This page is part of a 3 part series
Concave Earth Thesis Part 1 of 3 by WildHeretic (Recovered)
Concave Earth Thesis Part 2 of 3 by WildHeretic (Recovered)
Concave Earth Thesis Part 3 of 3 by WildHeretic (Recovered)
Bendy light – the evidence
Even though we have worked a lot of stuff out, so far we have only deduced that light bends through speculation, mainly observing the path of the Sun inside a concave Earth. Now let’s look at four pieces of evidence that light does indeed bend under certain conditions, including the Earth’s.
Micro cavities
We’ve reasoned that an induced negatively charged field (electric current) from the outside of this Earth cavity, which is made largely of silicon, creates an electromagnetic field inside the cavity which in turn bends light. What if we took a cavity made out of silicon and put an electric current through it? Even without a solenoid (the Sun) to greatly enhance the fields, could we also bend light inside this silicon cavity in order to mimic what happens with sunlight inside the Earth? Amazingly, that is exactly what has been done.
In 2012, researchers have copied what happens in the Earth cavity but on a tiny scale.
The Stanford solution capitalizes on recent research into photonic crystals – materials that can confine and release photons. To fashion their device, the team members created a grid of tiny cavities etched in silicon, forming the photonic crystal. By precisely applying electric current to the grid they can control – or “harmonically tune,” as the researchers say – the photonic crystal to synthesize magnetism and exert virtual force upon photons. The researchers refer to the synthetic magnetism as an effective magnetic field. The researchers reported that they were able to alter the radius of a photon’s trajectory by varying the electrical current applied to the photonic crystal and by manipulating the speed of the photons as they enter the system. This dual mechanism provides a great degree of precision control over the photons’ path, allowing the researchers to steer the light wherever they like.
This isn’t refraction or any other known issue of changing the path of light but a brand new phenomenon that even breaks known physical laws of light (which is a huge warning for all those following the “laws” in their textbooks. Laws are meant to be broken. You only have to find the right external conditions not tried out before. That is of course if you want to invent something new).
A key postulate in physics, the time-reversal symmetry of light, was broken by the researchers after they introduced a charge on the photons that reacts to the effective magnetic field the way an electron would to a real magnetic field. What this means, for engineers at least, is that a photon travelling forward will have different properties than when it is traveling backward, opening a whole new spec of technical possibilities.
This is the same pattern to the path of an electron in a magnetic field; just like sunlight in the Earth cavity, fancy that. It looks like future computers are going to be based on electrified cavitation technology. So instead of solid-state devices, it looks like hollow-state ones are the future for electronics… and possibly electrics.
A fundamental principle of electronics is the ability to maneuver electrons through a given path. When an electron is met with an magnetic field, it will travel along the lines where resistance is lowest, typically in a circular path around the field. In a similar manner, the Stanford researchers have successfully managed to send photons in a circular motion around the synthetic magnetic field.
Electrons act in magnetic lines of force just like iron filings which is the same as the path of sunlight in the Earth cavity and that in the electrified cavities of silicon.
This piece of engineering has solved the third and finally mystery of how sunlight can follow the Sun’s magnetic field without being a dipole. It does not theoretically explain it (which a previous article has done), but practical engineering carries a thousand times more weight than any possible theory, no matter how plausible.
Not only do we have a proof of bending light in the micro, but also in the macro. There is experimental evidence that visible light running parallel with the Earth bends at varied angles throughout the 24 hour day/night cycle; and in a concave Earth this bend is always upwards.
Theodolites
(Source Rolf keppler’s website.) In Riedern A.S. in Klettgau on May 24 2001 between 11 and 12am, the engineer Wilhelm Martin (deceased since 2009) conducted on experiment (which was witnessed by Rolf Keppler) with a theodolite (leveling device) called a dumpy level.
Wilhelm carrying out the same experiment at night. In all tests he used the Carl Zeiss dumpy level (Nivelliergerät) NI 2, no. 87523 which is an optical leveling device with a built-in plumb level, used for surveying and in the building trade.
Proceedure
No.1. (The control) Two measuring poles were placed 1000m from each other. The dumpy level was placed in the middle of these two poles at the 500m distance. The built-in plumb line (spirit level) was then used to make sure the device was absolutely level to within 1 arc second, which is an accuracy of 0.5cm to 1km. Wilhelm then looked through the telescope and with the cross-hairs marked the zero mark on the measuring pole. He then turned the dumpy level around 180° and did the same for the other pole. These marks are now used as a control for the future measurements.
