Where do we live - on Earth or inside the Earth?

In recent years, the science of nature has been falling more and more into extremes. On the one hand, she directs her gaze into the bottomless expanses of the Universe, on the other hand, she fixes it on the no less inexhaustible depths of the microworld. At the same time, it goes without saying that somewhere in the middle, in the world of everyday scales, everything has been established for a long time and forever. What madman would now dare to refute the idea of ​​the sphericity and convexity of the Earth or of the heliocentric structure of the solar system? And yet I affirm: humanity is mistaken!

The universe is not arranged at all the way we are taught at school, as it is written about in textbooks and encyclopedias. In this thought, I established myself after long sleepless nights spent at the telescope, over the drawings and calculations.

Here are my postulates. There are also three of them (like Einstein).

1, Yes, the Earth is indeed a sphere with a radius of about 6400 km, but the sphere is hollow, and we live not on its outer, but on its inner surface. The whole variety of objects and phenomena of nature, the entire visible world is enclosed within this sphere.

2, the earth is still.

3, Rays of light propagate in circles passing through the center of the world, while the speed of light slows down as it approaches the center of the world.

Every theory must be supported by rigorous evidence. How do they usually begin to convince a schoolchild that the Earth is convex? From the well-known story of a ship setting sail. Here the ship has reached the horizon and slowly begins to hide behind it. Here, the mourners see only the deck and masts from the shore, here are only the masts, here only a pennant is seen from the horizon - and finally the ship disappears from sight.

Everything is right in this picture. But is it really necessary to assume that the Earth is convex to explain this fact?

Let's turn to my system of the world (see figure). The arc of the circle, marked with the number 1, is the path of the light beam that comes to the observer. The shaded area into which the ship goes is inaccessible to observation. The successive positions of the ship make it easy to follow the process of its disappearance over the horizon.

Well, God bless him, with the ship. Let's deal with more fundamental problems.

Day and night. They are usually explained by the rotation of the Earth around its axis. But this explanation is by no means the only possible one. In my system, the change of day and night occurs as a result of the movement of the Sun around the center of the world along a complex spiral trajectory (see figure). Each turn of the spiral corresponds to a certain season.

The sun in my system is not the giant hot ball we traditionally think of it as. I would rather liken it to a narrow spotlight, the rays of which diverge in the form of a kind of curvilinear expanding fan. It is easy to see that in this case, behind the Sun in the direction of the center of the world, a plume of gloom and darkness should lie. When the Moon in its orbit enters this gloomy zone, a lunar eclipse occurs on Earth (see figure, section 3). When it enters the region of light and blocks part of the sun's rays reaching the earth's surface, a solar eclipse occurs.

In the center of the world is a clot of matter, which has taken the form of an elastic ball. its surface. dotted with bright dots - stars. The center of the world is the focus not only of matter, but also of energy. It radiates in continuous streams that reach the Earth in the form of starlight and cosmic radiation. Asteroids and planets are also creatures of the center of the world: at certain critical phases of development, they are ejected from there and slowly removed along unwinding spiral trajectories - to the delight of astronomers, who discover them as they arrive.

I have already noticed that everyone who encounters my theory for the first time is at first perplexed: how can all the diversity of natural phenomena, the entire boundless cosmos fit inside such a small sphere? How can "a huge firmament, dotted with myriads of stars and hugging the Earth from all sides, be represented by a small clot of matter with luminous dots on it? They forget that this is not just a clot, but the center of the world, which is the focus. The inertia of thinking does not allow them to comprehend my harmonious picture of the world from the position of three postulates. Meanwhile, everything is simple here (see figure, section 4). Light rays come to the observer from the lower part of the spherical central clot of matter along circular trajectories, and at all angles to the earth's surface - from zero up to ninety degrees.That's why it seems to the observer that the vault of heaven, sparkling with stars, hangs over him like a dome.

The new is always intriguing. As one of the greats said, "every new theory must be a little crazy." But the old system of the world seems crazy to me, where the distances to celestial bodies are measured by the so-called astronomical numbers: to the Moon - 384,400 kilometers, to the Sun - 149,500,000 kilometers, to the nearest star - 40,000,000,000,000 kilometers! Make a mistake typist and add a couple of zeros to such a number - it is unlikely that anyone will notice an error, smell inaccuracy. Common sense is incapable of perceiving such things. There is a monstrous inflation of zeros!

