This post was updated on .
You'll want to watch this video a few times to study the following description of it.
In my animation here of a my concave earth model, I depict the way the universe would look if light were actually straight and not bending up toward the center, as a result, we can see the curved trajectories of the light. I have the sun being the object of reference as each 10 frames constitutes once day or... 3 days per second. In reality it's the celestial sphere that's the fastest moving object in the sky, orbiting at real sidereal time - 23 hrs 56 mins 4 secs. But since i locked the right ascension of the sun, the other moving objects orbit in reference to it's position. Hence we see the moon orbiting in a false clockwise rotation, since it's slower than the sun as it make one dirurnal orbit every 24 hrs and 50 minutes. I did not depict the oscillating analemma movement of the sun, since this side view angle wouldn't reveal it too well. We see two transparent glass spheres here surrounding the celestial sphere. A larger glass sphere with ice is outside the picture frame closer to the ground. We have a sphere for the moon, and a sphere for the sun and planets, in which the 22 and 46 degrees halos that we see sometimes in the sky are atmospheric products of.
The sun, behind its own glass sphere, emanates its light as it splays out and spreads, as it hits the glass, while the light continues outward, it makes an onion shape in front of the sun, and then bends around backward to hit the celestial sphere perpendicularly. The sunlight always returns to the central octahedron, while acting as a giant magnetic resonant absorptive antenna, which continues the circuit of light up the northern end, across the high arm of light on the northern side of the octahedron, and returning back to the back of the sun. Hence we have a closed circuit. This is a more reasonable explanation to the heliocentric model, as the sun's magnetic field lines actually return TO the sun, instead of wandering aimlessly throughout a vast billion light year universe.
It's more reasonable and intuitive to understand the sun's declination rate is consistent with a cylindrical oscillating orbit with natural spring-like acceleration and deceleration at the extremities. Rather than a tilted spinning, wobbling earth orbiting a distant sun.
Every reason they give you for a rotating earth is explained better and more reasonable in my model. The ether is present. It never vanished after the Michelson Morley experiment. Dayton Miller, a contemporary of M&M, spent decades proving the ether drift with more sophisticated equipment. Threatened by it and out of fear that relativity would end up in the patent clerk's waste-bin, Einstein discredited Miller with irrelevant unreasonable objections. The ether explains everything from pendulum anomalies, to gyroscopes, to the so-called Coriolis effect to the reason we are held to the inside concave surface and to the Cavendish experiment which allegedly proved gravity.
It's more reasonable to conclude there is an equatorial bulge because of thermal expansion, as the sun orbits cylindrically in the tropic zone.
The sun and moon are slghtly more than half spheres - up to 60% spheres. They were products of confinement dome expansions at the crux of creation in the middle of the octahedron where an opposing bowl primer field apparatus was set up. This explains libration, seeing up to 59% of the alleged sphere of the moon as it rocks back and forth due to centripetal force. During perigee, when the moon appears larger, it is faster, thus cocking the moon a few degrees in the direction of the east to west spin. During apogee, the moon appears smaller and cocks the other way, in opposition to the east to west spin. Yet a non-sphere moon makes more reasonable sense since this prevents it from rotating. The heliocentric answer has to have the moon rotate exactly once every lunar month, which they conveniently call tidal locking. Again this is counter intuitive and unreasonable. The bending light always directs your eye to the front of the sun and moon, and it hits the celestial sphere perpendicularly,
The glass sphere that surround the moon exhibits a negativity in refraction due to a phase conjugation that happens at that level that actually reverses the apogee and perigee and causes the moon to look flatter.
The moon gets eclipsed when it enters the anti-solar curved opposition void zone, where, passing through glass, the light gets dispersed as the less bending red light floods the darkness funnel. This is a better more reasonable explanation than the heliocentric answer of the earth's shadow causing lunar eclipses resorting to earth's atmosphere creating a reddening of the sunlight, since red light bends less than the other colors of the spectrum, one could logically conclude it would be violet light flooding the eclipsed moon and not red.
There is an anomaly called opposition surge, where a planet or the moon will be flooded with a non-linear surge of light as it enters opposition. Again in my model, it is more reasonable to conclude the curved anti-solar light is converging at the opposition zone which causes an uneven amount of noticeable illumination at that specific anti-solar region, than it is to consider the heliocentric answer of the planets' or moon's surface shadows being hidden when direct sunlight is cast upon them - since any alleged rough terrain on planets would be negligible at vast distances.
My model also accurately explains the gegenschein, the anti-solar light hitting the celestial sphere - a much more reasonable answer than interplanetary dust in the heliocentric model, since there is no observed gegenscheins ghosting any other planets.
The sun and planets are behind the inner glass sphere and the apparent large disparity of angular sizes of the planets are compensated via refraction. Hence their apogee and perigee distances are not as wide as apparently observed. Non glass reflecting telescopes claim to extinguish chromatic aberration, however chromatic aberration is still detected with earth-based reflectors.
