It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Someone Explain Why There is not Glass in the Atmosphere?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Is there a layer of glass right down on the surface that noone notices?


Originally posted by Plumbo
Stupid questions don't deserve answers.

Oh palEEEZE !!!!

Plumbo you took that out of context and you know it.
Mighty shallow attempt of diverting from the paragraph in whole.

Misfit




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
15. A vacuum conducts neither rays, nor light, nor heat nor gravity, but this is not valid for the sun and its planets.


So very, very, wrong. Light travels though a vacuum, better than through air. Heat also travels through vacuums as radiant energy. Gravity is a physical force that dosen't need to be in the presence of a medium. Gravity bends light rays.

On another note, don't you think that this encased, limited world idea would be a bit of a insult to the true power of God? If he is indefinately powerful, why would he create a world so limited? Instead of a boundless universe, that would demonstrate the unlimited power? Just a thought.

Plumbo just a few questions...

1. Do you think that asteroids are a threat? In your model of the Earth things in space are smaller then the appear.

2. Do you belive in aliens?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
38. That the magnetic field of the earth is supposed to be caused by an iron core at the center of the earth, although it is known that iron becomes unmagnetic at the Curie point at 750° C .


These fields are generated by the rotation of the core. Also there are other metals in the core, one of which is nickel.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
There isn't enough windex on the planet to keep the internal and external surfaces of this supposed glass, free of Atmospheric particulates, and on the flipside, spaceborne dust.

no glass, just gas.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I didn't buy any of Teed's theory, although I think he's brilliant for thinking it up. CYRUS TEED was brilliant. You know, he's the the guy you won't discuss? Exactly why was he an apostate? Because if I'm gonna believe this theory, I'm going to follow the source, not some late comer with an Internet connection.



I've been poor for many years now. Reconducting an experiment that has already been proven to be very accurate doesn't seem like an interest to me.

Yeah, but poverty didn't stop Cyrus Teed, did it? I mean, he's the guy you're ripping off, and he seemed to be actually touched by God, considering how ferverently he preached. Your couch-bound postings on the Internet cannot possibly compare to him, a guy who set up a whole town in Florida? Teed was a whirlwind and he still couldn't make this theory fly. Compared to his, your effort pales. Are you hoping for a miracle and that people just take your word for it?

You are ripping Cyrus Teed off and you will not discuss him. As a result, you will have no followers and no believers because when they learn this fact (that you aren't starting any revolution at all, but borrowing one) they will leave your cult. You see?

Anyway, as wikipedia says under the heading, Koreshanity:



Koreshanity

Koreshanity is the set of religious/scientific beliefs put forth by Cyrus Teed. Followers of this belief were called "Koreshans", and most of them formed a utopian communal society called the Koreshan Unity.

Major Beliefs
The major beliefs of Koreshanity or Koreshan Universalogy, as put forth in the many writtings of Cyrus Teed and his followers are:

Cellular Cosmogony, which is Teed's unique form of Hollow Earth theory which puts forth the idea that the Earth, and universe are contained within a concave sphere, or 'cell'. The Koreshans even conducted several experiments, similar to those conducted by believers in a Flat Earth. The most well known was conducted on the beach of Naples (the Koreshan Geodetic Survey of 1897), a town south of the Koreshan Unity commune at Estero, Florida. Here is the description of the earth from Cellular Cosmogony:

"The sun is an invisible electromagnetic battery revolving in the universe's center on a 24-year cycle. Our visible sun is only a reflection, as is the moon, with the stars reflecting off seven mercurial discs that float in the sphere's center. Inside the earth there are three separate atmospheres: the first composed of oxygen and nitrogen and closest to the earth; the second, a hydrogen atmosphere above it; the third, an aboron atmosphere at the center. The earth's shell is one hundred miles thick and has seventeen layers. The outer seven are metallic with a gold rind on the outermost layer, the middle five are mineral and the five inward are geologic strata. Inside the shell there is life, outside a void."

