The Wild Heretic
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Disappearing stars
There is a strange phenomenon which is the fact that stars
disappear at high altitude. You’ve probably seen those amateur videos on
You Tube of somebody sending a toy space shuttle or a tent into the
stratosphere attached to a weather balloon. You know, ones like these:
There should be incredible images of stars high up in the atmosphere,
free from clouds; but there isn’t one single star visible in any of
these videos.
I know what you are thinking. This idiot doesn’t realize that camcorders can’t pick up stars even in the best low-light conditions, let alone contrasting with the bright sky below.
Absolutely. It is very difficult to see stars with a camcorder, but there are ways to tinker with some of them to see stars at night. The Panasonic HDC-TM90K and Samsing SDC-435 are two such examples.
Still, the people sending up their balloons during the day were probably not interested in changing the camera settings just to see stars. Their camera might not be capable or they may not have read its instruction manual on how to do it. Fair enough.
Having said that, there is not one example on You Tube where one single star is visible at all at any time. Not once.
So to capture images of those magnificent stars we will need to find film taken by someone with a really expensive top-end professional video camera (television camera) or ones used for filming movies perhaps. Television cameras use CCD sensors instead of the cheaper CMOS ones that camcorders use. CCDs are more sensitive, but it seems that size really is the most important factor when it comes to low-light sensitivity. The bigger the sensor, the more light they let in.
Even something like the Blackmagic Cinema Camera may be enough, or not.
Let’s up the ante and go higher in technology. What is the best money can buy? And when I mean the best, I mean custom-made cameras such as the 1100 series from Spectral Instruments. I’m sure there are other companies making top spec cameras for specific industrial applications, such as this company which makes cameras with Electron Multiplying CCD sensors which can capture stars on their own as can be seen in this video.
What organization could drop some serious change on such equipment?
How about NASA.
Their multi-billion dollar annual budget should allow them to order something decent from Spectral Instruments; you know, a custom-made camera with a sensor the size of a planet (no pun intended).
OK, I know NASA doesn’t exactly have the best reputation at the moment, all thanks to the great analysis on the interwebs. Whether it is a plethora of bubbles floating up into “space”, or the obvious artist renditions without them being kind enough to tell us!
However, evidence from official sources like NASA can be deemed legit if they can be verified. And I mean verified by us. Can us mere mortals repeat what they did and get the same results?
If the NASA footage is the same or very similar to the amateur stuff then there has been little chance of NASA tomfoolery.
And by amateur, I mean the footage must be:
1. Repeatable. Unlike the so-called amateur footage of 9-11, which was a one-off event in history that we can’t repeat ourselves since the event has past forever.
2. Accessible. Sending a camera up to 30 to 44km is something which anyone can do for under $100. This guy’s launch cost $325. Most people can afford that.
3. Variedly sourced. The amateurs must come from all walks of life and not all be connected to one family (think Sandy Hook hoax) or all work for the big media companies (think 9-11) or be involved with any one organization.
4. Numerous. There must be more than a handful of videos or photographs. Obviously, the more there are, the better.
The weather balloon technology ticks all these boxes, with no. 4 being the weakest (I have found 22 videos so far), but the above criteria could be copied by a determined hoaxer (e.g. NASA employee). So, with these criteria in mind is there any verifiable NASA footage out there?
Yes there is.
I found these two videos:
(The white thing in both of the images is one of the shuttle’s booster rockets after being ejected.)
Looking at either of the videos you can tell by the sheer overwhelming brightness of the earth that the camera was set to be very sensitive to light.
But still no stars!
Where are they?
There are only two possible explanations, either:
1. NASA have defrauded congress by claiming $200,000 expenses for a booster rocket camera that was really a $150 flip camcorder attached with Blu-Tack. I doubt this, but plenty of NASA cynics wouldn’t.
2. Even the best specifically purpose-built professional cameras with their huge ultra-sensitive sensors can’t capture stars because of too much light pollution and all that. Do you believe that?
Unfortunately we don’t know what kind of camera NASA have used in these videos, at least I haven’t been able to find out after a quick search.
Either way, we haven’t got stars. Let’s give NASA the benefit of the doubt (millions wouldn’t) and say they haven’t got the technology to capture stars on film from the stratosphere during the day (and we never see any booster rocket camera shots from a night time launch either. Funny that.)
What other sources are there to try and capture those elusive stars?
Maybe an amateur weather balloon enthusiast has used a digital slr instead of a camcorder, one which can pick up stars in a ground level nighttime environment. Even better if they sent up the balloon at night for the best possible light conditions.
Guess what?
There is such a You Tube video. It shows a lot of still shots in quick succession taken just before dawn at around 5:30am. The two cameras used were the Canon PowerShot A540 and the Canon PowerShot A590 IS.
Now, we will see stars, even if it is just one or two, at least they will be much brighter than those taken on the ground as there is a super thin atmosphere at this height.
Can’t wait! I’m so excited.
What the…? No stars at all in any image. What is going on here? OK,
don’t panic. Everything’s alright. The same man has a website with high resolution pictures. Surely I’ll see the stars now…
Afraid not.
There must still be a logical explanation. Maybe these cameras can’t capture stars even from ground level. Let’s check Flickr groups for both the Canon PowerShot A540 and the Canon PowerShot A590 IS.
Here are four night sky images, including environmental light pollution, from the Canon PowerShot A540:
And from the Canon PowerShot A590 IS:
Only one or two stars can be seen in five of the above images, but
three of them show several stars, albeit nothing like the time lapse
images of more expensive dslrs. Images such as these from this video.
I should still be able to see a couple of stars in a few of the high altitude night sky images surely, but nothing, nada, zilch.
Maybe the camera wasn’t set at the right settings to capture stars, even though it would seem the author would have had that intention since he sent the balloon up at night. Stars are best captured by using a tripod and at least 15 seconds shutter speed (for a full sky of them to appear), so maybe atmospheric conditions caused the camera to twirl around allowing no clear images to be shot. I would still expect a few photos to contain some kind of star light with this length of exposure especially during periods of relative calm up there, but obviously not.
Oh well, I will have to admit defeat that I will never be able to see glorious looking stars at high altitude on either photo or video no matter who takes them, NASA or mere mortal.
Wait a minute…
If neither a state of the art video camera, nor a dslr can do it, what about the naked eye? Maybe someone can tell me what an incredible dazzling array of stars they saw high up there in the stratosphere.
So who has been over 30km high in a balloon?
Felix Baumgartner, the world record breaking sky diver of the Red Bull variety of course.
Here’s good ol’ Felix looking like something out of 2001 Space Odyssey.
But has he told us about the majestic heavens?
Yes he has.
Finally, someone has seen stars up there to fire up our imaginations of a stellar sky full of hope and ambition.
So what does he say? Let’s forward the video to 01:32 and listen.
“You can see that the sky is totally black.”
Come again? What did he say?
You’ve got to be kidding me. There are no clouds, virtually no air pressure up there, hardly any air molecules at all to block the beautiful light of the multitude of stars that should all but encompass him in one majestic Milky-Way throng of delight. He should have a view of the stars like at the Mojave desert times 10.
Ah, but his eyes have been so overwhelmed by the sun’s dazzling light that the light of the stars have been pushed out, despite his dark protective visor on his helmet. Never mind eh.
All the above observable evidence have their excuses, however likely or unlikely, as to why not a single star has ever been shown in any verifiable footage in the stratosphere; but it certainly raises eyebrows.
Even in most of the unverifiable images of space attributed to NASA we never get to see any stars, and the ones that do, we can’t determine if they had been added by Photoshop or not… except, thanks to Sandy Mulder, we can. To make our eyebrows raise even more, like to the back of our heads, is NASA being caught in the act at copy and pasting a starry night in one of their shots of the International Space Station. These are three light “errors” being copied and pasted.
This entire image is a proven fabrication thanks to an inconvenient truth called the thermosphere; but it goes to show that NASA have no qualms faking stars (and entire images) when it suits them.
So, what are we to make of all this? Are there really stars up there in the heavens? (Or anything else but the Sun, for that matter.) Are stars just an atmospheric phenomena?
Wait, stars are invisible at high altitude? What about the Hubble Telescope? You know that piece of unverifiable evidence of stars being visible from space. The Hubble Telescope is a complete fraud as my post on the thermosphere will demonstrate. Just be prepared for cognitive dissonance.
 Link |
 Link |
 Link |
 Link |
 Link |
 Link |
 Link |
 Link |
 Germany |
 California |
 Costa Rica |
 Scotland |
 South Australia |
 Cambodia |
I know what you are thinking. This idiot doesn’t realize that camcorders can’t pick up stars even in the best low-light conditions, let alone contrasting with the bright sky below.
Absolutely. It is very difficult to see stars with a camcorder, but there are ways to tinker with some of them to see stars at night. The Panasonic HDC-TM90K and Samsing SDC-435 are two such examples.
Still, the people sending up their balloons during the day were probably not interested in changing the camera settings just to see stars. Their camera might not be capable or they may not have read its instruction manual on how to do it. Fair enough.
Having said that, there is not one example on You Tube where one single star is visible at all at any time. Not once.
So to capture images of those magnificent stars we will need to find film taken by someone with a really expensive top-end professional video camera (television camera) or ones used for filming movies perhaps. Television cameras use CCD sensors instead of the cheaper CMOS ones that camcorders use. CCDs are more sensitive, but it seems that size really is the most important factor when it comes to low-light sensitivity. The bigger the sensor, the more light they let in.
Even something like the Blackmagic Cinema Camera may be enough, or not.
Let’s up the ante and go higher in technology. What is the best money can buy? And when I mean the best, I mean custom-made cameras such as the 1100 series from Spectral Instruments. I’m sure there are other companies making top spec cameras for specific industrial applications, such as this company which makes cameras with Electron Multiplying CCD sensors which can capture stars on their own as can be seen in this video.
 EMCCD sensor capturing a few stars at night |
How about NASA.
Their multi-billion dollar annual budget should allow them to order something decent from Spectral Instruments; you know, a custom-made camera with a sensor the size of a planet (no pun intended).