The measuring poles are marked by the cross-hairs in the telescope viewed by Wilhelm.
No.2. Wilhelm then positioned the dumpy level 4m from the left measuring pole and adjusted the height of the theodolite so that it was level with the zero mark made previously when the dumpy level was located in the middle of the two poles. The dumpy level was then turned 180° and the cross hairs on the theolite were used to find its position on the right measuring pole 996m away. This was 12 to 14cm higher than the zero mark in the control.
The original zero mark is sighted 4m away. 
The dumpy level is turned round 180° and the distant 996m measuring pole is sighted and then marked accordingly.
Rolf’s German graphic reads “A deviation of 0 to 16cm depending on the time of day”. The actual reading between 11am and 12pm was 12 to 14cm higher than the zero mark.
No.3. The exact same procedure as no.2 above was carried out, but this time moving the dumpy level 4m from the right pole, sighting the zero mark, rotating the level 180° and sighting the position on the left pole 996m away. The result was nearly the same as the other pole with a deviation of over 14cm higher than the zero mark.
The right measuring pole is sighted 996m away. 
The deviation between 11am and 12pm was 12 to 14cm for procedure no.2 and over 14cm higher than the zero mark for procedure no.3.
This experiment was then repeated for different times of the day, on sometimes different days in the year, at the same location with varied results between 0 and 18cm higher than the zero mark. These results are listed below:
24.5.2001, 11am-12pm No.2 from 12 to 14cm, no.3 over 14cm higher 07.04.2001, 6pm Both no.2 and no.3 about 16cm higher 07.05.2001, midnight to 2am No.2 8cm higher, no.3 0cm (no difference) 07.05.2001, 8-9am No.2 8cm, no.3 12cm higher 05.7.2001, 5-6pm No.2 16cm, no.3 18cm higher
The midnight test was enabled using light-bulbs fixed to the measuring poles to allow for readings using the cross-hairs.
So at 996m we have readings from 0-18cm above the zero location, which was the mark measured at 500m. This difference therefore is over the extra 496m. According to Mr. Martin, this is a well-known phenomenon within the surveying community as surveyors always measure from the center if possible. The manufacturers also know about this as modern and expensive dumpy levels have built-in switches to compensate for this “error” in order to keep all readings the same as if light traveled in a straight line.
The overall actual physical height difference between the two measuring poles was only somewhere between 12 to 20cm, which eliminates refraction as a reason since the variation of air density over a few centimeters is non-existent. This leaves us with the only possibility left which is that light bends; but in which direction?
If the Earth were flat, then light bends upwards from 0-18cm depending on the time of day. If it were convex, then we would have to take the downward curve of the Earth into account, assuming that light travels in a straight line. This curve equates to around 6cm for the first kilometer according to Rolf. Another equation to work out the difference between a straight line and the curvature of the Earth is:
The full equation showing how to calculate the distance between a straight line to a circle.
A simplified version.
A much easier and simplified equation to work out the distance from a straight line to a circle.
R is the radius of the Earth which is 6378.1km; X is the distance of a straight line, e.g. light; and the funny squiggle is the difference between the straight line and the curve. Using our own numbers we calculate the square root of 40680159.61 + 1 then subtract 6378.1 which gives us 7.84cm as the difference. Whatever is the calculated true figure, 6cm or 7.8cm, light either bends downwards or upwards if the Earth is convex, and never straight, according to the experiments carried out above by Wilhelm Martin.
This fact destroys modern astronomy, and Copernicanism to which it is attached, because it relies on the erroneous assumption that light travels in straight lines at such short distances. It completely calls into question where objects are in the sky and how far. Where is the comet when it slowly traverses the night sky? Where are the stars, the “planets”, the “moon”? Not where we think they are, obviously. Where is “up”? Above our heads. And where is that? The electromagnetic Earth cavity has skewered everything visual… and a lot more, i.e. created gravity.
Where is this comet and in what direction is it really traveling?
