PAOLO EMILIO AMICO-ROXAS

THE SUPREME HARMONY of the UNIVERSE

The Endospherical Field Theory
 SCIENTIFIC LIBRARY - 1

Kemi, the name that was given to the

mythical Land of Egypt, source of
every knowledge and understanding.

Original book title:

La suprema armonia dell'universo: la teoria endosferica del campo

All rights reserved to original Publisher:

© 1990 Editrice Kemi (Milano)
Printed in November 1990

This (work in progress) translation is a non-profit derivative work for which we do not own the
copyright. No copyright infringement intended.
(Rev. 19/10/2018)
To Ulysses G. Morrow
to Anna
 INFORMATION RECORD

Amico-Roxas (last name), Paolo Emilio (name) born in Rome in 1907

Academic titles:
Degree in Mathematics and Physics at the University of Rome.

Honours:
Academic Lauro Tiberino in Campidoglio (1961).

Awards:
Presidency of the Council of Ministers Culture award (1961).

Teachings:
Mathematical Analysis at the University of Rome
Mathematics and Physics at high schools.

Special studies:
Philosophy of science and Cosmology.

Main publications:
Compendio di Meccanica Razionale [T.N. Compendium of Rational Mechanics] (2nd ed.)
Il Problema dello Spazio e la Concezione del Mondo [T.N. The Problem of the Space and the
Conception of the World].

Conferences:
University and cultural centers of Buenos Aires
People's University of Rome
IX International Conference on Communications in Genoa (1961)
IV and V International Congress of the Astronautical Science Association
XLI International Trade Fair of Milan.
International Center of Comparison and Synthesis (1980), etc
«Apparenza e realtà nello scenario del Cielo» [T.N. Appearance and reality in the Sky scenario]
at the C.I.D.A. in Genoa, October 1988
 PREFACE

The reader might ask why a publishing house like Kemi, that pursues strictly initiatory ends, decided to publish
a book with a strictly scientific character.
The continuation of this preface will amply justify the reason.
The Hollow Earth Theory is nothing new.
As the author will further explain, such theory has been sustained by some writers, and it made its first
appearance during last century, peeping out between the folds of science, “with neither infamy nor praise”. It
has been regarded more as a curiosity and so not worthy to be considered, also because it was presented as a
theory too upsetting and fantastic.
The Earth as the extreme limit of the Universe that contains in itself the whole creation!
This conception, not only contradict the current scientific theories, that postulate the Universe as immense, even
though finite, in a continuous expansion, towards borders not well established that our reasoning cannot still
understand, with no accordance with our psychology as well, that based and elaborated from our senses,
presents a much different reality.
But what our senses perceive is the real external reality?
The author will answer in detail about this question on our vision. We must now remark that the hollow earth
hypothesis, with all its implications, can answer to a strictly scientific concept, based on the transformation by
reciprocal radii [T.N. cited as transformation by reciprocal radii vectores by the author, nowadays more shortly
known as geometric inversion or simply inversion] already applied from Mathematical analysis to Potential
Theory, that allow the passage from a convex sphere to a concave sphere.
This demonstration, summarily outlined by the author, can be easily found in any book of Advanced Analysis.
The great Sommerfeld, in his “Partial differential equations in Physics” published in Princeton, already
predicted the great possibilities that this Theory offers but has been said that such transformation was applied
only to Potential Theory “Unfortunately, these mapping methods for the two- and three- dimensional case are
entirely restricted to potential theory.”
To Roxas goes the credit to have re-elaborated masterfully the existing elements, helped by the studies of
Morrow, building a theory that presents us a new vision of the universe, unexceptionable from a mathematical
and physical point of view.
Are we sure this is a new theory?
Why this revival at the end of this era?
If we look back to our far history we can ascertain how the cosmological theory corresponds, in all and for all,
to the Hollow earth theory. It is at the base of every cosmogony. For Orphism, as well as for the Chinese and
Egyptian conceptions, at the beginning there is the Egg, and when the creation begins, the Fire, the Light,
appears inside of it, not out side of it. Fanes manifests itself inside, not outside. With this act the sky and the
earth was created and the worlds start to rotate.
Then the theory passes and stops at the initiatic centers, at the Templarism and in the posteriors schools. It
reappears in the 1700 to go back in the darkness again.
A purely theophisic conception but also mathematical at the same time.
The fact that now is imposed is not whether to believe or not to believe to the endospherical theory. No acts of
faith must be done; but a series of reflections, and then an act of courage.
The mathematical proofs fully confirm its possible existence, as well as the geometrical and physical proofs.
Now It only remains the personal belief, or better, the personal orientation: if we want to accept an universe
where emptiness is the rule, against the alchemic “nequam vacuum”, where Earth is a lost rock navigating into
infinity, and where the cosmological conception loses in real existential void, or if we want to accept our earth
as the real boundary of the Universe, where everything is throbbing of energies and the Cosmos appears as a
Living, in the real meaning of the word and in the Neoplatonic meaning, where forces are the real holders of the
system.
There we have a pessimistic conception of the world and nihilistic in a certain way, that dilutes everything into
nothing, born at the end of the Kaly Yuga; here we have a live and throbbing conception, sustained by math,
heritage of ancient mysteriosophies, handed down in medieval alchemic circles, and rich of internal harbors.
Here lies the problem.
Kemi
 LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dearest Doctor Angelo Angelini

Of the Endospherical Theory, with different titles, has been treated by a number of authors (see introduction
to the book «La Suprema Armonia dell'Universo - La Teoria Endosferica del campo» [T.N. The Supreme
Harmony of the Universe - The Endospherical Field Theory]).
To be correct and with more precision, wherever it might arise a possible priority, and for a better
information for the reader, among other valid argumentations I distinguish the discoveries that come from my
own research work with the term novelty.
I reference some authors, in particular Americans and Germans, that in the past century, and even more in
this one, have dealt with the endosphericity of the Universe: the Americans Ulysses G. Morrow (deceased in
1950) and Cyrus Reed Teed (Koresh) and the Germans Peter Bender (Worms, deceased at the lager of
Mauthausen), Freder Van Holk (Bielmanner-Verlag, Munchen), P.A. Müller-Murnau (1940), Bruno H. Bürgel
(1946), Ernst Barthel (1940), Karl Schöpffer (1869), Karl Neupert (Augusburg 1940), Johannes Lang (Schirmer
Mahlau, 1941).
The last one mentioned, at page 25 of his volume «Die Hohlwelttheorie» writes: «In the mines of Tamarack
in Calumet (USA), two lead wires were dropped down 1300 m deep. According to the measurements made by
the workers, the lead wires did not converge, they did not get closer to each other, as it should happened on a
convex earth, they diverged resulting in a concave terrestrial surface». This very singular experiment, not
confirmed at the time (I do not know the exact date) with physical argumentation, was strangely forgotten by
most.
Transformation by reciprocal radii was treated by the mentionted authors and others but, except for Morrow,
they did not respect in their diagrams the accuracy instead observed in my own writings (Tables 14 and 15, and
the text of Guido Castelnuovo). An essential point was however neglected that is the diagrammatic aspect/side?
obtained with/from? the application of such geometric transformation to the classic Universe (Tables 14 and
15), aspect that identifies with the physical aspect (Table 3) of the electromagnetic spectrum (Maxwell)
obtained by iron filings sprinkled on a piece/sheet of paper placed over the two poles of a horseshoe magnet.
This is the crucial point and it is a novelty: this/such? identification takes us to consider the diagram not
anymore/no longer as a structure (Table 3) of physical spectrum of the lines of force of electromagnetic nature
of light/of electromagnetic nature of the physical spectrum of light's lines of force? (Maxwell) in contrast with
the pure and unfounded hypothesis of the universal «refraction».
Another novelty is the demonstration of the physical impossibility of the light-year, as I revealed in my
article published on p. 27 in issue 38 (February 1989) of Kemi-Hathor magazine (Ch. III).
The transformation by reciprocal radii, known for over a century, applied to the image of the classic
Universe, as it is known, preserves the angles, which means that the angles formed by two classical? euclidean
straight lines are the same those formed by the corresponding punctual non-euclidean curves. This means that
the terrestrial observer cannot distinguish, by pure ocular observation, between the classic Theory or the
Endospherical one: in the classic Theory lines of vision are supposed to be euclidean straight lines, while in the
Endospherical Theory the corresponding lines are curves, non-eucleadian. In the classic Theory the lines of
vision are thought to be straight due to a psychic fenomenon of the human optic center (Ch. III), while the
endospherical lines of vision are conform to the fact of the isogonality of the transformation ?? «Hypotheses
non fingo» [T.N. I frame no hypotheses] said Newton. Therefore, since light travels only in curved lines (see
demonstration in Ch. III), the classic hypothesis must be excluded.
Newton's universe, genially conceived, is the specular image of the real Universe, which is reached/can be
reached by the application of known analytic and geometric formulas.
 Excluding therefore the classic hypothesis, we must/it must be/one must? Necessary
admit/recognize/accept/allow? the endospherical one, established by scientific proof based on facts of our
physical reality ???. This is the third novelty.
A fourth novelty is the law of conservation of energy as I treat it on p. 17 in issue 39 (April 1989) of Kemi-
Hathor magazine (Ch. VII). The novelty consists in offering scientific explanation of the conservation of energy,
that circles from Sun to Stellar Center??, joined by a magnet, and then from Stellar Center to the sun, as it
happens in magnetic field produced by a magnet where magnetic induction field lines of force are directed
externally of/to? the magnet from the North Pole to the South one? and internally of/to? the magnet from the
South Pole to the North one?.
The universal energies circulate in the Universe without any leakage and so with no recovery phenomenon
independently of the possible nuclear fusion processes inside the Sun.
The existing problem of the colossal quantityes of energy that in the classic system take off from the Sun and
the Galaxies and then? infinity disperse / disperse/lekage to infinity, or as Einstein wrote, according to the slight
relativistic curvature of space (close to zero), there would be a return of the energies to the point of beginning
after a path that lacks a physical explanation that it is not surreal, that lasts billions of years. This problem is
solved with the new Theory.
The four novelties are not included in the aforementioned vast literature. Therefore any possible discussion
about/around? the priority of new ideas does not have any foundation/can have no basis?.
To you, egregious/dear? Dr. Angelini, go expressions of my esteem and my thankful thoughts to have
greeted in Your Editorials my writings; with kind and sincere regards.

P. E. Amico-Roxas
 ENDOSPHERICAL FIELD THEORY
A new conception of the world?
The great successes of Celestial Mechanics, the very remarkable confirmations, in the experimental domain,
of Newton's law appear in the mind of the modern physicist and, even more to the man in the street, as a further
proof of the truth of the classical world conception (the modifications brought by Einstein are quantitatively
very slight).
However in this book a new conception of the world is presented; the same facts, the same experiments can
be interpreted in a different/another? way. This is about, as Einstein said referring to his own theories, «New
and original thoughts about already well-known experiments and phenomena».
The concept of field, established in the last century, in both experimental and theoretical domain, with
Maxwell's famous equations, is the fundamental idea of this new Theory. The world is conceived as a field: the
latest and most imposing developments of physics let appear the field as the basic and most natural energy
activity.
The Universe, this huge energy store in incessant activity, therefore appears to the modern physicist as a
field.
All the facts that the classic Theory explains, find an explanation just as much exhaustive in the new
conception of the world, which furthermore, not only allows to operate calculations and predictions of celestial
phenomenons with the same accuracy by which are operated on the ground of the Copernican conception, but
also fills other important gaps in the traditional concept of the Universe.
There is much talk about positive sides of the classic conception, but much little about its defects.
Many are those who scarcely know that a principle such as the conservation of energy is violated in a
disconcerting manner by the classic Theory, a violation that not even Einstein Theory, which admits an elliptic
space as demonstrated by Armellini, was able to fix.
The planets only use about 20 billionths of the huge quantity of energy emitted by the Sun: all the rest is not
recovered, but completely lost! Eddington underlines the «strange fact ??» of the symmetrical fall of cosmic
rays on the Earth’s surface. The cosmic space is uniform (it can be practically considered the same even with
relativistic corrections), motions therein are rigid: Eddington along with others, refuses a space without
features (curvatures), furthermore observing: «Undifferentiated sameness and nothingness cannot be
distinguished philosophically. The realities of physics are unhomogeneities, happenings, change».
The fantastic duration of billions of light-years by the light rays can’t not leave physicists perplexed, who is
forced to accept it, not because it emerges from experimental facts, but because it is a consequence of the
premises from witch the classical world conception is based on. Armellini underlines two «peculiar» facts:
Earth is the densest among the bodies of the solar system, and moreover, it is the favoured about its habitability.
Now, how come Earth, which in the classic concepion is an «ordinary planet», presents such a «privileged»
situation?
Planck noticed the «peculiar difference» between electrons' behavior, witch they can only circulate in well
established orbits which differ from each other discreetly, and the behavior of planets where no orbit seem to be
preferred over another: this is in contrast with the upheld analogy, between the atom and the planetary system.
There are still other weak points in the classic Theory; and scientists like Eddington, Armellini, Planck and
others of same scientific level that have repeatedly stated. A theory that provides a comprehensive and rational
explanation to accidental and insufficiently explained facts, seems to deserve consideration and critique.
The identity between heavy mass and inert mass, that accidentally arised in the classic Theory (Newton
himself noticed it), in the relativistic physics its appears instead as a fundamental fact, what made Einstein say
«A mystery story seems inferior if it explains strange events as accidents. It is certainly more satisfying to have
the story follow a rational pattern».
Facts as the symmetrical fall of cosmic rays on the Earth’s surface, the peculiar position/situation? of the
Earth, as regards the density, compared to other celestial bodies, the non-uniformity of the cosmic space and the
non-rigidity of motions, the luminosity of the night sky with no clouds nor Moon, follows from the new Theory,
without the need to introduce new more or less forced/contrived, more or less plausible hypothesis, whereas in
the classic Theory are presented as «strange as accidents». The new Theory, in witch the same facts «follow a
rational pattern», appears more satisfactory.
The classic Theory implies amazing facts like, e.g., the quick flight (3 km/s) of Antares, which has a diameter
of more than half a billion kilometres and a density 2.000 times lower than air, and as the speeds of tens of
thousands km/s of millions of «Suns» which diameters many thousand times the Earth-Sun distance, and densities
in the order of 10-23(20 corpuscles, atoms or free electrons/free atoms and electrons each cubic centimeter), i.e.
densities billions of billions times lower than air’s.??? These flights of huge bodies with their densities very close
to zero and speeds not far from the speed of light, represents phenomena that are hard to believe. In the new
Theory there are instead, very high densities, reduced volumes and speeds referred to local length units: these
latter phenomena are much more likely and reliable.

* * *

In my volume «Il Problema dello Spazio e la Concezione del Mondo» [T.N. The Problem of the Space and
the Conception of the World] published in 1960 [T.N. freely accessible online at
https://archive.org/details/IlProblemaDelloSpazioELaConcezioneDelMondo]. I extensively developed the
Endospherical Theory and later I published some minor works and done many conferences. Now I am
publishing «La Suprema Armonia dell'Universo» [T.N. The Supreme Harmony of the Universe] with a few
modifications (Earth is stationary/immobile/unmoving/motionless ??) and with some very important additions:

1) The geometric inversion (by reciprocal radii) is illustrated and attributed/connected/tracked back to the
physical representation of an electromagnetic field. The inverted universe assumes the appearance of Table 15,
identical appearance of the electromagnetic field representation (magnetic spectrum) on Table 3. This
constatation leads to consider that the physical Universe is an electromagnetic field.

2) This geometric transformation is a bijective isogonal and conformal one-to-one correspondence between two
overlapping planes well known?? by mathematicians; it has the remarkable property of preserves the angles
and reverses their orientation. The first figure is made of straight lines and the second one of arcs of circles,
one transforms into the other, that is the straight euclidean geodesics transforms in non-euclidean curved
geodesics and vice versa.
The observer cannot distinguish between euclidean space and non-euclidean space because observation data
remains unvaried, like a mirror/like in a mirror/as a mirror.

3) In Ch. III the physical impossibility of the light-year is demonstrated. The electromagnetic nature of light
(Maxwell) conduces/attributed/connected/trackes back to curved geodesics of the field.

4) All the experiments trying to measure the rotation of Earth have given negative results (Ch. X)

5) The equatorial bulge is due to the internal rotation of the cosmicsphere/cosmosphere from East to West,
solving also the problem of the so called continental drift.

6) The (minimum) depths reached inside the so called Earth’s crust, could be not end with a gradual
attenuation of the field until tends to zero.

7) Einstein curvatures are added to the those of the new Universe: the relativistic radius of curvature measures
about 30 thousand billions [T.N. 30 trillions] of light-years, equal to about 3 x 1023 euclidean kilometers (space
is almost flat) whereas the endospherical radius of curvature doesn’t exceed 6.370 euclidean kilometers.

8) The demonstration of the principle of conservation of energy (Ch. VII)

9) Is the endosphericity of the Universe based on scientific proof?

In Ch. III the physical impossibility of the light-year is demonstrated. I have not received the slightest objection
from anyone.
Considering/remaining on the? observation data of the behavior of light only two hypothesis can be stated
(the classical one and the endospherical one); being unacceptable the first one, its necessary to agree to the
second one. Since the geometric transformation well known to mathematicians has been scientifically proven
with its isogonality, there is no doubt that light, of electromagnetic nature, follows the lines of force of an
electromagnetic field with unchanged observation data, so the endospherical theory stays physically proven.
Already in the past appeared a book in 1719 written in Latin and German entitled «Opus Mago» now owned
by A.M.O.R.C., in San José, California (Ancient and Mystical Order Rosæ Crucis) that was about an
Endospherical Universe, but unfortunately, despite of a polite request, I was not even allowed to get a
photocopy [T.N. “Opus mago-cabbalisticum et theosophicum: …” wrote by Georg von Welling, now freely
accessible online at https://archive.org/details/herrngeorgiivonw00well, and English version partially
accessible at https://books.google.it/books?vid=ISBN1578633273&printsec=frontcover]. I was also informed
about a similar Chinese theory, but I could not find any trace of it.

* * *

The Endospherical Theory or Cosmocentric System had in the past several supporters, who called it
«Hollow World Theory». They are, among others, the Germans Karl Neupert, Johannes Lang and P.A. Müller
and the American Cyrus Reed Teed. I don’t dwell, however, on the arguments, whereby the named Authors
justify that Theory, since I consider their arguments rather weak, mainly because they are based on the
Euclidean space hypothesis; moreover, it doesn't seem to me that the scientific rigor is/be sufficiently respected.
Many years ago, I myself divulged Neupert's Theory, but very soon I definitively? gave it definitively? up
definitively?.
Among the supporters of the new world conception by far the foremost I esteem is the American Ulysses G.
Morrow/I esteem as the decidedly foremost upholder among all supporters of the new world conception the
American Ulysses G. Morrow, who died on 11th September 1950, at the age of 86 (he was born on the 26th
October 1864, in the borough of Freedom, in the Barren County, Kentucky);
I had an intense an epistolary correspondence with him since 1934 until his death/I entertained with him an
intense letter exchange since 1934 up to his death. This correspondence is assessed/divided/partitioned? in two
periods: the first runs/was from 1934 to 1939 while I was in Argentina; the second one from 1940, year that I
came back to Italy, untill 1950.
Morrow is the author of the drawings contained, with some modification brought by me, in the Tables, except
the last one, which is due to the skill of Mr. Fr. Zimmerli of Zurich, undergoing, however, a substantial
rectification of mine/modifications of my own. Morrow found a method for practically carrying out the
inversion procedures; he performed some experiments on the Florida beach in the U.S.A., to prove Earth's
concavity,but then he became aware of/realized/realised his mistake (as he wrote me in his letter dated 28th
November 1946), in the sense that the new world conception is a new space Theory (a space where the motions
are not rigid): it is exactly, as he himself called it, «the Field Theory».
Morrow's work was restricted essentially to the geometric side and to the description, broadly speaking/in
broad terms, of the Universe physics, in a field configuration. There were, however, in Morrow's work many
starting points/ideas for a organic development and for a systematic re-elaboration of the whole subject/matter,
what/this I have achieved in this work, with approfondimenti/insights/elaborations that deserve the most serious
attention.

