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

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

Glad to hear that you'll stick around. I appreciate your challenges to my theory, they make me think. However, please try to read ALL my replies to other posters who have already mentioned questions you ask, like lunar eclipses. I answered it already twice..once to BordNlazy, twice to Savannah.

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

This is speculative and because I'm not positive, and also because it does not really pertain to the topic of glass in the sky, it seems kind of irrelevant.

Also answer my questions on my previous posts.

I'll get to them later, I got some research to do right now, on top of my job. If I don't soon enough, please restate them later.

Originally posted by Plumbo
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]

Again, Occam's Razor. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. However you prefer to word it. It all comes down to the same thing:

Atmospheric bounce is not proof of a "glassosphere". It is a phenomenon which can be explained either by a "glassosphere" or by the ionosphere. Of these two explanations, if all things are equal (if they each are equally capable of explaining all relevant data) then the more eloquent one (that which requires the fewest assumptions) is most probably the correct one. Occam's Razor favors the ionosphere over your "glassosphere".

Your claim that the explanation of atmospheric bounce by way of a glassosphere has not been countered is patently ridiculous to the objective reader. You simply fail to excercise the intellectual honesty required to see that the standard explanation which your glassosphere is proposed as an alternative to IS the counter. Your proposal of a glassosphere was quite literally countered before it was ever conceived.

*twiddles thumbs and whistles a tune as he watches Plumbo's fantasy world burning to the ground*
And while we're burning down this little myth, I suppose its time for me to jam in yet another of my favorite movie quotes:
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. This one time we had a hill burn for 12 hours. And when it was all over I walked up. That smell, that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smells like... Victory."

Originally posted by The Vagabond
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.

Oils that produce spectrums have silicone in thier composition. Oil puddles on the ashphalt have crystalline silica dividing the white light. Silicone is the key element that divides white light. It's also found on CD's. Not in atmospheric water vapours though.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred.

Of the 2 universal models addressed, which is more simple...less complex?

Atmospheric bounce is not proof of a "glassosphere". It is a phenomenon which can be explained either by a "glassosphere" or by the ionosphere.

It can ONLY be explained by the ionospeere IF you compare the refractive bouce to a radio signal hitting glass....hmmm.

Of these two explanations, if all things are equal (if they each are equally capable of explaining all relevant data) then the more eloquent one (that which requires the fewest assumptions) is most probably the correct one. Occam's Razor favors the ionosphere over your "glassosphere".

Eloquence in linguistic jargon or practicality?

Your claim that the explanation of atmospheric bounce by way of a glassosphere has not been countered is patently ridiculous to the objective reader.

So, your counter to it is that you admit it shares equal validity to the ionosphere explanation, however, since conventional definition appears more linguistically eloquent and mysterious, you favor it. Admittance to phenomenal nature surrenders known understanding. Embracing practical definiton(glass in sky) is rejected, hmm.

You simply fail to excercise the intellectual honesty required to see that the standard explanation

Failing to exercise intellectual deception maybe, but honesty? Let's turn this around.

Originally posted by Plumbo
Silicone is the key element that divides white light.

Wrong. ANY material can cause refraction, because the properties of a single material are not what cuase refraction. Refraction is caused when a wave transfers between two mediums which have different refractive indices and is thus caused to change speed and direction. If light, radio waves, or any other wave passes through two materials which conduct it at different speeds, it will refract.

Of the 2 universal models addressed, which is more simple...less complex?

The one which makes the fewest otherwise unnecessary assumptions. The traditional model works as is. The glassosphere model assumes a host of optical illusions to explain the holes in the theory. The ionosphere model is by far the more eloquent of the two.

It can ONLY be explained by the ionospeere IF you compare the refractive bouce to a radio signal hitting glass....hmmm.

You assume glass as a default when it is not. Any two materials with different refractive indices from the rest of the atmosphere would be comparable, but neither is necessarily being compared to the other in order to explain its function. Their function is explained by comparrison to the other media through which the wave passes, not by comparrison to other materials which would work.

Eloquence in linguistic jargon or practicality?

Cherry Cola.
(ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer)

On a more serious note, since you make it clear that you honestly did not understand me (which leaves me half dumbstruck) eloquent in practicality. To be more specific, eloquent in the language of logic. The theory which is most accurately descriptive of the data in the most concise way. The one which is not full of unnecessary assumptions and caveats. The one that fits neatly without being hammered into place against all reason. Are you catching on to what I meant now?