If the Earth is concave, which we have already seen as very likely, largely due to the Rectilineator experiment by Cyrus Teed, then light is always bending upwards from at least +6cm up to +24cm in the “second 500m of 1km” depending on the time of day. If light bends so much at this distance, how far can it travel before it comes back on itself? Rolf didn’t have any data for 2km or 4km etc. so we don’t know how much more light bends beyond the “second 500m of 1km”. However, in our concave Earth model, light curves due to the the negatively charged field and the magnetic B-field of the Sun in the area past the glass (Van Allen Belts); and so all light on the Earth will eventually make its way back to the Sun, which is very near the center, and follow the magnetic multi-layered toroid shape already described.
This upward bending light explains why when we look up at the sky in a concave Earth, we don’t see the other side. Simply because the Sun traps all light in the Sun’s magnetic field whose center is roughly the center of the Earth cavity.
Refraction?
When confronted with Wilhelm Martin’s evidence, every nahsayer in the land screams refraction as the reason for the upward bending light – read: nothing to see here, please move along, known physical laws describe everything, aka Lord Kelvin Syndrome.
Despite the comments above looking ridiculous in the 21st century, there are people today who still suffer from this disability to some degree.
Standard air density differences don’t exist over 6 cm, but the nahsayers’ argument rests on possible heat and/or humidity differences over the 0 to 18 cm range of bending light. It is said that the temperature difference needed is only 1°C in 100 cm for light to bend 6 cm over 1000m. Wilhelm Martin registered a 6 to 12 cm upward bend during the day, and at night a 2 cm upward bend in one direction and 6 cm downward bend in the opposite direction if the Earth were convex. There are only two possible ways this can occur: 1. breezes; 2. a gradual differential in the height of the ground away from the light rays.
1. The light measured was running parallel to the ground which requires each breeze to be slightly cooler in the exact space of the light ray over the 1000m for the light to bend upwards. Each breeze also has to be blowing just off 90° (horizontal) to the light ray so that the light ray can enter the new colder air and to get the most refraction. Just 10° off the parallel light ray and light refracts 15 times less than it would if the breeze were blowing very nearly parallel according to endmemo.com when comparing light traveling from a vacuum into standard air density – 1.35° at 90° and 0.09° at 80°. On slightly to very breezy days looking out at the grasslands up to 500 m away behind my back garden, the long grass, shrubs and trees sway at varied speeds, height, directions and time. The breezes last from 1 to a few seconds. In places there is no breeze evident. The chances of the these two variables being just right for upward bending light are a zillion to one. Not only do we need this gradual temperature differential over all the breezes and also the near parallel direction, these same amazing conditions were replicated three months later on the 5th of July to get the same 16 cm upward bend on both dates. Now it is a zillion zillion to one.
2. During the day, the temperature of the air needs to be hotter closer to the ground by 1 to 2°C over 1 m (around where Wilhelm measured), which needs to fall away from the light ray in order for it to refract upwards. I.e. the light moves into hotter, less dense air, as it travels from the measuring stick to the dumpy level.
Light entering less dense air due to height differential moves upwards towards the dumpy level.
Is the air hotter though? There are opinions such as:
Air near the ground will generally be cooler than the air higher up during the daytime, and warmer at night, with a crossover in the morning and evening… Assuming it’s one meter, there isn’t usually much difference between the air temperature near the ground and the air temperature one meter above the surface. The exception is found at night when difference in the air temperature between one meter and the surface can be 2°C (3.5°F). This difference explains how frost can be observed when the morning low temperature is as high as 3°C (38°F).
There is one case study over a grass lawn in San Fransisco in winter between 2 and 4pm which detected only a 0.7°C average temperature difference between the grass and the air 1.5m high, let alone differences within the air itself – grass: 25.37214°C, air 1.5 m above: 24.67143°C. Even the air over the 40 °C asphalt was just 24.92500°C, which is only 0.25°C hotter than over grass. The 37.27909°C paver had the coldest air of them all at 24.25455°C (pages 7 and 8 of the PDF).
“While there were major differences within surface temperatures, variations within air temperatures were not apparent… The air temperature above the different materials did not mimic the trend shown in surface temperatures.”
This shows how little, if at all, the heat from the ground affects the air temperature above it during the day. If anything, vegetation is said to act as a heat sink due the increase in water content in the soil and evaporation from the leaves. So where does the hypothetical daytime heat differential come from?
The air temperature above the different materials did not mimic the trend shown in surface temperatures.