OK, I know NASA doesn’t exactly have the best reputation at the moment, all thanks to the great analysis on the interwebs. Whether it is a plethora of bubbles floating up into “space”, or the obvious artist renditions without them being kind enough to tell us!
However, evidence from official sources like NASA can be deemed legit if they can be verified. And I mean verified by us. Can us mere mortals repeat what they did and get the same results?
If the NASA footage is the same or very similar to the amateur stuff then there has been little chance of NASA tomfoolery.
And by amateur, I mean the footage must be:
1. Repeatable. Unlike the so-called amateur footage of 9-11, which was a one-off event in history that we can’t repeat ourselves since the event has past forever.
2. Accessible. Sending a camera up to 30 to 44km is something which anyone can do for under $100. This guy’s launch cost $325. Most people can afford that.
3. Variedly sourced. The amateurs must come from all walks of life and not all be connected to one family (think Sandy Hook hoax) or all work for the big media companies (think 9-11) or be involved with any one organization.
4. Numerous. There must be more than a handful of videos or photographs. Obviously, the more there are, the better.
The weather balloon technology ticks all these boxes, with no. 4 being the weakest (I have found 22 videos so far), but the above criteria could be copied by a determined hoaxer (e.g. NASA employee). So, with these criteria in mind is there any verifiable NASA footage out there?
Yes there is.
I found these two videos:
 Endeavour Launch |
 NASA On Board SPACE SHUTTLE Launch |
Looking at either of the videos you can tell by the sheer overwhelming brightness of the earth that the camera was set to be very sensitive to light.
But still no stars!
Where are they?
There are only two possible explanations, either:
1. NASA have defrauded congress by claiming $200,000 expenses for a booster rocket camera that was really a $150 flip camcorder attached with Blu-Tack. I doubt this, but plenty of NASA cynics wouldn’t.
2. Even the best specifically purpose-built professional cameras with their huge ultra-sensitive sensors can’t capture stars because of too much light pollution and all that. Do you believe that?
Unfortunately we don’t know what kind of camera NASA have used in these videos, at least I haven’t been able to find out after a quick search.
Either way, we haven’t got stars. Let’s give NASA the benefit of the doubt (millions wouldn’t) and say they haven’t got the technology to capture stars on film from the stratosphere during the day (and we never see any booster rocket camera shots from a night time launch either. Funny that.)
What other sources are there to try and capture those elusive stars?
Maybe an amateur weather balloon enthusiast has used a digital slr instead of a camcorder, one which can pick up stars in a ground level nighttime environment. Even better if they sent up the balloon at night for the best possible light conditions.
Guess what?
There is such a You Tube video. It shows a lot of still shots in quick succession taken just before dawn at around 5:30am. The two cameras used were the Canon PowerShot A540 and the Canon PowerShot A590 IS.
Now, we will see stars, even if it is just one or two, at least they will be much brighter than those taken on the ground as there is a super thin atmosphere at this height.
Can’t wait! I’m so excited.
 dslr images at 30km |
Afraid not.
There must still be a logical explanation. Maybe these cameras can’t capture stars even from ground level. Let’s check Flickr groups for both the Canon PowerShot A540 and the Canon PowerShot A590 IS.
Here are four night sky images, including environmental light pollution, from the Canon PowerShot A540:
 starry night 1 |
 starry night 2 – no tripod 3 sec exposure |
 starry night 3 |
 starry night 4 |
 starry night 5 |
 starry night 6 |
 starry night 7 |
 starry night 8 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Maybe the camera wasn’t set at the right settings to capture stars, even though it would seem the author would have had that intention since he sent the balloon up at night. Stars are best captured by using a tripod and at least 15 seconds shutter speed (for a full sky of them to appear), so maybe atmospheric conditions caused the camera to twirl around allowing no clear images to be shot. I would still expect a few photos to contain some kind of star light with this length of exposure especially during periods of relative calm up there, but obviously not.
Oh well, I will have to admit defeat that I will never be able to see glorious looking stars at high altitude on either photo or video no matter who takes them, NASA or mere mortal.
Wait a minute…
If neither a state of the art video camera, nor a dslr can do it, what about the naked eye? Maybe someone can tell me what an incredible dazzling array of stars they saw high up there in the stratosphere.
So who has been over 30km high in a balloon?
Felix Baumgartner, the world record breaking sky diver of the Red Bull variety of course.
Here’s good ol’ Felix looking like something out of 2001 Space Odyssey.
 |
Yes he has.
Finally, someone has seen stars up there to fire up our imaginations of a stellar sky full of hope and ambition.
So what does he say? Let’s forward the video to 01:32 and listen.
 Felix marveling at the starry sky |
Come again? What did he say?
You’ve got to be kidding me. There are no clouds, virtually no air pressure up there, hardly any air molecules at all to block the beautiful light of the multitude of stars that should all but encompass him in one majestic Milky-Way throng of delight. He should have a view of the stars like at the Mojave desert times 10.
Ah, but his eyes have been so overwhelmed by the sun’s dazzling light that the light of the stars have been pushed out, despite his dark protective visor on his helmet. Never mind eh.
All the above observable evidence have their excuses, however likely or unlikely, as to why not a single star has ever been shown in any verifiable footage in the stratosphere; but it certainly raises eyebrows.
Even in most of the unverifiable images of space attributed to NASA we never get to see any stars, and the ones that do, we can’t determine if they had been added by Photoshop or not… except, thanks to Sandy Mulder, we can. To make our eyebrows raise even more, like to the back of our heads, is NASA being caught in the act at copy and pasting a starry night in one of their shots of the International Space Station. These are three light “errors” being copied and pasted.
 Oops! |
Update 1: During my 2 weeks on holiday in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, I only once saw a thin slight wisp of a cloud for a short time one morning, otherwise there was never a cloud in the sky during the oven-like temperatures from 44 to 55 °C. On 19th and 20th June 2013 I was flying back from 21:00 through to 3:00 the next morning. There were no clouds at take-off on the 19th and soon after the lights inside the aircraft were dimmed. I continually looked out the window when we were at cruising altitude and I could not make out a single star (with or without cupping my hands for a while)… odd, since the area is famous for organizing star-gazing trips with the Bedouin people in the desert.
If there are any pilots reading this, or if a reader wishes to ask pilots in the cockpit, have they ever seen stars above the clouds at night from their cockpit? After all, the only lights in the place are from the glowing instruments; there should be no glare. If yes, we know stars are further up than flying altitude; if not, then stars must be low altitude phenomena.
So, what are we to make of all this? Are there really stars up there in the heavens? (Or anything else but the Sun, for that matter.) Are stars just an atmospheric phenomena?
Update 2: No. It seems that whatever the stars represent, must exist much higher but become invisible at higher altitudes for reasons unknown to the author.
Why is this?
The problem are four irreconcilable facts which point to stars being very near the center of the Earth (either side vertically) right above the poles.
The facts
1. It is 99.99% certain that it is the stars that move in the sky above us and not the Earth.
2. It is also 99.99% certain that we live inside the Earth (Concave Earth Theory).
3. The north star Polaris can be seen by everyone in the northern hemisphere from those living in the arctic to those just above the equator (and slightly below it).
4. The stars are seen to move in an anti-clockwise direction by those living everywhere in the northern hemisphere.
Conclusion
If everyone in the northern hemisphere can see the north star, this star must be above the north pole somewhere whether just above it in the atmosphere, right through to the center of the Earth (or “space”), or anywhere in between. The fact that everyone in the northern hemisphere can see these stars move in an anti-clockwise direction around Polaris must mean that these stars are extremely near the very center of the Earth.
The size of this “star field” will be demonstrated in a future article, but it seems it is extremely small.
For the stars to be seen to move in an anti-clockwise direction everywhere in the northern hemisphere, the star fields must be at or very near the center of the Earth.
Wait, stars are invisible at high altitude? What about the Hubble Telescope? You know that piece of unverifiable evidence of stars being visible from space. The Hubble Telescope is a complete fraud as my post on the thermosphere will demonstrate. Just be prepared for cognitive dissonance.
If the electron is a vortex motion, it makes sense that this vortex motion reflects whatever EM / light is in a curved manner.
The concave earth theory with the universe inside actually makes perfect sense for what the global spiritual current tells us: you can travel with your astral body in any point of the universe (actually inside earth); your astral body can become identified with the whole universe (actually whole earth); this supports aether theory, since aether presumably links everything in the known (physical) universe; those who practice meditation say that the universe is inside nothingness, god (outside universe) is nothingness / blackness / SILENCE – I ALWAYS WONDERED HOW GOD CAN BE LIGHT AND NOTHINGNESS / BLACKNESS SIMULTANEOUSLY – that must be the void space between dimensions which other clarvoyants say exists; after this void / black / emptiness / nothingness there must be other “spiritual” spheres / dimensions / worlds (starting with the lower spheres or “hell”); they didnt think this way because they thought the universe is outside earth; i never meditated, but i think in meditation you just perceive, you dont rationalize what you perceive; you come back in here and then rationalize what you perceived BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW / BELIEVE as truth. Which makes me wonder what was the model of the earth / universe in the time of the Buddha. He said God exists and God doesnt exist. I believe Ptolemy model is we live outside. Which makes me wonder how this model came into existence since it”s obviously false. The history of outside / inside model must be thoroughly investigated. Maybe there are those “fallen angels” that are still in charge and they fake everything. Who knows..
Anyway, when do you estimate your next article is coming out? This site is the most valuable on he Internet since the outside / inside model is the one which all the science derives on. I”m so glad I found it and I congratulate you for your power of organizing and logic. Thank you!
And thanks for taking the time to read it.
I like the dimension theory. I´ve read a few accounts which I liked. I´d love to know how the other spaces fit in with this all. I just might be encroaching on something like this with gravity/resonance theory, but I´ve no idea right now.
