ireland (which isn’t relevant at all. I just thought I’d mention that lol 🙂 )

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      I’m not too sure about his claim of the sun transforming energy from another dimension. Where did that come from? What is a dimension anyway? I think it gets its energy from the turbulent aether. Having said that, what is the aether?

      I’m also not sure that we can’t see the Sun in space. 40Km up we can see it very well thank you. Above that and we have to rely on NASA and so that ends the verifiable evidence.

      View Comment
      • Scud says:

        Agreed TR, ‘the other dimension’ bit doesn’t do the man any favours and neither does his seeming non realisation that the Helio model must be bunk if the Sun is simply a radiant surface as he so confidently proposes…no mass to speak of, no Newtonian ‘gravity’.

        Dunno. Maybe Dollard is just another ‘disinfo’ twerp or he’s afraid to really stick his neck out and say it as it is. This said though, I do like his apparent, no nonsense delivery and the suggestion that any other model of the Sun is ‘Verboten’ because of the fear factor associated with that other fraud…’nuclear weapons’.

        Many thanks for the additional links, got a couple of bottles of plonk, little one’s sound asleep…bloody marvellous!

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

          Always happy to oblige Scud. Enjoy yourself tonight, but you won’t get to finish that last video (neither did I). It is really good though, at least from a left-field perspective.

          That video you linked too is still good though. You are right, it does mostly tie in with the two articles I wrote. I have no idea how to verify Dollard though. He just said I studied the Sun for 4 years. Ok, I’ll take his word for it then lol. 🙂

          View Comment
  44. Jesse says:

    The picture titled ‘A modern sulfur lamp using a reflective parabolic dish, probably very similar to the Sun.’ looks exactly like what I see when I look directly into the sun on one of those days where the cloud cover is heavy enough to do so… even the slight discolorations on the surface are similar… wild…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Now that you mention it Jesse, I know what you mean. I remember seeing those slightly darker discolorations too.

      You know I’d never thought of that before. Thanks.

      View Comment
  45. JimSmithInChiapas says:

    I direct people to this page in online discussions. One of the people whom I directed here believes that the Sun is the Moon’s reflection in the glass sky. Since that belief is quite different from your own, the two of you should have very illuminating discussions.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      It is not my belief that the Sun is a light-bulb, but the likely outcome of the evidence I have provided.

      Jim, please provide the evidence of the establishment’s belief that the Sun is a fiery ball of protons using nuclear fusion at millions of degrees centigrade to generate heat and light?


      Or is attempted ridicule your only argument?

      View Comment
  46. Dr MooTwahz says:

    Thoroughly enjoyed this. Simarly, I have been teaching that the SUN is just a giant FURNACE for years–altho way, way Brighter. These were the teachings told to me, really. As sumone who is involved in the observation of nature (as a louisiana-haitian folk doctor), I was always taught to look at things simplistikally. Thus, the (self-contained)Furnace–which contains a FIRE at its core that Burns continuously–butt does not go out. Maybe because it contains Fire n Brimstone (sulfur)?
    Your work is most shurely food for thoughts. And it feeds my mind nicely. Keep up the good work!
    PS. found you through Steve Christ.

    View Comment
  47. I just uploaded a video commenting on your research. Thank you for your time in this area.

    “Check out this guy’s (Wild Heretic) research, he takes on my initial premise of the inverted Earth and glass sky and goes into the details of meteorites and the true composition of the sun (iron/nickel/cobalt), with it acting just like a sulfur lamp spinning in the Earth.

    The spinning sulfur within the lamp has to keep rotating in order for it to not melt the glass housing of the lamp. This analogy holds true for the Earth’s glass ceiling as well. When the sun stops, the glass sky will melt and come down much lower, possible only 7 miles high or lower, low enough to build a elevator system to reach the top of the sky thus fulfilling revelation chapter 15, and psalm 18 (the heavens bowed and came down).

    My research:

    View Comment
  48. wow man says:

    your work is thorough hope to see more

    View Comment

    I am The Illumined One. I Saw the Back of the Sun.

    Spring 2003:
    The white object is the moon, I was in a raft swaying on peaceful water above the firmament of heaven, I looked down and saw the sun, but it was dark, except for a white ring of light and a series of parallel light rays hitting the diameter of it. The sun appeared flat, and as the moon moved behind it, the sun and moon made a total eclipse.

    The vision was so real. It wasn’t a dream. It was just like experiencing normal life.

    View Comment
  50. Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

    Thanks for the link Roy. I’ve heard of Rodin but not looked into it much purely due to time pressure.

    There’s another interesting leftfield thinker I’ve only now come across – Walter Russell. Again, I haven’t looked into this theories properly, but they look very interesting also.

    It is extraordinarily difficult to fathom reality, isn’t it? My brain isn’t up for it really, but writing helps a lot.

    It’s tying in all the “loose” ends that will hopefully present a more accurate picture.

    I’m moving house shortly, so my blog has been on hold a while. I haven’t started the next article but I have the bare-bones of it. You’ll have to be patient lol.

    View Comment
  51. Roy says:

    I mean endless from a quantum level of course, lol

    View Comment
  52. Roy says:

    I think you may find this incredibly useful for the most part.

    you may just be able to decode the true nature of the universe numerically using vortex based mathematics. After all, our universe is an endless fractal spiral.

    I hope to see what awaits in the next article.

    View Comment
  53. Roy says:

    Can’t wait for the next article.

    View Comment