What do I have? None of the distances exceeds 12 thousand kilometers. To the uninitiated, this may seem strange.

1. The assumption of non-rectilinear propagation of light makes the disappearance of the ship beyond the horizon in the world of Kifa Vasilyevich explainable. 2. The same assumption allows us to explain why, in this hypothetical world, the rays of the Sun change their inclination to the earth's surface during the day. 3. So in the "inner world" lunar eclipses occur. 4. So in the "inner world" the illusion of a starry dome arises. 5. So, as a result of inversion relative to the earth's surface, the near-earth world passes into the earth's sphere. 6. Scheme of an experiment that would allow Kifa Vasilyevich to prove that the rays of light do not propagate in a straight line. 7. Scheme explaining the absence of gravity in the "inner world".

After all, for example, the above distance to the Moon is “convincingly” confirmed by radar data. But what does radar measure? Is it distance? No. It measures the time it takes for a radio signal to make its way to the moon and back. That is all that the experiment can give in this regard. And then - calculations based on the old system of the world. Time is multiplied by the "speed of light" at which the signal allegedly propagates, by the so-called "world constant" c, approximately equal to three hundred thousand kilometers per second. And please! - that's an astronomical value for you. But the trouble (the trouble of the old theory!) is that this constant velocity c does not and cannot exist. The speed of light slows down as it approaches the center of the world (see my third postulate!). And here the result of multiplying time by the average speed of light cannot exceed 12 thousand kilometers. And the speed of light at every point in space is the limit for the speed of propagation of any signal - “you can’t cross it” (this was rightly noted by another brilliant thinker of our time - Albert Einstein even before me).

And therefore, flights to the stars remain a problem to this day, because the time it takes to reach the stars is very, very long in my system of the world.

However, who knows, maybe there will be a way to pierce space along other trajectories? The goal is tempting: truly the most distant planet is not so far away! No further than from Moscow to Vladivostok. But the elbow is close, but you won’t bite.

Of course, there are gaps in my theory as well - a rich field for research and new wonderful discoveries. Well, for example, what does our Earth look like from the outside? And what surrounds her?

Personally, after much thought, I came to the following conclusion. Like the Moon and the planets, the Earth is desolate and cratered on the outside. Moreover, it, in turn, is a planet in some larger, enclosing and also closed world. Arguing by analogy, I inevitably come to the conclusion that there is life on the Moon and other planets, but not outside, but inside. And it's joyful.

How can one not rethink the famous work of the famous Swift about Gulliver's travels! If Gulliver had gone to the outer surface of the Earth, he would have turned out to be a dwarf in that world. And if he penetrated the moon or another planet, he would be considered a giant. Here you have Gulliver, and the Lilliputians and giants-brobdindnegs!

Any new knowledge benefits civilization, and so does my theory. Deep drilling should be universally prohibited. For we do not know the thickness of the earth's shell and we run the risk of drilling through it and releasing all the fertile atmosphere into another world.

And a few more words in conclusion.

At one time there was a planetary model of the atom. However, she turned out to be untenable. I am sure that the same fate awaits the planetary model of the solar system and the model of the universe that includes it. Even if my theory does not remain for centuries, even if in due time it will be replaced by a more perfect one. But at this stage in the development of science, it is in it that you contain) the truth.

The earth of the ancients was flat. Then scientists bent the edges of the disk, turned it into a sphere, giving all living things its convex surface. I guess they went the wrong way.

The manuscript of Kifa Vasilyevich was prepared for publication by Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu. POPOV and Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu. PUKHNACHEV. They also comment on the theory presented in the manuscript..

Sculpture "Globe". Installed in the Vatican!

Kifa Vasilyevich's reflections that we live somewhere inside are at first overwhelming, aren't they? But if you think about it: what is wrong with the author of a strange theory? Where does he sin against the truth, against obvious facts? Try, reader, to refute his conclusions conclusively - and you will see that it is not so easy to do this! The fact is that the picture of the world that Kifa Vasilievich draws, for all its seeming absurdity, can be supported by strict relations associated with a geometric transformation called inversion.