For example, lately I had this thought “if Atlantis were such more advanced civilization than us, then why did they disappear?” Learning here that the moon landing definitely never happened (I was a believer in outer space UFOs but I now assume they must be man made using ancient texts of India – vimanas – and probably Tesla’s work), because there is no moon to land on, I now speculate that Atlantis self-distructed from inside, maybe there were wars for power between factions (no more intergalactic wars for me, good old planet Earth wars). Obviously Atlantis weren’t so spiritually advanced if they self-distructed (even if some outer force invaded them). Maybe the flood has something to do with ice melting from the glass sky? A technology test gone wrong? Reading the titles in Anatoly Fomenko’s series books (which I discovered reading the comments here, thank you) I now believe Atlantis / flood wasn’t so long ago, but much more recent. Or maybe there are 2 ‘empires’ fighting for power since the beginning of Earth. I once had a dream with pieces of moon in the sky. Maybe someone fired something into the sun way back? Some say the moon wasn’t in the sky in the ancient times. Speculating is good
I discovered about the void between dimensions in this book which is about a blind woman who was able to see the subtle bodies of people http://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&ved=0CIgBEBYwDQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F82996659%2F445331827%2Fname%2F84790470-Fenomenul-Valentina-Cartea-Integrala.pdf&ei=3pgWU96tCsfAtQb-oIHoCQ&usg=AFQjCNFhVLrO3sAkFpJNyD1LZ-YL2PE5QQ&sig2=nm2B_RRAqDjBdMtaSCiH8w&bvm=bv.62286460%2Cd.Yms (it’s a PDF; it’s in Romanian, I don’t think there are translations) She said it’s black between the colors of aura / chakras. She was able to diagnose and cure many people, some of them which couldn’t be diagnosed by doctors. I figured it’s just logical that whatever Earth is must be as we are, since we’re living on it. Well, in it
I speculate that the ‘higher’ dimensions are more mental, since astral travelers move by thinking (so they say). A detailed description of ‘mental locomotion’ (and other very interesting things ‘from the other side’) is in the book for which I gave a link in the previous comment.
I don’t know much about gravity, but I think (like others) it’s magnetic in nature. I am hoping, too, that you’ll be wrapping the next article in September
I’d love to link up dimensions with concave Earth. There is a small chance with resonance, but we shall see (hopefully). You are right about linking people up with the same system as the Earth. There is a connection between the way light bends (and also magnetism) and living things with symmetry or an object having two halves.
Here’s a speculative quickie on Atlantis. I found a theory on magnetite and plant growth by an engineer who theorized it was the south and north pole magnetic particles which are recombined by plants for energy, as sunlight in photosynthesis cannot account for all the energy a plant needs apparently. I kind of disagree with his theory, but there is some truth in it I think. Then there is Edward Leedskalnin who said that these north and south pole particles keep the Earth together. Anyhow, let’s say both these theories are true. What if the Atlanteans found a way to create massive amounts of energy by recombining these “particles”. By abusing this knowledge maybe they created too much energy and they drained the magnetic force keeping the Earth together too much so that the Earth cavity expanded suddenly (Pangea). The expansion might have occurred where their power station was situated on their territory, opening up the Earth and covering it with ocean. I think there is also a dimensional side to this too, which practical physics (engineering) hasn’t touched on yet. I don’t absolutely agree with either the American engineer or Leedskalnin, but they were definitely on to something.
Irrelevant.
BECAUSE:
If sunlight can travel through this alleged area where it cannot be seen then re-emerge in our atmosphere. Then it will re-emerge when it hits ANY EYEBALL. That would include a lens (camera) or the inside of a spacesuit. Or any PHYSICAL MATTER. So does it matter if light can see itself in the deep void of nothingness?
nopes. YOUR EYE can. There is WATER in it. Just like an ATMOSPHERE…
Making whether or not light can be seen (with what sensor exactly?) in a vacuum, completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion other than as a cute piece of trivia.
We already KNOW it can travel THROUGH it.
If it (light through the vacuum of space) hits an object, let’s say an asteroid, then can bounce back THROUGH it again, and then we see the REFLECTION of it, we can rest assured that it can be seen at its DESTINATION just fine, even if that DESTINATION is in the middle of a vacuum.
And even if its source is a star (whatever stars are they are a source of light either direct or reflected. Either way they can be seen as easily as an asteroid (better usually I would imagine lol))
Keep the focus on the structure.
It reveals all.
We assume light travels in vacuum,the same way it does in the atmosphere.
We dont know what light is!We assume!
I havent been up in space.I have reasons not to trust Hubble and co..
Stars->vacuum->atmosphere->eyeball
We know light curves up here on earth(not talking about gravity).So we can say for the part atmosphere->eyeball the light will be curved.
Does light curves in vacuum?
I had a quick thought on light and maybe it is light which is transverse but because the medium in which it travels is also longitudinal, as the density of this medium is less with higher altitude, only different wavelengths are manufactured or made possible.
the Universe. Cosmology attempts to analyze this connection between what we know to
be true and what we believe in. When we humans put things into perspective we will soon realize
that science is no different from metaphysics and spirituality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkDp4cJcGyc
YOU ARE RIGHT, There are no stars seen in deep space,
See the book (last chapter) on the correct nature and geometry of light.
kathodos.com/magnetism.pdf
A radial dielectric to transverse EM. In outter space there are NO stars to be seen. Logically this is the case.
And yes, NASA is a pack of lying SOBs
I’m not clued up on electrics too much though, just the basics. But I think I get what you mean by “A radial dielectric to transverse EM”. Would that be like a stone dropped in water with the water ripples also being wavy? Ah, now I’ve read a bit more, the answer would be no. I’ll save the pdf for later.
I think I heard the word dielectric before with regards to a capacitor, but I’m not sure.
Keep it up!
Dmitry, ask the pilots at the usual 10km cruising altitude if they always see stars at night in the sky and then if not, which flight, date and time (and of course altitude) it was specifically when they couldn’t see them. Let’s see if we can narrow this down. It may reveal something very useful.
Bigger air-pressure = more light
This will explain also why we see as good as no stars looking up in the night in a city(besides light-polution).It is simply way warmer in the city compared to outside of it.
What if air pressure is a side effect of aether pressure and it is the aether as a medium in which light travels that is more compressed hence higher air pressure and higher temperatures?
Actually scrub that thought, that doesn’t make sense.
My current ideas is that there is a yearly and monthly cycle to these things. I have a feeling this may even happen at ground level as I can remember not seeing stars on cloudless nights before, but at altitude the experience may be even more pronounced.
Keep up the investigation.
WH
do you have a picture picture or diagram?
how big is the sun?
and how far is sun from the earth?
I can only guess at the size of the Sun. We can try this one out:
Option 1. The size of the sun in the sky is between 0.52° and 0.54° which averages out as 0.53° around the equinoxes I think it is. The arc of the sky is 180°, so 180/0.53 is 339.62, so the Sun is 1/339.62 width in the sky. In my CET model I have the Sun just about at the centre, so 1/339.62 of the Earth’s vertical diameter is 6356.762km x 2 = 12713.524km (WGS84 ellipsoid model) which would make the Sun (12,713.524 / 339.62) = 37.434km or 23.26 miles in diameter (assuming of course that apparent size is in an any way accurate relationship to its actual one).
Option 2. Let’s keep this 1/339.62 fraction. I have the Sun at roughly 1 degree behind the centre and takes 12 hours to arc around half the circumference of a cylinder (on the equinoxes at least). Circumference of a circle is 2 times pie times radius. So, half the circumference is 3.142 degrees. 1/339.62 of 3.142 degrees is 0.00925 degrees which is the Sun diameter. The horizontal Earth diameter is 12756.274km. This distance divided by 180 is 70.868km which is the km distance of one degree. So The sun would be 0.655km or only 655m. This option is based on the speculation that the entire sky dome is contained in the circular movement of the Sun in the centre. It probably isn’t; in fact I’m pretty sure it isn’t, but I’d just throw that out there anyway.
The problem here is that I have the varied density of the aether as a big factor behind the size and brightness of objects in the sky, so what we see in the sky is by no means rock solid as a basis for any quick back of the envelope calculations.
The reason for this is that light bends upwards already experimentally demonstrated by Wilhelm Martin. Use Bing translate.
http://www.rolf-keppler.de/lichtkrumm.htm
If you want to see further than visible light, use radar; better yet, radio. Even infra-red will get you further.
That is why at night we don’t see sunlight and what it illuminates.
I’m going into this properly in the next article, but the information here and above all the comments should suffice. (Read the comments especially).
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory
Absolutely astonishingly MIGHTY work!!! all of it!
Read your whole site and I am beyond impressed. Amazing how “laymen” scientists are the ones bring true science to the world.
seriously. please email me, would love to do a google hangout interview. Been wanting to do a huge expose on the Geocosmos and a documentary too.. it is about time.
Why do you say refraction is the cause of twinkling stars and their lack of visibility at highish altitude?
There are some good things that you are doing here. First, I do think you are good to make people question their beliefs. However if you are not willing to question your own beliefs as well, that is majorly hypocritical. You have shown that multiple times in the comments above. But questioning in general is good. It turns out that around 1900 it was thought physics was almost entirely solved. There were just two unanswered questions/problems: block-body radiation and the photo-electric effect. Boltzman came up with a solution and swore it couldn’t be right and no one should believe it, but it mathematically fit. It turned out it was right and quantum physics was born. Numerous findings since then have confirmed it. All physicists had to question their beliefs to accept quantum physics. You may have to question your beliefs just like you are asking everyone else to question theirs.
Now, with your model, can you explain the following. Please note that with the current accepted model these are all explainable and very well understood. You have lots of catching up to do to bring your model to the level of completion that the current accepted model is at. Many of these are easily noticeable at your own convenience and do not require trust in an organization such as NASA.