Paolo Emilio Amico-Roxas

Rome - October 1990
 Chapter I

TRANSFORMATION BY RECIPROCAL RADII

Transformation by reciprocal radii refers in general to three-dimensional space. I expose this transformation
in reference to the plane, or rather to two overlapping planes.
Each point of/on one of the two planes corresponds to another point of/on the other plane, and vice versa.
Overlapping points, are defined fixed, that is they correspond to themselves. Are fixed the points of the
circumference with respect to which the transformation is carried out.
An important exception is the following: all the points at infinity (i.e., the directions of the infinite number
of straight lines) correspond to only one point, the center of the circle with respect to which the transformation
is carried out, and vice versa.
The geometric inversion (by reciprocal radii) is a quadratic or Cremona transformation and has the
following properties: with respect to a circle transforms [T.N. or commonly, maps] arcs in arcs, straight lines in
circles passing through the center of inversion O. The straight line passing through O transforms into itself.
The inversion is an isogonal or conformal correspondence, which means it preserves the angles but reverses
their orientation.
The inversion extends to the 3rd coordinate (sphere) with the same proprieties: spheres are transformed into
spheres, planes into spheres passing through the center of inversion and vice versa. To the plane at infinity, that
is to all directions of space, corresponds the center O’ of the sphere with respect to which the inversion is
carried out. We will treat the transformation referred to the plane, for the sake of simplicity and clarity. Each
internal point of the circle of inversion corresponds to an external one / one outside to it/ one to the outside, and
vice versa.
In Table I we considered two circles (however considered overlapping): if we overlaps the two circles we
will have, in the same figure the internal curved tangent and the external straight tangent, that correspond
themselves; the two overlapping points of contact constitute a single fixed point.
At the left in Table II we have the geometric procedure of inversion, to obtain the internal point of the circle
that corresponds to an external point and vice versa.
Given a circle with a radius e.g. 1 meter, we consider point 2 (2m away from the center of the circle) and
draw from 2 the two tangents to the circle, passing through the two contact points a and b, now we consider the
point where the line segment joining a and b intersects the line segment joining 2 with the center of the circle:
the point of intersection is 1/2 (half a meter) which is the multiplicative inverse [T.N. or reciprocal] of 2 (hence
the name inversion or reciprocal radii).
To the generic external point m will correspond the internal point 𝑚𝑚1 and vice versa. If it is a point at infinity
then from it are drawn parallel tangents that touch the circle at the endpoints of a diameter of the given circle,
to this generic point at infinity will correspond the center of the circle, that is, as already mentioned, to each
point at infinity (direction) corresponds exactly one point, that is, the center of the circle of inversion.
To find the center N of a circular arc OP, arc that corresponds to an external segment of the straight line C
we consider the small figure at the right in Table II where the external not dashed line segment of C
corresponds to the arc OP passing through O and trough the fixed point P.
The searched center N is located at the intersection of the extension of the diameter of the circle/circle
diameter/circle’s diameter with the perpendiculars on the midpoint of the chord OP, Table II.
To the dashed straight Euclidean segment inside the circle of inversion corresponds the completion of -/a/the
non-Euclidean arc external to the circle (also see/see also Table XI).
 Let’s/we consider Table IV; to each curve/curved line of the upper figure, corresponds a straight
line/straight one of the lower figure. The two figures, as already mentioned, should/must be thought as
overlapping. The upper figure represents the non-Euclidean space; the lower figure represents the Euclidean
space (where/in which the Euclid's 5th postulate is valid). To the straight tangents ab, bc, cd of the Euclidean
space (lower fig.) corresponds the curved tangents ab, bc, cd of the space with/of variable curvature (upper
fig.); to the straight Euclidian parallels correspond the curved non-Euclidean parallels; the angles intersect the
Euclidean lines and the corresponding non-Euclidean lines are equal/identical. The
invertible/reversal/reversable formulas of/for the transformation from the classic/classical exospherical cosmo
into the endospherical one are:

r 2 x1
x = 12
x + y12

r 2 y1
y = 12
x + y12

where x1 and y1 are the inverse coordinates of x and y

* * *

Projectivity [T.N. best known as homography or projective transformation] is a bijective algebraic

correspondence between S1 and S’1 or, also/even a bijective and continuous correspondence between S1 and S1’
too?, that preserves bi-ratios [T.N. better known as cross-ratios]. Involution is a remarkable case of projectivity
between two forms of the first kind/species in which/where any/either the two elements always correspond
twice/in double way.
The two elements are said to be conjugated in the involution, which it? has two fixed or double points in
each of which two conjugated elements coincide.
A conic determines/establishes/set/make up a correspondence, subordinated/subject/dependent to the conic,
between the points and the lines of a plane: this correspondence is called polarity; an involutive correlation
between two overlapping planes is a plane polarity.
If a point P and a plane p have a two-way correspondence/correspond doubly in the polarity [T.N. i.e. they
have a unique reciprocal relationship], then they are respectively said pole p and polar P. If the second of the
two points lies on the polar of the first, the first will lies on the polar of the second: the two points are said to be
conjugated or reciprocal in polarity. One/a point is called/said to be/defined self-conjugate [T.N. or commonly,
absolute] if it lies on its own polar.
A polarity is represented by equations of/in the form:

pu = a11 x + a12 y + a13 x

1
(1) pv = a21 x + a22 y + a23 z A＝O
1
pw = a31 x + a32 y + a33 z

The condition when/where two points P (x, y, z) and Q (x’, y’, z’) are conjugated in the polarity «(1)» is
found/met expressing/defining/stating that Q lies on the Polar P, that is:

vx′ + vy′ + wz′ = O

where u, v, w are homogeneous Plücker coordinates and x' , y', z' are homogeneous Cartesian coordinates.
Changing u, v, w with the expressions «(1)» we have:

a11 xx ′ + a22 yy ′ + as33 zz ′ + a12 (xy ′ + x ′ y) + a13 (xz ′ + x ′ z) + a23 (yz ′ + y ′ z) = O

By setting x = x ′ , y = y ′ , z = z′ we have/there is the condition in order to have P (x, y, z) self-conjugate,

which means it lies on its own polar.
The locus/loci of the self-conjugate points of a polarity is a curve of the 2nd order given by the equation:

a11 x 2 + a22 y 2 + a33 z 2 + a12 xy + 2a13 xz + 2a23 yz = O

which is the fundamental equation of polarity/fundamental polarity equation.

Extending the space, a quadric (with/that has/having a? non-zero/non-null discrimination)
determines/establishes/set/make up a correspondence the? in space/in the? space a correspondence, which
transforms every point of/in/to its polar plane and every plane of/in/to its pole; in particular, each point of/in the
quadric corresponds to its tangent plane, and vice versa.

Circle inversion or transformation by reciprocal radii [T.N. with respect to a circle]

If the fundamental equation of the polarity is a circle, we have the quadratic transformation called/known as
by reciprocal radii. Given a circle with center O and radius r, to each point P external to the circle corresponds
that/such point P’ of the line OP that makes OP. OP ′ = r 2 (even/also/as well as/ in the? sign as well/also?). P’ is
the intersection of the line joining the two points of contact of tangents drawn by P to the circle with the straight
line OP. The correspondence between P and P’ is mutually recirpocal and bijective except for P when coinciding
with O, point to which no finite point corresponds, or the conventional point (∞, ∞), that is, points of the plane
at infinity (see «Procedure of Inversion»).
Between P (x, y) and P’ (x’, y’)y and r = 1 the following formulas are applied/true:
x y
(2) x′ = ; y′ 2
x2 +y 2 x + y2

The inversion does not change the angles, i.e./which means it is isogonal or conformal.
If the point P describes a curve, the inverse point P’ describes an inverse curve of the first one?/previous.
The inversion of a straight line is a circle.
If the straight line passes through O, then it has itself as inverse.
By inversion every circle transforms in a circle or in a straight line if the primitive circle passes through O.
With a procedure analogous/similar to that/the one already applied for a plane we have for the sphere
(particular/special/specific/ quadric) an obvious extension of the «(2)» to the third coordinate z. The inversion
transforms spheres into spheres, etc.
Thus/therefore, inversion is a projectivity (or product/result of a?/the? projectivity/homogeneity //
homogeneity/projectivity result/product // projective/projected/homogeneous product/result) which, by means
of/through «(2)», allows to ascend/go back/rise from the external space to the internal space/one of a circle (or
sphere). We will call/define/name cosmic this projectivity that, similar/similarly/likewise to the projectivity of
the mirror/projectivity in the mirror/mirrored projectivity, lets/let’s/allow/permit us interpret the external space
as apparent Euclidean space and internal space as the? real space.
If we apply the «(2)» to the transformation of the Universe, that appears flat to us, Universe made? of /by
straights, we can? ascend/go back/rise in? the real Universe, projected, per l’appunto, on the flat space,
abstracting from metric properties.
Assimilating/relating/equating the ellipses (orbits) in/to circles, the figure of the Cosmocentric Universe
(see)2 is just/it is none other than the result of the transformation from the apparent Euclidean heliocentric
universe (see) into the real universe, remaining on/considering the observation data.
 Chapter II

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD

In the previous chapter we developed the transformation by reciprocal radii. Geometry should not be
confused with physics; it is all abstract. Now we will/are going to see what is the starting point that allows us to
apply geometry to a very well-known physical fact.
The tribute goes to Maxwell for the discovery of the nature of light and the laws that govern it. Let us now
examine the experiment of the magnetic spectrum, of which Table III is an illustration of.
On the North and South poles of a magnet is placed a sheet of paper, stretched on a loom/flat
structure/framweork, then a bit of/little iron filings is sprinkled over it; then the orientation is facilitated by
tapping lightly on the paper. You will see the filings arranging as curves (lines of force) as shown in? the figure.
The figures obtained in this way have the name of magnetic spectra; their appearance varies with the
distance and with the quality of the considered magnetic poles and with the shape of the magnet.
Maxwell (1813-1897), with his famous equations, proved that the lines of force of a magnetic spectrum are
of an? electromagnetic nature, in the sense that the apparent variety of the magnetic fields is
attributed/connected/tracked back to a single genesis/origin/birth of the atomic physics, according to which
magnetism is always electromagnetism, which means its due to electric currents (electrons in motion).
Given the electromagnetic nature of light the electromagnetic lines of force of the aforementioned/aforesaid
magnet also highlight the electromagnetic behavior of light in the presence of two poles: so/therefore the light
travels along curved lines.
With Maxwell the electromagnetic field Theory is born; in 1886 Heinrich Hertz demonstrated, using his
oscillator, the existence of electromagnetic waves, confirming Maxwell's Theory. The behavior of light,
described by the great Scottish physicist through mathematical formulas, becomes an experimental
phenomenon, real, physical. The «visible» lines of force/lines of force «visible» in the iron filings, in the
presence of two opposite magnetic poles, constitute the magnetic spectrum (Table Ill),
By the procedure described in ch. I we have obtained the inverted image/picture of the classical universe:
let's remember that the inversion involves/implicates the constancy of angles, so if we apply to Tav. XIV to the
inversione for mutal radius vectors, we get Table XV, a result that is identified with the physical phenomenon of
the magnetic spectrum. «Hypotheses non fingo» said Newton, I do not construct hypothesis.
The physical identification of Table Ill with Table XV is evident with the important result that the classic
universe inverted recalls us? the physical image/image of the physical electromagnetic field from/of/by
Maxwell's theory.
This new cosmology is founded on this/such finding that/which allows to see objects, people, the Sun, the
stars along curved lines receiving our retina the identical image of who is observing/observe/observes the sky
supposed exospherical with the conviction that light transmits/is transmitted in a? straight line.
In Table I it is shown the shape of the Earth according to the classical theory, that is the Exospherical Theory,
based on the hypothesis that the light ray which leaves/starts e.g. from the Sun and reaches our eye propagates
in a straight line, with the alleged/pretended/presumed «finding» that the Earth is convex, and therefore the
Universe would be exospherical.
However, if we start from the hypothesis that the light ray which travels/leaves/starts from the Sun and
reaches our eye is propagated/propagates in a curved line, then? we can equally? ascertain/it can be equally?
ascertain with equal right the concavity of the Earth.
The two interpretations, only? from the optical point of view only, are equally valid for the fact that the two
light propagations are the result of an isogonal and conformal geometric transformation and so the image of the
celestial body appears to us in the same way: the telescopic view/vision/sight.
It is about establishing which of the two identical perceived images corresponds to our/the physical reality.
This is what we try to see in the following pages.
 Chapter III

THE LIGHT-YEAR AND ITS PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

Before we enter into the heart of the topic, I would like to repeat some concepts on our vision, already
developed in my book: II The problem of space and the Conception of the World.
The phenomenon of vision must be examined in its two fundamental moments: the reception, by the retina,
of luminous radiations and the vision process properly operated by the optical centers of the brain.
The first moment is well known: the luminous radiations penetrate through the pupil, until they reach the
retina, which it is the most noble part of the eye. The retina derives from the nervous tissue and represents the
sensory portion of sight, that would be, in a camera, the sensitive film; it has the shape of a segment of a hollow
sphere and extends from the exit of the bulb's optic nerve till the pupillary orifice; it is not uniform but
undergoes profound modifications that allows it to be divided into two fundamental portions: a posterior one,
which presents the characteristics of the sensory organ, having the ability to transform luminous energy into an
nervous impulse, and an anterior one without these characteristics.
The retina has a layer of sensory cells made up of cones and from the rods and a layer of ganglion cells
capable of transporting the nervous impulse produced by the cones and rods to the upper nervous centers, where
the sensation of vision is elaborated. This last layer, which is the cerebral part of the retina, is kind of a part of
the brain, which selects and leads all the impulses derived from sensory cells. This is the second mentioned
moment: the elaboration made by the optical centers.
The psychic mechanism with which the images received from the retina are transmitted outside, it is not yet
known, as well as many other brain functions, such as hearing , smell, taste, and touch, that constitute
subjective brain responses to stimuli coming from the outside. This circumstance leads to a consideration of the
highest importance: the images we see, are a mental product: we prolong in straight lines the radiations that are
processed by the brain.

Projectivity of the mirror: apparent space and real space

An example of this process is constituted by the images in a mirror. An object that projects on a reflecting
surface, appears in a different place then in reality: the light radiations start from the real object, arrive on the
surface of the mirror, deviate as described by Cartesio's law from the straight line and penetrate our eye,
which, due to the mental and psychical process, prolong the straight line radiation that reaches us.
And we see object "inside" the mirror! This phenomenon, happens also when we look at a photograph; the
photographic camera imprints on the plate not a movement but an instantaneous image of single individual
frames starting from an infinitely small initial place and therefore its always the brain of the observer that
interprets the phenomenon.
We therefore have an apparent space with straight lines of vision, and a real space, seen along the actual
radiation route, which is what the sense of touch and movement allows us to observe. There is a relationship
defined by rigorous mathematical formulas between the apparent space and the real space.
Kant said, "The head is in space and the whole space is in our head”.

Cosmic projectivity: apparent space and real space

A similar process can be attributed to the observation of the cycle, from which we receive information via
the radiations that come from it, we perceive them and mentally we extend them in a straight line. We will now
propose a different interpretation of the sky from the traditional one, driven towards the search of more reliable
explanations than the ones given by the classic science of the universe, as for example, having to admit to the
unlikely phenomenon of the duration of billions of lightyears at a speed of 300,000 km per second, with wave
lengths 0.4-0, 7 microns and a frequency calculated from 400 to 700 billions of oscillations per second. We
formulate the hypothesis of a real space projected onto an apparent space (conceived by the mind) similar to the
phenomenon of the mirror, where space is projected onto an apparent flat space, reflected by the specular
surface. This projection of real space into the apparent space (mental) has the characteristics of the projections
of a real object on the mirror surface: preserves the angles and it changes the verse. The apparent sky, like an
object projecte in the mirror, preserves the angles and changes the verse of the real sky, it is an inversion or
geometric conform correspondence, called transformation by mutual radius vectors, as I have shown in other
writings. By applying this geometric transformation to the physical universe, the luminous radiation perceived
by the eye follow curvilinear paths, so the celestial bodies observed are apparent rather than real, as they are
located along the straight tangents to the curves traveled by the rays of light that continually strike our eyes. We
see celestial objects on straight tangent lines, that is in a (mental) space where the lines of the universe are
rectilinear (Euclidean space). The real cosmic space field is analogous to the space determined by the poles of a
magnet on iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper with its curved electromagnetic characteristic (Maxwell).

Geometric distances and the duration of light

A year-light corresponds to the length of 9.463 x10 to the power of 12 km = 9 billion and 463 billion km,
which would be the distance that light, animated at the constant speed of 300 x 10 to the power of 3 km / sec,
would travel if it could have the duration of a year. This route, considered "straight" is the unit of measurement
with which astronomers calculate {do not measure) the distance of a star.
We must direct the attention on the meaning of the word distance and the word light. Distance is the
geometric space between two points. Light is a union of discreet elements called physical quanti (photons) or
particles of energy animated by velocity.
Along a geometric distance, a physical train of countless photons, distributed unevenly (Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory).
A distance is measured by the geometric unit known as meter, whose sample (international meter) consists of
a platinum ruler, housed at the Museum of Arts and Crafts of Paris is equivalent, with much approximation, to
the 40 millionth part of a terrestrial meridian.

to calculate the distance of a star, astronomers coincide the geometric measuring unit with the physical
measuring unit of light (k photons) as if they were compactly distributed.
The year-light comes from the fact that triangulating the distances of stars, the sides to calculate are assumed
to be rectilinear, and the distribution of the photons are assumed to be uniform, connected to the physical
impossibility of the exterminated durations of light itself, as we will now show.
But first, lets specify with an example with our ordinary measurements or distance calculations, how a beam
of light radiations, starting from the source, fades with distance because of the divergence of the rays of each
couple, as well as the less compactness of the photons of each single ray.
For example, if a light source has a geometric distance of10 meters away from me, I assume as a constant
geographic measurement a meter; but if I assume a physical constant unity of measurement, e.g. 100 million
photons (light quantum), in the first part (let's say 1 cm) of the light beam, 100 million photons are contained,
but this second part is geometrically long half the size of the first and so on halfing photons in each part.
Photons are more compacted as we get towards the source (which means they distribute in a not compact and
not uniform way - Law of Lambert). Therefore assuming my physical distance from the source the physical
constant unity of measurement of 100 million photons, with innumerable halfs just about endless, while my
geometric distance remains finite (10 meters). We conclude that the physical-geometrical distance earth sun in
the classic measurement system is of 150,000,000 physical-geometric kilometers; while in the Endospherical
Theory, since for each exospherical constant rectilinear kilometer correspond arches/arcs that are always more
and more shorter towards the source, there are still 150 million Km. but with a physical meaning, since it
consists of photon trains, not exceeding the geometric paths of sunlight and stellar light 10,000 geometrical km
with a presumable duration of hours of the path of light, not of years. To the half-straight «rectilinear solar
rays» corresponds in the transformation by mutal radius vectors, the semicircle «curvilinear rays».
At the«increasing» geometric kilometer transformed starting from the source, on the semi-circle corresponds
a kilometer (with physical meaning) decreasing in accordance with the physical law of light intensity inversely
proportional to the distance from the source. It could be said (to understand) that the lengthening of the
geometric km is compensated by the decreasing intensity of luminosity. making the geometric distance of a ray
coincide with its decreasing intensity of luminosity is at the root of the year-light.
If you want to measure the length of a river, we will use the metric system; but our result has nothing to do
with the quantity of water flowing in the river, just like the distance of a star has no relationship with the
quantity of photons that runs through it.
Distances are geometric entities; the rate of water flow and the photon train are physical entities.

The law of distances

The intensity of illumination of a screen is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the
source.
In fact, the amount of light that starts from a luminous point O falls on the ABCD square, doubling the
distance it would fall on the A' B' C' D' square with the length of the side doubled and so the area is four times
greater than the first. Therefore the amount of light that would fall on A 'B' C 'D' would be the same as that the
one that falls on ABCD but with a lighting intensity of ¼.

DIAGRAMMA DA AGGIUNGERE

The brightness, or the intensity of luminosity of the surface unit, with double the distance its 1/4, with triple
the distance would be 1/9, etc.
The intensity of illumination is directly proportional to the intensity of emission and to the cosine a made
from the normal to the incident ray to the surface hit and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
from the source:

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

(first law of Lambert's cosine).

At given distances of meters 3, 4, 5, etc. the intensity of luminosity produced by a source decreases by 9, 16,
25 times. In the figure two rays of light coming out of the source in a given moment are separated by the arc
AB, and in a later time by an arc A'B ', etc. Light spreads throughout the spherical space; every spherical
surface receives the same quantity of light, but with the luminosity intensity on each meter squared is decreases
in the inversed order of the square of distance. When it reaches values of millions of kilometers the intensity of
lighting rapidly decreases tending to zero, until it became totally extinct. The same quantity of light emitted by
the source illuminates an extended sphere 4pi r where the growing radius of each sphere is showing squared. If
the radius of the sphere is 1000 km, the surface is irradiated is 12 times 1,000,000 of kilometers squared; if r is
equal to 1,000,000 km, the spherical surface will be of about 12 million km squared. If r is equal to 150,000,000
km then the illuminated surface has the extension of thousands of billion kilometers squared.
In the figure you can see for example the AB arc, the A'B ' arc and the A "B" arc. These three arcs are sectors
of circumference; the corresponding spherical surfaces receive each the same illumination, whose intensity, as
the extension grows, is rapidly attenuating the inverse ratio squared the distance until extinct.

DIAGRAMMA DA AGGIUNGERE

For the classical theory the nebulae whose light would take 200 million years to reach Earth, would be at a
distance of 2,000 trillion kilometers: which is: 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (21 zeros). The fabulous
duration of the propagation of light rays (light years) is not the result of experience, but it necessary
consequences of the premises from which the classic astronomy are built, and that is: Euclidean cosmic space,
convex earth and the attribution, extrapolating, to the cosmic space the characteristics of our terrestrial space.
The light from the Andromeda nebula would take 2 million years to reach us, and the light from even more
distant galaxies two billion years. Light which is calculated with a frequency between 400 and 750 billion
vibrations per second, formed by each ray made by a tenuous "strand of energy" in motion with a velocity of
300 thousand kilometers per second is just illusory that it could have the duration of billions of years!
 The velocity of light

The speed of propagation of light (electromagnetic waves in a vacuum) is assumed as a fundamental

universal constant and it is usual to indicate with C, even thou the escape velocity of a quasar is hyper-c.
The first determination was made in 1675 by the danish astronomer Olaf Roemer that I calculated the period
of Jupiter's satellites in different times, obtaining different results. Knowing the difference of the distance and
the time taken to travel it (about 1000 seconds) Roemer calculated the speed of light to have the value of
307,200 km / sec.
The determination of the speed of light, performed by James Bradley in 1728 based on the aberration of
stars, brought equal results (except for negligible differences); the same for other researchers such as Anderson,
Essen, Bergrastrand, Alakson. These calculations are based on the hypothesis of a rectilinear propagation path
of light.

The concept of the velocity of light in the heliocentric system as well as in the cosmocentric system needs to
be clarified. In the endospherical system the distance and the length of a rectified curvilinear trajectory, whose
geometrical measurement unit ( meter) does not coincide with the physical measurement unit (k photons). This
physical unity of k photons is not known, it is not calculable, therefore the travel time of the physical body k
photons is unknown. Therefore the speed of light can not be calculated.
The average diameter of the molecules was calculated, with various systems, reaching a value in the order of
some Angstroms (1 Angstrom = 10 (alla potenza di meno 8 )cm), which is a ten-thousandth of a microm; the
classic Earth-Sirius distance resulte of 9-light-years; these assessments however, can not be accepted because
the photons of a ray of light, unlike traditional assessments, are not evenly distributed; photons or quantums of
energy do not travel compact but distancing until cancelled out of their action ( figure V) long before reaching
the observer.
The concept of heliocentric velocity is referred to physical-geometrical light paths with a costant unit of
measurement, instead, in the cosmocentric system the same concept is referred to variable geometrical unit of
measurement, containing in each unit of geometric measurement the constant physical quantity of k photons.
Light, as it travels an enormous amount of variable geometric units starting from the source, it fades until it
tends to zero. This path implies a variable time not calculable, but likely very short in the geometric vicinity of
the source, but gradually growing as it travels towards the terrestrial observer.
The Cosmocentric Theory formulates the hypothesis of variable path travel time from the source to the
observer, keeping in mind that illumination, as already mentioned, is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance.
The calculation of C was carried out in the hypothesis of a constant time with a constant path units. From
these hypotheses we have got the classic value of C even in the depths of cosmic space, even though Lambert's
law leads to a progressive dimming of lighting intensity up to its cancellation, much before reaching the
terrestrial observer. As far as Fizeau's famous experiment is concerned, the velocity of light was indeed
constant, but obviously for a duration of fractions of a second that followed the instant of the imission of the
light, whose round trip journey from Suresne to Montmartre, was only of 8,633 x 2 km = 17.266 km. Therefore,
taking into account what has been previously said, it's absurd to assume for the speed of light the value of
constant C for durations of "billions of years”. The year-light is therefore absolutely impossible.
 Chapter IV

FLAT SPACE AND CURVED SPACE - IPERSPACE - SPECIAL RELATIVITY AN FINAL

RELATIVITY

With the forthcoming of the Einsteinian theories, new cosmologies have emerged.
From Newton's classic Universe, followed Minkowski's; the non-static (pulsating and hyperbolic) universes of
Friedman arose; Einstein's General Relativity System, Fantappiè introduced his Final Relativity using De
Sitter's the model; stationary cosmologies proposed by Hoyle and BondiGold, evolutionary cosmologies by
Gamow and Lemattre.
To this harvest of theories we can associate fundamental problems like the meaning of hyperspace and the
curvature of space and time, the problem of reality or appearance of phenomena predicted by relativistic
theories, the meaning of static and of expansion, the model of the Universe, the concept of relativity and
Einstein's theory of gravitation, and now dwelling on the distinction between relativistic conceptions of
theoretical Universes with constant curvature based on the group theory and the conception of the real Universe
with a variable curvature, not linked to this theory.