So, your counter to it is that you admit it shares equal validity to the ionosphere explanation

Not exactly. Notice the subtle but important difference.
While I admit that it would work, I do not admit that it shares equal validity. It is less valid because it makes unnecessary assumptions.
An analogy: I see a car in a given place. An hour later, I see the car again, and it has been moved 20 feet. I wonder, did somebody get in the car, start it, and drive it to that location, or did a team of champion bodybuilders come, pick it up, and move it a few feet, just to mess with the owner's mind? Both explanations would work, but the first is more valid because it makes fewer unnecessary assumptions.

however, since conventional definition appears more linguistically eloquent and mysterious, you favor it.

On the contrary. It is more logically eloquent (see explanation above) and LESS mysterious, involving fewer unknown quantities which must be filled in by assumption.

Let's turn this around.

If you can turn it around you most certainly should because you are being made a fool of and are pretty far along in the process of becoming just another notch in my belt.


[edit on 11-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Wrong. ANY material can cause refraction, because the properties of a single material are not what cuase refraction. Refraction is caused when a wave transfers between two mediums.

Two mediums of silica on either side of the emulsion of oil.



Tiny raindrops in the sky each carrying full spectrum, when ganged together form a solid color. Rainbow is formed by a spherical refracting entity separate and distinct from raindrops, which are only a projective canvas.

The glasosphere model easily explains where tektites originate from, why there are rainbows in the sky, why there is a greenhouse effect, why we have uv protection, why the space shuttle and other returning-from-space vehicles need heat shields to re-enter.

The one which is not full of unnecessary assumptions and caveats. The one that fits neatly without being hammered into place against all reason.

There are many proofs which point to a concave world. There is a bias against these proofs because they diametrically oppose the ungody, humanist pov, which denies there is a literal creator, residing in the earth.

While I admit that it would work,

Thank you. that's all I need to know from you.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Plumbo]

If reincarnation were true.
Then you'd have people going around claiming they were Jesus come back to earth.
But then again my master said many would say they were him.

The Vagabond is totally right. Refraction is caused from light or energy waves traveling from one medium to the next. The angle of which light bounces varies on the type of medium it originated in. Normally if its from a denser medium (air) to a thinner medium (space) the angle of refraction is greater. This can turn to a reflection if the angle of the incoming signal is acute enough.

Originally posted by Plumbo
Tiny raindrops in the sky each carrying full spectrum, when ganged together form a solid color. Rainbow is formed by a spherical refracting entity separate and distinct from raindrops, which are only a projective canvas.

Sorry, but this is wrong. Your idea was good but it dosen't work like that. Light from the sun and not filtered by glass, hits these raindrops. They act as prisims and different frequencies of light exit at different angles. This gives you the bands of different colours in order from the longer wave lengths (red) to the shorter (violet).

Originally posted by Plumbo
The glasosphere model easily explains where tektites originate from, why there are rainbows in the sky, why there is a greenhouse effect, why we have uv protection, why the space shuttle and other returning-from-space vehicles need heat shields to re-enter.

But so far you have not even attempted to meet my challenge to explain stellar fusion in the miniaturized universe which necessitates the assumption of a glassosphere.
You have an interesting and absurd answer to questions which already had perfectly rational answers, but unlike the rational answers, your absurd ones do not explain EVERYTHING.
Tektites are the result of extremely hot matter impacting on the earth's silica-rich surface. Rainbows are the result of refraction through water, the greenhouse effect is present because certain compounds in the atmosphere such as CO2 and H2O act as blackbodies, the ozone layer in our non-glass atmosphere explains UV protection, and friction explains why the space shuttle needs a heat shield. If there was glass up there, the space shuttle would need a hell of a lot more than a heat shield: it would to be constructed in such a way as to withstand a massive collision without sustaining any damage what so ever.
And that brings an interesting question to mind for me- when we launch a space shuttle, why don't tektites rain down on the launch pad an hour later?

There are many proofs which point to a concave world. There is a bias against these proofs because they diametrically oppose the ungody, humanist pov, which denies there is a literal creator, residing in the earth.