Nighttime is different and can experience the necessary temperature differences. 2°C over 100 cm has already been mentioned. The book Essentials of Meteorology: An Invitation to the Atmosphere says:
This measured increase in air temperature just above the ground is known as a radiation inversion because it forms mainly through radiational cooling of the surface. Because radiation inversions occur on most clear, calm nights, they are also called nocturnal inversions. A strong radiation inversion occurs when the air near the ground is much colder than the air higher up. Ideal conditions for a strong inversion and, hence, very low nighttime temperatures exist when the air is calm, the night is long and the air is fairly dry and cloud-free.
On most clear and calm nights, the air can be 4°F colder further away from the ground over 1.5 m.
One study found that most of the urban area to be heat sinks during the day which makes the air slightly cooler above it. The same is said to apply to vegetation. This makes slightly cooler air nearer the ground in the morning and afternoon, warmer air in the evening after sunset, and back to cooler air nearer to the ground again further on late at night due to the air’s insulation effect (nocturnal inversion) – assuming there is no breeze throughout the day to equalize temperatures.
Actual measurements have been carried out during the winter/spring months above a road in Sweden (covered in snow). The graph below shows the maximum air temperature difference between 1 and 1.5 m at roughly 0.2°C around midnight (several hours after sunset). One reading even showed a very slight temperature reversal. This would be about the height that Wilhelm Martin tested bending light.
Page 5 of this PDF shows a table with the temperature difference of air from 10 to 250 cm over a Swedish road in winter tested every 20 minutes around midnight.
Also notice that this temperature inversion can occur only during perfect conditions which we must accept existed during Wilhelm’s night test for the downward refraction to occur – 2cm upwards in one direction and 6 cm downwards the other when applied to the convex Earth model. This is despite the lack of necessary air temperature difference during the day (or even a reversal of what is needed) which makes the argument mute anyhow.
There are also other variables such as differences in the colour (dryness of grass) between dates that registered the same amount of upward bend. One photo shows very dry yellow grass; another much greener grass which reflects heat differently. The length of grass was also not the same over the 1000m and shows quite a variation (looks to be about a 20 cm variation). Rolf Keppler said the height difference of the ground was around 12 cm. This is very likely undulating rather than a perfect gradual dropping off of the ground height from 0 to 12 cm. How much ground is high, how much is low? A convex Earth would help as it drops 6 cm over the measured distance, but would it really matter over so many variables?
The concave Earth is what has been experimentally measured, which moves the ground 6 cm upwards over the 1000 m. If we ignore the lack of necessary heat effect on the air by the ground during the day, the variable height of the ground and the grass, the different colour of the grass, and possible variable breeze and weather conditions etc. a concave Earth would move the ground gradually upwards, purely hypothetically heating the air nearest to it. This would bend the light downwards, not upwards, as light moves into colder air from the measuring stick.
A gradually upward sloping concave Earth would refract light downwards as it moves into the hypothetically more dense colder air.
It is possible that the light could have moved into warmer air from the measuring stick, if the vegetation acted as a heat sink cooling the air directly above it; but there would have to be colder air near the ground at all the times and dates measured by Wilhelm which includes 9am, 12pm, 2pm, 6pm, 12am, and 6am, as light always traveled upwards in a concave Earth (6 to 24 cm). Also, because of this, the temperature difference during the day would also have to be up to 6 times than that at night during an nocturnal inversion (6° over 1 m as opposed to 1° over 1 m), which doesn’t exist.
Let’s say the ground still dropped gradually (and purely hypothetically) downwards enough despite the Earth’s upward curvature (concavity). A nocturnal inversion with the cold air below and hot air above should cause light to refract downwards. Yet at very early night time and early morning, light bent up by 6 to 14 cm in a concave Earth.
Light refracts downwards at night during a nocturnal inversion. Yet, Wilhelm detected light bending upwards at night (just to a lesser degree than during the day).
If there were no nocturnal inversion (due to breezes for example) then there would be no (or very, very little) temperature difference anyhow. From 12 am to 6 am, there would need to be a 1 to 2+°C temperature difference over 1 m the other way (hotter air near the ground) for the upward bending 6 to 14 cm; and during the day a 6°C difference over 1 m (hotter air near the ground) for the light to bend upwards to 24 cm over 1000 m. Neither exists in reality. This of course also ignores the variables above.