Hyperspace

To explain what a four-dimensional space is, they have recourse to various expedients, the most
significant and close to intuition being that of the bianimale that, linked to a two dimension space, can not
imagine a three dimensional space.
Similarly, it is said, a three-dimensional being, bound to a three-dimensional space, can not
conceive of a four dimensional space. This accostamento between the behavior of the bianimale and that of the
three-dimensional being, appeared to have satisfied intuition's needs.
But has the intuition remained really satisfied? A brief reflection suggests a negative answer. However, we can
asks our selfs if such a problem really exists or if there is the hidden mistake of confusing geometric abstraction
with physical reality. Space at n dimensions in geometry is very well known and it does not need to be
illustrated. What needs to be investigated is why we talk about physical space with more than three dimensions.
Among the first responsible for this is Minkowski, who, with Einstein, introduced the term "four-dimensional"
to indicate the real space-time.
It is true that those authors were concerned with specifying that the three spatial variables x, y, and z and the
temporal variable t could be fused but not confused, but this has not prevented how the most famous texts still
linger to illustrate the events of the bianimale.
The idea of the geometric representation that Minkowski has given to the Special Relativity arises from
observing Lorentz's transformation that operates in a similar way on the coordinates x, y, z and on time t; from
which the opportunity to interpret mechanical phenomena, rather than in ordinary space, in a four-dimensional
approach in which time functions as a fourth coorordinated. However, since in space-time it does not happen at
all that to a three-dimensional being presents the problem of understanding the fourth spatial dimension, its
completely out of place, in this context , consider the bianimale not having the possibility of conceiving the
third dimension, and that is because in the real space-time, the spatial dimensions are three and should not be
confused with the temporal dimension that has a similar character to spatial ones only in the geometric
representation: in reality space and time cannot and should not be confused.
It is known, in rational mechanics, that inertia's ellipsoid is a geometric representation of moments of inertia,
but it is only an interpretation: insisting on the bianimale events aforementioned is equivalent to believing that
the ellipsoid of inertia, instead of being a mere geometric interpretation of moments of inertia, “we enmeshed".
A convenient proposal could be that of not using the term "four-dimension" when referring to the real world: it
will be granted to me that this suppression saves conceptual obscurity and unnecessary efforts for those who
enter the quicksand of relativity.
About the Minkowski diagram, Straneo reveals that «soon we forgot the original diagrammatic and was almost
generally attributed an absurd realty to this rappresentation … the hypothetical continuous became a
simple four-dimensional space ". But to the enigma of the “spatial fourth dimension” we
associated it with the curvature of space and time.

Curvature of space and time

To explain this "mystery" as wee, known authors have recursed to similar approaches to the
previous ones. As a plane curves into a three-dimensional space, it's explained, that a three-dimensional space
"curves" into the fourth dimension. But not only space "curves", but also time!
What a "curved time" means, no one knows, nor will never know, except perhaps, the authors, the critics and
the merchants of 99 percent of abstract paintings.
Here too lets impose the strict distinction, recommended by Veronese, between geometric representation and
reality. Until we remain in the interpretative field offered to us by analytic geometry, space-time can assume the
suggestive aspect of a cone (Minkowski), a cylinder (Einstein) or a hyperboloid (De Sitter).

DIAGRAMMA DA AGGIUNGERE

To allow tracking of Einstein's chronotope (fig.1) the spatial coordinates are reduced to two
(circumference) since the third coordinate is time. In De Sitter's Universe representation (fig.2), the third
coordinate, being the expanding space, is curved. As you can see it is not the "curvature" or "flatness" of time,
but simply its geometric representation, which is sensibly much more understandable.
As for the “curved space” it is necessary to distinguish: 1) the geometrical space, which is flat if the
Pythagorean theorem is valid (Euclidean geometry); curved if, on the other hand, the Pythagorean reaction is
not valid (non-Euclidean geometries); 2) the physical space, which is defined: flat, if admitting the hypothesis
of straight propagation of electromagnetic waves, for the description of natural phenomena, Euclidean
geometry is applied; curved if, admitting a curvilinear propagation of light, for the description of natural
phenomena, non-Euclidean geometry is applied.
Newtonian space is flat because the trajectory of light, supposed straight (in a Euclidean sense), requires the
application of Euclidean geometry; Einstein's space from general relativity is curved because the
electromagnetic gravitational waves undergo the action of the gravitational field and therefore the geodesic
traveled by light, being non-Euclidean, requires the application of a non-Euclidean geometry.
So, depending on the physical theories adopted to explain nature's phenomeons, we apply a type or another of
geometry: its the type of geometry we apply that makes us define physical space as a plane or curved (in
Euclidean sense), which is the array of material bodies and of energy fields that constitute the space.
It makes no sense therefore to consider the curvature as an intrinsic characteristic of physical space. To say that
"space or time or space-time is curved ", and worst,"curves " its an expression which should be abandoned to
the advantage of rigore, precision and clarity.

Reality or appearance of the phenomena predicted by relativistic theories

The problem perhaps most discussed, linked to the transformation of Lorentz, is that of variation
in lengths, duration and of the mass of the body as a function of its motion.
These are real or apparent phenomenons? First of all, we must specify what we mean by real and what we mean
by apparent.
If an observer K sees before him a regolo travelling with uniform rectilinear motion at a velocity, with respect
to him, comparable to that of light and proceeds to measure its length, the result of the measurement carried out
(with only optical means) differs from a similar measurement carried out (with tactile means) from a different
observer K', solidly with the regolo and precisely the length l obtained by the first observer will be inferior than
the length l' detected by the second.
We will have, based on the Lorentz's transformation.

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

where v is the speed of the regolo and c the velocity of light. To the observer K the regolo appears shortened.
What does this mean? It means that the length measured by K' travelling solidly with the regolo, is true: K
detects a shortening of this true width, which means he detects an apparent length.
This is the crux of the matter and so was considered by Enrico Fermi, Straneo, Castelnuovo and from many
other scientists: this has not prevented and does not prevent however to discuss this problem that the same
invertibility of Lorentz's equations protects from any doubt. Indeed, if it was K' to judge the length of a regolo
identical to the first but now solidale with K, it would be K' to detect for this regolo a shorter length than the
one detected by K.
From this it follows that the travelling regolo with a uniform rectilinear motion in a supposed pseudo-Euclidean
space (with the only physical use of light) as empty as Euclidean space, the regolo really does not shorten at all,
it doen not undergo any contraction inherent to its molecular structure, as erroneously thought at first Lorentz
himself, then changing his mind in a definitive way.
It is therefore concluded that the true length is the one measured mainly with the intervention of touch (tactile
space), while the apparent length is the one measured with the intervention only of sight (optical space). I will
omit a similar reasoning to be done for the "dilation" of time, a phenomenon purely apparent.
These fundamental notions and findings must be always kept in mind when considering events from a
relativistic point of view, with the use, that is, of founded transformations on the group theory, such as Lorentz
transformation on Special Relativity and other relativistic transformations, including in particular, Fantappie's
on Final Relativity, developed by Giuseppe Arcidiacono.
The journey imagined by a distinguished physicist, P. Langevin, is famous; he supposed that one of two young
twins travelled with fantastic velocity from Earth, pushing himself up to a distant star and returned with the
same inverted velocity on Earth to stop there.
Assuming the translation velocity v sufficiently high (next to that of light) the twin who had travelled would
have returned still a child, while the other twin that remained constantly on Earth, should have been grown old!
That this is just an absurd paradox is proven by the fact that by the invertibility of Lorentz's transformations, its
the travelling twin that on his return would find still young the twin that had remained on Earth.
We must add the serious circumstance about the unlawful use of lorentz's formulas that only provide for
uniform rectilinear motions (otherwise the transformation would not leave it unchanged even the form of the
law of motion), while the travelling twin, reversing the route for the return, is animated by an accelerated
motion.
The problem of reality or appearance of phenomena in the Theory of Special Relativity should be considered in
a similar way in the other relativistic theories based on group theory, in particular in Final Relativity.
The unification of the electric field and of the hydrodynamic field has an apparent and not real character,
because it depends on the distance from the observer. «it must happen, writes Arcidiacono, that a purely
hydrodynamic phenomenon, which occurs on a distant galaxy, will appear, due to the distance, of magneto-
hydrodynamic nature. At small distances from the observer ...the electromagnetic field and the hydrodynamic
field resul independent of each other. At long distances instead ... the two fields come to merge intimately,
through the constant universal r, in a single magneto-dynamic field ».
If a conductive fluid (eg, mercury) or a ionized gas (plasma) are immersed in a magnetic field, a coupling
between electromagentic field and hydrodynamic field is born, in the sense that a hydrodynamic motion gives
rise to electric currents, which, in turn, generate actions that will alter the motion of the fluid.
If, although , the hydrodynamic field and the electromagnetic field are independent from each other (the first,
that is, not immersed in the other) and yet to a distant observer the phenomenon presents as magneto-
hydrodynamic, it is evident that it is not a real phenomenon, but only an apparent phenomenon.
This clarification around the problem of reality or appearance of the phenomena predicted by the relativistic
theories developed by the theory of groups scheme of rigid movements, highlights the fundamental character of
these theories, which is the fact that their genesis is linked purely to mathematical needs, as Arcidiacono warns
regarding Fantapptiè's Relativity and as Straneo warns (1, page 81) regarding Special Relativity.

It is in fact known that, to write a transformation that he gave reason of the experimental results
obtained by Michelson-Morley, Poincare, wanting to get a transformation that was not just an approximation
like the one Lorentz had found, but wanted it to be exact, he used the mathematical theory of groups, based on
which he could strictly demonstrate that the only transformations that would leave invaried the shape from
optical laws, were given from certain equations where size would be figured and determine based on some
particular condition the problem that was given. In the search for a uniform transformation law, that would
leave unchanged the form of the fundamental electromagnetic laws, the aforementioned equations are applied
to the experimental case of Michelson-Morley, and equalizing the results can be used to determine the
numerical value of the constant.

Setting FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE, with v = translational velocity of the

system in any case is found for c the value of the velocity of light.
So the costant c was born from a mathematical need to give reason for some phenomenons.
Whether it is about theories that associate to the simplicity of mathematical formulas a structure of the world
much simpler and schematic than the real one is also proven by the fact that, for example, while the value is
unsurpassable in Special Relativity, in Final Relativity the velocity of light is no longer a speed limit, while th
new limit of r/c is presented.
All this does not mean that the transformations of Special Relativity, within the limits of their
validity field, represent a very valuable tool in science: the modern gigantic machines , which are used in
nuclear physics laboratories for the purpose of high-energy particles (synchrotons, betatrons, etc.) production,
must be designed, so that they can function, based precisely on the laws of Special Relativity; and we can very
likely expect very useful applications from the reports of the other theories based on group theory as well.

But when we pass from the effects predicted by the mentioned relativists relations to an objective
structural vision of the real universe (cosmology), then we must abandon the abstraction from the relativistic
theories of a space-time with constant curvature based on the theory of groups of rigid movements (roto-
translations), to introduce into our equations data of the real space, which has variable curvature: this is what
Einstein did in his General Relativity theory, where the considered space is the real space, at least in a first
approximation, that is, a gravitational space.
“The gravitational field by Einstein deforms my rigid regoli ". In the Endospherical Theory we consider a
space, which is even closer approximation to the real one: it is other that gravitational, also electric. The
variable curvature (with the consequent non rigid motions) of the General Relativity universe is tighted to the
presence of matter , just like the curvature of the Endospherical Universe is tighted not only to the presence of
matter ( gravitational actions), but also to the presence of the sources of an universal electric field.

We must specify the significant difference between Einstein's curvatures and the those in the
Endospherical theory's: the first are neglectable, being linked to the gravitational field only, while the seconds
are linked to both the gravitational field and the electromagnetico field; the first have a radius of curvature of
billions of Euclidean kilometers (the limit of the Universe is approximated to a flat plane) while the other have
a radius of curvature not more than 6370 Euclidean kilometers (the terrestrial radius).
 Chapter V

"RELATIVISM" AND EARTH'S “PRIVILEGED” PLACE

“Relativism”

An objection that has been raised against the Endospherical Theory is the following: the
hypothesis of the curvilinear propagation of light (field theory) can be done, other than by the terrestrial
observer, also by an observer from any other planet, for example, from Mars. He too could represent to be in an
endospherical universe, of which the concave surface of Mars would constitute the side dish.
It is absurd, therefore, to think that the cosmocentric universe is real, because otherwise they would have equal
rights to be considered real the different universes observed and, like that, interpreted by the observers of the
various planets. It is therefore about pure abstractions, of pure mathematical structures, which can not respond
to our physical reality!
So far this is the objection.
We will immediately observe that the hypothesis of the existence of an inhabitant on the outer convex surface
of Mars is made in analogy with the inhabitant on the supposed convex terrestrial surface; in other words, the
hypothesis that Mars is inhabited immediately implies a second, which is the hypothesis that the surface of
Mars is inhabited externally or internally. The first hypothesis is mae by analogy with Earth, whether concave
or convex; the second hypothesis, which it implies, is double the analogy: if we suppose that the surface of
Mars is inhabited externally, it is done by analogy with the convex surface of Earth of the classic system; if it is
supposed instead that the surface of Mars is internally inhabited, this is done by analogy with earth's concave
surface of the cosmocentric system.

The above objection therefore implies the following circumstance: the objector starts from the
implied statement of inhabiting a convex surface of Earth, from the affirmation, that is, that the system of the
Universe is the traditional one and therefore it concludes that the hypothesis of the curvilinear propagation of
light is a pure hypothesis to which a real physical law can not correspond, even if it satisfies a coherent
mathematical structure of the Universe.
It follows from this that such a hypothesis of a curvilinear propagation of light can be formulated, and only as a
mere intellectual exercise, even by an observer located on the external convex surface of Mars.
The objection in question, is therefore spoiled by a prejudice, that which the Universe has certainly the
traditional structure: briefly, its objected to the cosmocentric system supporter that the Universe is not
cosmocentric, but Copernican.
So this is not a real objection, because follows from the assertion that the true system of the world is the
classical one: to be a real objection, the argument raised should be independent of any concept of the universe,
be it Copernican or cosmocentric, so as to show that an argumentation by itself carries to affirm the validity of
one or the other of the two systems. Instead it is pretended to proceed in the exact opposite direction: in fact,
with this objection leads to a convalidation of one of the two systems, but one of the two systems, prejudicially
stated as the only real, and leads to the objection!
Then follows the obvious admission that the supposed observer located on a "certainly" convex terrestrial
surface can represent himself in an endospherical universe but certainly abstract, certainly not corresponding to
the real world; it's the same thing can be done by the hypothetical inhabitant of Mars, situated by analogy with
earth's surface, on the outer surface of that planet.
Both observers, the terrestrial and the Martian, could do the same thing and say: I'm located with certainty on
the convex surface of my world, but I can build abstract structures, mathematically valid, certainly not
corresponding to the reality, although they do allow me to configure in my fantasy a hypothetical enclosed
universe by hypothetical concave walls of the surface on which I stand.
To the hypothesis of the inhabitability of Mars by analogy with Earth's surface can be associated another
hypothesis, which is that of the Martian observer, again by analogy with the terrestrial surface, not already on
the external surface, convex, of his globe, but rather on the inner, concave surface, when we start considering
the Endospherical Theory of the Uni verse.
The objection posed at the beginning is spoiled by the fact that there are two opposite hypotheses mixed: the
Copernican hypothesis and the cosmocentric hypothesis.
. Its not warned in the objection that it is tautological to starte that the Copernican system leads
to the ... Copernican system. The preliminary prejudice rules out that how cosmocentric universe hypothesis
could correspond to reality and therefore the objection that is believed to oppose to the cosmocentric system is
pleonastic, superfluous, because the prejudice that the universe is certainly not cosmocentric, precedes the
objection itself.
In this objection, only the Copernican hypothesis is considered: the two hypotheses are not impartially
compared.
The hypothesis of a rectilinear propagation of light leads to the assertion that living beings inhabit the outer
surface of both Earth and Mars (admitting the habitability of this planet ).
The hypothesis of a curvilinear propagation of light (theory of the field) made by the terrestrial observer, leads
to assert that living beings inhabit the internal surface of both the Earth and Mars (admitting however the
habitability of this planet ). The analogy with Earth (and not the observer), which lead the scientist to make the
hypothesis of the habitability of Mars, must be conducted to the end, without mixing the two opposed
hypothesis.
The terrestrial and Martian observers are both ether external or internal to the surface of their world and this is
because the only reason that led to the hypothesis of the habitability of the planets is the analogy with earth's
surface. No-one ever observed any inhabitant on the surface of the planets: these are only analogical guesses.
The objection then placed at the beginning, has no foundation, because, as Poincarè said, "there is no paradox
that can not be proved when mixing two opposed affirmations (or hypothesis) in the premises of the
demonstration.
Whether it is cosmocentric or not, it must be decided by the consequences of what such admission implies.
If hypothesis of the Endospheric Universe involves the explanation of all the observed facts already explained
by the old theory, as well as the explanation to even just one weak point of the old concept, then the hypothesis
is more valid than the old one, this structure of the Universe is more valid (more true) than the traditional
structure of the universe.
Admitting the greater validity of the Endospheris universe, supposing an "external" Martian observer would
mean formulating a hypothesis not supported by the analogy, a hypothesis completely arbitrary, without any
foundation whatsoever even purely theoretical.
We must although add a further consideration. When the Relativity theory appeared, a violent opposition rose
against it.
Men of science, even very well known, launched anathemas against Einstein. Vincenzo Cerull, then President
of the Astronomical Society, spoke of a "degenerative crisis" occurring in the scientific field.
Michele La Rosa wrote: "we feel an exhausting sense of being lost, in a deep and acute discomfort, which
comes from the feeling of our bases of our reasoning not being stable." Then things changed. The objections to
the Einstein's ideas revealded to be more psychological than rational: to understand relativist ideas, it was
necessary to change a certain traditional way of thinking. Once the traditional thought attitude changed in many
scientists, Relativity stood out triumphant.
Then, as often happens, we went too over, and what was not said by Relativity, was made into what Relativity
said and new absurd “interpretations” were born, like the amiable story of the twins of a physicist, as eminent
as Langevin was.
"Relativism" was born, a disordered attitude in the shadow of a theory that has already a huge reach, in both the
scientific and the speculative field.
History offers us many examples of these "schools" born on the trail of great masters: "schools" that often
distort the high context of the original doctrine. “Relativism” spreads!
The terms and conditions under which its legit to talk about relativity are not respected, and ameni but
worthless paradoxes arise, interpretations and argumentations apparently suggestive, but without rigore in their
premises.
Relativity teaches that for an observer located on a train in motion, the images of the places which he passes ,
are identical to those he would contemplate as if it was the places to to move and he stood still. By omitting,
now very important considerations, around the meaning of motion and quiet, it does not seem that one can
doubt that its the train moving an not the landscape! Lorentz's relationships are of the highest interest and of
great fertility, as we all know, but we cannot get “relativism" sick,falling from the dalla padella alla brace!

The "privileged" role of the Earth

A second objection to the Endosphere theory was formulated by a famous French scientist in a
letter, sent to me from Paris on January 20, 1961, which reads: «The geoperiferism of the Theory restores a
privileged role to Earth and this is the reason I do not agree with the theory ".
The critical argumentations to this second objection are similar to those in the previous objection.
Here too, the objection leads to validate one of the two systems, but one of the two systems, prejudicly stated as
the only valid one, leads to the objection. By starting from the Copernican System we can eventually talk about
earth's privileged role, by admitting that Earth is a "planet" then we cant justify its privileged role in respect to
the “other” planets.
If the Earth were a planet, if the system was Copernican, perhaps it would not be justified to give Earth a
privileged role.
But what does it mean for our objector to attribute to Earth a privileged role?
It means to be referring to the «role» of Earth of being a place in the Universe, that is, referring to the
Cosmocentric system in which Earth is not a planet and therefore it makes no sense to talk about a privileged
role.
We return mixing up two opposite hypotheses, which are resolved in a contradiction. In this objection as well
we start from the Copernican system to reach the ... Copernican system: pure tautology.
If we can speak about privilege, it's by analysing the classic system itself.
In it, among all the paths attribuated to light waves, we must admit the most singular path, is the rectilinear one.
Between all infinite lines, the straight line is the most particular case, its the exception, the behavior that clearly
distinguishes it from all the other lines; the straight line is privileged among all the possible and thinkable lines
for its very particular character, which does not have anything in common with all the other lines: its the the
only line that has an infinite radius of curvature in every point.
That the real universe is dominated by a law of propagation of electromagnetic waves so singular, "privileged",
its less likely than the opposite hypothesis, which would be the hypothesis were, obeying a certain law, light
rays assume at every point and for each direction different curvatures, curvatures which values range from zero
to infinity.
There is no reason to link the propagation of light to a geometric law so singular as that of the straight
Euclidean line: Euclidean geometry, in the new concept of the world, does not have that privileged role any
more as it does in the classical concept.