Of course Teed, being smarter and more advanced, believed in reincarnation, or so I've read. What's your problem? The link above also says that Teed saw himself as the seventh messiah, the sixth being Christ himself. Do you see yourself in there somewhere?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Ok, you say the cosmos is contained entirely within the shell of Earth, correct?
If I were to use a beach ball as a globe- I am on the inside surface of the ball, which is earth, and the rest of the cosmos is in the airspace at the center of the ball, behind glass, correct?

First and foremost, let me present the simplest proof against this model of the universe. Gravity.

We know the size of the earth and the composition of its surface, therefore although we could reduce theorize that it was thin under this theory and thus that its mass was greatly reduced, there would be a minimum mass to it. If we theorize that the rest of the cosmos is very small, and is contained entirely within the area dictated by circumference of a convex earth, then the universe would be pulled to Earth's gravity- Anything in the cosmos not located precisely in the center would immediately come smashing through the glass and down to Earth. Even then, the variations in the earth's mass caused by the composition of the surface (especially over the Pacific Ocean) would make even the center of the cosmos unstable, so even an object located in the center of the cosmos would be most attraced to someplace in Central Asia and would either wobble noticeably or would come crashing to Earth.

So to prove this model, you have to deny gravity. But you can't deny gravity, even if you claim that centrifugal force keeps us on Earth's surface, because then you fail to explain the moon's influence on tides.

Another consideration- For the sun to be contained entirely within Earth redefines its mass to a point that would make natural hydrogen fusion impossible. Our sun would have to be a neutron star or something similiar, and we'd experience a very different kind of solar output.

Which brings us to our next point- radiosignals from stars. If stars are actually ice crystals out in space reflecting light, there is no fusion in them, and they would not emit radio waves.

Now how about the obvious- why does the sun set if it is contained within the shell of earth? And if the sun were at the center of the cosmos (i haven't see you state that it is, but if it were) then it would never appear to move at all- it would always be directly overhead.

Your theory as I understand you to present it makes no astronomical or physical sense I am afriad. It seems to be based almost entirely on the unnecessary addition of elements to the processes of light refraction in our atmosphere, designed to cover up the inaccurate description of the cosmos provided by the Bible.

Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Where two similiar and functional theories differ only by the presence of additional factors in one, the additional factors are non-causative and need not be assumed.
Therefore if rainbows and other refractive phenomenon can be explained without the aid of glass (which they can be) then the presence of glass is an unnecessary assumption and the theory which supposes its presence is not to be favored.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
38. That the magnetic field of the earth is supposed to be caused by an iron core at the center of the earth, although it is known that iron becomes unmagnetic at the Curie point at 750° C .


I am separating this from my previous post because I am less certain about it.
If I am not mistaken though, metals lose their ferromagnetic properties at their Currie point because they become entirely amorphous and thus magnetic moments can not be held in alignment with magnetic domains.
en.wikipedia.org...

So, if a metal were above it's Curie point, but under such immense pressure that it remained solid (as is the proposed case with the very center of the Earth), would it maintain its ferromagnetic properties? I think it would.

Does anyone know for sure?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So, if a metal were above it's Curie point, but under such immense pressure that it remained solid (as is the proposed case with the very center of the Earth), would it maintain its ferromagnetic properties? I think it would.
Does anyone know for sure?


I don't know if that's what it is but it sounds like a legitamate theory. There is a easier theory that the core spins in the opposite direction of the matter outside of it creating a charge, this is called the "dynamo effect". These energies must be enormous to generate such a large and powerful magentic feild that extends 300,000 kilometers out.

I did find this article on the dynamo effect.


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
The simple question "how does the Earth get its magnetic field?" does not have a simple answer. It does seem clear that the generation of the magnetic field is linked to the rotation of the earth, since Venus with a similar iron-core composition but a 243 Earth-day rotation period does not have a measurable magnetic field. It certainly seems plausible that it depends upon the rotation of the fluid metallic iron which makes up a large portion of the interior, and the rotating conductor model leads to the term "dynamo effect" or "geodynamo", evoking the image of an electric generator.