Optical zooms
Youtube user Karol is the originator of this discovery. The center point of the image rises when the optical zoom function is used on a camera. It could have been theorized to be the camera mechanism at fault; however, when the camera is turned upside down, the same rising of the center point is seem. This makes the effect an external one.
Even if you turn your camera upside down and make two pictures (before and after optical zoom) the center of the image will go UP (just like with the normal orientation of the camera – so it’s not a technical inaccuracy of the camera). The sensor is upside down too so you must analyse the inverted photo to see what happens with the center of the image. Here, it went up from the level of white roof to the vicinity of the fence top. Photos made by Polish concave Earth proponent – Mariusz Szczytynski.
This will be tested by myself as soon as I get a high-powered optical zoom camera.
Summary
- A grid of tiny cavities made out of silicon with an electric current running through them creates “synthetic magnetism” which bends light within those cavities as if the photons were electrons around a magnetic B-field.
- A ginormous cavity made mostly out of silicon with an electric current moving up through its surface area has also been theorized to bend light around magnetic field lines – our Earth. Coincidence?
- Engineer Wilhelm Martin measured light to be 0-18cm higher for the second 496m over 1km, depending on the time of day when the light was shone parallel to the Earth.
- Light bent the least at night from 0-8cm which agrees with the theory that it is the negatively charged field creating upward bending light (see electromagnetism hypothesis).
- The difference cannot be attributed to refraction as the physical height difference between the two poles were said to be 12-20cm.
- On a convex Earth, the downward curve of the Earth subtracts 6cm or 7.8cm (depending on the calculation) from the readings. This means that light running parallel to the Earth bends 6/7.8cm downwards to 10.2/12cm upwards depending on the time of day, but hardly ever straight.
- These findings prove that modern astronomy hasn’t a clue as to the location and distance of celestial objects.
- On a flat Earth, light always bends upwards from 0-18cm; in a concave Earth it is always bending upwards from 6cm (7.8) to 24cm (25.8).
- Upward bending light explains why when we look up at the sky in a concave Earth, we don’t see the other side – the Sun traps all light in the Sun’s magnetic B-field whose center is roughly the center of the Earth cavity.
- Even for a convex Earth, refraction as the cause of Wilhelm’s results is very improbable due to the variables involved and the lack of correlation between average daytime air and ground temperatures as well as vegetation acting as a heat sink during the day and a radiator at night. The very improbable is made impossible in a concave Earth unless the air directly above the ground is cooler than above it for all times and dates tested, including an extreme 6° over 1 m around midday.
- Ka Rol has shown that the center point of an image rises with increased optical zoom regardless of the camera being upside down.
Light that bends slightly upwards is also the best contender for the horizon.
Horizon
The horizon in a concave Earth has two possibilities: it is either how light travels or how the eye or camera lens receives light. I had an attempt at the eye theory being solely responsible for the hull first effect, but it is disproved by the camera lens also picking up the same phenomenon as the video immediately below shows. This leaves bending light; and in a concave Earth this is always upwards. Let’s have a look at this phenomenon and compare it to the convex evidence.
Observer’s horizon
Water and the horizon
Wavelength and the horizon
Summary
Observer’s horizon
The convex Earth has the Earth’s curvature as the cause of the horizon. The ship going over the horizon hull first is said to be evidence of this as the video below shows.
Gravity – observations and theory
How does gravity fit into all this? Not an easy question to answer. Let’s look at the observations which belong to gravity and how they have been explained by the current theory for a convex Earth. Then we’ll invert this theory for the concave one and see if it can still apply.
Standard model
Official theory: Gravity is a very weak attractive force which is a property of mass. The more mass, the more gravity. The center of gravity is the center of the mass from which this attractive force emanates. The center of gravity for a convex Earth is therefore the center of the Earth.
The center of gravity is the center of a solid convex Earth.
Theory for observation 1: The Earth is a lumpy ellipsoid and this is the explanation for why gravity is generally weaker on the troughs or basins of the ellipsoid and stronger on the mountains or areas on the “lumps”. There is less mass at the troughs pulling us towards the center and more mass at the mountains further away from the center.
Gravity tends to be stronger on higher land, than those areas lower down.
Theory for observation 2: On pure faith they say the Earth is spinning, despite all evidence to the contrary. The centrifugal force is therefore higher at the equator and less at the poles. This force is opposite to gravitational pull and is said to be the cause of the gravity differential from the equator to the poles.