Another singularity or "privilege" that we find, is in the rigid motions to which bodies are
subjected to in the classical system. Of all the possible laws, to which moving bodies can be subject to, from
those which imply slight deformations to those that imply sensitive deformations, the law of rigid motion is a
case on the limit, a privileged case. Nature is not likely to be subjectednto laws of such singularity, but rather to
more general laws. If we want to talk about privileged roles, then its by analysing the classical system, where
they must be admitted, as a necessary consequence of the structure of this system it self, rigid motions (of the
bodies) and rectilinear paths (of light).
 Chapter VI

SPACE JOURNEYS - INERTIA

An observation is usually made by those who come across with the new theory: «Based on
calculations according to the classical theory, the space probes go just where and how they need to go, returning
where and how they need to return ".
Lets n ow consider that from the American and Russian satellite experiments some important data has emerged:
a) The space between planed can not be considered empty, as Newton supposed. The concentrations of the
electrons emitted by the sun lead to consider a greater extension of the solar corona; these electrons must
possess energy that corresponds to very high temperatures. interplanatary gas is a part of the solar atmosphere,
which is much more than what was first assumed.
b) At a distance of over 5 terrestrial rays the magnetometers of the different satellites have recorded some
systematic differences in themagnetic field from the data calculated according to the theoretical magnetic field.
In this field, particularly impressive results were recorded by the Pioneer V launched on 6 March 1960, which it
reached a distance of 5 million kilometers.
These observations seem to confirm the existence of magnetized plasma clouds emitted by the Sun and
travelling through space producing on its arrival on Earth magnetic storms and other geophysical effects.
In a statement released by Tass, the Soviet astronautics expert Sternfeld on 21 April 1959 announced that the
Lunik III had relived some details in its movement that contrasted Newtonian Celestial Mechanics laws. The
various condensations of space energies caused velocity falls to Vanguard I, to Sputnik III and to other
satellites.
All this offers justified reasons for criticizing the current Theory of the Universe: Newton's law presupposes
empty space, while the latest experiments lead to exclude emptiness. Speaking of «emptiness» Louis de Broglie
(Journal de Phisique, dec. 1959) affirmed: «Emptiness seems to us quite paradoxical endowed with important
physical properties. M. Bohm calculated a formidable amount of energy, 10 to the power of 27 joules per
centimeter cubed".
As for the temporal coincidence of rockets round trip, the agreement with the calculations made was not, as
many think, exact.
In 1959 the Russians launched the Lunik II, which landed on Sea of Serenity on September 12, 1979. A trip of
381,203 kilometers took the airship 83 seconds more than expected. Using easy calculations, we get an average
speed of about 3 kilometers per second. Multiplying 3 by 83 we get 249 kilometers of delay compared to
calculations made at the table.
About the affirmed precise concordance therefore, between the forecasts obtained with classic calculations and
the actual measurements we must surrender to the fact that this precise agreement has not been verified. On the
other hand, consider that often the calculated time and the actual time of train trips do not coincide. But the
argument is not limited to this.
Classic space is considered uniform while the endospheric space (electromagnetic field) is not uniform.
Regarding the durations of the space trips, it is necessary to keep in mind that bodies moving towards the sky in
the endospheric space are subject to a growing intensification of the universal magnetic field, which, by
opposing an increasing resistance, stops, delays motion as well as the occurrence of expansion and contraction
phenomenons.
Einstein used to say; "The field deforms my rigid regoli." The velocity therefore varies without this being felt
on land, nor from travellers, nor it is easy (if not impossible) to calculate the amount of such delays; however
such slowdowns partly compensate and balance the duration calculations, made assuming a uniform space,
because of equivalency (equal mass) between the endospheric and the exospheric space.
The more you go up in the direction of the cosmic space, the more increases the concentration of energy.
The constantly increasing endospheric densities correspond in the classic space to almost null density. From a
space on average almost empty (Lammel, Eddington) and lacking of any features (curvature) we go to the
natural space of variable curvatures; in any field of nature the straight geometric line (a dimension) is not ever
observed.
The two physical systems, connectable by unexceptionable geometric transformations have the same mass, but
the one has an infinite extension and enormously rarefied matter, the other an immense power and spatial
concentration tending to infinity.
Another consideration about inertia. It is stated that spaceships follow many inertial, that is without
acceleration. In the new system there cant be inertia in the classical sense. Already the famous Faraday in 1837
gave a new address to the studies of electrical phenomena that occur in the middle (either empty or dielectric)
attributing to the lines of force (“tubes of force”) that are in the middle, a real existence and not a simple value
of a geometric representation of the field.
To Newtonian inertia corresponds an endospheric "inertia" that the spaceship follows by the nature of the
electromagnetic space, covering the curved lines of the same magnetic spectrum (lines of force that are formed,
for example, in iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper and placed above two poles of a magnate). As for the
joined points (see chapter I) of departure and arrival on earth of the probes, they are the same with the same
directions in the two concepts of the world, given the isogonality of the geometric transformation, that is, the
angle is the same in the two systems with respect to the ground both in departure and arrival on earth; the probe
goes just were it needs to go an comes back where it must return (Table XI).
 Chapter VII

THE LAW OF ENERGY CONSERVATION - GROUND DEPTH - SPATIAL CURVATURES

The law of Energy Conservation states that, in no process, energy is created or destroyed,
keeping the total energy unchanged (Mayer, Helmholtz, 1847).
The lines of force in the field of a magnetic induction produced by a magnet are directed from the north pole
(N) to the south pole (S) external to the magnet, and from the South pole (S) to the North pole (N) internally.
In the Endospheric Theory, in the magnetic spectrum, at the N pole we have the Sun and at the S pole we have
the Stellar Center.
The universal energies go from the Sun to the Stellar Center conjugated by a magnet (externally) and continue
to the Stellar center to the Sun (internally). Energy circulates and this explains the «eternity» of solar energy
independent of any eventual nuclear fusions within the Sun. we have a circulation of energy without any
dispersion and without any need of recovery phenomenons.
In violation of the aforementioned law of the conservation of energy, in the classical system the energies start
from the Sun and the Stars and disperse indefinitely.
Then in Einstein's system, the Universe presents a curvature, even though it is small; infinite and unlimited
space of Newtonian cosmology is replaced by a space that is still unlimited, but finite, in the sense that, starting
towards a direction we return to the starting point.
Eddington defines the classical space as "empty" by noting that we have on average a Star every 20 parsec, and
one parsec is 30 thousand billions of kilometers in length.
So the radius of curvature of Einstein's universe has a length of trillions of trillions of kilometers, while the
radius of curvature of each of the lines of force of the electromagnetic space (Endosphere theory), that
permeates the universal space, has a maximum length in euclidean terms of 6370 km (terrestrial radius) which
is a curvature K = 1 / r enormously more than that of Einstein's Universe.
If we consider the time that the energy of a line of force takes to return to the starting point, the duration is of
trillions of years, that is almost infinite; the law of energy conservation of appears to be unlikely, this law is
instead fully respected in the Endospheric Universe where energy in eternal circulation has a sharp contrast
with the huge dispersal of energy from the sun's, the stars and the galaxies in the classic system.
As we can be seen in the design of the magnetic field produced by a magnet, a field which, when enormously
enlarged, is just the universal space, the energies go from the Sun N to the Stellar S center (externally) and
continue from the Stellar S center to the Sun N (internally).
In Einstein's system, the return to starting point with a physical reason is not explained as it is in the
Endospheric System, nor is the dispersion to the infinite of universal energy. With this consideration it can be
said that in the new system the circulation of Universal energy, is in harmony with the mentioned law of energy
conservation and has an incontrovertible physical basis.
As for the greatness in the new universe, it is necessary to dwell on the word greatness.
For example, if we show a farmer an orange and we ask him if its bigger the peel or the seed, he will say that
the peel is bigger. But if we consider the seed in its power, in its genetic content of innumerable plants of
oranges, then it is necessary to accept that the seed is enormously bigger than the peel.
It is a matter of distinguishing in the word "greatness" the meaning of extension or that of power.
In the Endospheric Theory, the Stellar Center has an infinite greatness. The act and power of Aristotle return:
the infinitely great potential coincides with the infinitely small extension.
If we refer to the center of the Universe, we can see it in his geometric representation of Tav. XV, where the
arrows pointing outwards indicate Earth as "smaller" than the Sular-stellar center, where all the energy of the
Universe is concentrated. We are used to a geometric concept, that is abstract, of space, so it is unusual to see a
much smaller center, but potentially enormously large.
We can not therefore use the compass to look for the center of Earth, which surrounds the universal space. We
have walk away from the geometry that is used in the “uniform” space which does compete it, and therefore can
not be used for the concentrated, non-uniform space of the Endospheric Universe.
The Center of the Uni verse is a bipolar field Solar-stellar center where the sun and Stellar Center are,
compared to the classic, relatively usual concept, relativitly close, but loses significance in the new concept of
space the usual idea of geometric distance.
The geometric figure needs to be interpreted. We go back to the idea of size of the seed with respect to the peel.
Observing terrestrial stratus, those that have been reached so far, we could think that we can proceed in depth
towards increasingly greater densities, when in the Endospheric Theory the contrary is affirmed, because energy
and vital densities are considered.
The greater the density, in this sense, meets hand by hand as we advance towards the Solar and Stellar Center,
in which enormous quantities of physical and vital energies are concentrated, as it happenes for example in the
seed of an orange, where we see in the physical and vital principles, harbingers of many plants, magnitude
enormously larger than the size of the peel: inside the seed, sprout like the human embryo, those physical and
vital energies that give rise to the prodigious phenomenon of life.
The Universe is a living organism where we find the power and act of Aristotle: infinitely small in extension
coincides with infinitely large in power.

Magnetic field produced by a magnet (Magnetic field of a magnet): the lines of force of the
field in magnetic induction produced by a magnet are directed from the north pole (N) to the south (S)
externally to the magnet and from S pole to N. pole internally. In correspondence with the polar expansions, the
field is very intense.

IMMAGINE DA AGGIUNGERE
 Chapter VIII

THE SUN, DATOR OF LIFE

Solar energy and its conservation

The Endospheric Theory allows to solve the problem of the constancy of universal energy, in
constant circulation: the the problem of energy emanating from the universal center and that disperses almost to
the infinite in the old system, it is resolved.
Using the piroeliometer the amount of energy was calculated (solar constant) which reaches in the first minute a
cm 2 of the surface area at right angles to sun rays and just a little outside the earth's atmosphere: a quantity of
heat equivalent to 1,937 calories-grams was obtained.
The sun emits every second energy of over 100 billion of billions of kilowatt per hour, according to the classic
system.
The energy flow that the sun radiates in a year amounts to 2.88 x 10 to the power of 33 calories-grams. "Near
the center of the Sun, he writes Deutsch, at a temperature of 20 million degrees Celsius, the atomic nuclei
collide with such violence to transform into each other.
The most important of these processes produce nuclei of helium2 starting from hydrogen 1. They are the so-
called cycle of carbon and the proton-proton reaction.
Because of these thermonuclear reactions, 564 million of tons of hydrogen are transformed, every second, into
560 millions of tons of helium. Most of the 4 million of tons of helium that is dispersed every second, its
converted in radiant energy, and this flows, outside the glowing surface of the Sun, at the rate of half a million
of billions of billions of horse-steam ". Of this colossal quantity of energy the Copernican Earth receives a
small fraction, even less than two billionths; the planets receive a few dozen of miliardesimi "Where does the
irradiated energy from the sun migrate? writes Lammel. Only a very small fraction arrives on Earth and on the
other planets. Does energy really sinks into the infinite and unattainable nothingness?”
The problem of the solar energy source and its auto refuelling remains classically unsolved. For
Armellini as well, even referred to the Theory of Relativity, which for complexity reason, we will not develop
here. This dispersion of energy, which we have already dealt with, is in contrast with the great "law nature's
parsimony" as Maxwell called it
According to the endospheric theory, the energy of the universal magnetic field, like the lines of
force of the magnetically inducted field by a magnet, circulates externally and internally to the magnet
connecting the Sun and the Stellar Center: an incontrovertible solution.

The chlorophyll synthesis

This is what makes all the manifestations of life possible on earth, says Mezzetti, the continuous
refilling of solar energy, which is used by the chlorophyll synthesis.
Let us now proceed to a brief scientific description of this process.
When a body has the possibility of doing a job we say it has energy.
The master builder has energy in his muscles, the tense ark has energy in the elasticity of its fibers, the motor of
the car has energy in the fuel of its tank.
Energy is the ability to do a job, therefore energy is transformed into work and work turns into energy. For
position, we intend the height from the ground, which is the height in respect to a chosen altitude to considered
as a «zero altitude» reference.
The energy of position of a body depends on: the quantity of matter out of which its made, as in its mass, on the
so-called "gravity attraction” to which its subjected, on the height at which the body is located in relation to a
reference system. An example of a cycle of transformations of a certain quantity of energy into work is that of a
«roller coaster», a system that, like the pendulum, transforms the Energy of position into kinetic energy and
vice versa.
We see however that the perpetual motion is impossible. If we touch the wheels of the roller coaster we
discover that during a race, have heated up by the effect of friction. This in turn produces heat, which is thermic
energy.
For the same amount of energy of position lost by the weight,a certain amount of heat is always produced,
acquired by the water in which this weight is immersed. Joule got this result by measuring a certain quantity of
water in free fall, the rising of its temperature and the path travelled by the falling weight.
Also in the case of the pendulum or the roller coaster, energy of position of the trolley or of the rails is
transformed into kinetic energy which is transformed into heat, that is thermic energy due to the friction of the
air (pendulum) or the rails (trolley). Energy, like matter, is preserved: it is not created, nor it is destroyed but
transformed. The energy conservation principle can also be expressed in a closed system, that is without
relations with the outside, the sum of all forms of energy is kept costant.
A direct source of heat is the burning of wood, but it must exist inside the wood before combustion. Thermal
energy is released from the wood when it is transformed in ash (salts) and smoke, that is when its large organic
molecules are reduced to simpler molecules such as CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H20 (water). The large
molecules possess another form of energy: chemical energy. The wood-oxygen mixture has chemical energy.
The ash and carbon dioxide mixture, which results from combustion, has no oxygen and cannot burn or produce
heat.
One of the characters that distinguishes living beings is their possibility to "make an effort". A being is alive if it
can release energy by performing certain actions. Also the stones on a tower have energy, but they do not go up
there spontaneously and when they fall back to the ground, they remain inert.
The production of heat is a distinctive feature of life.
From his accurate measurements, Lavoisier observed that a mice and a lit candle (inside a closed
bell) consume the same quantity of oxygen producing the same quantity of heat, and came to the conclusion
that "breathing in" is a form of combustion, constituting a process perfectly similar to a burning candle, and
therefore the air that we breathe feeds the internal flame of life that keeps us heated »,
What is burned in the organism of an animal? Lavoisier answered: Foods. All foods are compound substances
that contain carbon and, burned in a laboratory, produce carbon dioxide and water, which are the same gases
produced by animal respiration.
Foods have chemical energy: with the rate of oxygen introduced with respiration, organisms transform this
chemical energy into heat and in work. Where does the chemical energy in food come from? Wood, sugar,
organic substances that let food grow, are produced by plants. With the roots, plants absorb water from the
soil;with the leaves they absorb carbon dioxide from air.
Starting from small molecules such as H20 and C02, green plants build the more complex molecules of organic
substances. From this manufacture or synthesis oxygen remains that is poured in the air. The small molecules
H20 and C02 dont have energy; the bigger organic molecules instead have chemical energy. The production of
oxygen takes place only when the plant is illuminated (in the dark it does not emit oxygen).
Light is also a source of energy; the sun is an immense source of energy, that in the form of light reaches Earth
through space. The cells of the leaves contain green granules of a substance called chlorophyll (in Greek cloros
= green). In the presence of light, chlorophyll favors the "dismantling" of small H20 and C02 molecules
recombining the C, O and H atoms into larger molecules of organic matter.
This process is of fundamental importance and takes the name of chlorophyll synthesis or photosynthesis: this
is the mechanism by which green plants produce organic substances that are necessary for all living beings.
But it is also the mechanism by which green plants store inside food the energy of the sun, transforming it into
chemical energy. The various forms of energy are transformed one in the other but are not created nor are
destroyed; in certain transformations, they produce mechanical work or muscular work.
In the chlorophyll synthesis the energy of the sun is plus carbon dioxide produce organic substances and oxygen
that have chemical energy.
In breathing, the organic substances plus oxygen have chemical energy that produces muscular energy, thermal
energy (heat) plus carbon dioxide, plus water.
This is the biological cycle.
What makes all the manifestations of life possible on Earth is the continuous supply of solar energy. This
energy gets transformed by the chlorophyll synthesis into chemical energy, which is then available for plants
and for the animal kingdom.
Therefore the continuous supply of energy necessary to life comes from the sun, which is experimentally and
scientifically the giver of life.

The universal balance

Not only the equilibrium and the constancy of unified energies occurs, but this happens in the
terrestrial nature as well. However we see a trend towards an imbalance: huge resources are being destroyed or
remain unused.
The wealth killed by the debauchery of vast sectors of society, which aim only at their material well-being, with
the result that more than half of human kind literally lacks bread. Science has provided formidable tools to
make life easier to large human masses, but politics holds immense exploiters in his hands, leaving humongous
amount of men and children abandoned to misery.
Is all this really unavoidable?
All of this is really a fatal disharmony?
The ancients looked to heaven as to the realm of felicity and harmony, just think of Pythagoras. It is overlooked
that the sky, with its superior harmony not only in its operation, but also in the supreme supply of energy, is the
giver of life. It is necessary to look to the sky to recompose the peace and harmony of the world. An example,
one of many, which is offered to our attention, is the destruction of boundless goods due to the individual's ego
and ravines of wars.

A relevant example is the existence of inexhaustible sources of the fertility of animal and human
waste that, instead of being used wisely for the fecundity of earth, are accumulated and rendered not only
unusable but harmful and polluting. Huge quantities of waste are thrown in the seas, rendered useless instead
of being used for fertility when the earth is always ready to provide with its unparalleled generosity. Humanity
limited to look at the sky for its significant symbols, in particular the Sun that comes to express itself in the
symbols of the church and in the tonsure of the priests, in the headdresses of other prelates, in the ostia, in the
ostensorio and in the head of the goddess Hathor from the Temple of Dendera. The Sun is there, always
generous, to enrich the messi, to show the wonderful nature in the eyes of humans, to give us the true wealth
that is life lived according to nature. We need to abandon the perverted imbalances and contemplate the
supreme example of harmony, offered to us from the sun.
 Chapter IX

DAY AND NIGHT AND THE SEISMICWAVES

Table XI illustrates the day and the night in the two systems. As the straight rays of the
exospheric sun illuminate only one hemisphere of the Convex earth, the curvilinear rays of the endospheric sun
illuminate only one hemisphere of the concave Earth.
The other hemisphere of the convex Earth is not illuminated because it is not reached by the sun's rays; just as it
happens in the other hemisphere of the concave Earth, which remains in the shade because the sun's rays fall
vertically at midday and gradually oblique until they touch the ground tangentially in the points corresponding
to 6 am and 6 pm; beyond these points they dont reach the ground anymore but they turn into space until they
reach the other source of the universal field, namely the Stellar Center.
On the side of the night, due to the curvature of the luminous radiations, we can observe a large area funnel-
shaped with curved walls (similar to a pseudo-spherical surface with a double conical point) that remains free
of sunlight: these radiations, which circulate into the higher space of the night side, explain the luminosity of
the night sky without clouds and without moon.
Table X illustrates the horizon system, that is the method to coordinate the celestial degrees with the degrees of
the arch/arc of the sky . The construction of an astronomical system of Eucledean space requires only one circle
or concave bow on the vault of the sky.
In the endospheric space we must instead employ two systems of degree, one connected to the observation
point and one connected to the Cosmic Center, from which the radial lines extend on to the surface of the
concave Earth. There are therefore celestial degrees and degrees on the arc facing the celestial surface.
The stars, located in the depths of the cosmic space appear projected, in their various points, onto the great vault
of the sky, which seems to be covering the world.
So for example, the small semi-circumference ABCD appears enlarged and extended in the semi-circumference
A'B'C'D ', whose degrees are the same as the minor concentric semi-circumference; so for example, if if the Sun
is placed in A appears to arise in A'; at 9 am will be in B but appears projected in B' ; C and C' are found on the
zenith.
Any object seen in space appears to be in the direction with which the rays enter the eye or the darkroom of a
camera.
In this way a star in point B appears to be in B' at a height 45 degrees above the horizon. This happens because
as the star is 45 degrees in the sky, sends its rays down wards and towards the outside, penetrating into the eye
of the observer under the same angle. Having as a fundamental line of observation a curvilinear tangent,
together with a complete and precise system, it coordinates the celestial degrees with the terrestrial degrees, and
we can apply such geometry to Mathematical Astronomy with the certainty of obtaining not only accurate
results but also correct.
The known phenomenon of seismic waves who's effects are felt at the antipodes (or anticefali) and almost none
at all in the middle zones. Suppose that the underground explosion occurs at point 12 (Table XI) with a
considerable amplitude of its effects not before 1 and no later than 11; within this space the lines of force of the
electromagnetic field pass and are reached by the lines of action of the explosion thats why these are felt at the
antipodes (or anticefali) around 12 (see in Table XI the circle passing through 11). Before and after the interval
1-11 pass lines of force with greater distances and therefore are not reached by the signals of the explosion felt
between 1 and 11.
 Chapter X