* Functioning of compasses
* Functioning of GPS (and more generally satellites)
* Aurora borealis/australis
* Magnetic poles shift over time
* Climates generally change with latitude
* Seasons
* Phases of the moon
* Only one side of the Moon is ever seen from any location on Earth
* Visibility of the Moon at day time and night time simultaneously in different locations (call someone up in a very different time zone)
* Sunsets/sunrises of different colors then high-noon, simultaneous observation of sunsets/sunrises as the sun being at high-noon (call someone in a very different time zone)
* Tides (including why the tides change in magnitude every day)
* Coriolis effect
* Positions of the stars changing over millennia (I am not talking about nightly changes or seasonal changes, I am taking about the fact that the stars in 1600 were in different positions then they are in 2000)
* Volcanoes, tectonic shifts, earthquakes
* If our vision is misleading, then why is it that when we take a picture that picture looks pretty much like what we see (with maybe some coloring differences)
* How we stay put on the Earth (you say gravity is problematic)
* How come other objects have gravity
* Why does air rest near the surface of the Earth?
* Speed of light (this is more involved to test on your own, but is possible, using revolving mirrors on two the two sides of a big canyon like the Grand Canyon)
* Comets get further away than Sun does
* Many planets in our solar system are further away than the Sun
* Orbital movements of planets
* Why planets are the distance they are
* At what altitude do you pass the stars?
* Why is it that when you go up in altitude the stars don’t get visibly larger before you “pass” them?
* Why can’t you see the stars below you once you go above them?
* What holds the stars in place?
* Why does the Earth look spherical from the balloon cameras?
* As the balloon rises, the Earth looks more and more like the outside of a sphere instead of the inside of a sphere?
* Do we have to change all of physics and chemistry to adopt a new model of light? If light changes a good portion of physics and chemistry will need to be changed as well.
Have you had the answer from a physicist from the accepted model on your question of why you can’t see stars? I would like to see this answer. A simple test may be possible depending on what the answer is. Most things I can find online are suppositions from amateurs and not pros. Its possible you could design a special camera that blocks out other light sources or uses a photomultiplier tube setup for a few $100 that could circumvent the issues.
If you had unlimited resources, what experiments would you perform to prove your model and force the current accepted model to be refuted?
Mostly, this is just for you to think about. I will probably never respond again.
If you had unlimited resources, what experiments would you perform to prove your model and force the current accepted model to be refuted?
I’d repeat the Rectilineator experiment. At the moment though I will continue to write and ponder and then mess with electrics… probably. Or I might change the subject material and go off in a different direction.
Please note that with the current accepted model these are all explainable and very well understood.
I strongly disagree with this. Nobody knows what gravity is for example… or matter. Physics can never get to the bottom of anything as there are always more questions. At least a basic mechanical explanation will suffice for me at the moment. I’ll leave the knowing to a joining with the metaphysical when I’m dead… or maybe not (probably not). Seems ignorance stays with us when we die. Another topic of research perhaps?
For the moment let me very quickly and superficially answer those questions (in 30 mins lol).
* Functioning of compasses
I’m looking at that at the moment and will never be fully able to answer that until I have a detailed model of the aether which may be unattainable for me to reach.
* Functioning of GPS (and more generally satellites)
Applied technology satellites attached to the glass is one possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cjECjmMZ-Y
More likely though is that that they bounce it off the ionosphere (glass) as AM radio. http://www.wildheretic.com/nasas-weird-and-wonderful-orbiting-machines-pt2/#2
* Aurora borealis/australis
Not sure. Could be a few reasons including the official one. LSC has a theory I think. No idea if it is correct.
* Magnetic poles shift over time
Briefly thought about this. Not sure yet. Some clues may be revealed over time.
* Climates generally change with latitude
Easy one. I will answer this in the next article. Funnily enough, heliocentric theory can’t explain a serious issue with climate which I will point out in the next article.
* Seasons
See above.
* Phases of the moon
Yeah, the moon. What a mess that thing is, whatever it is. I haven’t thought about this properly. I may not address the issue at all as it isn’t in my radar for future research.
* Only one side of the Moon is ever seen from any location on Earth
Bizzare eh? I’m not going to look into this… probably.
* Visibility of the Moon at day time and night time simultaneously in different locations (call someone up in a very different time zone)
Could be a topic of future research if you are up to it. I won’t be looking into the moon I think.
* Sunsets/sunrises of different colors then high-noon, simultaneous observation of sunsets/sunrises as the sun being at high-noon (call someone in a very different time zone)
I had an initial theory of the glass being the cause of the different colors due to the high magnesium content, but that theory fell flat on its ass. I haven’t looked into the purple sunset thing more than that. The official explanation may be correct.
* Tides (including why the tides change in magnitude every day)
Obviously an aether connection. I think I know what gravity is (to a certain extent). Not hard to figure out when you know the Earth is concave. Tides would be a good thing to ponder and will be in my radar for the future.
* Coriolis effect
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/#E
* Positions of the stars changing over millennia (I am not talking about nightly changes or seasonal changes, I am taking about the fact that the stars in 1600 were in different positions then they are in 2000)
I think I saw a video from Steve giving an explanation that I liked although I can’t remember what he said now. The obvious answer would be slight changes in the movement of the aether (in the eye of the vortex especially) over time which I would fully expect because the aether would be dynamic – like everything in life really, cycle always repeat… but not absolutely exactly the same as the last time.
* Volcanoes, tectonic shifts, earthquakes
Just been thinking about this recently. I’ll write about this properly in an article on gravity and the planets when I’ve looked into it better. It’s spinning aether pressure basically (which is gravity).. think centrifuge.
* If our vision is misleading, then why is it that when we take a picture that picture looks pretty much like what we see (with maybe some coloring differences)
That would support the theory that it is light that bends and not the interpretation of our eyes/brain. I am also strongly leaning towards this theory.
* How we stay put on the Earth (you say gravity is problematic)
See above.
* How come other objects have gravity
Ok. Simple explanation is Steve’s one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4VHcFY1Vg
A more detailed explanation – At the moment I’m leaning towards the alternative theorists that matter is just vibrating aetheric vortices. I think it is the bonds which are doing the vibrating like a guitar string. The gravity force of matter would be the spin of the aetheric vortices compressing against whatever the aether is spinning against. These waves compressing waves would be longitudinal. This is a huge clue and you can research this yourself further for some real eye openers and a lot more besides if you put your thinking cap on. There is obviously a lot more to this, but I would need to look into this more. This will be hopefully written about in a future article.
* Why does air rest near the surface of the Earth?
Inertia due to compression.
* Speed of light (this is more involved to test on your own, but is possible, using revolving mirrors on two the two sides of a big canyon like the Grand Canyon)
Not sure about the speed of light. I have thought about light and I think I know what it is. I disagree with Michael Mathis and Walter Russell on this one and agree with Maxwell and Hertz, but hey I might be wrong. I future article for sure.
* Comets get further away than Sun does
Yeah. I think I have comets in the bag. Will see.
* Many planets in our solar system are further away than the Sun
Yeah. I’ll talk about this in a future article.
* Orbital movements of planets
Super easy. The article after next. Don’t want to spoil it right now with a couple of links.
* Why planets are the distance they are.
See above.
* At what altitude do you pass the stars?
Without giving too much away about 0.7 degrees away from the center on the horizontal axis. Will write an article on it very soon.
* Why is it that when you go up in altitude the stars don’t get visibly larger before you “pass” them?
Concentration of the compressed aether (gravity) is more compressed the lower the altitude is my guess. I think the “flicker rate” of the stars depends on the density of the aether at any given position of the observer.
* Why can’t you see the stars below you once you go above them?
Not sure I understand this question. Oh wait I think I know what you mean. I don’t know if your statement is true but it should be as the only light you will able to see below you would be the reflected light from the crust and so you shouldn’t be able to see any stars without looking at them directly which of course are always above the observer (unless you are able to get to the center of the Earth).
* What holds the stars in place?
The eye of a rankine vortex. The following clip is a rotational vortex, but same idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hafHLx6YEDM
* Why does the Earth look spherical from the balloon cameras?
It doesn’t… well not all the time. It changes from convex to flat to concave depending on how high the horizon is.
* As the balloon rises, the Earth looks more and more like the outside of a sphere instead of the inside of a sphere?
See above… and also http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/#D.
* Do we have to change all of physics and chemistry to adopt a new model of light? If light changes a good portion of physics and chemistry will need to be changed as well.
Partly. Visible light seems to be accurate at short distances. See Rolf Keppler’s website for future reference.
Any other questions feel free to ask. Those where good ones to help me with future articles.
Thanks friend.
WH
For sure there is a vehment defence amongst many people (and scientists!) against any such questioning. Purely attachment blanket insecurity…infantile but understandable.
the lack of 1000mph winds, and something very ‘off’ about ”gravity” are what really made me look.
And some creepy feeling the jesuits are editing whats official belief…..no-one expects the spanish inquistion these days.
not sure about the sun path thru the sky thought exp,,i tried it again…maybe the official version works ok for me. Tricky 3D effort!
AS for the scuba air bubbles ‘in orbit’ and bad hairspray ‘zero g’ actresses….. they gotta be takin the piss, anyone who is directed can see it obviously…although it is far more obviously fake upon viewing those vids 9 months later again. THey aint really too careful, deliberate disclosure? laziness…sense of humour?
Do rekon the shuttle was a legit hard working craft tho.
Bingo. The reformation or battle between information and ignorance is ongoing. It never ended! They were so successful in the 20th century that everyone thought it had.
Yeah, the Sun path is difficult to visualize.
I also think the shuttle is legit. CLuesforum didn’t, but the whole ceramic insulation part which was different than anything before and very painstaking in application and research didn’t make any sense if they had just faked the whole thing. I personally strongly think they have never gone further in “space” than what the shuttle has allowed them to do which is a few hundred km I think.
Some useful tools: skytracker24 or similar …real time aircraft flights world wide. They certainly avoid the ‘southpole’, guess cos it doesn’t exist. It would be quicker on a globe from NZ to SA to drop over antarctica.
There are a few flights i noticed over the north pole though, Dubai to LAX.
Some great vids on immortalsouls youtube channel, I saw one that looked like old leaked NASA transmission of ‘earth as a small blue globe thru cabin window’..then showed blackout card being removed from window..and a flood of light from a huge earth filling whole window.