At latitudes nearer the Equator, the outward centrifugal force produced by Earth’s rotation is larger than at polar latitudes. This counteracts the Earth’s gravity to a small degree – up to a maximum of 0.3% at the Equator – and reduces the apparent downward acceleration of falling objects.
An unaltered gravity map from the north pole to Ohio, about half the latitude of the United States, shows a difference of 2000 milligals. Includes differences in altitude.
The standard average gravity measurement of the Earth is 9.80665 m/s2. One gal is 0.01 m/s2, so the Earth’s average gravity is 980.665 gals. 1 gal is also equal to 1000 milligals making the gravity standard as 980665 milligals. The gravity difference in Ohio is 2000 milligals compared to the North pole. The latitude of Ohio is about 40.5°N. 90° – 40.5° is 49.5°, so 2000 milligals covers 49.5° of a difference to the equator. This fraction is just over half at 0.55, so at the equator it would read about 3636 milligals less. But this is an extrapolation and not a true figure, especially as the 2000 milligals difference is raw and includes altitude. I can’t read the north pole data on the scale because the resolution isn’t high enough. It looks to be 983000 or thereabouts. Therefore the extrapolated 3636 milligals at the equator is 0.369% less than that at the poles. Not bad; quite close to the 0.3% figure of the “spinning Earth”.
Observations 3 and 4: Objects falling to Earth obey the square law of acceleration until reaching a terminal velocity due to air resistance; otherwise, the object is said to accelerate forever. The size and weight of the falling object have no bearing on its acceleration, only the strength of the gravitational field, as shown in a vacuum chamber.
A ball is observed to accelerate according to the square law. 
All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum. The larger heavier ball accidentally starts later than the rest.
Theory: The further towards the center of the mass we travel, the weaker the gravity, as there is less mass to pull us towards the center and more mass above us to pull us up away from the center point. But the further away from the entire body of mass we are, the weaker gravity becomes because we are further away from the mass and therefore its gravitational field.
Observation 5: Is there any evidence for gravity being an attractive property of mass? Yes, the Cavendish experiment is stated as such. In 1797–98, Henry Cavendish…
…made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system… The two large balls were positioned on alternate sides of the horizontal wooden arm of the balance. Their mutual attraction to the small balls caused the arm to rotate, twisting the wire supporting the arm. The arm stopped rotating when it reached an angle where the twisting force of the wire balanced the combined gravitational force of attraction between the large and small lead spheres.
A basic torsion balance where two hanging smaller masses are attracted to two larger fixed masses. 
(Click to animate). The weights are very slowly, but continually attracted to the rocks and oddly oscillate back and forth – video sped up by 800%. The oscillation reminds me of the Bielefeld-Brown effect vacuum comparison video (3:07 min).
There have been plenty of skepticism regarding modern YouTube experiments due to the little time needed to view the effect and the wide degree of arc of the swinging masses which would have to counter the torsion effect of the hanging wire – a lot more than the gravitational force allows. Some suspect static electricity is involved, but one experimenter claimed there was no repulsion (oscillation) on impact when he tried it:
When I positioned the large masses near the balance, I got about 1 cm of displacement in about 1 minute. I was shocked! I thought that surely this was due to some static charges. However, my experience with pith balls in electrostatics tells me that when contact was made, there should be some repulsion, but that didn’t happen, the small and large masses remained in contact. I could then easily reverse the system and again got about 1 cm of displacement in about 1 minute time (should happen twice as fast right, but I wasn’t timing anything).
The experiment is not 100% consistent either, with one person not achieving any movement at all unless magnets were used instead. Plate Tectonics has also been suggested as a reason for the oscillations; but this wouldn’t explain the attraction if the system is reversed and the same attractive movement is observed, like the experimenter quoted above experienced. These amateur Cavendish experiments are so varied that there could be multiple sources for the movement such as static electricity or plate tectonics. Could there be another general explanation to throw into the already jumbled mix? Possibly. There is only speculation, but the most obvious answer would be magnetism. Everything could be very weakly magnetic. Hanging magnets always swing around to their attractive poles and pull each other towards themselves. The same may be true for all materials but on a very, very weak scale. In a concave Earth, all the Earth’s material is a globe around the central H-field from the holes near the poles. To form the same pattern of the iron filings, the atoms of the crust (silicon dioxide with minor amounts of magnetite and other metals) must be magnetic, however weak, in order to align itself in the H-field pattern.