Convection drives the outer-core fluid and it circulates relative to the earth. This means the electrically conducting material moves relative to the earth's magnetic field. If it can obtain a charge by some interaction like friction between layers, an effective current loop could be produced. The magnetic field of a current loop could sustain the magnetic dipole type magnetic field of the earth. Large-scale computer models are approaching a realistic simulation of such a geodynamo.




More information on the Magnetosphere - liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Ok, you say the cosmos is contained entirely within the shell of Earth, correct?
If I were to use a beach ball as a globe- I am on the inside surface of the ball, which is earth, and the rest of the cosmos is in the airspace at the center of the ball, behind glass, correct?




First and foremost, let me present the simplest proof against this model of the universe. Gravity.


Well then present me with gravity. You haven't yet.



you sound like a babbling psuedo-intellectual. No offense, well, maybe some.

Go back and read about air pressure.


So to prove this model, you have to deny gravity.




marvelous deduction.


But you can't deny gravity, even if you claim that centrifugal force keeps us on Earth's surface, because then you fail to explain the moon's influence on tides.


man, you really should digest my theory instead of just hoppin' on at the tail end here...in the end it'l make you look less cognitively challenged.

Tides are explained by the relief in pressure caused by the moon and sun. Go back and find my graph on this....

AND

I never claimed centrifugal force holds us down. if this were true, the lil' penguins would fly at the poles.


Which brings us to our next point- radiosignals from stars. If stars are actually ice crystals out in space reflecting light, there is no fusion in them, and they would not emit radio waves.


I dislike misrepresentations. I never said stars were ice. They are encased in ice, but there chemical compo is not ice.


Now how about the obvious- why does the sun set if it is contained within the shell of earth?


phew, buddy. you really need to go back and study.
The actual vs. perceived graphic explains that the sun gives the illusion of setting, which in reality, never does but continuously circles around the celestial sphere.

The heaven and earth graphic suggests the sun's circuit is cylindrical, meaning it's high point in the summer solstice produces direct light to the northern tropic, and south ot the southern.


And if the sun were at the center of the cosmos (i haven't see you state that it is, but if it were) then it would never appear to move at all- it would always be directly overhead.


gee, I'm glad for your sake you put that disclaimer in there.


Your theory as I understand you to present it makes no astronomical or physical sense I am afriad.


don't be afraid, I'm afraid for you. You failed to fully comprehend my theory.


Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Where two similiar and functional theories differ only by the presence of additional factors in one, the additional factors are non-causative and need not be assumed.


Glass is the entity you fail to recognize. Go ahead, believe its not there, but this is just ignorance.


Therefore if rainbows and other refractive phenomenon can be explained without the aid of glass (which they can be)


No they cannot. They need glass-filtered light to be produced. I know there are thousand of websites defining their creation by the billions of tiny raindrops refracting the light, but they're all wrong, and since you seem to comfortably fit in this skewed undertanding, you're wrong too.


then the presence of glass is an unnecessary assumption and the theory which supposes its presence is not to be favored.


You try to come across as this rational, intellectual prodigy....presenting this flawed hypothetical reasoning, not truly understnding my position with this montone rational of a doorknob...it's just smoke and mirrors.

The FACTS of glass are very present and real.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
I don't know if that's what it is but it sounds like a legitamate theory. There is a easier theory that the core spins in the opposite direction of the matter outside of it creating a charge, this is called the "dynamo effect". These energies must be enormous to generate such a large and powerful magentic feild that extends 300,000 kilometers out.



and....remarkably there is even as EASIER theory...One which you have failed to accept.

Electromagnetism's source is from God's throne...

located in the heart of the earth


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
The simple question "how does the Earth get its magnetic field?" does not have a simple answer.


oh contrare!



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
I didn't buy any of Teed's theory, although I think he's brilliant for thinking it up. CYRUS TEED was brilliant. You know, he's the the guy you won't discuss? Exactly why was he an apostate? Because if I'm gonna believe this theory, I'm going to follow the source, not some late comer with an Internet connection.