Re shuttle and glass sky, I been pinging between deciding on a layer of glass shards at 60miles up, and a solid glass sphere.
Shuttle-wise, I’m not convinced it would survive ‘smashing’ or skimming and melting thru a thick tough glass layer.
Those heat protective tiles it has do seem like the real deal, could maybe allow it to survive a long time in furnace conditions in thermosphere, and of course ‘re-entry’ whatever that means.
Do they blow holes in the glass first? Or track existing holes and use those?
( upper atmosphere nuke tests in 1960’s i think?)
The shuttle would seem well designed to speed thru a layer of billions of glass particles without melting itself.
That would mean a ‘levitating’ cloud of glass bits tho?!
A solid glass layer, I worked out, would probably not even have to levitate as such, it could just remain in place due to its being a complete sphere, hence it can’t fall in any direction, forces balance out. A few holes here and there would probably not affect it much.
( assuming the concave earth model)
I think there may be barriers or issues with going further than a few hundred km into ‘space’ as you say, I see no trustable evidence for our exploits other than vids of the shuttle launch zooming way above aircraft height and rolling over into the start of a parabolic curve. Maybe some older craft hopped along for few minutes just under 100km, and filmed some real (if fisheyed!) footage as well.
Potentially some unmanned craft built like a brickshithouse could survive it all and gather real data from much further ‘up’. But they ain’t gonna show us diddly real info from those if they don’t want to. The rest is hollywood.
I guess you are still writing your next article about gravity and whatever else you are chewing on. I do understand that as one goes a bit deeper, the number of possible questions and possible solutions becomes brain frying.
Eg. in a non-standard earth model, how do objects (even just glowing asteroids) stay up there, what are the forces? If its not a convex globe, then u can’t invoke ‘falling at 10m/s2′ in a circular orbit. That explaination is very elegant, part of me wishes it were true.
Although, having watched a peter lindmeann vid, he says our view from down here is created entirely in the ‘upper atmosphere’, diffraction is needed to see a light source in a vacuum. So planets or whites dots passing over at night are only images we see down here. He said the sun is not visible to the eye in space, requires a diffraction screen on windows to see it. An that we see a white circle and a blue background sky down here, that is how our upper atmosphere splits the ‘light’ from the sun.
Here is some more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route
They only barely touch Antarctica. Definitely something fishy going on.
“Aerolineas Argentinas flies nonstop between Sydney and Buenos Aires, LAN Chile flies nonstop between Auckland, Sydney and Santiago and Qantas flies nonstop between Sydney and Santiago, the most southerly polar route. Depending on winds, these reach 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap.[6]
The Qantas flight QF 63/64 from Sydney to Johannesburg sometimes (depending on the winds) flies over the Antarctic circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap.[7]“
They get higher over the north pole, but they still don’t cross directly over the geometric north pole according to wiki.
I was getting carried away I think saying there isn’t a south pole. ( and maybe mixing my earth models…. the sin of it!).
Rumours abound about the south pole for sure. Hard to verify for ordinary folk.
Maybe worth looking at a physical globe, to check the aledged alignment of the straightest path between those flight destinations.
Funny how SA to NZ isn’t flown direct, as it says in that wiki link. They do seem to just slightly avoid the exact north pole as well, as you said.
BTW, did you ever cover the’ round earth’ shadow that appears to eclipse the moon? Its used to debunk non-standard earth models.
Peter lindemann spoke to astronauts, he said. I’m currently trawling through a long vid of his from 2001, about free energy research in the 60’s and 70’s. That seems to be his background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSz2xzIyCzI
Anyway Charles, don’t worry about the flat Earth I have some good news for you, you have been partially vindicated. The Earth is concave, but it is flat from our orientation on the Earth. So our immediate locality is flat, but the Earth is concave. That makes no sense right now I admit, but I can’t explain it properly until the next article. This is a major breakthrough and gives the flat Earthers something to chew on. You’ll like it.
Maybe just a link…
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=vatican+courtyard+photo&qpvt=vatican+courtyard+photo&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=3B48C936DC91A381E8C8B4E0F5CD18475AA4FF19&selectedIndex=613
They also love Egyptian obelisks and lion statues. Not very ‘christian. More like Washington DC.
Anyway, they are trying to tell us something I think.
I will look into the guy who talks about light being invisible in space.
Hubble-TheRealmOfTheNebulae
The Observational Approach to Cosmology 1937
Are the books I was talking about. The reason they keep up this fraud is that if they allow here model of science to fall, long ages falls, evolution falls, there whole house of cards. Yes it is religious to them. Please look into these things when you have time.
Again, keep up the excellent work.
Here’s a book I quickly looked through which seems promising about telescopes not being able to see very far due to the inverse square law of light. See what you think of it.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?113525-A-Revolution-in-Astronomy
IF the ‘background’ stars are x far away…the slight apparent movement of another star means it is x far away from them….so therefore it is 122.34 light years away. according to public knowledege, we have ZERO direct information beyond where voyager craft have reached. Just some agreed interpretation of irresolvable dots.
likewise. apparently newtons principia starts with ‘IF the earth is a sphere…..blah blah…IF the force of gravity is constant everywhere…what if it is NOT constant?
their orbital predictions for our planets seem pretty good, but then they weren’t that bad 500 years ago either. Which does not prove that the models are true,,that’s a mistake.
What is the very first question that needs to be asked? The primary questions is did the titanic exist in the first place? So “what” is the first question, then if it sank, and then if it was the iceberg that sank it, and then the “why”.
It’s amazing how evidence surfaces which even puts a positive answer to the primary question in doubt. Of course, conspiracy theory is all about the “how” and the “why” and never ever the “what”. For that reason, I think a lot of conspiracy stuff is deliberately propagated to trap the intelligent ones who ask questions.
I have no qualms with Keppler and the like with their predictions of planetary motions relative to the Sun and each other. In fact, I think they are spot on… just wrong philosophy and they can also leave the Earth out of their calculations. Their predictions would be no less correct if the “planets” were tiny and revolved elliptically around a small Sun in the middle of the Earth.
I think I have a workable theory on what the stars are. Damn simple really. Will do an article after the next one about it.
Thanks for commenting.
That mass dynamic makes ‘us’ easy prey for disinfo , (extra!)ridicule and not asking the question ‘what’, if anything really occurred. Plenty of evidence does tend to surface confirming ones assumptions, whether its official disinfo or just a natural law of seeing confirmation of what one believes. A ‘Trap’ indeed for the ones who question…misdirection, cheapest and most effective magic trick ever.
Cluesforum looks very good for asking that question, but its breadth overloads my mind at the moment.
I just realised I still have an assumption ‘they’ have etheric tech, eg. free energy and anti gravity etc, a hidden space program. If so, I guess they would need some rocket powered theatrics that they could use for show. Off topic rabbit hole tho!!
Keep up the good work and pls forgive my spelling errors at this time.
There’s a claim that all observatories which look at the Sun are owned by the Vatican, but I don’t know how true that is.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99801
I’ll have a look now at the books you mention and myself and other readers find stuff like that invaluable. Thanks a lot.
http://youtu.be/J-m4pPGIPZg
You cannot see the light unless it is reflected off something. However, the question remains if you can see the source of light provided you’re looking directly into it and you’re in vacuum. Light is not reflected off anything, but does it reach your pupils?
What I find really interesting at the moment is the idea that what we sense with our 5 senses is nothing more than the oscillation of matter rather than matter (or the movement of “whatever” which could represent matter) itself. It’s quite a fringe thought for me but I like it. If you think about it, light and sound are waveforms and so have a frequency. Smell and taste is probably a molecular exchange and touch is pressure of other “matter”. Our nervous system is doing the detecting of these 5 senses and how does it do this – by pulsations, which of course is a frequency. So when I see this cup of coffee in front of me, maybe I am really seeing the oscillating atomic or molecular (or both) bonds rather than the molecules themselves. I’ll have to look into this more to see if it has any merit.
I’m also not sure what to make of “light” at the moment. Something else to look into.
The good news: I have broadband back at my new home and so hopefully I will be able to crack on with the next article (halfway through).
I tried to find some more information on light being invisible in space (vacuum). What is claimed and recognized is that the scattered light is invisible becausre the is not enought particles in vacuum, but the light sources and the lit objects are visible. Basically, you cannot see the light path, which is logical and obvious and not a surprise at all, but you can supposedly see the light source. I find this very suspicious. In my opinion, more distant light sources will not be visible at all in this scenario. The only way distant light sources could be observed is if we actually observe their reflections provided they get reflected off something in our vicinity. No way for a star millions of light years away to be visible as a light source in space if its light actually is not scattered off anything.
My own intuition is that ether totally determines all of it. very little ether at ‘high altitude’, no can see light source. Sky is blue cos ether glows…my own science with help from alternative sources.
Of interest :
1) No stars
2) Uploader makes point about seeing “curvature of Earth”
3) User Bob Czz is obviously knowledgable, and points out barrel distortion and the horizon, but is ridiculed. Is he you? Have you interacted with him? He might have useful information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvDqoxMUroA&list=FLqhzZ-pMEjKTUaTmE8wPrhg&index=1
Has anyone performed a night balloon launch with this object in mind recently? I am considering doing that this summer when it is warmer – launching around 2AM so retrieving it might be during early morning light.
Fantastic if you can launch a balloon yourself. There is onlt one night video that I knew of when I wrote the article. Maybe the same guy has done another one. I was thinking what I would do. If you can find a camera which can see the stars in the night sky at ground level on a clear night and then lauch the balloon that same clear night, we may also be able to roughly work out at what altitude the stars dissappeared at on that day. I imaigine there are minor or even major variations due to seasonal, aethric, pressure changes etc.
“And lastly, not self-pity but self-realization on our utter limitations as a human species. We are all completely retarded Jim, you, me and every single human being we know. Like an alcoholic, once you realize how thick we really are, we may begin to make a little bit of progress. I am telling you Jim, as a species we are completely broken. We couldn’t join the dots even if they were laid out in front of us in a coloring book for 5 year olds. We know nothing.”