«REVOLUTION» AND «ROTATION» OF EARTH

- THE FOUCAULT PENDULUM -
IMMOBILITY OF THE EARTH

The motion of "revolution" of the Earth – with the aim to make evident the motion of
"revolution" of the Earth, many experiences were made. The one performed by Michelson and Morley,of which
Francesco Severi (6) observes; "Einstein's thought received the last decisive impulse to build the Theory of
Relativity due to the negative result of the famous Michelson and Morley 's experiment and has very little
importance, even more so when we examine the experiment itself, we can not discriminate the basic hypothesis
of Special Relativity from the opposite hypothesis, called ballistic, of the composition of the speed of light with
that of the source ".
Trouton and Noble proved with great accuracy the non existence of a rotary motion on an appropriately
suspended capacitor, which the classical theory of electrons would result a charge as a consequence of the
translator y motion of land. Orienting in an oblique direction, compared to that of the motion of Earth, a flat,
charged capacitor, according to the electron theory , one should observe a couple of forces tending to place the
surface of the condenser parallel to the motion of earth, which is not observed at all.
Trouton and Rankine set out to highlight the presumable change in electrical resistance of a conducting wire
oriented both parallel and in the direction of the movement of Earth. This experiment as well, like all the
previous ones, had a null result.
In Endospheric Theory makes no sense to propose the hypothesis of the "revolutionary" motion of Earth, the
negative results of all the experiments that should have proved such suppository "revolution” is completely
predictable.
The stable Earth is the frontier of the Universe.
The Sun, with the endospheric sky, revolves around the stellar center, it does not make closed circles, but a
spiral of about 180 rounds, at the two ends of this spiral we have the two solstices; at half-way the two
equinoxes (see Table VII).
The motion of "rotation" of Earth on itself - In my volume “the Problem of Space and the Conception of the
World”, published 25 years ago, on page 274, I referred to the relativity of motions that leads to think its the
inner sky that is rotating and Earth remains stable. To avoid further "shock" to the reader, I wanted to overlook
at this hypothesis, especially as I thought that the classic rotation didnt involve the fundamental nature of the
Endosfericity of the Universe.
The book came out with the admission of the classical rotation. But later on I had to change my mind: the
stability of the Earth and the rotation of the Sky not only became admissible, but could explain in addition, the
phenomenon of the down fall of mass towards the east as well as Foucault's pendulum oscillations.
Earth, in the Endospheric Theory, does not move: it is the inner Sky instead rotating from east to west.
With regards to the flattening of the earth at the poles, Einstein wrote: "As in the uniform movements there is
no way of knowing who's at rest and who's in motion, we can also affirm that in accelerated movements there is
no way to establishing who accelerating and who stands still.
In this way the principle of relativity is generalized.
It can be said then that the swelling of the equator is not caused by the rotation of the Earth on itself, but instead
the celestial sphere, rotating in accelerated motion with respect to the stationary ground, causing the equatorial
bulge.
 Free fall of masses towards east (Galileo) and the oscillations of the Foucault pendulum

If on a given day we look at the Sun and the Moon, we'll see, that at a given point in the sky the
Sun will come, followed by the Moon and if we look at the phenomenon the next day, we will see still the moon
come after the Sun but, compared to the previous day, its distance from the Sun has increased; the moon seems
to be left behind; its journey to the west is slower with respect to the same journey to the west of the Sun. This
remaining behind the Sun, determines the lunar phases.
In the new conception the entire internal Universe (with Earth remaining stable) rotates from East to West,
Moon and Sun as well; but the predicted phenomenon lets us see the Moon remain behind the Sun; the Moon
appears to move towards the east.
A similar phenomenon occurs in the free fall of mass towards east, where the vertical string in Galileo's
experiment has the role of the Sun and the mass the role of the Moon. The whole endospheric space rotates
from east to west, the vertical string and the mass, but the mass with respect to the thread stays back towards
east, which means it appears to be moving away from the vertical, animated by an Est -west motion a little
slower than the motion of the mentioned vertical, which is coherent with the universal space like the oscillation
plane of Foucault's pendulum.
 Chapter XI

BIG-BANG - PULSAR - QUASAR - WHITE AND BLACK HOLES - LAW OF HUBBLE

AND EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE - CRONOTOPE

In the hypothesis of a uniform cosmic space and, therefore, the hypothesis of the rectilinear
luminous radiations, classics astronomers have come to the so-called discoveries of new and extraordinary
stellar objects, such as “pulsars” (neutron stars formed of high-density matter and rotating on themselves at
high velocity), "Quasars" (found at the extremes limits of the cosmos that emit huge quantities of energy), and
gravitational Black Holes (in which matter becomes invisible); professor Giuseppe Arcidiacono writes about it:
“All this puts in for discussion the current laws of physics and requires new and more advanced theories
capable of explaining everything that is observed in the sky ".
Based on the hypothesis that a Star finishes its nuclear fuel, three possibilities can be presented
according to the function of its mass; if the star has a mass of less than 1,2 solar masses we have a "white
dwarf" with a density at the center of the order of one ton per cm cubed.
If the mass is between one-tenth and twice the mass the sun, its transformed into a "pulsar" or neutron star with
a density of at least 1 billion tons per cm cubed ( equal to the density of the atomic nucleus).
If the Star has a mass much higher than that of the sun, a gravitational collapse will occur the with the
consequent formation of a black hole.
Giuseppe Arcidiacono reports what Zichichi manifested: "if Black Holes exist ..." and because a physical law
must be law forever and for everything, and therefore for the entire Universe, if this undergoes a collapse and
disappears into void where do our physical laws end up? Arcidiacono asks.
The phenomenon of a gravitational collapse can occur at three levels: 1) on a cosmic scale, 2) for single stars or
galaxies; 3) at a micro physical level, meaning at Planck's wavelength of {10 to the power of -33 cm).
In the case 1) the collapse of the whole Uni verse is the process of the Black Hole, that is the inverse of the
White Hole of the great Big-Bang explosion. In the hypothesis of a cosmic evolution we have two possible
opposite processes, the process of "expansion" with a consequent dispersion of both matter and energy and the
process of contraction that produces a concentration of matter and energy.
These processes would occur at high velocity and would start the formation of White Holes with a sudden and
continuous “appearance of matter and energy from nothing ". In nature there would be three types of particles,
the bradoni with a velocity of sub-c (protons, electrons ...), the luxoni with a velocity of c (photons, neutrons ...)
and the tachioni with a velocity of hyper-c, like quasars.
Let us dwell now on the expansion of the universe and on Hubble's law.
The immense swarm of galaxies is not static, but in a continuous expansion: this phenomenon is the most
"disconcerting" discovery of the twentieth century and constitutes the point of discussion of the various
cosmological theories.
Through the Doppler effect, between 1912 and 1917, Slipher was able to calculate the radial
velocity of 15 galaxies and found that they were moving away from us at the velocity of several hundred
kilometers per second. In 1928 the comparison between Hubble's calculations of galactic distances and
Humason's calculations on spectral displacements lead to the discovery of the Hubble-Humason law, based on
which the velocity V of a galaxy, the entity of the shift towards red, was not accidental but was proportional to
its distance from us:

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

where factor o is the direct proportionality and called Hubble's constant or constant recession.
In 1957 the highest escape velocity registered was of 120 thousand km. per second, and that is 2/5 of the
velocity of the light. Hubble's law, writes professor Giuseppe Arcidiacono, "results established on solid
experimental bases ".
We can not share this conclusion: the whole argumentation that preceeds is not based on "experimental" bases
at all, becouse everything is based on the hypothesis and the conviction of the rectilinear light and spectral
radiation, which we have proved not to be acceptable.
No "solid" experimental basis, therefore, no "expansion" of the Universe" but rather a phenomenon of energy
concentration towards the Stellar Center. The interpretation of the red shift of spectral lines is only a hypothesis
based on the flat Euclidean space of the classical world.
Similarly, it can be said of the "observed" masses and of all the consequences that such "observations" imply.
In Chapter XII we will talk about Newton and his theory with acceptable consequences through a
reconstruction of the non Euclidean space of the Universe. The appearance of matter and energy "from nothing”
is absolutely inadmissible. The new space, as we will see, is not inertial.
The idea of the Big-Bang tends to describe the beginning and the end of the Universe reaching the singularity
of maximum expansion and then inverting its motion towards the other singularity, the maximum compression
(black hole). But does the Universe really have a beginning and an end? The law of conservation of energy
(Chap.VII) would exclude it.
The idea of the Big-Bang tends to describe the beginning and the end of the Universe reaching the singularity
of maximum expansion and then inverting its motion towards the other singularity, the maximum compression
(black hole). But does the Universe really have a beginning and an end? The law of conservation of energy
(Chap.VII) would exclude it.
In the prestigious volume “XX century cosmology” by Jacques Merleau - Ponty (II Saggiatore, Milan, 1974) its
written: “A certain disappointment is felt in finding that in cosmology itself we find the most disparate and
contradictory theories and that there is the most complete disagreement on fundamental points such as for
example in the question of the finite or infinite age of the Universe and the law of energy conservation”.

Space-Time or Chronotope

We find a contradiction when attributing reality or non-reality to space-time or to chronotope.

We need to refer to the words of the well-known physicist Percy Williams Bridgman on p. 16 of his “The logic
of modem physics” Einaudi edition: “Purely mathematical reasoning can never give physical results, and if
something physical comes out of mathematics, it must have been first introduced in another form”. A
mathematical formula by itself does not say anything.
Math is only logic.
Mathematical steps are subject to the laws of logic.
For example: ax+by+c=0 does not say anything, unless we first attribute to x and to y the value of a variable
and to a, b, c a constant value; now the predicted expression can mean a straight line or a plane depending on
the meaning we give to the variable and to the constants, and also if we refer to a geometric body in one or two
dimensions.
The Pythagorean relationship, characteristic of Euclidean space

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

can be extended to abstract hyperspaces with 4 or more dimensions using for example the space-
time invariant with a new coordinate independent of the other 3 and proportionate to time ct = x, with c being
the constant speed of light. The new 4-dimensional Euclidean invariant

(1)FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

to express the constancy of the speed of light, Einstein and Minkowski used the following
condition

( 2 ) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

 expressions that, by multiplying both members by c to the power of 2, can be written as

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

Einstein admitted the expression,

(3) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

where s is the distance squared of the space-time of two points; this new invariant differs from
the classic (1) beouse of the temporal interval sign squared, x 2/4. The two invariants (1) and (3) have a very
different meaning. The cancelling out of (1) says that: two events coincide (they happen in the same place and
at the same time), while the cancellation of (3) says that the two points not coincident can be joined by a ray of
light.

Let us dwell on the relation ct = X 4 and examine the contradiction inherent in (3). The x4
assumes only apparently a similar charater to the other 3 coordinates, characterized by spatial distances while to
x4 is attributed the character of a temporal interval, even if we interpreted as a distance because its produced by
a constant number “intended” as the constant velocity (of light) for a period of time.
(3) tends to make homogeneous spatial and temporal dimensions in spite the prefix that space and time are
fused but not confused. Space and time are measurements of different nature even if the mathematical formulas
by them selves do not specify this diversity.
These formulas have led to erroneous interpretations because space is obviously something else from time. It is
said: “Where there is space there, also time” and we end with Minkowski's fourth dimension. In the word "four-
dimensional" there is a serious error: by dimension we mean the estensional measurement of homogeneous
bodies, while in fact (3) is not constituted by homogeneous bodies having the first 3 terms with a spatial
meaning and the 4th term with a temporal meaning, even imposing the meaning of a space to the product of a
constant number c for t “justified” by the fact that this constant number is the numerical rate between the
measure of a space and the measure of a time, that is a value "considered constant" of the speed of light.
This velocity, a basis of the Special Relativity is contradict by the same supporters of Relativity itself , which
had to introduce the so-called 'multi-temporal Universes' in which increasing values of c: c, c ', c " are
considered... also to the tachyon particles an hyper-c velocity is attributed, which higher than the “insuperable”
c. The fact that “where there is space there is also time” does not modify this contradiction; there is not only
time where there is space, but also a temperature.
If a "four-dimension" could make sense, it is not seen why the time dimension has a privileged position with
respect to other dimensions of different nature: I would suggest the not to use four-dimensional term anymore.
Minkowski's diagrammatica can not be accepted within physical verification. There is the geometrical necessity
to identify in space-time a determined privileged time direction. Presuming a fundamental physical orientation
with a temporal variable establishes a limit to the recognition of time in the quality of a geometric entity since
there is a net contrast between irreversible orientation and substantial irreversibility of all spatial relations.
If space-time is not real, it is not possible understand why a mathematical representations is useful.
In fact, modern and large machines (betatrons, synchrotrons, ciclotrones, linear resonance
accelerations, etc.) that are used in laboratories to set their speed corresponding to high accelerating tensions,
would seem to constitute the confirmation of (3) in Special Relativity.
It is a "modus operandi": in other words the great accelerator machines only work if designed according to the
laws of relativity. In these laws, however, bear in mind that it is the reality of an irreversible time and that the
experiments are necessarily carried out along short periods of time.
There are reports of Special Relativity that can not be examined in the laboratory. Let us consider for example
the relativistic relation

FORMULE MATEMATICHE DA AGGIUNGER

where t and t' are the times calculated by two operators located on two regoli , one in motion
with respect to the other, c is the speed of the light, v the speed of one of the two movable with respect to the
other. When v assumes the value of c, the radical expression becomes zero, so the other member is also
nullified. This is what the mathematical formula (abstract) reads. Expressing reality is a different thing. Time
never stops!
Space-time or the relativistic chronotope is useful but not real element.

Chapter XII

COPERNICUS - KEPLER - NEWTON

The image of the Universe has been developed and modified over the centuries. Overlooking
past the primitive images, in the II century after Christ we have the geocentric system of Claudio Tolomeo . In
the XV century Niccolo Copernicus, Polish from Thorn (1473-1543) re-proposes the heliocentric system,
already proposed in the IV century AC by Aristarchus of Samos. In the XVI century almost contemporary,
come Galileo Galilei from Pisa (1564 - 1642) and Giovanni Kepler of Wiirtemberg (1571 - 1630). Galileo,
father of physics and modern natural sciences, founder of the experimental method, promotes Copernican ideas.
It was he who discovered the law of inertia and that of the free fall of mass in the gravitational field .

1) Kepler

Kepler discovers his three famous laws on the motion of planets. The ellipse required Kepler a
huge effort to emerge, from Mars motion's chaotic mass of data, which he had inherited from Tycho Brahe.
Kepler's task was the following: on the basis of Thyco's data, which is the simplest curve that includes them all?
In all the theories of Mars, Kepler's included, there was only one fire for each orbit. We have to distinguish
between Kepler's physical hipothesis, which is that Mars describes an ovular shape around the Sun, and its
mathematical hypothesis, which involved calculations with a perfect ellipse.

Kepler's decision to treat the observed Physical phenomena as approximations to mathematically

exact conceptions got transformed after him into a typical property of the scientific investigation Kepler had
initially identified the orbit of Mars in an oval with only one fire, and only after he tried unsuccessfully to find
the direct square of the ovular curve, noted that supposing an ellipse of the same oval eccentricity, its lunette
would have been little different from that out of a perfect ellipse: the defects of the upper part are compensated
almost exactly with the excesses of the lower part of the ovular shape Tav. VIII. Since ancient times, men have
imagined curves as responding to simple laws as far as possible: between them, near the straight line and the
circle, the ellipse and the hyperboloid. With Kepler we see these forms in the trajectories described by the
celestial bodies, at least, as Einstein writes, with great approximation.

2) Newton Isaac of Woolsthorpe

In 1642 Galileo died and Isaac Newton was born. Before Newton there was no well-defined
system of physical causality, able to grasp the deeper features of the experiential world. Kepler's laws explained
the motion of the planets around the Sun (elliptical shape of orbits, equal areas in equal times, relationship
between the semi axis and the duration of path), but these rules did not satisfy the necessary condition of
causality. They are three rules logically independent from each other, without any internal correlation; they
refer to their motion taken as a whole and not as to why and where the state of motion of a system in a given
model derives from the state of motion which comes immediately before.
They are integral laws but not differential laws.
The differential law is the only form that fully satisfies the necessary condition of causality of the modern
physicist. Having had the true conception of a differential law, as Einstein writes, is one of the greatest merits of
the genius Newton.
An effect was the observation that the cause of the movements of celestial bodies was identical to gravity..
However, they were three weak points in the Newtonian theory: absolute space, the introduction of direct
forces that act instantly at a distance, the absence of an explanation of the fact that weight and inertia of a body
are determined by the same size, the mass.

3) Maxwell James Clerk of Edinburgh

Newton's theory of motion, taken as the foundation of all theoretical physics, received its first
blow from Maxwell's theory of electricity. It is found that mutual actions exercised between electric and
magnetic bodies, are not determined by forces that act instantly at a distance, but from phenomena that are
transfered into space at a determined velocity.
To the material point and its motion, was added a physical element, the "field", a fundamental concept in the
first mechanical conceptions but then the “electromagnetic field” was understood as the last irreducible
keystone of physical reality.

4) Einstein Albert of Ulm

The three weak points of Newton's theory disappeared with the advent of the brilliant General
Relativity theory of Albert Einstein which implies a complex mathematical development, which can be read in
numerous treatises.

5) Validity of Keplero's and Newton's laws

In the endospheric concept we have the same mass quantity as it is considered in the exosphere
concept with the relevant circumstance that the mass of the Esospheric Universe averages a density enormously
smaller than that of the mass of the Endospheric Universe. Kepler and Newton saw the sky in the same way as
we all see it, obviously including the theorists of the Endosferic Universe.
We made the example of the flat mirror: the image that we see in the flat mirror is apparent. Among the real
objects(near) and virtual ones intercede the well-known Cartesian laws of reflection.
The reflected image of an object, has the same dimensions and the same shape as the object itself, but its
inverted. The geometric transformation technically leads to the same results: we see in the sky the images of the
celestial bodies but that are only virtual; in order to have the real images, the geometrical procedures we
developed and the analytical technique can be read on page 238 of the book “The problem of space and the
concept of of the world” n. 12. The sky is not a mirror, but its images can be assimilated to those reflected on a
mirror, with some important considerations: the space we see is not euclidean; it undergoes phenomena of
expansion and contraction, which is not perceived directly, because what we perceive is only the Euclidean
image of celestial objects. But the virtual Euclidean image can be passed through geometric and analytic to the
corresponding real images.
When Newton contemplated the sky, in his mind he was obviously imagining in his mind not the real images,
but the virtual ones of the celestial bodies, whose distances, masses and volumes had to be reconduced into
their real representation.

The transformation by reciprocal radii and the corresponding phenomena could only be
considered starting from the last century with the advent of Maxwell and other famous mathematicians and
physicist. The real masses as well as the real distances are obtained by applying to the virtual images the
geometric transformation. Therefore the Newtonian laws are still valid in the new concept, but this validity
occurs only after changing Newton's formulas with these transformations, both geometric and physical. The
phenomena of the Big-Bang of the expansion of the Universe, and the expansion-concentration of virtual zones.
The second law of dynamics

F = ma

is Newton's work, with this mathematical formula he expressed the concept of strength. The
constant ratio m between F and the acceleration a arises from Newton's ingenious intuition as well as from
experimentation.

When a body's acceleration is null, as it was supposed in the classic cosmic space, we have
inertia; in the new concept instead, the of the path of the objects launched into space dont ever have inertia
because of the nature of cosmic space itself, chap. VI.

Binet's dynamic formula, (known to Newton) says that the force a planet makes is given from

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

which expresses the radial acceleration multiplied by the mass m in the case of central motions
by means of geometrical elements of the trajectory. With mathematical developments that we will not report,
we got to this formula

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

from which Newton drew the famous formula of Universal Gravitation

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

I omit the complete technical development that leads to this formula limiting myself to give only
these few steps.
The validity of the Keplero's and Newton's laws in the endospheric concept comes from the fact that those laws
are based on a virtual phenomena, which translated into non-euclidean terms, provide us with the corresponding
real phenomena. The mass of the exospheric Cosmo is quantitatively equal to the mass of the endospheric
Cosmo. The mass of the exospheric distant bodies reaches a density with values billions of billions of times
smaller than the mass of air. Classically, they are considered flights of giant bodies with a density close to zero
and a velocity faster than light (quasar). These incredible values of density and speed are calculated, not
measured. The masses of the endospheric bodies reach very high densities with dilatation and contraction of
matter due to the nature of the universal field (TABLE X). In the classic concept we get to conceive "the
creation out of nothing"! In the new concept, the celestial phenomena instead are linked to the nature of the
universal space. This is one of the aspects that radically differentiate the two concepts.
I can not close this chapter on Copemico, Kepler and Newton before getting into to the exceptional personality
of Isaac Newton that emerged in the group of distinguished like Boyle, Halley and Hooke known for their work
on natural philosophy.

After spending some years at Cambridge, Newton got his first degree and a scholarship, and then
returned to his little propriety at Woolsthorpe where for the first time tried to understand the forces that regulate
and govern the movements of celestial bodies. From his first works on the gravitation problem around 1665-66
Newton preserved a moving memory: "I was then at the top of my creative force and I will never feel such a
passion for philosophy again". The fall of the apple, a simple act, brought that mind, made it more acute to
study, to meditate and to the many discoveries, to the elaboration of one of the most ample syntheses of the
history of science. Even that apple was subject to the same gravity force that opposes the flight of the most
daring birds. Why then its effect should not have been felt even much more distant, till the orbit of the Moon?
The Moon could have been considered as a terrestrial projectile launched horizontally with enough speed that
it would not fall back on Earth and push it even further. What was true for Earth and the Moon could be true
for the Sun and for the other planets as well. This argument had not been considered by Galileo. Newton then
began to calculate the attraction that kept the Moon and the planets in their respective orbit. Took as a starting
point Keplero's discovery that the planets revolve around the Sun in elliptical orbits. But for this reason their
movement generates centrifugal forces directed towards the outside of the ellipse. Huygens in 1659 had already
provided the mathematical expression of such forces relative to the simplest expression of circular movement,
but published it only in 1673 in his Horlogium oscillatorium. Newton calculated these forces and realized that
to hold the planets in their elliptical orbits around the Sun, other forces were needed, like centripetal forces
directed towards the inside of the ellipse, more precisely towards the Sun, and was able to give them a perfect
balance. But since he was not able to calculate the centrifugal force of the movement according to an ellipse, he
studied the simplified system of the circular orbit, and then calculated the centrifugal force that should have
kept the planet in its orbit, relying on Kepler's third law. He found that this force was inversely proportional to
the square of the distance from the planet to the Sun. New calculations allowed him to find that gravity was not
enough to determine exactly the central force necessary to compensate for the centrifugal force exerted on our
satellite by the rotation around earth, Newton temporarily left the calculations and began to devote again to the
study of light. Around 1671 the French astronomer Jean Picard measured the length of a meridian degree, a
work undertaken on the initiative of Louis XIV after the foundation of the Observatory in Paris in 1667. as he
got to know the results observed by Picard, that were discussed by the Royal Society in 1672, Newton returned
to Cambridge to redo his calculations. As he realized that he was about to reach a conclusion, his emotion came
to such a paroxysm that he had to ask one of his friends to finish them for him. This time the value of the force
that holds the Moon in its orbit was exactly determined: in fact if a stone could have been transported to sixty
terrestrial radius away from the Earth, it would fall into the same spot and with the same velocity of the Moon,
if this suddenly arrested in his race. Newton was convinced that it was only the gravity force to hold the Moon
in its orbit, even though there is already a single law of universal attraction. He did not have any evidence and
was dwelling on the importance of using puntiformi masses for Earth and Moon. However, it was about
deciding whether to calculate the distance between Earth and Moon starting from their respective centers or
their surfaces, or whether they should instead use another derived greatness.
In 1673 Newton's attention was attracted by Huygen's studies, who had formulated the laws of circular
movement. The expression of centrifugal force proposed by the great Dutch scientist was essential to solve the
problem of universal gravity. The knowledge of this expression and Kepler's third law, which describes the
proportionality between the squares of revolution time and the cubes of the great axes or the radius, in the case
of circular orbits, allow to draw the formula of the force, the law inversely proportional to the square of the
distance. The link between the force that cause objects to fall towards the center of Earth and the movements of
the Moon and of the planets needed to be certain.