There are many proofs which point to a convex world. You have a bias against these proofs because they diametrically oppose the ignorant, unquestioning mindset which denies that a friggin shepherd who lived thousands of years ago didn't have all the answers.

While I admit that it would work,

Thank you. that's all I need to know from you.

Easy now, before you go misrepresenting my statement. It would work to create refraction. The view of the universe that the glassosphere joke is designed to support would most certainly not work.

Edit to add: I just spoke with the Goddess. She's laughing her head off at you. (that's right Plumbo, yet another point of contention has arisen between us- I don't think God has a schlong. Of course the bible repeatedly says "he", so make sure to go way out into left field defending that point as well.)

[edit on 11-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

I think this was already brought up, but just for the heck of it..
What about when I wash my car? And I spray the water in a direction opposite the sun? And I see that nice pretty circular rainbow?

Is there invisible glass between the water droplets and me? Or is this some mysterious result of the rainbow already having been transmitted by the glass in the sky, and my hose just lets me see it?

And rainbows in the sky... what about when they are below the clouds? Why dont I see them when there are no water droplets in the air? If they are purely a result of this glass refracting sunlight and projecting the rainbow down, why don't I see rainbows on especially smoggy days? Why aren't there rainbows constantly displayed on the surface, everywhere?

More obvious points Im sure will go unanswered.

Plumbo, there are lot's of stars in the sky. There are also galaxies that turn out to be clusters of stars far away. The universe is very dynamic, how can this be, if celestial objects are embedded in black ice?

Who built the pyramids? And yes it is relevant to the discussion.

Do you belive in Aliens?

Do you think asteriods are a threat to us? Everything in space is downsized according to you.

Your topic is not making any sense anymore (like it ever did, but less now then before). Your evidence is being debunked, and you are starting to rant about how we don't know any better. Your evidence seems to be "slapped" together in desperation as you try to counter our facts we provided. It's very hard for me to even piece together what you are talking about now.

Even Richard C. Hoagland makes more sense then you (that's saying alot coming from me).




>>>>> P.S - Lately I hurt my hand exercising, so if you see typos in any my posts or U2Us they are because of this. Most of the time I press the key beside the one I was intending to press.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
But so far you have not even attempted to meet my challenge to explain stellar fusion in the miniaturized universe which necessitates the assumption of a glassosphere.

There are stars and nebulae encased in the ice of the celestial sphere that do not follow the general rules of stellar fusion.

There is an energy behind these stars that comes from the throne of God. The stars are changing rapidly and to me suggest an ultimate climax where the entire sphere rifts open(Isaiah 34:4) like a scroll unraveling...probably very soon.

STARS ESCAPE FROM ASTRONOMICAL ZOO


I object to this "new" characterization. This zoo animal disproves standard
fusion models. In fact this star (together with several others) simply
demonstrates stellar evolution wholly NOT in keeping with thermonuclear
stellar theory.....

... there are at least four prime examples of stars that do not evolve
according to the accepted thermonuclear model of how stars are powered.
THESE CHANGES HAVE ALL BEEN OBSERVED DURING THE LAST FEW YEARS. These are
stars that falsify the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles.
All of them act in a manner predicted by the Electric Star hypothesis.

Sirius is a main sequence, brilliant white A-type star. The ancient (among
them: Cicero, Horace, Ptolemy, and Seneca) called it red or "coppery" in
color. Seneca, in the days of Nero, called it "redder than Mars",
whereas he described Jupiter as "not at all red."

Castor is designated as the alpha star in the constellation of Gemini, but
it is not as brilliant as the beta star, Pollux. Stars in constellations
are always named alpha, beta, gamma, etc., in decreasing order of apparent
brilliance. Castor is the 23rd brightest star in the sky while Pollux is the
17th brightest. It has been suggested therefore that since the time of the
ancients, Castor has lost luminosity.

Capella was described as being a "red star" (we would call it M-type) by
several ancient and medieval writers including Ptolemy and Riccioli. It has
now been confirmed to be a binary - one G-type and one F-type. Not M-type.

In the Electric Star version of "stellar evolution" things can happen
quickly. If the fusion model were correct, it would take hundreds of
thousands of years for a star to change from one place in the HR diagram to
another. It would not be observed within a "human lifetime", or have been
observed over an astronomically relatively short period of a mere, say, 2000
years.