It's more reasonable to believe all the planets are aligning themselves, being influenced by a magnetic elliptic band that circumscribes the celestial sphere than it is to assign them weird prodigious elliptical orbits without any reason. Hence, planetary alignment is happening all the time, not just on special occasions.
The sun and moon, having a more relative constant proximity range, maintain roughly the same angular diameter throughout any given day due to the refraction of the glass sky, actually equalizing them, as well as utilizing faster red horizontal light verses slower blue vertical light. Sometimes I think that the divine ruse was encoded too well, taking many factors into account, using the glass heavens and curved light to camouflage this reality.
It's more reasonable to conclude that the sun and moon are virtually, if not exactly, the same size, than to consider the extremely unlikely "happy coincidence" of them only appearing the same scale yet the sun being 400 times larger and farther away.
It's much more reasonable to conclude the stars, products of multi-bubble sonoluminescence bathed in the celestial sea, are very close to us, and very tiny, than to conclude they are "light years" away. It's reasonable to conclude the stars are not similar to the sun as well.
We can see the constellations on the celestial sphere as well as the path of the ecliptic, which magnetically attracts the sun, moon and planets to its vicinity. We can also see the milky way band cocked at about 60 degrees, which perfectly bifurcates the celestial sphere in two, as the opposing magnetic currents in each celestial hemisphere govern the north south direction of the sun, and as the concentrated viscosity near the band governs the varying velocity of the sun. We can understand that this band exhibits polarizing current by seeing the symmetrical bi-polar planetary nebulae that are lined across the band. Planets' moons are orbiting their planet in an thinly curved oval, being behind glass, their apparent distances and extremities are highly exaggerated.
We see a slight bulge in the glass in front of the sun, as it's heat expands that area and then retracts back to normal while the sun keeps traversing. This reasonably explains better the star displacement anomaly that Einstein predicted and Eddington observed.
It's more reasonable to conclude the stellar lensing anomalies we see are products of real glass surrounding the celestial sphere, than to attribute them to a fictitious concept called gravitational lensing, which is actually inexplicable in their model anyway.
It all boils down to the argument of determining if there is an intelligent creator and whether it's reasonable to conclude he intentionally and intelligently encoded a mass deception upon humanity to camouflage the simplicity of his universe, so that, to the natural human mind, one would make conclusions based upon apparent observations, all the while evading and denying intuitive reason.
Reasonably, it is logical to conclude there is no other working model to the earth and universe than the LSC Earth model.
For questions on how the horizon works, why we don't see the other side of earth, what's on the outside of earth, how the ether works, space travel, satellites, the glass sky at 100 kms high, the megacryometeors mystery solved and a lot more, you are encouraged to watch my compilation video series.
This is the true shape of the earth, folks. You are inside the globe of earth. I am confident when you take the time to thoroughly research my model, you will most surely agree.
Thank you friends and foes for your support and challenges.
Explaining the Universe - Breaking it All Down - LSC Concave Earth
make this a priority to listen to....
It should all make sense now. There is no there model that works....
Thanks for spending all of the time and effort on all this material.
I've been watching your YT channel for a while now.
I've always had my doubts about what I was being told about how things are. There just always seems to be those little things that don't compute.
As soon as I started watching your videos, I was reminded of a discussion that I had decades ago, and now it's just all starting to click;
I was working at Rockwell International Telecommunications. I was in digital systems, and I had befriended a microwave field engineer and we began kicking around an off-the-books idea for a new UHF radio modem scheme.
I swing by my new friend's desk one day to chew the rag regarding the modem idea, and I glance at his 68K Macintosh screen, and he has a kind of crude looking software application running, It had some graphics drawn across the screen that looked like a slight bowl shape curve with a radio antenna icon near each end of the curve. I knew it was probably some sort of microwave propagation calculator since that's the nature of work he did, so being the curious sort, I asked him what's going there on his screen.
He proceeded to inform me that it is first of all, company proprietary confidential software, which I understood to mean, that what he's about to tell me is not to leave his cubical as per the terms of our non-disclosure agreements, and then he proceeded to explain that it's a "concave earth" model for calculating microwave propagation. I don't recall the entire conversation in great detail, but what he told me was something along these lines;
Under normal atmospheric conditions radio waves do not propagate in a straight line, they actually bend slightly downward. This is due to "refraction" in the atmosphere which affects radio waves propagating horizontally. To take this downward bending into account, we perform all the path calculations using a larger value for the earth radius, such that we can then consider the radio waves as propagating in a straight line.
In the Fresnel zone calculator you can change the earth radius multiplying factor (the "k factor") to take into account different atmospheric conditions. Under normal conditions the "k factor" is 4/3. However unusual weather conditions can cause significant changes to the refraction profile. For a high reliability link you may want to use a lower value for the k factor.
So my take away, that stuck with me was this idea that microwaves tend to bend downward because of refraction, which I always thought was odd, didn't seem to make sense, but I accepted it as yet another of those little things that I just can't compute.
However what I'm beginning to understand is that it's' more likely the effect of the Earth curving up, not the radio waves bending down! Doh! ...face-palm...
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|