Since 1666 Hooke had been presenting to the Royal Society a monography on the movement of
celestial bodies in which he expressed the idea of a force that attracted planets to the sun and the satellites to
their planet. Hooke pointed out that this force was not constant, but depended on the distance of the planet from
the Sun and, in the case of a satellite, on the distance from the planet; although he rralized that he was not able
to give the exact form of this law. Three years later, in 1670, Hooke made progress of capital importance in the
elaboration of his theory: for the first time he expressed the idea of a universal attraction; he wrote that the force
of attraction initially attributed to the Sun and to its planets, is not only for celestial bodies, but it was a
universal force not limited to unite bodies of the solar system, but it is also identified with gravity, that is with
heaviness it self. He announced a new system of the world, built up between assumptions, according to the laws
of mechanics: 1) its admitted first of all, that all the celestial bodies have an attraction force or gravitation
towards its center. Sun and moon are not the only ones to have an influence on the body and on the movement
of Earth, and the Earth on them, but also Mercury, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter, have a considerable influence on
the movement of Earth, thanks to their force and equally Earth's force of attraction has a considerable influence
on all the other movements; 2) the second assumption expresses the law of the force of inertia; 3) the third
assumption is that these attraction forces are as powerful as the closeness to the center of attraction.
Hooke acknowledged that he had not verified experimentally the value of the third assumption. Later on Hooke
said: "Whoever will dedicate to this task - I dare to promise- will find out that this principle influences all the
motions of the world, and we will have Astronomy's perfection when this principle will be perfectly
understood."
Hooke had not yet discovered the law of the inverted square, but he had certainly taken a big step
ahead. We understand now Hooke's words on his priority right and the copyright allegations against Newton a
few years later. Newton defended himself by claiming he was not aware of the research done by Hooke and did
not read his studies on attraction; in fact he had too treated the subject with the same precision as Hooke, and
used different mathematical systems than Hooke.
The fact that Hooke had become Secretary of the Royal Society did not encourage Newton, while it was Hooke
who pushed Newton to deal with the problem of gravity again: research that Newton brought to conclusion in
the exceptional synthesis in Principia.
Newton returned to gravity shortly thereafter demonstrating the following propositions on the orbital movement
of a material point: Kepler's second law or the law of the areas, enunciated in the case of planetary ellipses, is
true for every movement, as long as the force exerted is a central force, passes on a fixed point; if this force is
inversely proportional to the square the distance of the center of attraction to the material point, the movement
will follow a conic section, that is, according to a circle, an ellipse, a parabola or a hyperboloid, considering the
center of attraction in the center of the circle or in one of the cone's fires; inversely a material point that
describes an ellipse around one of its fires, as in the case of the planets, is subjected to a central force directed
towards the fire and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
A short time later the astronomer Edmond Halley, taking into account Kepler's third law, had arrived at the
conclusion that the centripetal force that retains the planets must have been inversely proportional to the square
the distance from the Sun.
A series of lectures written by Newton between 1686 and 168 form the treatise Philosophiae naturalis Principia
Mathematica. Also in 1686 Dr. Vincent presented to the Royal Society Principia's manuscript and on May 9th
the society decided to publish the manuscript and the president in charge at the time gave Imprimatur. After
Hooke's proposal Newton almost suppressed his third book on the world's system, by far the most important as
it completes the manuscript. He didnt do it mostly to avoid any damage to Halley who was in charge of the
publication and financing of the work, and would have had profits from sales. From the correspondence
between Newton and Halley we see that there were other difficulties and others dissensions, but finally in the
summer of 1687, Principia was published (500 pages). The work entirely written in Latin, was preceded by
Halley's words in Latin dedicated "To the illustrious Isaac Newton and to his work in the field of mathematics
and physics " and "to this man, dear to the Muses who came close to the gods more than any other mortal. "
Principia consists of three books, dealing respectively with the problems of movement in
resistant vehicles, in non- resistant vehicles, and finally, the world system. The law of universal attraction
properly associated with Newton's name, and the deductions from this law, concerning the Sun's and the
planet's mass, occupy only a tenth of the work.
The first book begins by proposing definitions and axioms or laws of movement, first mechanics coded
presentation. We find in it the concept of mass according to Newton, the quantity of motion (mass times
velocity), the vis insita (inertia's mass), the vis impressa, the change in a body state of motion, produced by
collision, by pressure or by centripetal force towards the middle and acts at a distane. Then Newton enunciates
the three famous laws of motion, recognizing Galileo the honor of of the first two. The second law modernly
states what derives in relation to time (mass by acceleration) is equal to the applied force. The equality between
action and reaction (third law) was extended from contact actions to the actions at a distance. In the first book
Newton shows that the movement of a material point, under the effect of a more general central force, takes
place according to Kepler's second law or law of the areas, and as this force is inversely proportional to the
distance if the curve described by the point is an ellipse, the center of the force will be in one of its fires. In the
second book he developed hydrodynamics concepts. In the third book, Newton presents the system of the
world, describing and explaining the movements of the planets and their satellites, explaining for the first time
the reason for kepler's the three famous laws, that some scientists still doubted. Descartes vortex theory was this
way collapsing; attraction replaced the impuls. This work for the wideness of discoveries described, is one of
the most prestigious events in the history of science. Newton expresses his attitude on the hypotheses,
concluding Principia with a true act of fede positivistica: Hypotheses non fingo (I do not imagine, I do not
feign hypothesis).
All celestial mechanics care taken from the law of universal attraction and the laws of mechanics. This work
today lets us have a complete description of the movements in the solar system and the prediction of
astronomical phenomenons, due to gravitation.
Newton's theory is valid only in a Euclidean universe and the movements, discovered and denounced by the
Theory of General Relativity are plausible, at a solar system scale, explaining the secular residual fraction of
Mercury's perihelion.
Newton's greatness is universally recognized; in this work I wish to complete the search on the spatial nature
of the solar system: the validity of the Newtonian world system is linked to the supposed
Euclidean nature of universal space. This validity is confirmed by the Endospheric theory as soon as we apply
the transformation by mutual radius vectors, which makes all of Newton's assertion confirmed, we will refer to
his great work in the non-Euclidean universe instead of the Euclidean universe, that, as we have amply
demonstrated, it is achieved through the transformation that does not alter the observation data, which means it
does not alter the data considered by Newton for his work, but its only the similar specular image of the real
universe.
The transformation formulas are the following:

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

The transition from Newtonian's school to the Endospheric Theory the fundamental point of the
new concept. Shakespeare made Hamlet say: "I could be enclosed in a nutshell and yet believe to be the king
of infinite space." With these words we compare the concept of extension and that of collection; from the
infinite open world to the one collected in the Endosfere; the image of the Euclidean sky is projected into the
non-Euclidean real space.
James Clerk Maxwell, a century after Newton comes among us: with the electromagnetic field, the non-
Euclidean space is born. Newton's glory of the structure of a Euclidean world remains unchanged, which is
opened with The Endospheric Theory which is firmly based on experience, to overcome many weak points of
the classic system, starting from the light year and the energy conservation law, and the description of universal
reality.

Chapter XIII

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1 - Suppose we are astronauts in space, at an average distance between earth and moon, so as
to see both spherical bodies. How can we explain this data, how can we see a body in space as the moon (so far
is good) and the Earth which - according to the Cosmocentric theory - it contains within its spherical surface the
entire Universe?
A1 – The impact with new ideas creates a certain chaos in the mind. The classical concept is only partially
overcome where as we are talking about the new concept of the world. I will refer to the tables of the new book.
The transformation by mutual vector rays allows an inverse vision of the world from the classical one with the
condition of taking into account our vision according to the behavior of light linked to the discovery of
Maxwell on the electromagnetic nature of light. This circumstance is fundamental. Comparing Table XIV
(Classical Universe) with table XV (Endospheric Universe), we pass from the first to the second applying the
geometrical transformation and its immediately evident that table XV has the same aspect of Table III, the
image of the magnetic spectrum terminated by the action of a magnet.
The basic nucleus is therefore the vision: carrying out this transformation, the angles remain unchanged, that is
to say the observed data remain the same.
In Table V, the phenomenon for which Earth's surface is seen convex (see also the table I); in the figure on the
left of Table V, placing the observer at point H, the Copernican Earth is seen at the points i, k, j (the mind
interprets the path of light as straight, as it is exposed in Chap. III, as in the case of short distances. Instead of
the points i, k, j we actually see the points F, B, G, due to the curvature of the rays of light, that is, we see the
real convex shape of the terrestrial soil.
This is the consequence of the electromagnetic nature of light that runs through the wide universal spaces. We
see an identical effect looking at the figure on the right of table V, where its illustrated how the concave Earth
appears to an astronaut at H on the Moon. Even in photography, the Earth appears to be convex as it is
explained in Chapter III.

Q2 - How is Earth "born"? The Solar System? The Universe?

A2 - These questions have more of a philosophical character than a scientific one.
Observing the magnetic spectrum, (Table Ill), we have the inverted aspect of the Copernican Universe (Table
XV) in the new theory, concluding that the geometrical orientation of the inversion reflects the physical
orientation of the electromagnetic lines of force of the Universe.
Bearing in mind that geometry is abstract and physics is real, the abstract geometric illustration can be
interpreted as the physical beh1avior of electromagnetic waves (Table III). Since light has electromagnetic
nature (Maxwell), its path has the same behavior as the inverted Universe.
The "birth" of Earth, the Solar System and the the Universe, deals with problems that are not of a physical
nature.
My thought is the same as Lavoisier's: “Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed “.
I do not see how an electron can be created out of nothing, nor how it can be destroyed.
In Chapter XI we have talked about the Big-Bang theory, and the ever expanding Universe or the Universe in
expansion-concentration.

Q3 - Given as the terrestrial radius 6.370 km :

1° the radius of the universe should not be more than 6,370 km;
2° all distances should therefore be reviewed;
3° the thickness of the earth's crust should be 6.370 km with a decreasing density tending to 0.

A3 - In the Chap. Ill we deal with the problem of measuring lengths. We measure a road by a
meter, that isthe 40 millionth part of a terrestrial meridian. How does it work? Using the meter to see how many
times its contained along the road itself.
So the meter is a unit of length with which we can measure homogeneous lengths by the meter.
Measuring the length of a ray of light is a different thing, because we do not know the length of the
measurement unit, which is the length of each photon of the light.
This is a physical entity of which we ignore the length of each of the individual constituents, namely the
photon.
The meter is the sub-multiple of a terrestrial meridian; the photon is a submultiple of a ray of light, but its value
is not known and perhaps it is possible to know.
From light's radiation we would need to know the length of a submultiple of its extension. So measuring the
length of a road and measuring the length of a ray of light are two different operations; for the first we need to
know the unit of submultiple length of a meridian that we can establish; for the second operation we need a unit
submultiple of one light radiation that we cannot establish.
In Table XI we can consider the line segment that reaches from the sun the 6 pm point (straight solar radius)
whose width is calculated at around 150 million km. (therefore, we are using the meter as the unit of measure);
to this segment correspond the geometric transformation of the semicircle that goes from the sun to the 6 pm
point. To measure the length of this semi-circle, we divide by 150 million obtaining unequal decreasing
segments going towards the Sun, keeping in relationship the variable intensity of light.
So 1 non euclidean km is worth the 150 millionth part of this semicircle, but these parts are not equal to each
other but rapidly decreasing in the direction of the Sun.
Making the geometric length of a radius coincide with the decreasing intensity of illumination is the root of the
so-called year-light.
We then conclude that the argument has no foundation: to the classical terrestrial radius corresponds to the
length of the Endospheric Universe in terms of non euclidean km with the transformation, so in terms of non-
uniform variable lengths different from what happens in the Euclidean measurements of exospheric space. The
objector points out: “all distances should therefore be reviewed”. We answer that with the absence of the
knowledge of a unit of measurement, all cosmic lengths must be reviewed in order to adapt to the nature of the
new space and to the electromagnetic nature of light according to which the measures are made.
As for the thickness of the so-called earth's crust, it is dealt at the end of Chapter VII.

Q4 - In the Endospheric theory, a ship in the distance is seen, like in the classic concept, the trees
first, and the bottom after; this does not apply to a camera that “does not suffer” from the mental process that
determines vision.
A4 – Observing a (far) object , the mind interprets in a straight line the radiation of light that connects the
object with the eye (Chapter III).
Table I illustrates the classical proof of the shape of the earth (straight line from the Sun to the Eye) and the
endospheric proof of its concavity where the curvilinear radiation, transformed from the previous one, shows
the same image, the same telescopic view, the mental interpretation of the classical image.
The camera fixes on the plate not a motion but an instantaneous image of individual frames starting from an
initial stretch that is enormously small, so it is always the brain of the observer that interprets the phenomenon.
The development of movement is just the rapid succession of images (frames) projected on a screen; such
projection is linked to the other mental phenomenon of the observer, which is the persistence of the retina,
before from the brain.
 Q5 – Is there a proof of the curvature of the luminous waves according to the Endospheric
Theory with respect to the curvatures according to the Relativity Theory?
A5 – The curvatures in Einsteinian space are due to the presence of a gravitational field. The infinite and
unlimited space of Newtonian cosmology is replaced by Einstein by a still unlimited space (with no limit), but
finite in the sense that starting on a certain direction, you will return at the point of departure.
Eddington defines the classic space as a "vacuum" (on average almost empty), noting that we have a Star every
20 cubic parsecs, a parsec has the length of 30 thousand billion kilometers.
The radius of curvature of the Einstein universe has a length of thousands of billions of kilometers, while in the
endospheric universe the radius of gravitational curvature is added the electromagnetic field, that is the
magnetic field (spectrum) that permeates the universal space having a maximum euclidean length of 6,370
kilometers (terrestrial radius), which is a curvature of k = 1 / r enormously bigger.

Q6 - Given the cave earth , why are the seas and the oceans not falling on the inside?
A6 - In the old concept the motive consisted in the action of gravity, (gravitational attraction), in
the new system we considered a cosmic repulsion phenomenon (even Einstein admits this) by the Sun. The
effects are evidently the same.
Furthermore, the widening of the equator, caused by the rotation of the universal system around
the fixed axis Universe - Earth (Earth is stationary) also explains the greater distance of the opposite points on
the equator with respect to that of the poles, as it is also known classically.

Q7 – how come the space probes launched on the basis of the current theory calculations are
correct and how should they have gone and came back exactly where they should have ? The time factor should
be influenced in the conception-description of the cosmo-centric universe at which at higher curvatures it
should give a different time, duration.
A7 – In chapter VI we answer this objection.

Q8 - How would the planets of the solar system be arranged in the Endospheric Theory? Just like
in the exosphere one, around the sun? It would not seem from a picture of your drawings.
A8 - Read chapter XV on planetary orbits

Q9 - If earth is the least dense “body”, at the limits of the cave universe is it possible to calculate
the density of the Sun, the other planets and the Moon - according to this Theory?
A9 - According to the Endospheric Theory it is necessary to reflect on ther mass and density of the Sun because
the Sun is not considered to be a massive sphere, but as a sphere that has an inside structure similar to the
cellular one; however, the masses are the same outside and inside, although varying the densities, so therefore
Newton's laws on masses apply (see Chapter XII). The classical astronomer determines the mass of the Sun by
applying Kepler's third law, which refers to earth's 'orbit', which is a reference that does not make any sense in
the new concept because Earth is stable and does not travel through any orbit (Chapter X). The annual orbit that
appears in table XV is perpendicular to the curvilinear trajectories of light without a physical meaning because
Earth is stationary (isogonality).
As for the density of the Sun, the classic astronomer refers to the mass and to the radius of the Sun considering
the density of 1,4 gm / cm 3 (gm = gram mass); the ray of the Sun is classically calculated considering the Sun
not as a single body, but as a gaseous body.
The question of its diameter, always considered by the Copernicans, is complicated by the fact that we can not
say exactly where the atmosphere ends and the field of the Sun begins. There is a brilliant surface that
impresses on the photographic plat and appears to us like a disc when the sun is observed behind the evanescent
clouds. This is the surface (referred to as the photosphere) that the traditional observer has in mind as he speaks
of the diameter of the Sun. Seen from the Earth, this surface measures on average 32 arc minutes. From this and
from the knowledge of the classical astronomical unit value (semi-major axis of earth's orbit 149.600.000 km)
we obtain the "real" radius of the Sun with an equation that I will not develop now, and that provides precisely
the radius and therefore the real diameter of the classic sun. I omit the explanation of the arc minute that
measures the small angle a of the observed sun's ray from the earth.
I would like to mention a consideration, most important: the classical astronomer considers space as Euclidean
with its straight lines, for example joining the Earth with the Sun.
Another consideration is the hypothesis of the gaseous Sun, which is not admitted in the Endospheric Theory.
We can identify for the new concept the astronomical unity applying the transformation by reciprocal radius
vectors, bearing in mind that in the new theory space is not uniform, nor flat, but not uniform and curved.
The universal lines are curved just like the lines of force in the electromagnetic spectrum. In the new concept
we admit the same masses that are calculated classically.
The Sun, the planets, band the celestial bodies have in reality an extension much smaller than the one calculated
by astronomers, but have a much higher density: masses do not change. Newtonian laws apply equally. The
new concept sees in the seed of an orange, an enormous size compared to the peel because it is in the seed that
the physical and vital principles are concentrated, which, replacing the mere illusory extension of the classical
universe, we embrace the existence of living beings as it happens in the human and animal embryo.

Q10 - The bigger curvature of light (compared to General Relativity) is an experimental fact or
rather another hypothesis? And not experimental?
A 10 - In General Relativity, among the experiences on which it is held, we have the deflection of light rays.
This experimental deflection is prevista by Einstein's theory, which also is held on the famous elevator
experiment by which the equality between heavy mass and inertial mass is tested .
We can consider what has been observed by the astronomers: given the position of a star seen at a certain point
of the sky, when its luminous radiation (light) passes close to a body like the Sun, this radiation deviates from a
straight line to a calculable angle a. This observation is expressed by Einstein attributing a curvature, even mild,
as its exposed in Chapter VII “The energy conservation law...”. This deflection in General Relativity is an
experimental fact; the Endospheric Theory, in addition to admitting this deflection, is held on the physical basis
of the electromagnetic field.

Q11 - Given the description of the cave Earth how is the formation of the Universe explained?
A11 - Read chapter XI on the Big-Bang.

Q12 - How are tides explained?

A12 - First of all it is necessary to correct the widespread idea on this phenomenon, which is explained by
Newton's gravitational law.
The phenomenon of the tides has been studied by many physicists and astronomers but has not yet been fully
explained. Newton had to admit that the distance influences according to the cube to justify the greater
influence of the Moon in comparison to that of the Sun, but did not explain why in this case the attraction force
is proportional to the cube rather than to the square, as in other cases.
Other aspects of the problem are uncertain in the traditional explanation. Even applying the new rules in the
new concept, the problem does not seem fully explained.

Q13 - How is the formation of the Universe explained, the formation of the cosmic
electromagnetic field on which substantially the whole theory of the Cosmocentric Universe is held?
A13 - Read chapter II and chapter XII.

Q14 - How is Foucault's experience with his pendolum explained?

A14 - Read the Chapter X.

Q15 - It is acquired that the verification of General Relativity concerns the slowdown of clocks
in a gravitational field. Time, which is what clocks measure, runs more slow as the gravitational force gets more
intense. But then is it correct to say that in a gravitational field, in fact (slowing down the rhythms), we age
more slowly than in the absence of gravity? In the order of Cosmocentric Theory there is an intensification of
density as you move towards the stellar Center with a metric shortening and a slowing down of velocity. So
would it be correct to say that as we go towards the stellar center we age less?
A15 - First of all, let us mention the phenomenon of aging after a journey into the cosmos in relationship with
special Relativity. Lets overlook the analytical developments of the mathematical formulas. We will limit
ourselves to the principle of Relativity: "If K and K 'are two coordinate systems, one with respect to the other
with a uniform rectilinear motion, the development of natural facts (mechanical and electrical) are regulated by
the same general laws, if referred to K and if referred to K' ".
This means that if you need 3 minutes to cook an egg in an inertial system K, an identical time interval will be
needed to cook an egg in any other inertial K', although to the observer K the cooking of the egg in K' appears
to have a different duration.
This reciprocity is essential.
The formulas that lead to this result are reversible, so if an observer, located in K, notes on his watch that the
cooking time is 3 minutes, another observer located in K', in relative uniform motion with respect to K, notes a
longer duration (dilation of the durations), but he knows that physical phenomena obey intrinsic laws and are
independent from the inertial system in which they occur; knowing then from experience the real duration of
such cooking, recognizes that his valuation of the cooking time in K is only apparent; in fact, inverting the
relative formula he will find the real cooking duration (3 minutes) of the egg in K. So the question of reality and
appearance of dilatation and of length shortening arises (Chapter IV).
The famous physicist Langevin, a big friend of Einstein, imagined a journey of one of the twins, who starting
from earth and pushing towards a distant star then returned with the same inverted velocity to earth and stopped
there. Supposing the translating velocity v sufficiently high (near that of light) the twin that had travelled would
be still be a child, while the other that remained on Earth, should have been very old.
This paradoxical effect of the apparent flow of time between systems in relative rapid translational motion is
prospected as real from Langevin, violating a fundamental element on which the structural validity of the
formulas are based on, which is the supposition of a uniform relative motion; now at a motion that is not
uniform (the traveller returns) and can not be applied formulas based instead on the hypothesis of uniform
motion since the motion of our traveller is not uniform.
Therefore the story of the twins is without foundation because its incorrectly set. Now let's move on to:
General Relativity - Between Special Relativity and the General relativity there is, as it is well known, a
fundamental difference: in the first we consider a Euclidean or pseudoeuclidean space, where the physical
element is limited to the constant C of the speed of light, while the second Relativity is based essentially on
Gravitation.
Using a machine, which we are not describing, the physicist Waltenhofen, demonstrated about the induced
current that the excitation of an electromagnet suddenly brakes oscillations (Waltenhofen pendulum). The more
intense are the induced currents the more intense is the stop.
Gravitational actions have an effect on the rhythm of vibrating atoms, identifying the gravitational actions with
acceleration. These stops are therefore real.
As for time and temporal durations, it is necessary to make a similar distinction to what is done between space
and spacial distances.
It is not accurate to assert that time is measured by clocks; the rhythm of time is not time, but reflects the
physical conditions (rhythm) that the clock that measures. If in a room A I have a pendulum swinging with a
certain rhythm and in room B I have a pendulum that oscillates with a slower rhythm is incorrect to assert that
time flows more slowly in B than in A!
There is no “time itself”, an idealistic Kantian concept, similar to "space itself"; as there is no empty space, but
things, bodies, fields of force, so there is no “time itself”, an empty time, the events, the processes and so a
method to measure them.
Not the space "itself", but the spatial distances are travelled by moving bodies; not the time "itself", but the
temporal durations mark the flow of events. There is no time itself, but the instruments (clocks) that measure
the flow of said process-events, which we call durations; only differences in durations are observed, time
differences, not time "itself", idealistic abstraction similar to that of space "itself".
That said, especially based on the Waltenhofen experiment, one can conclude that in the gravitational field,
since the rhythms are slowed down, we would age more slowly than in the absence of gravity. All of this is
admitted by the Endospheric Theory as well as the phenomenons of contraction and expansion due to non-rigid
bodies.
Einstein also noted: “The field deforms my rigid regoli”, and Persico: "Solid bodies are never perfectly rigid, as
it is convenient to consider them in mechanics ».