This, in my opinion, is profound. The older I get the more I see the truth of it.
See what you think of this …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU
This is Stephen Davis’ Holographic Universe Workshop. Mind bending!
Thank you for dragging me outside the box. If nothing else, you have forced us to think.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1390507888
“Hung, who traveled alone, reached his destination some four hours later, landing his craft on the far side of the lonely star.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1390507888#ykJBgDMkVkEaBtHi.99“
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rqZPk6LXio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jTLmShJlcQ
HOLOGRAM FIREBALLS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu_23YgfubY
Sumstuff
Submitted on 2013/12/09 at 3:24 am
Found quite a few more balloon videos which show NO stars or moon, this is quite the adventure, made a playlist, the longer duration videos are at the end of the playlist, enjoy
The Disappearing Stars and Moon In Space
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWRzUSpfFKZ8lPBisdoQ2SVjWW7iIDV5i
63 videos
26 hours
sumstuff52 – do You read these comments?
It’s enlightenfawn from YouTube, and I just saw Your comment on Thor’s channel – Glad to See You’re Back!! I tried sending You a private message, but You need to add Me as a Contact – that would be Cool because I’m not connected to googleplus (what an invasion!), so I can’t post comments, etc., but I can still send pm’s. Googleplus might lessen the restrictions in Time so, I am just going to wait that one out.
I did Subscribe to Your YouTube Channel – I haven’t viewed Your video’s yet – I just wanted to send You a quick note Hoping You’ll eventually get this message/comment!
Many Blessings & Happy Holiday’s*
I’ll C Ya L8ter :-}
Fawn ~
thx WH for the relay
I’m finding it odd that on some cloudless nights I don’t see stars, yet on others I do. Maybe there are clouds there and I can’t see them, but I’m not so sure.
We need to consciously remember to observe in different situations. I’m glad you did.
There may be a clue to this in the way stars flicker. They aren’t usually a steady light as seen by the naked eye, although the bright ones may seem to be more steady sometimes.
In 1992 I saw a triangular UFO once in a crowded area which nobody else could see. It also was flickering like a star but less frequently like it was on a roll of film but only present on every 5 frames of the film instead of on every one. It detected I could see it and flickered at a lower rate to say every 10 frames and then 20 and then 30 etc. until it disappeared entirely. (But I knew it was still there).
I wonder if this has to do with the density of the aether which Steve suggests. Could it be that with enough aether density, light can propagate more and therefore be seen as solid; but with less density, light (and maybe objects) miss a beat. His theory would agree with the mechanism I’ll write about in the next article, but I’m still not 100% sure. It would certainly need further thinking about.
I’m open to the “camera not being sensitive enough idea”, but as you have already thought through, it doesn’t agree with the other points you made above.
Anyway, very interesting, good job.
I’m trying to piece together the next article but I still have a couple of think-throughs to go. Keep wading through; they get better the newer they are… at least I think so lol.
You were the flat earth theorist from cluesforum right?
If this concave Earth theory were true, then the Bible would say that Heaven is inside the Earth, rather than it saying that Heaven is above the Earth. Hell is “beneath” or that is, inside the Earth, and Heaven is “above” or that is, outside the Earth’s sphere. According to this theory, however, hell is placed above, since “beneath” to us is placed above us – hell thus being in a larger outermost sphere around the inner sphere of our habitation, and heaven being at the centre of both spheres. A dizzying thought even to comprehend.
I’m not sure about the bible as I have never read it except a few outtakes on the interwebs. It seems to be a strange kind of mystical book in parts.
If heaven (whatever that represents) is above the Earth, then does that mean it is above the ground or beyond the North Pole or under the ground and outside the Earth? Does this mean that if we travel through the North Pole we come into the land of Heaven? Or is just a mystical reference to something else and not to be taken literally?
No idea.
I remember reading somewhere that Hell isn’t mentioned in the bible or am I mistaken? Someone tried to equate “hell” with “helios” meaning light or Sun but it seems to be a false reference. Who knows.
There are stories and myths abound concerning the underworld however, but that would take a whole new article to just skim the surface. It is no surprise as the underworld is really a pathway to the outside world in a concave Earth; but I’m not willing to speculate on the macro stuff outside the Earth at the moment.
Speaking of dizzy thoughts, I’ve just discovered a 3-d world to all the 2-d diagrams I had been crappily drawing. It’s opened up a whole new array of possibilities and understandings but it is getting a bit above my mental pay grade so to speak lol. I am wallowing through mental mud at the moment.
Comet ISON was discovered on 21 September 2012. By 30 September, its orbital elements had published by the IAU (http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/mpec/K13/K13S75.html, then search “C/2012 S1 (ISON)” ). The next day (1 October 2012), NASA published predictions about ISON’s orbit and dates of visibility that have proven to be quite accurate. (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap121001.html)
So: within 10 days, conventional astronomers had calculated and published a highly accurate prediction of the comet’s orbit and appearance. I invite you to produce any sources where geocentrists of any persuadion (Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, or Spherical Earth) made comparably accurate predictions within that same time frame. Those sources must present in detail the dynamical model used for their predictions (including all numerical parameters thereof), and must have been published on verifiable dates. Note that I need to see real math and real numbers: mere hand-waving claims and accusations about conspiracies don’t count.
Be sure to read the warning given at the end of that video.
Note that you won’t get away with claims that the prediction of ISON’s orbit made by real astronomers was inaccurate: you have to show (a) where geocentrists (including concave-Earthers) made–<band published, verifiably–a prediction that was of comparable accuracy within time period; and (b) the dynamical model and real, numerical parameters and results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_hollow_Earths
http://www.andrepiet.nl/holle_aarde/Abdelkader.html
Does mathematics reflect reality?
“Creations of the early 19th century, strange geometries and strange algebras, forced mathematicians, reluctantly and grudgingly, to realise that mathematics proper and the mathematical laws of science were not truths. They found, for example, that several differing geometries fit spatial experience equally well. All could not be truths. Apparently mathematical design was not inherent in nature, or if it was, man’s mathematics was not necessarily the account of that design. The key to reality had been lost. This realisation was the first of the calamities to befall mathematics.
http://www.marxist.com/science-old/mathematicsreflectreality.html#Contradictions%20in%20Mathematics
http://www.marxist.com/science-old/mathematicsreflectreality.html
The problem with the current heliocentric model is that there is no mechanical explanation for any of it. They don’t know what gravity is for goodness sake, just that it seems to obey a mathematical law. That is not good enough.
You can take the same math for predicting where a comet will be in the sky at a certain time and apply it to the concave model as well. In fact, that is one piece of evidence for the mechanical aspect of the CM which I think I have nailed, but we will see. When you have the mechanical model, you can explain gravity, magnetism, electricity and I have at the moment 3 different types of frequencies… and there is also good evidence for this mechanic.
I’m bogged down with it and practical life at the moment but I’ll eventually have it all out… if I can mentally understand it myself, which is becoming increasingly tougher the deeper I dig. In fact, physics can only explain things to a certain level as we can always ask well “what is that?” ad infinium.
I can refer them to plenty of sources that explain it. I’ll tell students often about this one, too:
While you continue to flounder at this fool’s errand, with the hope of “eventually” figuring it out, students can get accurate predictions of planets’ motions from real astronomers–whom you accuse of being incompetents and frauds–in a matter of minutes,
BTW, I take that statement as an admission that you cannot provide what I asked for:
I was actually talking about joining the dots (or recognizing patterns). I didn’t mean calculating the math lol.
I am desperately looking for insight. Sometimes it is like trawling through mud, other times, especially after a good sleep or a nap, I instantly leap massively forward and think “wow that was obvious, why didn’t I see that before.”
The math for the model has already been done by others, but obviously not in context of a concave Earth. It is actually probably the most complicated math there is (way above my pay grade) and not completely understood (much of it is still theory) – fluid dynamics.
If the math has already been done for your model, then why don’t you provide a link to it, and why don’t you use that math to produce real, numerical astronomical predictions that can be tested against observations?
Regarding your comment,
,
I don’t need to invite them. They’re pretty avid researchers who don’t wait for “inviations” from me. And they can get plenty of laughs ready your self-pity posts about why you can’t and won’t provide real, testable predictions of astronomical phenomena.
I was actually really surprised that a theoretical mathematical model had been devised in modern times (1982) of a concave earth as I would have thought not a single academic would have touched Concave Earth Theory with a barge pole.
And lastly, not self-pity but self-realization on our utter limitations as a human species. We are all completely retarded Jim, you, me and every single human being we know. Like an alcoholic, once you realize how thick we really are, we may begin to make a little bit of progress. I am telling you Jim, as a species we are completely broken. We couldn’t join the dots even if they were laid out in front of us in a coloring book for 5 year olds. We know nothing.
I don’t agree with an exact inversion. I think the Sun and stars and “planets” are at the center of Earth space (or near enough to it) and everything there revolves around the central aetheric vortex. Still developing the model.
The only way to be sure is a night-time launch with a proven “star-sensitive” camera.
1. The author doesn’t have enough understanding of science to make these claims.
2. The author is correct due to…insert all the arguments listed above.
Since #1 makes the fewest amount of assumptions, it is likely the best answer.
If we all lived by this Occam’s Razor we’d still be living in caves eating raw meat.
Facts are facts, right… or are they assumptions? To never investigate is to never progress.
And if you cheat and do this test in the middle of a cloud of fog, then you are a person of no intelligence.
Furthermore, YouTube videos do not qualify as evidence. Likewise, Wikipedia articles do not qualify as evidence (although any genuine scientific papers referenced by said articles would).
Your argument is scientifically invalid because you completely ignore the most basic and most important piece of evidence. Please reformulate and retest your argument.
Also, thanks for the laugh that I got as I read this ridiculous claptrap. I needed it. Even though this post is horse manure, it does at least provide some societal benefit.
Totalrecall, you apparently have no knowledge of the physics of springs. I suggest reviewing freshman physics.
Please read the concave earth theory article for questions and peculiarities of optics for information on the horizon. Our vision does not tell us the truth.
