Evidence of a Glass Layer in the Atmosphere

a reply to: frostie

That would seem more realistic. But I think the reason the good ol' wild heretic assumed it to be solid was because spacecraft entering/exiting the atmosphere had to be hotter than the melting point of glass.

Greetings and Salutations-

The most important question is: "Is the glass "half empty" or "half full"?

namaste

originally posted by: JimNasium


Greetings and Salutations-

The most important question is: "Is the glass "half empty" or "half full"?

namaste

That is the real question. Thanks for the breath of fresh air.

I know the sky is glass because it's my job to clean it.
You should see my Windex bill.

a reply to: frostie

I don't remember reading the part where he declares proof and uses the article to back it up.
You people attack him like he's making a bold claim.

The Hungry wolves forgot to read again.

Thank you for saying that; I was thinking much the same. He isn't extrapolating a new theory or making a claim...he's simply asking for feedback, both pro and con, on the possibility of this phenom actually existing, based on the evidence presented. The open mockery and unmitigated hateful and belittling behavior that permeates these threads of late is severely limiting this site...if it doesn't stop, people are going to give up on posting anything for fear of being abused for their trouble. It's like handing a cookie to a hungry kid and then slapping the hell out of him when he reaches out to take it.

OP: Thank you for the interesting post. I don't know anything about the source author, but I thought it was very well written and engaging, for an online article. I am not sure what I believe anymore about our planet, but if there really is a layer of glass up there it would certainly go a long way toward explaining how they are able to produce the fake sky so quickly and easily. A holographic projector type of mechanism. And it's been happening a lot lately... just yesterday the sky was fake, in fact.

S&F for the interesting read and for hanging tough despite all the McNasty's and their hateful comments.

a reply to: neformore

originally posted by: cooperton
Can someone point out particulars that are not true and why?


Moon landing.

Voyager 1 & 2

Pioneer 1 & 2

To name a few.

That page is the epitomy of stupid.

Lets not do stupid on ATS.

Nice, even the mods are mocking the OP now. Super classy. I always do appreciate a little irony though...Is it possible that you meant to say "epitome"? You know, in the spirit of not doing stupidity on ATS...I'm sure it was just a typo though, of course.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: neformore

originally posted by: cooperton
Can someone point out particulars that are not true and why?


Moon landing.

Voyager 1 & 2

Pioneer 1 & 2

To name a few.

That page is the epitomy of stupid.

Lets not do stupid on ATS.

Nice, even the mods are mocking the OP now. Super classy. I always do appreciate a little irony though...Is it possible that you meant to say "epitome"? You know, in the spirit of not doing stupidity on ATS...I'm sure it was just a typo though, of course.

Marry me? I'd settle for a platonic relationship if you are already taken.

"Firstly, there is hardly any atmosphere at that altitude whether going up or coming down which also opens a new can of worms regarding why the space shuttle should heat to 1650 °C when there is so little air in the upper atmosphere."

You will also see meteors come in like fireballs. Since they cannot burn in space, the must then do so when entering the atmosphere. This is also why the shuttle must make re-entry at an angle with its nose pointing up, otherwise the astronauts would not survive the heat.

"There can be only one reason why the shuttle is reinforced at its nose and front wing edges: it must hit something hard at some point on its way up."

See the above point. Re-entry into the atmosphere takes a heavy toll on solid entities, i.e. meteors that also break up as well as burn.

" If the angle of the shuttle is too shallow, it bounces off the “atmosphere” (read glass) like a skipping stone and goes back into space, which is called skip re-entry."

This even explains it self in the article. Why does the rock skip across the water if it is made of a denser material? According the the articles theory, there must be glass cover all bodies of water so that the stone can skip in the first place.

And the article gets even more absurd from there. Look, where did this glass come from? How does it repair itself? How does it even stay exactly 100 km above the planet surface? How thick is it? why is it when a meteor hits it we do not see glass falling over a wide area from the impact? If there is glass then China, Russia and India are all in on the conspiracy. And unless the glass was completely smooth and perfect, it would be easy to see variations when observing distance objects, including the moon.

Wow, I put way too much time into this. Remember, just because you want to believe, that does not make it real.

a reply to: cooperton

No. It's really quite impossible. But do keep on defending this. It's your time. Your mind.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: cooperton

No. It's really quite impossible. But do keep on defending this. It's your time. Your mind.

I can see your 5x great grandparents in a public forum arguing that flying is impossible. This theory of a glass layer in the atmosphere is completely arbitrary, but the offense that many of the ATS members have taken because of me simply asking a question seems like a serious problem; especially on a forum meant for challenging conventional ideas. Especially since most of them did not even read the article.

I guess there really is something to the old phrase...

Breaking the Glass ceiling.

Who would have thought?

Also remember there are numerous countries with space programs that don't seem to be bothered or hindered in anyway from that atmospheric glass.

Wonder why?

a reply to: cooperton

The problem people are having isn't about the challenging of conventional ideas. It's about basing a challenge of conventional ideas on something absurd and continuing to defend that challenge regardless of the plethora of evidence against it. You can challenge anything, but you just have to be prepared to accept that the challenge failed.

There's some crazy dink on YouTube named "Lord Steven Christ" who thinks the sky is made of glass lol.

a reply to: Xaphan

There's some crazy dink on YouTube named "Lord Steven Christ" who thinks the sky is made of glass lol.