Iron filings have their north pole end facing the external H-field’s south pole, and vice verse. Filings in the same line are attracted to each other due to this alignment.
The attraction could be extremely weak magnetism, and if it oscillates, then either very weak electrostatics and/or plate tectonics thrown in as well, or something entirely different unknown to science. The alchemist Robert Pavlita was said to be able to magnetize wood. He produced a psychotronic generator, shaped something like a flashlight with holes in the bulbous end. “Pavlita inserted the wood into these holes, first one end of the wood and then the other. He then inserted the entire piece of wood into a long hole on the top of the generator. As Pavlita held a ferret magnet and approached the wood, one side of the stick was repelled and one was attracted. Again, a piece of wood had apparently been magnetized.” This shouldn’t happen, but it did.
Whatever the reason for the Cavendish experiment, gravity as an attractive property of mass doesn’t seem to be it; at least it is impossible to verify, as gravity cannot be isolated from magnetism, electrostatics and plate tectonics (if attractive gravity exists at all).
Inverted model
Now let’s invert the theory of gravity and compare it with the official version.
| Convex | Concave |
|---|---|
| * An attractive, pulling force | * A repelling, pushing force |
| * A property of mass | * A property of space |
| * The center of gravity is the center of mass | * The center of gravity is the center of space |
| * Becomes weaker further away from the mass, therefore weaker with increasing altitude | * Becomes weaker further away from the source (central point), therefore stronger with increasing altitude. (The zero gravity accounts from Etidorpha and the Macuxi tribe make more sense here). |
Now let’s compare the valid observations of gravity with the theory of gravity inside a concave Earth to see if they fit.
| Observations | Inverted gravity theory |
|---|---|
| 1. Gravity is weaker on the “troughs” and stronger on the “lumps” of the lumpy Earth ellipsoid. | Gravity is stronger closer to the source, which is the center of the Earth cavity. Those areas on the lumps are closer to the center and so gravity is stronger, whilst those on the “basins” are further away and so gravity should be weaker. |
| 2. Gravity is weaker at the equator by an extrapolated 0.369% compared to that at the poles (raw data which includes altitude variations). | The Earth is a very slightly squashed ellipsoid measuring 6,356,752m radius for the north/south axis, and 6,378,135m for the East/West radius (WGS84 model). The difference is 21,383m more at the equator, or 0.335% further away from the center than at the poles, making gravity about 0.335% weaker at the equator – close to the extrapolated 0.369% figure. |
| 3. A falling object obeys the square law of acceleration. | The square law can be a push away from a central point source, or it can be a pull towards. The result is the same – an accelerating falling body. |
| 4. All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum regardless of size or weight. | The strength of the pushing force of space depends on the distance from the center of the source in any direction (radial). This is the inverse square law which gravity, electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena all obey. The field strength does not depend on how much object it has to push against, which instead determines its weight – more object equals more resistive points (“protons”), therefore more resistance, or weight, is felt. |
Is there evidence for inverted push gravity in a concave Earth? Yes. Surprisingly, it is the Cavendish experiment! This already mentioned experiment is unable to isolate a single factor which could be the cause of hanging weights moving towards the two heavier objects at the side. Therefore this isn’t a good experiment. However, on the face of it, one lighter object being attracted to a heavier one could show gravity as an attractive property of mass on a convex Earth OR a repelling property of space in a concave one. How? This interpretation comes from Joseph Winthrop.
(Click to animate). “The heavier weights block the external push force from the earth’s core. Red arrows “consume” energy from one side, causing an imbalance. This is caused by universal compression.”
In a bit more detail, the heavier stationary blocks have more resistive points (protons) than the ones on the fulcrum. Therefore, very slightly less downward pushing space makes it through the heavier object, creating an imbalance between the two objects. To correct this imbalance, space from the light object moves towards the heavier one pulling the lighter object with it – hence attraction.
In even more detail, we can use Bernoulli’s principle. Less space in the heavier object attracts more space from its surrounds, hence space around the heavier object is moving faster into the object than into the lighter one. Bernoulli’s principle states that “an increase in the speed of the fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure”. Because space is moving faster between the two objects than on the far side of the lighter object, the pressure between the two objects is less, pulling them together. This is the same principle said to cause an airplane wing to lift.