(I have already disallowed one user from posting because of insults. Consider this your first and last warning. I may edit your next posts to allow only your constructive arguments or not approve you at all).
And yet you don’t address the central problem, which is that your hypothesis is scientifically invalid.
You even call it “concave Earth theory,” which is intellectually dishonest, because this is an invalid hypothesis and not a theory.
Third: If you claim that our vision “does not tell us the truth,” then the only logical conclusion of that argument is that we cannot detect anything about the world by any means at all, for anyone could just claim that any particular method “does not tell us the truth” with no evidence whatsoever until everyone on Earth thought that they could not sense anything with any accuracy. Congratulations, you have just made an argumentum ad absurdum.
If you have no understanding of basic science and yet attempt to rewrite said science, then calling your post a pile of horse manure is not, in fact, an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have called you a howling ignoramus and a laughable cultist toady (since basic research has found that your beliefs are indicative of a cultist of a charmingly insane fellow called Cyrus Teed).
By telling you right here and now that you are attempting to publish garbage, I am not insulting you, but doing you a favor. If you attempt to publish this claptrap anywhere other than the Internet, you will quite literally be laughed out of the international scientific community. I feel that it is kinder to nip this sort of thing in the bud so that you can fix your arguments now before you experience professional ridicule and loss of credibility.
Now, to your reference:
1. McNair was apparently a confirmed phony. This took some research, but that paper was definitely faked. Also, he apparently conveniently forgot the Coriolis effect.
2. A magazine called “Flying Saucers: The Magazine of Space Conquest” is not a valid source. You should know this. I expected better.
3. “””Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead.”””
This, right here, is a lie. Religious people lie regularly–damn it, the last Pope tried to cover up thousands of pedophile priests. Here, in fact is a list of lying fundamentalists:
Ken Ham
Ray Comfort
Brent Bozell
Bryan Fischer
Any and all high-ranking Scientologists
Kent Hovind (in fact, this man is in jail for tax evasion)
Jerry Falwell (I am including deceaed people here)
Pat Robertson
95% or more of the priests in El Salvador
Pope Boniface the Eighth
Thomas Aquinas
The Ayatollah Khomeni
Cyrus Teed
Mullah Muhammad Omar
This is just the list from the top of my head. Furthermore, the man you call as a respectable witness, Ulysses Morrow, was a member of a cult led by a man named Cyrus Teed, which stipulated belief in a Dyson Sphere-like-Earth. If you go into an experiment expecting a particular outcome, then your results are suspect–and if, on top of that, you “forget” to account for something major like the Coriolis effect, you are being intellectually dishonest. So yes, he was lying.
Your second example is a publicity stunt with a highly suspect device performed by a number of extremely religious cultists, with no actual scientific involvement, and therefore invalid as an example.
“””The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated”””
This alone makes it invalid. Repeatability is paramount in science.
Your next point is an unintelligible mess of rehashed 19th-century experiments, which are always suspect due to their basis in a cut-throat age of publishing before verification (which is anathema to science, but try telling that to that nitwit Richard Owen).
On your fourth point: here you actually admit that you might be wrong, which is the only scientific thing that I have seen you do so far. Of course, you reference more 19th-century studies, which doesn’t bode well for your credibility, but I will give you points for admitting that your arguments are unsound.
Your conclusion: Your subjectively determined “probabilities” are laughable and have no basis in objective fact. You engage in intellectually dishonest practices such as cherry-picking and using invalid sources, and you apparently have never seen a picture taken from space, or ever actually looked at the horizon in, say, Kansas. Your arguments are unsound, and require major reformulation. I strongly suggest that you start from scratch, remove any sources produces by Cyrus Teed cultists and writers of UFO conspiracy magazines, and actually try some experiments yourself with professional equipment.
Yours respectfully,
Physicsgeek
“And yet you don’t address the central problem, which is that your hypothesis is scientifically invalid.
You even call it “concave Earth theory,” which is intellectually dishonest, because this is an invalid hypothesis and not a theory.”
I disagree with this on the premise that there are four pieces of evidence for the Earth being concave, with two of them being nearly slam dunks. An example of a hypothesis would be the special hypothesis of relativity which has never been observed, or heliocentric hypothesis which has no supporting evidence whatsoever… I tell a lie, there is foucault’s pendulum, which turns out to be actually evidence for the turbulent aether once George Airy’s experiment is taken into account. You are probably new here PG and so haven’t read about it I guess. Most of it is here:
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/#E
and a bit also here, mostly at the end:
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt2/
Third: If you claim that our vision “does not tell us the truth,” then the only logical conclusion of that argument is that we cannot detect anything about the world by any means at all, for anyone could just claim that any particular method “does not tell us the truth” with no evidence whatsoever until everyone on Earth thought that they could not sense anything with any accuracy. Congratulations, you have just made an argumentum ad absurdum.
No. It seems that at short distances visible light is accurate enough, but at long distances it is very inaccurate. That is obvious though isn’t it? I actually looked into the flat earth seriously because optics shows us that the world must be flat. A lake is a flat plane obviously, at least it looks that way to the naked eye. You can get a clinometer and look across the top of a series of objects of same length for several miles and see the tops of each object with a telescope as Rowbowthan has already demonstrated. The problem is this is impossible as the flags should dip downwards on a convex earth, or upwards on a concave one. If the Earth isn’t flat, then visible light must bend.
Optics can’t tell us the correct shape of the Earth, because of the 5 experiments already mentioned here.
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/#C
They aren’t the only ones and I don’t think their results are in dispute as the standard excuse is refraction.
If you have no understanding of basic science and yet attempt to rewrite said science, then calling your post a pile of horse manure is not, in fact, an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have called you a howling ignoramus and a laughable cultist toady (since basic research has found that your beliefs are indicative of a cultist of a charmingly insane fellow called Cyrus Teed).
After reading Cellular Cosmonogy, I have an incredible respect for Teed and Morrow. Yes, Teed made some grand assumptions which even deviated away from his initial vision. I think he was wrong on a lot of things about the inner workings of the concave Earth; but at least he actually carried out one of the most thorough experiments I have ever read about. The arguments against his experiment are either slanderous (PG), false (Skeptic magazine), or made up opinion (Simanek). I mean Teed HAS to be wrong as the establishment has literally nowhere else to go. Shame.
By telling you right here and now that you are attempting to publish garbage, I am not insulting you, but doing you a favor. If you attempt to publish this claptrap anywhere other than the Internet, you will quite literally be laughed out of the international scientific community. I feel that it is kinder to nip this sort of thing in the bud so that you can fix your arguments now before you experience professional ridicule and loss of credibility.
I don’t mind ridicule. I accept constructive criticism, new ideas or info. I’ve revised three articles already. If I see something which contradicts what I say, I will retract and revise, or just state something like, “but this evidence seems to show otherwise and needs investigating further.” I am only “one man and his laptop” after all, or as my wife affectionately calls me “one knob and his laptop”.
I didn’t know there was a “science community”. Can I join this cult or do I have to believe, or not believe, in certain things first?
1. McNair was apparently a confirmed phony. This took some research, but that paper was definitely faked. Also, he apparently conveniently forgot the Coriolis effect.
Doubt it; but if you show your research on the paper being fraudulent my opinion may change. Mcnair isn’t the important one anyway. His conclusions disagreed with a concave Earth, and I htink his air current hypothesis perfectly reasonable. It’s the “other experiment” that is the deciding factor so to speak.
2. A magazine called “Flying Saucers: The Magazine of Space Conquest” is not a valid source. You should know this. I expected better.
I agree with you. Morrow also mentions it and it is his reference to the experiment in the future which is interesting. That’s is why I came to the conclusion of “maybe”. I think that is reasonable, don’t you?
3. “””Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead.”””
This, right here, is a lie. Religious people lie regularly–damn it, the last Pope tried to cover up thousands of pedophile priests. Here, in fact is a list of lying fundamentalists:
Ken Ham
Ray Comfort
Brent Bozell
Bryan Fischer
Any and all high-ranking Scientologists
Kent Hovind (in fact, this man is in jail for tax evasion)
Jerry Falwell (I am including deceaed people here)
Pat Robertson
95% or more of the priests in El Salvador
Pope Boniface the Eighth
Thomas Aquinas
The Ayatollah Khomeni
Cyrus Teed
Mullah Muhammad Omar
Yes, I agree with you. But after reading Cellular Cosmonogy, the only “crime” I could accuse Teed of is that he was out to prove his own beliefs and so would be willing to believe what others have told him. Perhaps others lied to him about the “other experiment”. His own experiment was incredibly meticulous and overseen by Corpernicans who were doing everything in their power to find fault with it. He knew what he was up against. A very brave if not slightly foolhardy man, but definitely not a religious figure of the establishment (just the opposite in fact). The thoroughness of his experiment reflects on his character most highly.
I view the above list of religious “leaders” you have thoughtfully provided as largely establishment figures, especially the Vatican. This is a huge topic and a very long one. Perhaps another article in the far future. My initial premise is that the Jesuits are to blame for a lot of this, but we are venturing into conspiratorial grounds. Another time perhaps.
This is just the list from the top of my head. Furthermore, the man you call as a respectable witness, Ulysses Morrow, was a member of a cult led by a man named Cyrus Teed, which stipulated belief in a Dyson Sphere-like-Earth. If you go into an experiment expecting a particular outcome, then your results are suspect–and if, on top of that, you “forget” to account for something major like the Coriolis effect, you are being intellectually dishonest. So yes, he was lying.
Ah yes, the infamous Coriolis Effect. You probably have already mentioned this in a future reply to one of my above points above about there being no evidence for the heliocentric hypothesis. The Coriolis Effect is explained well enough here I think.
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/#E
As well as this great article from Miles Mathis:
http://milesmathis.com/corio.html
Your second example is a publicity stunt with a highly suspect device performed by a number of extremely religious cultists, with no actual scientific involvement, and therefore invalid as an example.