So that's what happened to the former lead singer from Creed.

originally posted by: ObservingTheWorld
"Firstly, there is hardly any atmosphere at that altitude whether going up or coming down which also opens a new can of worms regarding why the space shuttle should heat to 1650 °C when there is so little air in the upper atmosphere."

You will also see meteors come in like fireballs. Since they cannot burn in space, the must then do so when entering the atmosphere. This is also why the shuttle must make re-entry at an angle with its nose pointing up, otherwise the astronauts would not survive the heat.

"There can be only one reason why the shuttle is reinforced at its nose and front wing edges: it must hit something hard at some point on its way up."

See the above point. Re-entry into the atmosphere takes a heavy toll on solid entities, i.e. meteors that also break up as well as burn.

" If the angle of the shuttle is too shallow, it bounces off the “atmosphere” (read glass) like a skipping stone and goes back into space, which is called skip re-entry."

This even explains it self in the article. Why does the rock skip across the water if it is made of a denser material? According the the articles theory, there must be glass cover all bodies of water so that the stone can skip in the first place.

And the article gets even more absurd from there. Look, where did this glass come from? How does it repair itself? How does it even stay exactly 100 km above the planet surface? How thick is it? why is it when a meteor hits it we do not see glass falling over a wide area from the impact? If there is glass then China, Russia and India are all in on the conspiracy. And unless the glass was completely smooth and perfect, it would be easy to see variations when observing distance objects, including the moon.

Wow, I put way too much time into this. Remember, just because you want to believe, that does not make it real.

Well first has nothing to do with how many particles there are. The heating isn't caused by friction there is your first mistake. You assume the atmosphere causes heating by hitting the craft thus is not what happens. On reentryvehicle develops a very energetic pressure wave at its leading surfaces. The energy density is sufficient to cause atmospheric molecules to dissociate, and their component atoms to become ionized. this super heated plasma reaches thousands of degrees ..Now the formation of the pressure wave, also creates extreme temperatures. This is why objects burn on reentry the shuttle has to be able to sit on a furnace and dispurse the heat The plasma stream is electrostatically­charged too, and so it concentrates at acute surface contours. The resultant effect is particularly intense local heating at the airframe’s leading edges. This is why they had to reinforce the nose and edges of the wings they take e men's stress from the shock waves and take the brunt of the heat. Aluminum would melt. Now the shuttle disaster on reentry wad caused by this super heated plasma. The minute the plasma got to the airframe they were doomed. All it took was 1 missing tile.

Now as for the idea of glass wel I'll say it's beyond stupid for one we would notice every time we used a telescope. Place a curving piece of glass in front of anyrhing and we would see it focus everything into rigs. Imagine what that sky would look like But my only question would be who does this guy think is capable of putting glass around an entire planet?? To handle orbital stresses you would be talking kilometers thick say minimum of 10. And trying to get a probe through it impossible. Even worse what it would do to the people inside ever seen an ant get fried under a magnifying glass??

I've given Steve Christ's videos a fair go, and I have to say I just don't see this conspiracy panning out at all. Sometimes CTs are just wrong after all.

This has the same issue that any conspiracry theory which challenges the standard globe model has, which is that the globe model is supported by massive amounts of evidence that can be gathered by anyone, no need to rely on any space agency or government, whereas this (and I realise I'm wandering off the "glass ceiling" onto Steve Christs wider theories here) requires all kinds of special pleading and what ifs just to not fall apart under basic scrutiny.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh, well, that explains all the little bits of glass people keep finding every time a satellite falls from orbit! It's just the glass in the atmosphere. What a load off my mind!

(we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.)

originally posted by: Xaphan
There's some crazy dink on YouTube named "Lord Steven Christ" who thinks the sky is made of glass lol.

There are a bunch of his videos earlier in the thread.

He used to be a member here. But then he threatened the president and got arrested.

Hmm. From the outside, I have no idea how to dismiss or otherwise disprove a glass layer in the atmosphere. Seeing the thread title, I click on it, wondering what it's about. Obviously there're some weirdos out there who think weirdo things, so I just breeze through the thread, getting a feel for it. As I near the end of the road, I make a u-turn and stop. I sit there for some time. And I ask myself this question, eventually "Is it possible some potential scientific discoveries have been discarded simply because they were dismissed or not deemed likely? Is it possible some scientists avoided a path of research because it would negatively impact their reputation??

You know I believe in science. That's the thing which bothers me. I believe. In all honesty, I do not understand much. Yes I went through high school and some college so I have some elementary knowledge, but beyond that it's fog and mirrors. I do not have the luxury of being able to dismiss easily. So how do I know what I read or hear is any good? I look to see if it's from an official source. That means I look for consensus. I don't mean consensus amongst the clowns, either. A lot of the internet is composed of dubious information, so I'm weary of most of it. Consensus on the internet is not really consensus, until you link it firmly to reality.

While it might be easy to disprove flat earthers, I do have an intuitive feeling not all things can easily be dismissed and yet they still are, more than is warranted... And that's why I stopped after I made the u-turn instead of speeding away. It's almost indefinable why I stop. Maybe it's not just intuition, but instinct. A seed of doubt planted in me? By what, whom? It's an uncontrollable reaction. Not always good. There's a reason we believe in people who know better than us... On our own we're fools.

when US first started testing nuclear bombs.
they detonated them high up.
did we have a glass bubble? and they blow it up.