You want to follow me only if I'm brilliant like Mr. Teed?


Yeah, but poverty didn't stop Cyrus Teed, did it? I mean, he's the guy you're ripping off, and he seemed to be actually touched by God, considering how ferverently he preached. Your couch-bound postings on the Internet cannot possibly compare to him, a guy who set up a whole town in Florida? Teed was a whirlwind and he still couldn't make this theory fly. Compared to his, your effort pales. Are you hoping for a miracle and that people just take your word for it?


now, now Smallpeeps, your judging me before you know of ANY of the public confrontations I created....any of the direct confrontations I had in front of hundreds of people at seminars and churches.

I'm not afraid to show my face.....are you?


Teed was a whirlwind and he still couldn't make this theory fly. Compared to his, your effort pales. Are you hoping for a miracle and that people just take your word for it?


psst....(he didn't know there was glass in the sky)
Doesn't matter how smart anyone is concerning this. Their either IS glass or there ISN'T.

Even if I had the intellect of a 7 yr. old, and I was right about the presence of glass, I'd still be right...and Teed wrong.

My intellectual merits and achievments do not compare to his.
But there's a saying the ole' bible about God revealing things to them who are babies. and hiding them from adults....him turning the wisdom of the wise men into foolishness and making their knowledge backwards .Is 44:25


You are ripping Cyrus Teed off and you will not discuss him. As a result, you will have no followers and no believers because when they learn this fact (that you aren't starting any revolution at all, but borrowing one) they will leave your cult. You see?


I won't talk much about him because he, like Lucifer, wanted to appear to the world as the new Messiah.

Therefore he was evil and his heart was wicked.

I'm here to lift up the name of Jesus Christ, who is literally present at his Father's right side in heaven ONLY ABOUT 4,000 MILES AWAY!

I testify of his FLESH!!!

look this passage up...test the spirits.....
1John 4:1-4


[edit on 10-8-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The buiders (who were not Egyptian), did not compensate for the curvature of earth, either.




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Wake up, people.

There's glass in the sky.

This is the new reality...the old reality.



Sometimes the ionosphere seems to be like glass, skipping HF waves around the earth multiple times.

www.wr6wr.com...



Certain gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor) behave like glass in the Earth's atmosphere and are called greenhouse gases
Human activities since the 19th century (beginning of Industrial Revolution) have dramatically increased carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere
Concern is that this will cause global warming of atmosphere
One problem is that we do not understand the Earth's climate system well enough to predict what will really happen

earth.usc.edu...



Moreover scientists have discovered an upper atmospheric layer called Kennelly-Heaviside layer (ionosphere) over the earth which looks like glass and protects the humans from harmful rays emanating from the sun, which also reflects electromagnetic waves (radio waves) back to the earth.

www.manavai.com...

Atmospheric Windows (labeled because it carries the same characteristics of glass windows)

The wavelength intervals or bands in the electromagnetic spectrum where solar radiation can be transmitted through the atmosphere without being absorbed. In the absence of clouds, sunlight gets through atmospheric windows to Earth's surface and Earth's radiative heat escapes back into space.

www.ccpo.odu.edu...



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Wake up, people.

There's glass in the sky.

This is the new reality...the old reality.


Whoa, don't jump to conclusions yet Plumbo. This debate has only begun.

How would you explain lunar eclipses. Wouldn't the sun have to be behind the Earth to produce a shadow. Also the earth would have to be round in
order to cast a round shadow.

Who built the pyramids? Don't give me God, aliens, or Jesus as an answer.


Also answer my questions on my previous posts.

[edit on 8/10/2005 by GoldEagle]

[edit on 8/10/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo]you sound like a babbling psuedo-intellectual. No offense, well, maybe some.


Perhaps intended but certainly not taken. We ridicule those who are different from ourselves. Therefore to be ridiculed by a fool is indeed a compliment when viewed objectively.