In the figure on the right and in the caption to it, a strict definition of this mathematical operation is given. Descriptively speaking, it can be likened to a reflection in a distorted mirror. In this case, the role of the mirror is played by a certain sphere; every point outside the sphere as a result of "reflection" falls inside it.

If we take the earth's surface as such a sphere, then the Universe will seem to turn inside out: all the space surrounding the Earth will find itself inside a ball, from the vast expanses of space to the vicinity of the center of the earth's sphere will gather into a small cluster of planets, stars, galaxies...

At the same time, rays of light will undergo curious transformations. The fact is that inversion transforms straight lines into circles. And as soon as the light rays appear to us as rectilinear, then as a result of inversion, in order to fit inside the earth's sphere, they will curl up into rings, take the form of circles passing through the center of this sphere (see figure). Using mathematical formulas, which we do not dwell on in the pages of a popular magazine, one can verify that the speed of light propagation, which was constant outside the sphere, inside it should decrease as it approaches the center of the sphere in inverse proportion to the square of the distance to it.

Take a closer look at the picture that appears due to the described transformation: before you loom the features of a strange world created by the imagination of Kifa Vasilyevich.

However, despite the striking strangeness of this world, everything in it, in the eyes of its inhabitants, will look exactly the same as the reality around us appears before us. In fact, we estimate the size and shape, arrangement and relative position of the objects we are considering by the angles at which rays of light from these objects come to the pupils of our eyes. And inversion preserves the angles at which the lines intersect, including the trajectories of light rays. Therefore, having moved due to the inversion from the world familiar to us to the world of Kifa Vasilyevich, we would see all objects at exactly the same angles from which we saw them before. We would not notice any visible difference between the former and the transformed world, which means we would not be able to determine by eye, based only on visual impressions, where we live - on Earth or inside the Earth.

It turns out that the theory of Kifa Vasilyevich does not contradict the obvious, visible to the naked eye facts! To refute his fantastic constructions, experiments are needed.

At the upper end of a long vertical rod, we fix a mirror perpendicular to it. From the other end of the rod, let's launch a laser beam along it towards the mirror. As long as the rod is perpendicular to the earth's surface (see the figure on page 131, section 6), the beam will go in a straight line and, reflected from the mirror, will return to the same point from which it was fired. So it will be in the world familiar to us and in the world of Kifa Vasilyevich. We will now tilt the rod and at the same time carefully monitor what happens to the beam reflected from the mirror. In the world familiar to us, where light travels in straight lines, the emitted and reflected rays would still merge. In the world of Kifa Vasilievich they would have diverged: the emitted beam, bending more and more as the rod was tilted, would have fallen on the mirror no longer perpendicularly and, having been reflected, would have taken a different trajectory. Beam splitting could be confirmed by shifting the spot on a suitable screen.

The experiment, it would seem, is clear and conclusive, but it has a weak spot.
Let's imagine some sphere in space (in the diagram it is depicted as a thickened circle). To each point of space we assign another point so that both lie on the same radial ray emanating from the center of the sphere, and the distances from them to the center of the sphere are inversely proportional to each other. We take the coefficient of proportionality equal to the square of the radius of the sphere: then each of its exact will correspond to the same exact one, and as a result, the sphere will remain in place.

This is how the inversion transformation is performed. In this case, straight lines turn into circles (only those that pass through the center of the sphere will remain straight lines). In the diagram, straight lines and circles corresponding to each other are shown by lines of the same pattern. Lines that intersect at a certain angle are inverted into circles that intersect at the same angle. Therefore, the body M, seen from the point B at the angle indicated in the diagram, will pass into the body M, "seen from the point B" at the same angle (assuming that the light inside the sphere propagates in a circle).

Here it is - an inner cavity with a radius of 6370 km known to us. In the center is a special mechanism that provides visual effects of the starry sky: the Star Sphere (S). Stars are depicted on the AP. Planets and the Sun move along it. Moreover, the Sun is not a lighting device: the light is created by half of the rotating stellar sphere, and the Sun makes only a small addition.

The article was prepared based on the materials of the journal "Science and Life" for 1981 (No. 6, "And yet it is concave!" from the archive of Kifa Vasilyevich).