The space between the two objects is moving at a faster speed than the far side of the lighter object, decreasing the pressure between the two objects, pulling them together. 
The slower moving air under the airplane wing has a higher pressure, pushing the wing upwards.
Simple stuff really. We can thank Joseph for the bare bones of that theory.
Gravity and orbiting
Does an inverted push gravity give us a mechanism for orbiting objects, whether natural such as stars/asteroids/comets, or man-made such as satellites? There are already very strong indications that the orbiting mechanism of these objects are fictitious due to the obscene temperatures of the thermosphere which start to rapidly increase several kilometers above the glass (Karmen Line – 100km altitude), and all their video fakery.
Satellites can be positioned on the glass looking up and/or looking down, as long as they are broadcasting frequencies which can penetrate the ionosphere. This seems much more logistically feasible than trying to shoot them up and attach them to the glass hanging down, as you would have to get the distance exactly right. Too far, and you risk destroying the satellite as it hits the glass layer, or it breaks through completely. Too little and the satellite misses the glass and falls back down to Earth again. The rocket is also going far too fast laterally that a sudden stop by the grappling mechanism to the glass would break up any material I would have thought.
What about stars/asteroids/comets? How could they orbit the center of the concave Earth with inverted push gravity? Any orbiting object in a vacuum must overcome (or be a part of) three principles: 1. gravity – therefore an orbiting object is “anti-gravity”; 2. the thermosphere; 3. the high energy radiation in the Van Allen Belts.
Stars, asteroids and comets will therefore be extremely hot (2.) and extremely charged (3.) which in turn allow them to exhibit these “anti-gravity” properties (1.), pointing at gravity being an electrical phenomenon. There is a distinct possibility (even probability) that certain black projects of the military have such technologies which allow objects to move very quickly through a vacuum and hence would be “orbiting”, but we have no way of knowing what. High above the Karman line the technology would also have to allow them to resist or incorporate the very high temperatures and charged particles, which it may also do.
Summary
- The official theory of gravity is that it is a very weak property of mass. The center of gravity is the center point of the mass.
- There is less gravity lower down in the troughs and basins of the Earth, and more gravity on the mountains and lumps, supposedly due to the difference in mass.
- The centrifugal force of a “spinning Earth” lessens gravity by 0.3% at the equator. This is close to the extrapolated 0.369% of actual difference from data which includes altitude and latitude differential.
- All objects obey the square law of acceleration and fall at the same rate in a vacuum regardless of size or weight. The further away from the source, the weaker the gravity; therefore the further away from the Earth mass, the weaker the gravity.
- The Cavendish experiment has repeatedly varied results when carried out by amateurs. The experiment cannot isolate this theoretical pulling force from other possible forces such as very weak magnetism, electrostatics, plate tectonics or any other unknown phenomenon. Without controls (isolation), this experiment is extremely flawed.
- Inverted gravity theory is a push by “space”. The center of gravity is the center of space; therefore the further away from the source (the center of the Earth cavity), the weaker the gravity. This makes gravity stronger with increasing altitude.
- Inverted gravity theory agrees with all 4 observations. 1. Gravity is weaker in the basins and troughs because it is further away from the center, and vice verse for the lumps. 2. The ellipsoid Earth’s equator is 0.335% further away from the center of space than the poles, which makes gravity weaker by the same amount at the equator – close to the extrapolated 0.369% figure from the actual data. 3. The square law of acceleration obeys both push or pull gravity. 4. All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum because the strength of gravity depends on the object’s distance from the source. Weight is determined by the amount of resistive points, or protons, of the object.
- The Cavendish experiment can be equally interpreted to possibly show pull gravity in a convex Earth or push gravity in a convex one using Bernoulli’s principle.
- Natural orbiting objects such as stars, asteroids and comets must have “anti-gravity” characteristics and also be highly charged and very hot due to the thermosphere and Van Allen Belts. This indicates that gravity may be an electrical phenomenon.
There are plenty of gravitational anomalies in the form of observations, experiments and technologies. Let’s look at a few of them and see which gravitational theory fits the best, if at all. Then we’ll pick a purely speculative already known phenomenon that fits these observations and which also answers the question as to why gravity never runs out or expires.