For all your unnecessary addition of factors to already explainable processes, and your insistence that if I do not read 10 pages of utter nonsense, you still fail to deflect the criticism of your theory which comes not from me, but from science. You can slag me all you like, but your beef isn't with me, it's with Physics and Astronomy.

You have failed to explain fusion in a miniaturized universe, and thus you can not explain the universe in which we live with your theory.

Your argument against gravity is also flawed. How do you explain the interactions we see between bodies in space, and how could objects launched into space on paths determined by calculations depending on gravity possibly follow their intended path if it was only air pressure beneath the glass creating the illusion of gravity?



I dislike misrepresentations. I never said stars were ice. They are encased in ice, but there chemical compo is not ice.


My point stands nevertheless. By redifining the size of the universe to the degree you have, you reduce stars to a size which can not support fusion and the radio signals go unexplained.
This is closely linked to the other point in my argument which you chose to ingore- that the sun, at a size which can be contained within the Earth, could not support hydrogen fusion.




don't be afraid, I'm afraid for you. You failed to fully comprehend my theory.


In deed. Few reasonable people could possibly comprehend that such foolishness could be embraced, simply because some people can't cope with the fact that goat herders 3,500 years ago didn't understand the universe. Do yourself a favor- throw your bible away and read something important.




No they cannot.

(referring to the ability of rainbows to be formed without glass)

You'll need some oil, and any source of white light not encased in glass- i recommend a gas camping lantern with the glass case removed, but keep a fire extinguisher handy. Do it indoors so that you don't have a potentially "glass filtered" source of light. You'll still see an oil rainbow.
You do not need glass. Any refractive material will do the trick, including water, ice, oil, etc.



You try to come across as this rational, intellectual prodigy....presenting this flawed hypothetical reasoning, not truly understnding my position with this montone rational of a doorknob...it's just smoke and mirrors.


You can misrepresent me all you like, but you'll not ruffle my feathers. I make no pretense to any level of intellect. I approach the question from the angle dictated by the very nature of the question- in this case physics and astronomy. You dislike the fact that I wish to discuss this from a scientific angle, because naturally you will lose, so you try to present the application of science as pretentious and even ignorant. I find this highly amusing.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   


Are the pyramids big enough that they have to be compensated for the Earth's curvature? Nope. Does your diagram prove anything, no.

What makes a laser beam "hug" the curve of the Earth?


apc

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Haha awesome.
No, the builders (the people that actually hauled the blocks into place) were not Egyptians. They were Jews... they were slaves (unless you want to count the ones that were born in Egypt.. then they were Egyptian Jews).
The architects, however, were Egyptians through and through.

The base of the pyramids were laid out first by carving out the square section of the ground, and then filling it with water. The depth of the water was made equal at every point, leveling the base. If you want to get really anal about it, then yes the base of the pyramid would bow along with the curvature of the earth. Is it a measurable bend? Barely. For all practical purposes, no.

Lasers bending along Earth's surface? LOL maybe if we were about 10,000 times more massive, sure. But we're not. If you have a strong enough laser pointed at the horizon, it goes straight out into space. Not into the back of your head.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
If it is air pressure that keeps our feet planted Plumbo, then perhaps you would allow me to place you in a vacuum chamber and let a 2000# slab of steel drop on your head. Do you care to take on this experiment or not?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
If it is air pressure that keeps our feet planted Plumbo, then perhaps you would allow me to place you in a vacuum chamber and let a 2000# slab of steel drop on your head. Do you care to take on this experiment or not?


I'll have a go!

J/k, but really, ben's got a point. Air pressure can only hold something to the ground as long as it never leaves, saying we never lifted our feet off the ground, AND assuming that air could not get in between the treads of our shoes. I think you've got something going for all the other proposed theories, but this air pressure one, no. Besides, how would all the other things be able to stay on the ground?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I'l get back to your other concerns later,
In the mean time here's a graphic that explains how ham radio works in our earth.

The ionosphere, which is nothing less than glass, refracts the low frequency signals.


You haven't seemed to counter this, which backs the title of this thread.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Plumbo]




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join