Q16 - We talk about Black Holes and, to be honest, we tal about them in a theoretical way; now
is the figure of the Black Hole compatible with the Endospheric theory?
A16 – We Theorize on the apparent phenomenon of implosion (collapse) of the Black Holes, a phenomenon
linked to the classic interpretation of the nature of space.
Universe first appears to be expanding starting from a point (White Hole), then reached a maximum extension it
would start to collapse by reducing itself to a point (Black Hole). This would imply the creation and destroy of
matter, a concept that is rejected by the Endosphere theory, in which we configure an electromagnetic cosmic
state where the classical interpreted mass is actually enormously less extensive and enormously more dense
than it appears.
Regarding the inertial motions in the new theory, it should be observed that, instead of straight lines, the bodies
naturally travel along the curved lines of the field; therefore the astronaut who descended on the moon
travelled, without being able notice, the electromagnetic curvatures and not the newtonian straight lines.

Q17 - What is there outside the concave Earth?

A17 - Read the end of Chapter VII. The progressive decrease ofthe density of the field has no end. Its a fading
towards the indefinite. The question is related to the classic concept in contrast with the new concept.

Q18 - How is time conceived?

A18 - Read the previous question 15.

Q19 – Should the Endosphere Theory be considered as a description or as an explanation?

A19 - The words description and explanation are used indifferently. With precision the description is a minute
representation , a geometric trace while the explanation is rather an interpretation.
The drawing of a house is a description, its explanation its a clarify of the layout of the rooms, of the windows
in sight of convenience or other purpose. The design of the Endospheric Universe is a description, but if the
ratios, the relationships, the connections of the different parts, such as for example the behavior of the lines of
action of the electromagnetic field, are brought to light then we have an explanation.

Q20 - What exactly is meant by curvature, radius of curvature, flat space and curved space?
A20 - Already in Chapter IV we talked about flat space and curved space.
Here we specify further. As already mentioned it does not make sense to consider curvature as an intrinsic
character of physical space. There is no "space itself" (see General Relativity, A15), nor "time itself", for
example the empty space of objects, nor the empty time of events, but there are things, bodies, events and
processes.
As long as we remain (Chapter IV) in the interpretive field, given by analytical geometry, space-time can
assume a suggestive shape of a cone (Minkowski), of a cylinder (Einstein) or of a hyperboloid (De Sitter). In
this geometrical representation of the chronotope, the spatial coordinates are reduced to two (circumference);
the third is the representation of time. This third co-ordinate in the De Sitter universe is presented curved; it's
not about the curvature of time that makes no sense, but rather of a mathematical need to represent the universe
itself.
Its already been sayd that the geometric space is flat if the Pythagorean theorem is valid; if this does not apply,
non-Euclidean geometric apply. It is now necessary to add what is meant by null curvature or non-zero. If on a
straight line we can fix three points, these will always be aligned. If on a curved line (like a circle) we set three
points these will never be aligned.
The radius of the circle passing through a set of non-aligned points has a certain non-zero length that
characterizes non-Euclidean space.
If K is a curved line and r is its radius of curvature, we have the relation K = 1 / r. A space in which each of its
lines (geodesic) has infinite radius of curvature, is defined as a plane. A space in which there are lines
(geodesics) that have a finite radius of curvature are defined as curved.

Q21 - What is a black hole?

A21 - It is an invisible body because gravitational actions that collapse are so big that they do not allow any
radiation leakage; this means that there is no light, that is a "black hole", it is a pure hypothetical interpretation
of celestial phenomena in a uniform space (see A16).

Q22 - What does "time dilatation or compression" mean?

A22 - In Chapter IV we mentioned Lorentz's transformation FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE
referring to a special treaty of Special Relativity.
Analogous is the expression FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE relative to time t whose
explanation is linked to the development of Special Relativity (See Chapters IV and A15). It is understood that
from a physical point of view Special Relativity has great practical importance; in the Nuclear Physics
laboratories, in which the purpose of producing high energy particles (Synchrotrons, Betatrons, etc.), gigantic
machines are used, founded precisely on the laws of Special Relativity.
This important experimentation takes place for relatively short terrestrial distances, where space is still
mathematically uniform, the speed of light remaining acceptable c, calculated by Fizeau (Chapter 111).
 Q23 - How come the concave land is seen convex?
A23 - In Table X the vault of the sky is shown in the two systems.
The observer sees a celestial object, for example, in B', but the object in reality is located in B. The angle of
45 ° under which the observer sees the celestial object is the same with respect to both B' and B (isogonality of
inversion) therefore, the observer is not able to establish where the object really is, despite he is brought to
affirm that such object is found in B' by attributing a euclidean nature to space; however, if he attributed to
space a non-Euclidean nature, the observer would then state that the object is found in B. Since we have shown
the physical impossibility of the Euclidean behavior of light (Chapter III), the object is really located in B.
Is the same phenomenon for which it is stated that the concave earth appears convex (table V). The astronaut in
H sees the Copernican earth at the points i, k, j of the convex part, so the Earth that he sees is convex only in
appearance, because, for the demonstrated circular inversion, he sees instead, even by taking a photograph,
under the same angle the points F, B, G of the concave surface of Earth (see Chapter XIII, R1).

Q24 – How is the "proportionality" of the Doppler effect that would explain galaxy escape
explained in the Endospheric Theory?
A24 - Hubble's law would prove a continuous expansion of the Universe, considered by official science as the
most "disconcerting" discovery of the twentieth century, while remaining a point of discussion in the numerous
exosphere cosmological theories: its admitted a constant of recession of direct proportionality.
In a cosmologist's book we read: “This law seems established on solid experimental bases”, but it is not so,
because Euclidean space is only a hypothesis connected with multiple weak points in classical theory, in
particular the "light year".
So no "expansion" of the Universe, but rather a phenomenon of a gradual energy concentration towards the
Stellar Center.
The interpretation of the red shift of the spectral is only a hypothesis as well as that of the flat space of the
classical world and of the straightness of such radiation.

Q25 - How do you explain the absence of gravity in space?

A25 - All celestial bodies are endowed with attraction force (Newton). Such actions, as in the case of Earth, are
intense near earth's surface and gradually more intense as we advance towards its center. On the outside these
actions diminish as you move away from the Earth.
The same happens with the Sun, which has attractive actions much more intense than Earth's whose mass is
much smaller than the Sun's.
There is however an intermediate space closer to the Earth than to the Sun, in which solar and terrestrial actions
are equal and opposed to each other, and they balance and cancel each other out; in that space there is no
gravity. Beyond that space takes over the solar attraction. The same happens, with curved lines of action, in the
Endospheric Theory.

Q26 - We read that «distance in space time is zero». What does this mean?
A26 - It is necessary to explain more page 145 of my 1960 volume. The characteristic propriety of euclidean
space is given by the Pythagorean relationship

(1) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

This property can be extended to abstract hyperspace with 4 or more dimensions. Space-time of
classic physics is made by Euclidean space characterized by an invariant or absolute (1), with the addition of a
proportional independent coordinate of time ct = X 4 (c is the speed of light). The new invariant Euclidean
invariant is

(2) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

where l 2 is no longer the square distance of two spatial points but of two events.

To express the constancy of the speed of light c, Einstein and Minkowski laid the following
condition
(3) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

where the new coordinate ct = x 4 is not independent from the three spatial coordinates. the new
relativistic space-time invariant is(3) and can also be written as:

(4) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

Einstein admitted the expression

(5) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

where s if the distance squared of two points of space-time; but this new relativistic invariant
differs from the classic invariant (2) for the sign of the time interval at the square x 24.
The two invariants (2) and (5) have a very different meaning. The annulment of (2) says that the two event-
points coincide (happen at the same place and at the same time), while the annulment of (5) coincides with (4)
that we can be written as

(6) FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

where the first member is a spatial distance squared and the second is a time distance squared,
then the space-time distance is zero, as shown in (4). The two non coincident points they can however be joined
by a ray of light.
Relativistic space-time arises from the condition (3) imposed by Einstein: this condition is hypothetical, like the
“universal constant” c of the speed of light.
It should however be noted that within the context of the Special Relativity and limited to the terrestrial space
region of the laboratories the formulas are of great importance for the production of high-energy particles
(synchrotron, betatrons, etc.).
See A22. In the Endospheric Theory the chronotope therefore is a reality limited to the terrestrial space of the
laboratories, where the routes covered by the radiation are minimal and the space is almost Euclidean.
 Chapter XIV

SUN AND MOON ECLIPSES AND THE LUNAR PHASES

In Table VIII, XII and XIII the well-known phenomenons of the sun and moon eclipses and the lunar phases are
illustrated. To these phenomenons classically viewed we apply the transformation by mutual radius vectors. For
clarity reasons, proportions are not respected.
In Table VIII, at the top right, the moon phases are represented according to the Euclidean nature of space.
Applying the transformation we are lead to the real phases of the moon, still remaining on observation data.
No further explanation is needed: just look at each one of the Euclidean straight line how it is changed into the
corresponding non-Euclidean curve. Around the classical Earth we see the external images seen by the
terrestrial observer; internally we represent the actual phases like a game of light, shadow and penumbra known
to everyone. The same applies to the figure below where the terrestrial observer (see arrows) is located on the
terrestrial concavity.
Let's move on to the classical eclipses on Table XII: the solar eclipse happens when the moon is interposed
between the Sun and Earth, while the lunar eclipse is when the earth is interposed between the Sun and the
Moon. Observe the games of shadow and penumbra classical known. In Table XIII, with our procedure of
inversion, you have the same images viewed classically. When the moon goes through the pseudo-funnel with
pseudo-spherical walls between the terrestrial observer and the Stellar Center, we have the lunar eclipse which
penetrates into the shadow and penumbra light determinated from the pseudo-funnel and the former images
appear to the observer the same visions images, whether he is on the convex earth or he is instead on the
concave Earth. The solar eclipse occurs when the Moon crosses the other pseudo-funnel interposed between the
sun and the terrestrial observer.
 Chapter XV

PLANETARY ORBITS

Demonstration that the outer planets in the endospheric system, even though the orbit around the
stellar center, from any point in space appear to orbit around the Sun. This demonstration was carried out by
Mr. Mario Pavone.

FORMULE MATETATICHE DA AGGIUNGERE

- The observation point O is given, on the orbit plane, with coordinates CO' and O'O in a
rectangular system with origin in the inversion center C and with an axis passing from the sun O'.
- A generic point P is considered on a straight visual point of view outgoing from O.
- The distance OP and the angle «a» that the view forms with the normal OO' to the joining with the Sun with
the reversed center are considered as polar coordinates in a system with the pole in O.
- These coordinates are transformed into rectangular coordinates in a system with the origin in O: OP 'and P'P
they are obtained.
- O'P'' and O'P' are the coordinates of P in a rectangular system with the origin in O'.
- To O'P" we add CO': we have the CP'' and P''P coordinates of P in a rectangular system with the origin in C.
- These coordinates are transformed into a polar system with the pole in C: the distance CP and the angle «b»
are obtained.
- The point P'" corresponding to P in the inversion is found dividing the square of the inverse radius R for the
distance CP.
- The distance CP'" and the angle « b » are considered as polar coordinates in a system with a pole in C.
- These coordinates are transformed into a retangular system with the origin in the center of the mechanical
limits of the machine's tracing, corresponding to the infinite, the axes of this system are parallel to the tracing
plane.
The figure accompanying this demonstration has the purpose of illustrating all the operations of the procedure,
despite being only approximate (P and P'" for example, which correspond in the geometric transformation, do
not result situate in the exact points); instead, the tables made with the help of
electronic devices HEWLETT PACKARD on which follow some important clarifications are
exact.
Lets considered the case of an hypothetical observer that, in order to verify the validity of the Endospheric
Theory, he set him self on a point in space to ascertain whether Mars orbits around the Sun or around the Stellar
Center.
Lets starts from the heliocentric configuration considering three different observation points lying on the
planet's orbit plane:
1) a point outside the orbit;
2) a point inside the orbit;
3) a point on the Sun.
For each of the three cases, beams of visual lines are considered, that in the Copernican conception they are
obviously straight lines, starting from the observation point and directed towards various points of Mar's orbit
(assimilated as a circle).

DIAGRAMMI DA AGGIUNGERE

So the curved lines of the cosmocentric system that correspond to those straight visuals are constructed.

To do so, on each line of sight, we considered a series of equidistant points starting from the
observer up to the planet. For all the points on the same line, we calculated the corresponding points in the
computer drawings, the observer is indiated with O; the Sun and the Stellar Center with two dots.
The exosphere situations have: numbers 1, 2, 3 with which the corresponding endospheric situations are
indicated.

Chapter XVI

WEAK POINTS OF THE CLASSIC THEORY EXOSPHERICAL THEORY TO THE LIGHT

OF THE ENDOSFERICAL THEORY

1) Cepheids and their common behavior

De Sitter wrote: "All our knowledge about the size of the galactic system and on the dimensions of the Universe
are fundamentally based on the variable stars called Cepheids ".
Miss H. Leavitt derives a fundamental law for the determination of celestial distances, which binds the absolute
greatness M of a Cepheid to its period P. Armellini observed that it seems proven that the Cepheids are
pulsating stars, depending on the duration P of their pulsation from their mass and hence from their absolute
size M.
On 171 Cepheids Margherita Gussow found one hundred with a period between one day and one month.
Among these there were a group of 40 or 50 of an appropriately equal period (on average 5 days); «Cepheid
variables of the same period», Eddington writes, they are all very resembling; so a Cepheid of a 5 day period,
wherever discovered, goes practically considered as a copy of the S Cephei.
These common characteristics would make one think of a physical bond, to reciprocal actions due to proximity,
but astronomical calculations tell us that the distance between stars is immense.
To my question addressed to Prof. Leonida Rosino from the astronomical observatory in Padova, on the
17/12/57 he replied to me that: "there are other Cepheid Galaxies having the same period, but not physically
associated, is possible, but it would be a purely casual event ".
Now, while Euclidean kilometers measure constant distances and, being the space homogeneous and isotropic,
the energy in them is uniformly distributed, the non-Euclidean kilometers of the non-homogeneous and non-
isotropic endospherical space, measure reliable distances functions of the local radius of curvature; the more
they shorten the denser is the energy distributed in them.
Densed into the cosmic center, they are predictably physically associated: their great likeness attributed "To
casualty" in the classic system, in the new system a rational explanation is susceptible.

2) The cosmic rays and their symmetrical fall on the terrestrial surface

«The Earth, Vercelli writes, is constantly immersed in an incessant hail of very fast atomic
particles, which
come from all over the Universe, enter the atmosphere, bump into molecules causing
conspicuous effects, reaching many of them till the ground.
From the open spaces about 20 particles per cm2 per minute enter the atmosphere. Most of these particles are
protons with a small percentage consisting of heavier nuclei.
The earth, gigantic magnetic field, deviates from their course the cosmic rays and allows unto the atmosphere
only particles which have energy above certain limits, measured in electrovolts (ev) equal to 1,6.10 -12 erg, a
very small measure for which it is used often the multiple mega-electron-volt equal to one million ev.
Cosmic rays pass through our bodies every day and pass unnoticed. Armellini writes: «These radiations can not
come from the Sun nor from the Stars. They are probable due to the processes of formation of the elements that
take place in the nebulae or in the tenuous matter widespread in the interstellar space». A circumstance of the
highest interest reveals Eddington: «Because cosmic rays fall symmetrically around earth's surface, astronomy
has nothing to reveal that presents the required symmetry ».
Perhaps we could find in cosmic rays a subject in favour of the closed spherical space, because in a non-closed
system it would be a weird combination that the earth was so centrally collocated as to receive the rays in equal
measure from each part. Undoubtedly it would be a strange combination!
In the Endospherical earth such a symmetrical fall, being the source of cosmic rays the stellar center of the
Universe, is a completely predictable and natural fact.

3) Planck and the analogy between the atom and the planetary system

Lammel writes: "we live in an immense space where a relatively small amount of matter is
found, so we can reasonably call it a desert ». Eddington as well, referring to the universal space, calls it empty,
deserted. «we have on Star every twenty cubic parsecs » informs us Armellini.
Lets recall that a parsec is a length equal to 3,085 -1012 Km, that is more than 30 million of million of
kilometers.
Supposed stars evenly divided, imagining to be on a star, to reach another one, traveling at the speed of light
(300,000 km per second) it will take us more than 6 years.
Eddington calculates an initial average of the density of matter of the Universe to be equal to 1.05 - 1027 gr. per
cm3, which would be an hydrogen atom every 1580 cm. For Armeliini, if all the stellar matter was uniformly
distributed in space, one would have a density of matter equal to one gram for each cube having 100,000
kilometers per side.
An important circumstance is revealed by the great German physicist Max Planck (1858-1947): «According to
Niels Bohr's fertile theory (1885-1902) the electrons of an atom move around the nucleus according to laws
very similar to those that the planets move around the Sun. Instead of gravitation takes over the attraction of
opposite charges of the nucleus and of the electrons.
But there is a single difference: the electrons can circulate only on well-determined orbits, and differ one from
the other in a discreet way, while in the case of the planets no orbit seems preferred over another ».
This does not happen in the Endospheric Universe, where the planets cover equipotential surfaces, that is
discrete levels of the non-Euclidean space of the field. Therefore, said singular difference in relation to the
electronic orbits of atoms disappears: in the planetary system the planets travel through equipotential surfaces
and so energy levels resulting in a fully acceptable analogy between the atom and the planetary system.

4) Rigid and non rigid motion - Inertia - Gulliver - Measurements

The rarity of matter cannot not surprise you. This is a uniformity show, for which, except for a
few singular points consisting of some celestial bodies, the classical space can be considered «empty»,
«desert», so that in some of its points, each of its joints, does not differ in anything from any of the other points,
from any other joints, in sharp contrast to the multiform variety of nature, which is a change, constant renewal,
incessant process: it never repeats.
“Physical space can not be lacking in characteristics (curvature)” says Eddington. It is usual to repeat in physics
that all hydrogen atoms at their normal state have the same dimensions or the same range of electrical charge.
But what do we mean with this? Or, to put the question in the inverse form, what would it mean to say that two
hydrogen atoms have different dimensions, similar in structure but built on a different scale? In the "Journeys of
Gulliver" the Lillipuzians were about 15 cm tall, their highest trees reached 2 m , the animals, the houses were
proportionally large. At Brobdingnag people were as tall as our bell towers, a cat seemed three times bigger
than an ox.
Intrinsically Lilliput and Brobdingnag were exactly the same; this was precisely the principle on which Swift
had build his story. It took a Gulliver from the outside - a sample of a foreign length - to detect the difference.
As for our comparison between the two hydrogen atoms the case of Lilliput and Brobdingnag is repeated: to
give a significance to the difference we need a Gulliver that has ubiquity.
Einstein said that what he called a meter is a constant fraction of the radius of curvature of space-time for that
place and that direction; measure in meters is equivalent to measuring in terms of the local radius of curvature
which is the true Gulliver having the gift of the ubiquity; and that is the constant submultiple of the radit o0s of
curvature of the place where the object to be measured is found.
Two hydrogen atoms have the same dimension, although they are in two different places, nevertheless they
have the same submultiple of the local radius of curvature.
In all our measures we do nothing but compare lengths and distances using the same submultiple of the local
radius of curvature. Every point and every direction of the endospherical space is characterized by the local
curvature of space.
Eddington finds more plausible a space with characteristics (curvature) than a flat space. The non euclidean
space of the endospherical world has a variable curvature, which is what brings the non-rigidity of the motions.
The ordinary experience at first approximation presents us with rigid movements, but just as we reflect, for
example on the common phenomenon of temperature, which contracts and expands bodies, and the fact that, if
you move from a point to another the temperature undergoes variations (large or small that they are) it must be
admitted that even in ordinary space, and limiting ourselves only to the temperature, the motions are ne-nstein
asserted: “The gravitational field deforms my rigid regoli”. The endospherical space is not inertial because
inside of it, the acceleration is never null.

5) The light years

A previous chapter is entirely dedicated to the so-called «light year», of which we have shown
the physical impossibility with a wealth of valid arguments to which we refer back the reader.

6) Dispersion of the almost totality of the energy emitted by the sun and from the stars of
the classical system

On this important topic as well we have dedicated a previous chapter, "the law of energy
conservation", in which its emphasizes the enormous quantity of solar and stellar energy that in the
Esospherical Universe are largely lost in contrast with the principle of the minimum action, which Maxwell
called "great law of parsimony of nature".
This colossal quantity of energy, notes Lammel, in the classic system "sinks into infinite and unreachable
nothingness". These radiations instead revolve in the endospherical spaces without even the minimal dispersion.