I disagree. This experiment was very valid as it was over seen and inspected by their adversaries and signed off by multiple people. This experiment was so thorough (especially for 1897) and the ramifications so vast, it should be right up with one of the leading experiments of all time. But that is only my opinion and I respect that you differ on this.
“””The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated”””
This alone makes it invalid. Repeatability is paramount in science.
I agree. That is why I couldn’t give 100%. The more disturbing question is why wasn’t this experiment repeated? Ridiculing the result is not scientific. Men of science would want to know once and for all what the true shape of the Earth was; after all, it is very fundamental to a lot of the sciences and their philosophical off-springs such as astronomy.
So why wasn’t it repeated? Perhaps because it would end many careers and a philosophy so useful to the establishment (my opinion).
Your next point is an unintelligible mess of rehashed 19th-century experiments, which are always suspect due to their basis in a cut-throat age of publishing before verification (which is anathema to science, but try telling that to that nitwit Richard Owen).
I view the 19th century as the age of enlightenment and freedom in a lot of respects, especially in the arena of science and engineering. Today everyone seems to be owned… except of course bloggers on the internet
On your fourth point: here you actually admit that you might be wrong, which is the only scientific thing that I have seen you do so far. Of course, you reference more 19th-century studies, which doesn’t bode well for your credibility, but I will give you points for admitting that your arguments are unsound.
I agree. I tried to find more modern sources and only found a couple. But I think their findings about height and altitude isn’t in dispute. Those facts are already well-known.
Your conclusion: Your subjectively determined “probabilities” are laughable and have no basis in objective fact. You engage in intellectually dishonest practices such as cherry-picking and using invalid sources, and you apparently have never seen a picture taken from space, or ever actually looked at the horizon in, say, Kansas. Your arguments are unsound, and require major reformulation.
I disagree. Ah yes, those pesky pictures from “space”. Here is a starter for ten:
http://www.wildheretic.com/nasas-weird-and-wonderful-orbiting-machines-pt2/#5
There is much more on youtube and the best collection is on cluesforum.info.
I strongly suggest that you start from scratch, remove any sources produces by Cyrus Teed cultists and writers of UFO conspiracy magazines, and actually try some experiments yourself with professional equipment.
Yours respectfully,
Physicsgeek
No to the first bit, but yes to the second. I am thinking just on those lines. In the mid-to-long term future I will be doing more practical endeavors and less blogging. We will see.
Thanks for being civil and PG, take your time reading through the articles on this blog. There is a lot there but it should answer most of your questions.
Yours respectfully back,
WH
Again: YouTube videos are not evidence in any way.
Also, your subjectively determined “probabilities” are in no way an acceptable stand-in for objective evidence. Your arguments are still scientifically invalid, and you have offered no genuine, scientifically acceptable evidence to support them.
Furthermore, your jokes about science being a cult remove any credibility that you had. Please take some time to think about just how irrational, unintelligent, and downright insulting you sound in your response to me.
Finally, one guy at a computer cannot overturn established theories with invalid hypotheses. Please, for your own sake, rethink how you are using your time and instead do something that reflects better on your credibility, such as working as a sales rep or joining the National Guard. You are wasting your time here and convincing no one–at least, no one who is not already an established crank. You seem to be a decent person and mentally stable, and I really think that you can improve your life if you think about how it reflects on your credibility to associate with the likes of Alex Jones.
I am only a blogger. If I am getting this reaction I must be doing something right
Fair enough. You stick to your world, and I’ll stick to mine and we are both happy.
All the best
WH
I don’t think the Sun moves much further away at all, a little bit, but not too much. The angle of the sun in the sky seems to be due to the angle of the light as it hits the Earth. It seems that under extreme magnetism (which I will explain in the next article) visible light bends.
Well, we do here on this blog now believe in bendy light, at least bendy visible light. It seems the lower the frequency the less bendy it is. See the article concave Earth theory and, above all, the comments section.
Richard, I’m interested in your idea that a concave Earth shows a “convex” horizon and a convex Earth a “concave” one. Actually I know what you mean. At the moment I’m not sure there is an outside if you know what I mean. There could just be lots of cavities instead of planets or maybe this world is a machine and we are inside it? Who knows.
I’m in 2 minds with bendy visible light causing the horizon. LSC has had a good go at it and I’ll have to revisit his youtube video. One poster mentioned a Dutchman’s image of the light bending inside the Earth but this would only cause the horizon at 2 specific times of the day, not continually.
Interesting stuff all the same. I’m moving house this Friday and so won’t be able to access my blog as often as I would like. Apologies.
Just wanted to add that I thought the spacing between the first few springs is a larger distance at the top of the slinky because it is supporting more weight. The first spring is carrying the weight of the entire slinky. The one on the bottom is not being pulled down by all that weight, so naturally it would have a smaller distance in its spacing. Hope that makes sense.
Still, some interesting ideas going on here
I thought of something like that too. I was going through my head how I would try and explain it in a “conventional” way, you know, playing Devil’s advocate.
Still, playing the other side: Why is the weight there in the first place? There is weight acting on the “hanging” hook and then a slinky is attached and so the weight is transferred. But why isn’t it transferred to the bottom slinky first since the hook and slinky are now “one” object and gravity is a “pull” right?
It was one of Steven’s youtube video’s. Found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4VHcFY1Vg Gets interesting at about the 3 min mark I think.
I have to say I am a total convert to this theory, it all seems so logical.
Could you explain rainbows please? I am looking at a huge bright one now against a black ‘sky’ and would love to know the connection with the glass sky.
I have many questions, so I must remember to note them down and come here to seek a possible answer.
In fact my partner and teen son are all converts to this theory.
However, what they represent (whatever that is) must be very near the center right above the poles, either side of the center of the Earth.
This is because of two facts that can’t be reconciled any other way. Take the northern hemisphere for example.
1. The north pole star Polaris can be seen everywhere in the northern hemisphere… everywhere (and a touch below). That puts the north star somewhere right above the north pole (because everyone on half the globe can see it). With this one fact Polaris can be anywhere from say 4 miles in the sky above the north pole to right at the center.
Second fact 2. The stars are seen to travel around the north star in an anti-clockwise direction by those viewing them from the northern hemisphere. I don’t know if you have read the other articles, but the it has been proven that it is the night sky that moves and not the Earth and that we live on the inside. Visualize the concave Earth for a minute and that you are upside down at the north pole. The Sun moves East to West in an anti-clockwise direction and so the only way the stars can be seen to also travel in an anti-clockwise direction is that the stars are above the heads of everyone on the northern hemisphere (like the Sun). Therefore the only place the stars can be is very near the center and whatever they represent is extremely small.
If the stars were just above the north pole, everyone south of that (say people in Hawaii) would see the stars go around in a clockwise fashion instead, which they don’t.
I don’t know if this explanation was clear enough. I’ve got more on it as well but it’ll have to wait till the next article.
However, when going through about 20 to 25 balloon videos there was a still from one of those videos of a circular very small object very low down in the black sky just above the horizon. I don’t know what it was: moon, “planet” etc.? It also appears slightly higher in the sky in one of the stills on the website of the man who sent a balloon up during nighttime. If you view his website, on one or two of the high res photos you will see it. It is very, very small to how we normally see the moon however. I have no idea what is. Just thought I’d point that out as I had also thought about what you are saying too.
Hence the high concentration of luminiferous ether allows a visual boost of the heavens at ground level, and the gradual taper off of the ether at high altitudes prevents the fainter lights such as stars from being observed.
best regards, “Tiger”.
“Water vapor is almost totally absent above about 8 km.”
http://scipp.ucsc.edu/outreach/balloon/atmos/The%20Earth.htm
Unless of course the stars are formed in the ice..
It’s an open book.
I also like the sonoluminescene theory as here where I live, on some cloudless nights the stars are visible and not on others, and sometimes only a few are visible. It is quite varied. The light pollution is constant where I live. If water vapor was a necessary component to make stars then this could be the varying factor.
It is only an idea though.
get right with the Lord.
http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany7.html
Don’t worry, I could be wrong lol
The stars thing is still largely an open book.
Steve, if you find evidence of stars being nearer the center of the Earth, then let me know with a quick link on this page. I’ll definitely read it.
I am not sure about the luminiferous aether just as yet, so you will have to be patient on that front. Steve, how did you come to the conclusion of the luminiferous aether? If you could give me a few pointers, I will be able to have a look for myself. I’ll look into it myself anyway, but these things will take time as I am not at all knowledgeable about different theories of the aether. It may yet tie in with my next article.
Let’s just call this a subject of further research on my behalf and leave it at that.
I’m not a man of all-knowledge lol
It’s not imperative for me at this moment either way. I’ve got other fish to fry so to speak.
The north star Polaris can be seen from the entire northern hemisphere (and even a touch below it), so we must be looking at a star on the same vertical axis as the north pole which would be impossible at low altitude in concave Earth theory (unless I’ve got brain freeze and missed something obvious). The only way around this would be if light followed the curvature of the Earth or the stars are much further away very near the center (which I’ve just found out has to be the place where they are really). I’ll reveal all in the next article rather than here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star
Simon has done good work on all this with his SSSS theory. I see you referenced it, perhaps all of us could do a roundtable on this very fascinating subject.
It’s the work of everyone, past and present, which together can put a likely picture on our true situation. I hope this blog helps a little too.
I’d love to do an audio cast, but right now I have to spend all my free-time writing 2 more articles to complete the first overall theme so to speak.
Maybe after that I will take you up on your offer.
BTW, I want to ask any pilots that may read this article if they have ever seen stars from their cockpit at cruising altitude (high above the clouds) at night. The only light in the cockpit at night is the glow of the instrument panel if I am not mistaken, so light pollution shouldn’t be a problem.
The cloud cover low pressure theory was great too.
As well as de Palmer, there is another piece of simple evidence from the book “gravity is a push”.
Remember those slinky toys in the 80s. If you hang one from any point, the first spiral has a greater stretch than the next one and so on until the bottom slinky spirals are hardly apart much at all. If gravity were a pull, it would be the other way round, with the bottom part of the slinky being pulled apart the most.
I will have to use that sometime in the future to explain