7) The Earth the densest body in the classical solar system

The planets found on the other side of the asteroid area are called internal, that is Mercury,
Venus, Earth and Mars, being this last one as much superior as interior.
We will distinguish the planets: those superior to the asteroids area, called externals, and the other one called
internal. Lets now consider the following table in which the upper row indicates the density with respect to
water of the sun and the planets and the lower line the minimum distances of the planets and the Sun from
Earth (distances are expressed in millions of kilometers):

diagramma DA AGGIUNGERE

For the superior planets the table of distances was obtained subtracting their average distance
from the Sun the distance from Earth-Sun; for the inferior planets subtracting from the Earth-Sun distance their
average distance from the Sun.
To the growing succession of distances (including the Sun) corresponds a decreasing sequence of densities
(except for Saturn and Neptune). So, in the classical solar system, the densest planet is Earth.
The outer planets and the Sun have a much lower density than the internal planets.
The celestial bodies of the solar system, the farther they are from Earth the lower the density they have. It
affects the fact that Earth has a situation in this field, very particular, privileged. We could have expected such a
position for the Sun in the classical system; instead its the Earth the densest celestial body of the classic solar
system.
To this, it is added another circumstance: with Earth's growing distance, decreases the density of the body (with
little exceptions). This fact as well places the Earth in a singular position with respect to the other celestial
body.
Its a "strange combination", would say Eddington.
In classical theory, the Earth is a planet like any other, to the point that, extrapolating, a physicist like
Castelfranchi has revealed the inconsistency of the "Geometric Clock of the inhabitants of our tiny planet. "
Therefore, not even a shadow of privilege.
In the new theory we follow a more rational line, always in accordance with the observed facts. The same fact
follows from the structure of the world itself. This succession in the new concept is inverted.
As Earth constitutes the peripheral zone of the Universe, it is much less dense than the celestial bodies that are
in proximity of the source of the field, where the spatial curvatures are very sensitive, the very concentrated
energy and the masses of the stars are very dense. The facts noted in the new conception no longer have an
accidental character as in the old system, but satisfy at the beginning sufficient reasoning, they are rationally
explained. I have already referred to the Earth's density in chap. VII.

8) Comparison between the seasons in the two systems

lets recall that the classical Earth, when it is at its perihelion, its closest to the Sun of about 5
million kilometers as to when its located in its aphelion (northern hemisphere) in the winter season, contrary to
what could be expected.

This difference (5 million kilometers compared to almost 150) is basically explained by official
science through the consent law, for which the incident intensity decreases with the growth of the ray's obliquity
on the constant unit of surface hit. Come forth the effect of continentality of the northern hemisphere, which
prevails over the radiation determining in the winter an average thermal inferior in the northern hemisphere
rather than in the southern one. Another cause is the action of the most extended oceans in the southern
hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere.
The causes of temperature differences in the various seasons are: in the summer semester in each hemisphere
the day is longer than the night, and the Earth receives more heat than what it loses (vice versa happens in the
winter semester). The main reason is however linked to the first law of Lambert's cosine, generalization of the
law of the inversion to the square of distances

FORMULA MATEMATICA DA AGGIUNGERE

And its the illumination intensity directly proportional to the emission intensity i and to the formed from the
normal incident ray with the affected area and its inversely proportional to the squared the distance from the
source.
The famous physicist Fred Hoyle built a model that reproduced the arrangement of the Sun and the planets by
making a reduction scale of about one billion. And obtained this result: the sun having 1.4 m in diameter and
the Earth having a diameter of about 1.5 cm. If we place this Sun at a distance of 150 m. from sphere of
diameter 1.5 cm it will certainly not be possible the heating of a sphere to 50 degrees above zero in the
equatorial area and 70 degrees below zero in the polar areas of the sphere.
In Table VII its represented with the upper figure the phenomenon of the seasons (a figure familiar to all
students) with a serious mistake: earth is represented at a distance from the sun enormously closer than what we
want to happen in reality. Observing Table XI, it is noted that the difference between the half straight rays of
solar straight rays that reaches the 6 pm point, passes the half-straight that reaches the 12 point of only 6.370
km, a difference that is negligible compared to 149.6 million Euclidean km (Earth-Sun distance). The intensity
with which the solar radiation reaches both the equator and the poles in the classic system can be consider
identical. The same does not happen in the new concept.
Numerically the distances and the differences of distances considered above in the two systems are almost
identical. But in the endospherical world, the calculated kilometers are not Euclidean. This means that, as we
can observe in the tables. XI and XVI when the Sun is found for example at the zenith of the equator its
radiation reaches the equator, point 12, perpendicular to the poles, point 6 pm, tangentially (and so far nothing
different happens in the classic system); but now we will find an important difference: the endospherical
radiation that at point 12 reaches the equator, has a geometric length (see Table XI) equal to 2/3 the length of
the radiation that reaches the pole (point 6 pm). So the Solar energy that reaches the pole is more rarefied
( therefore weaker) of the one that reaches the equator.
In an electromagnetic field (Table XI) the radiation that reaches the equator is more intense (the energy is less
rarefied) than the one that reaches the pole, while in the classical system the solar radiationd are admitted to be
almost all equally intense!
We have examined the scaling of about a billion done by the physicist Fred Hoyle who built a model
reproducing the classical arrangement of the sun and the planets. This odel emphasizes, while understanding the
needs of space, the error of the relationships, the enormous disproportion of the real Sun-Earth distances as its
taught in schools (see also figure at the top of Table VII).
In the cosmocentric conception, things change profoundly as shown in the lower part of the table VII where the
endospherical seasons are represented. The figure represents the helicoidal path of the Sun in the sy. The line
that unites all the points around the stellar band where the sun is observed at noon, during all the days of the
year, is the ecliptic, the zodiac or the apparent path in a whole year. For an observer at point N the upper spires
represent winter, those at the center spring, the lower one the summer, and then again those in the middle are
autumn, and again the superiors are winter. The circular route of the sun is seen in expanded shape from the
earth as it is also seen expanded the whole helical path.

Chapter XVII
THE TWO SYSTEMS

Archimedes

In geometry you can easily study the solid figures with straight edges. Archimedes committed
himself to find a formula to calculate the area of the spherical surface, but ran into the difficulty of developing
such surface on a plane, which did not find with the other solids.
He arrived at his famous formula looking for a solid that could be developed on a plane equivalent to the non-
developable surface of a sphere. He achieved this goal by building with metal sheets of uniform thickness the
surface of a sphere and a cylinder circumscribed to the sphere having as a base a circle equal to the maximum
circle of the sphere.
Archimedes acknowledged - and this is what his discovery consists of- that the sheet of the spherical surface
and that of the cylinder circumscribed around the sphere had the same weight.
Developing the surface of the cylinder on a plane he would obtain a rectangle with a base equal to the
aforementioned maximum circle and height equal to the diameter of the sphere:
2pir (base of the rectangle) x 2r (height of the rectangle), and wrote the famous formula 2pir x 2r = 4pir2.
Because the sheet of the sphere and that of the cylinder had the same weight he assumed as surface area of the
sphere the aforementioned formula A = 4pir2 (which was confirmed about 1800 years later in the relevant
integral calculation of Newton).

Developable and non-developable solids

The cylinder can be developed on a plane; to its development Euclidean geometry is applicable,
while for the sphere it is not developable and to search its superficial area Euclidean geometry is no applicable.
The two geometrical figures of equal areas (measurements) superficial, and so equivalent, have a different
structure,one euclidean and the other non-Euclidean. The two theories of universe, exosferical and
endospherical, similarly have two equivalent spaces, headquarters one and the other of a cosmos having the
same amount of matter, but with different physical structures: the first has rectilinear lines of force in which
Euclidean geometry is applied, the second has lines of curved lines of force, to which non-Euclidean geometry
is applied, though being equivalent to each other (they have equal quantity of matter).
 Transformation geometries

The two equivalent spaces are linked by a geometric transformation that allows you to move
from a space to the other (and vice versa) indifferently.
The difference between them is the way in which matter is distributed: in the first its enormously rarefied,
except for a certain number of singular points, in the other enormously concentrated.
Both spaces correspond to each other in a way that to each point of the first corresponds to one in the other (and
vice versa). Such geometrical correspondence is governed by an algebraic and geometric operation called
transformation for reciprocal radius vector.
In figure on Plate II, to point 2 outside the circle, corresponds point ½ inside the circle. Indeed leading from
point 2 two straight tangent lines to the circle in points a and b the conjuncture of these two points cut at the 1/2
point the conjuncture point 2 with the center of the circle.
Similarly, the corresponding points 3 and 1/3 are obtained, etc .... Being a 1/2 the reciprocal of 2, the
correspondence takes the name of transformation for reciprocal radius vector. The infite external points
correspond to the infinite internal points and viceversa.
It is demonstrated that two straight line segments, even of different lengths, are both equally made up of infinite
points.

Galilei and the infinite

In his «Dialogue» Galilei wrote: «An infinite greater than infinity seems to me a concept that can
not be understood in any way.
These are difficulties that derive from the discussion that we intercourse with our finite intellect
around the infinities, giving those attributes that we give to finite and finished things ... We can not say that an
infinite is greater, less or equal to another infinite ... When they ask me, given lines of unequal length, how can
it be that there are more points in the majors than they are in minors, I answer that there are no more no less,
and nether as many, but each one is infinite ».

Comparison between exospherical space and endospherical space

In the aforementioned transformation the straight lines of a figure are changed into curved lines.
The whole exospherical universe dominated by straight lines changes in the whole universe dominated by
curved lines; in the first one dominates Euclidean geometry, in the second a non-Euclidean geometry.
Given the homogeneity and isotropy of the exospherical space, two Euclidean kilometers
represented by straight line segments in length between them are transformed into non-Euclidean kilometers
represented in a non-homogeneous and non-isotropic endospherical space from equal or unequal arches/arcs
depending on whether we have the an equal or unequal radius of finite curvature.
The measurement of a length always implies the comparison with a sample length. In a space where we apply
the Euclidean geometry the straight lines have null characteristics because in each point there is an infinite
radius of curvature. In a space where we apply non-Euclidean geometry the arches/arcs or sectors of
circumference have a radius of finite curvature.
The international meter is the same in every point of the flat space, euclidean, while in a curved, non-Euclidean
space, the meter is a submultiple of the local radius of curvature. To say that two hydrogen atoms have the same
size means that the size of each of them is the same fraction of the curvature of the space where they are
located.
Rigid movements are typical of a space free of any characteristics such as Euclidean, while non-rigid
movements belong to/lies on? a non-Euclidean space with a variable curvature in which bodies, as they move,
do not numerically change their dimension; but the unit of measurement with respect to which the bodies are
measured change, being such unit of measurement not a submultiple of the local radius of curvature, ie of the
place occupied by the body, instant by instant, during its motion. The endospherical field is subject to processes
of contractions and dilations.
Einstein said: "The gravitational field deforms my rigid regoli". An observer who follows a moving body could
in no way verify such contraction or dilatation, since he too, along with his measuring instruments, would be
subject to the same laws to which this body is subject.
Whichever the definition accepted by the pure geometer, the physicist must define space as something that is
characterized in every point by an intrinsic quantity that can be used as a base to measure the objects placed
there. The physical space can not be lacking in characteristics. In geometric terminology the characteristics of
space are drawn as curvatures.
Eddington writes: “the indifferentist identity and the nothing cannot be distinguished philosophically. The
reality of physics are inhomogeneities, events, changes”. The uniformity of space and the consequent rigidity of
the motions constitutes one of the weakest points of the exospherical conception of the Universe.

Chapter XVIII

GREATNESS OF THE UNIVERSE

Kant said: "The head is in space, and yet space is in the head ". The great philosopher meant to
say that the fascinating greatness of the universe has essentially a subjective foundation.
What does it mean to say that the Universe is big?

Let's see what Lammel said (4): "We live in an immense space, in which there is relatively a
small amount of matter, so with reasoning we can call it deserted ".
Also Eddington (1), referring to the universal space, calls it "empty", "deserted". Armellini notes (9): “We have
a Star every 20 cubic parsecs”. Lets recall that a parsec has a length of 30 million of million kilometers.
Imagining to be on a star, to reach another star at the speed of light (300,000 km per second), we would employ
more than 6 years. Again Eddington (1) calculates a medium density of matter in the Universe equal to one
atom for every 1500 cubic squared. The Star Antares has a density 2000 times lower than that of air: this means
that if we wanted to go on that Star we would not even find it because we would be travelling in almost empty
space inside of it!
So, therefore, the street man that remains fascinated by the greatness of the classical universe has not fully
realized that greatness means extension; as regards to matters in the Universe, on average, there is very little.
The charm, therefore, of the greatness of the Universe is reduced to the fascination of the unlimited almost
desert extension!
Let's move on to this other consideration: if we ask the street man if he considers bigger the peel or the seed of
an orange, he would probably answer: the peel. Because for him greater is the extension. But the philosopher
would answer: the seed. Because in the seed there is the genetic code of innumerable orange plants.
For the philosopher, great is the content, the creative power, the development, the vastity of vital force. If we
consider the discovery of energy contained in an atom, energy that has meant the destructive capacity of an
atomic bomb (think of Hiroshima), if we consider the dimensions of a nucleus of an atom, calculated around
one millionth of a millionth of a centimeter, we will understand that greatness can not be valued in the sense of
extension, but in the sense of power.
So therefore whoever suspected that the gigantic walls of the terrestrial concavities enclose a tiny universe
should reconsider and reflect on the psychological nature of a subjective evaluation of the extended greatness of
the classic Universe, a greatness that corresponds to an almost unlimited desert!
The Endospherical Universe, with its hyper dense central firmament and its immense potential energies, must
appear at the attentive observer infinitely large, because there inside of it there is power and in action an
exterminated number of living beings, animals, plants, cells and atoms.
This firmament that dominates and leaves us admired has an infinite greatness. In place of the "empty"
extension, of dissipation and dispersion, inherent in the classical system, we have, in the cosmocentric system,
the conservation, the concentration and the power.

The new idea of the world suggests concepts of collaboration, of solidarity, of union, of
synthesis. The infinitely large potential coincides with a definitely small geometric.

The power and act of Aristotle seem to find a physical reasoning in the cosmocentric system. The
Universe is a living organism. Laplace said: "Nature has the same models in different sizes”. Earth is an
immense cell that encloses the Universe, where life sprouts and where greatness is identified with the absorbed
thought of man that aspires to knowledge and truth.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX/SUMMARY
TABLES
 TAV. I

La Tangente Rettilinea esosferica e la Tangente Curvilinea endosferica.

I
I
I /I

P'

Le «prove» della forma della Terra.

_ LÌIJ.!.!., JL ..Jivello__!_Ì!.P,.,fo_..!,_11' ori!!_!.!!,h .:_· ,,!!..1~it,"

Anoolo d,
• e
dtpru,ion•
dtll'oriuonft
I .
lnt,r re"l'111one
de/I' ri11+nft marino
I
I

I
I
lnterpr,tltz n, ronca va
dtll'orizz~ t, marino
I

-- r,golo di
d,pr,uiont-
dtll'oriz.ront,
--D•

Le due interpretazioni
e le due ..prove " 161
 segue 'I A V. I

Campo elettrico e campo magnetico.

11riiO..----
el!.--
-- ----
---
o --

a
----!.!..•11
-----------
·
--.!..'ca

Fig. up.: Corico eletrrica, campo •l•tfrico • np•rlici• equlpoten1iall.

Fig. inl : Poli magHlici, campo magnetico • superfici• eqoipaleuiati.

162
 TAV . Il

Procedimento di inversione.

163
 ~cguc TAV. li

Metodi per trovare le posizioni inverse e i centri degli archi dei raggi solari.

164
 TAV . Hl

*
., .g

..
·!
li-
,,,:i ~

·=u ·~-!:
• ~
.;

=
~ J ~•
~ ..
r=
o
r= ...• ~..
al ! •...
-e
l:
~..• ::
-!:
a .
...•
•
i ..
~
~
,t
....
li-
~ ~
t
! =-
.e~
1 ~
~ ...
i •
-2l: ~
t:! .e
l
!
s ~ -!!

! ::i
.l!
.•...
o
u
~
o
1c:t.
(Il

-e
u
·e
~

o~
oi,
o
·i::i
al
c:t.
00

\
.
'\ ' '

165
 TAV. IV

Fig. sup., Spazio o c11r11ot11ro 11oriobi/11 Geom,trio non Euclideo

Fig. inl : Spazio piano, unilorm, - G11om11trio Euclidu
\
\
e/
/
\
/
'. /

\
\ 7 V I)<~
\ ,

\
I - i - - i - - __
\
~o. I (ì'x' /-, __ --- rs
---
---- '---._,.. -~-::r
/'--,
>~/ ,
. )~ ;__,.,
1 1

'ç::- _j - - -
90
o :>"1/l d

167
 I due spazi.

Alle tangenti rettilinee ab. be, cd dello

spazio euclideo (fig. inf.) corrispondono le
tangenti curvilinee ab. be, cd dello spazio
non euclideo a curvatura variabile (fig. sup.) ;
al1e parallele rettilinee euclidee corrispon-
dono le parallele curvilinee non euclidee ;
gli angoli, sotto cui s'intersecano le linee
euclidee e le corrispondenti linee non eucli-
dee, sono uguali.

168
 Tav. V

Percbè la Terra concava appare convessa.

.,.,. -----· ·- .. -...... .........

/
//
_,,,,..,·
·"·,·,
I \
i \
\
I i \ \
I i \ i
I i !
! I i
\ \ I
\
\ !
\\ \ I
I
\ I
i
\
',. ·,
'\
/
/
I
I

169
 segue TAV. V

Come apparirebbe la Terra concava vista dalla Luna o dal Sole.

.I
\
/
,,..,,..- ... ..' \ \
I • I

i
i
i
i
i

170
 TAV. VI

.
! {!:

..,
~
-..
e:

-
..::
~
o
...o
..
:5

171
 Fotografia infrarossa del Monte
Aconcagua.

Ammettendo )'ipotesi della propagazione

rettilinea deUe onde elettromagnetiche la
fotografia prova la convessità della Terra.
Ammettendo l'ipotesi della propagazione
curvilinea delle onde elettromagnetiche la
fotografia prova la concavità della Terra.

172
 TAV.Vll

Inversione di figure.

p•

I I
I I
I
I I
F'

\ 7
I
\
\ ,,. }
I
\
\ I i I
I
I
\ I ! I
I
\
\ I I
\ I
\ I I I
\
\ I i I
\
\ i
i I
, I
I
I I !I
\I,i !I
Il II
.I
'i II

i,,
\· I

173
segue TAV. VII

Il problema delle parallassi.

---- --
---._ -rr_,.....~
e

174
 TAV. Vili

La legge di Newton applicata allo spazio esosferico euclideo.

I moti digli astri n,I sistema classico

Il c11mmi110 tlicoid11I• o sp,r11, dtl/11 Ttrr1 r,sp•llo 111• r1,11, fìsn

P1~nilu1110

--· ·------:.:..=.:-·r·::-
,"" ,"' \ \
-------.. . ..........
lJll1mo' .,"'
~~
'

:: ,
.
, '

No,,,,un,o Nov1fun10

Il moto dt/111 L u1111 risp,110 1/ Sot,

I s1st,m1 solari, ptr 11 1,0,11 d•II• gr1vitazio11,, devono gir,r, attorno 1d 111,1 Sot,;
piu gralld, • a dirt111z, nnv,,t magg,ort, rend,ndo in dtfi11/tiV1 impossiM, un c,111,0 dtlfli'ltvtr

175
segue TAV. VIII

Le fasi lunari nei due Sistemi.

/'
I' ~
/
 TAV. IX

o
.,, ... ... -
_. ----- --- ---..........
...

Fig. sup.: Un oggetto, sllu•lo ad ùn• dlst•nz• di 6. ,oo Km. d•ll•

t,rra, i a quuta l•g•to da linu •ttrattiv• r•tte.

Ftg. a destra: L• stesse linu di attrazìon•, nel i:oncetto en dosferico,

sono curve, rimanMdo invariati gli •ngoli sotto cui intersecano la
superfici• concava della Terra.

177
 segue TAV . .IX

Le linee attrattive nei due Sistemi.

178
 TAV.X

La volta del cielo nei due Sistemi.

A'
...o ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-- o

IL S/ST!MA DELL'ORIZZONTE _ li mrtodo ptr coordinar, i gradi cr/uti con gradi

,;/111/ ' arco dr/la volto apparenl11 dt/ cirlo.

Il mondo non euclideo di Poincaré.

179
TAV. XI

li giorno e la notte nei due Sistemi.

180
 /
/ ·,·,.,
/
// "·'·
i
I
I
\
\
I \
I \
I \
\
i I \
. .I I
I
\ \
Q

-=~
Cj
·e: + ·-·-·-·- --·-·-+·--·
I -·- -·---·- - -+-
I / j
s - ..,....
I .j
I .... ..._ I
ti! I --.. --.. i
e Il -...... ....,, -1..
~ / i
...."'
00 I
i
/
/
I/

181
TAV. XIII

Eclissi di Sole ed eclissi di Luna nel Sistema Cosmocentrico.

I
I
I I/
-·--·-·-·---.J.______ - - ·---·-·- -
I
.....
_....,,\,..-·-
___
\ - -, '
\ /
\
____ ....
-· \ ....-..........._...

"'

182
 TAV. XIV

Il Sistema Eliocentrico.

e onglun~lo n,
d I

183
 TAV.XV

U Sistema Cosmocentrlco.

Il

\ I
\ I

\s.,., \
\
\ I
I
I
I

\ I
~'' \
\ I
I
' ', \
\ I
I
'' \

''
' .......... C V f ' t
'' \
~ -,
,,....,. ' ,, /
, \
' , \
' /

---.. . _ _f'--
'-1. ,,'\
____ ..
/

..._ I ..__
..... \ \
....
.-1--- -·
--\
,, - - Ou~ratura _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ - ~ - - - _ ou.dr, lur• - - -
I

·o,•11• , ....,,.
-- ~- dillo T,rro

---------- --·- ·-·- - -

---
,,,,, ,,,,,"
,,,,,,,,,,""',,.,,,

184
TAV. XVI

PUNTO O, Oltt/lV,
~- KM I !ID, 000, 000,
V• ~M IJI, lr.lO, &~I.
a • •-00 C~AD I
A-.0 l'IIA I.li 1.INa
VJIUM.I• zii DIIADI

185
TAV.XVII

l'INTII D. 1199111V, SII. IIU RAOCID INYEIIS

. IONEJ
"· 000. D.
000 ICl4

OIIIITA DI IIAlllE
OGNI TIIATTD IIITTILI

AL Cllll1ID DI ID
I.INlli'. \IIIIIALI !'
CDIIIIIINIU A I.ti AljéDUI

ANOlltJl~A~WI.
ADIACINTJ• 20 l
D1111?I DM! 0UALI
E. \IISTA LA A

186
TAV. XVIII

P\lllTO D, DS!IERI/,
X• KM 150. DOD, DDD
Y. KM 1127. IUO, 702.
o • +-20 GRADI

187