It didn't take FG Sagittae hundreds of thousands of years to "run down."
The star V838 Monocerotis has moved half way across the Hertzsprung-Russell
diagram in a few months. Migrating across the HR diagram can happen very
rapidly - and apparently does! How many such counter-examples does it take
for astrophysicists to realize their stellar fusion theory has been
falsified?

Don Scott

www.kronia.com...
www.electric-cosmos.org...

Tektites are the result of extremely hot matter impacting on the earth's silica-rich surface.

Absurdity to this concept even a child can point out. You would have to imply a meteorite which has had 50 miles to cool off hits the ground and goes very deep into the ground. It must then hit the scant amount of terrestrial silica at a fiecre velocity(being slowed down now by the ground penetration), which then would have to create some sort of "escape" vent for the silica to ascend out of the ground. This silica would then have to "shoot" upward at a VERY fast speed and go VERY high. (The aerodynamic shape of the tektite implies this). Keeping in mind that there are no crator impact in most strewnfields where tektites are found.

I think I have an easier answer.

Rainbows are the result of refraction through water,

I already explained this. Rainbows are formed by the glass-filtered light hitting the raindrops. The fact that water refracts light does not and should not imply a rainbow can be created without the aid of a catalytic spherical refracting entity. It's that simple.

the greenhouse effect is present because certain compounds in the atmosphere such as CO2 and H2O act as blackbodies,

Well they have to define it somehow without glass in their equation.

the ozone layer in our non-glass atmosphere explains UV protection,

Well they have to define it somehow without glass in their equation.

and friction explains why the space shuttle needs a heat shield. If there was glass up there, the space shuttle would need a hell of a lot more than a heat shield: it would to be constructed in such a way as to withstand a massive collision without sustaining any damage what so ever.

Not if the glass were thin enough.

And that brings an interesting question to mind for me- when we launch a space shuttle, why don't tektites rain down on the launch pad an hour later?

Any fragments would go upward into inner space, especially when becoming weightless.

a friggin shepherd who lived thousands of years ago didn't have all the answers.

He has all the answers, he even defies "gravity".

Ok, I still haven't been able to keep up with this thread because it is growing too huge too fast!!

ANYWAYS....

To me that looks like a red giant in it's final stages of life. Read up on those things and you'll see what I mean.

[edit on 8/12/2005 by diehard_democrat]

Originally posted by Plumbo
There are stars and nebulae encased in the ice of the celestial sphere that do not follow the general rules of stellar fusion.

There is an energy behind these stars that comes from the throne of God.

Then why is the radiation they emit consistently explainable by fusion? You have nowhere to go with this, so you turn to a scoundrel's last refuge. It's a miracle of God? HA!

If your God can't even build a universe that works on its own without constant maintenance, I don't see why you're so impressed with him.
Time for another one of Vagabond's movie quotes. This time from The Devil's Advocate.
"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift and then what does he do? I swear, for his own amusement, his own private cosmic gag reel he sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch... And while you're jumping on one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughing (expletives deleted)... He's a sadist. He's an absentee-landlord!"

Absurdity to this concept even a child can point out.

Certainly sounds like a job for you. Let's see if you're up to it.

You would have to imply a meteorite which has had 50 miles to cool off

It's not cooling off though. It's gaining an incredible amount of heat through friction as it races through the atmosphere at tremendous speed.

hits the ground and goes very deep into the ground.

Depending on its mass and composition. Not everything necessarily goes very deep into the ground.

It must then hit the scant amount of terrestrial silica

Scant? en.wikipedia.org...

from wikipediaThe most common constituent of sand in inland continental settings and non-tropical coastal settings is silica,

en.wikipedia.org...
Yeah, it's only 17% of the earth's total mass (and that's counting the iron core which you presumably do not believe in, meaning your model would have to make it considerably more than 17%) so yeah, it's REALLY scant.
Where did you go to school? 14th Century England?

at a fiecre velocity(being slowed down now by the ground penetration), which then would have to create some sort of "escape" vent for the silica to ascend out of the ground.

More or less. You throw something down really hard and stuff splashes up obviously.

This silica would then have to "shoot" upward at a VERY fast speed and go VERY high. (The aerodynamic shape of the tektite implies this).

Oh, i didn't realize you were an expert in aerodynamics. Perhaps you would like to tell me exactly from what altitude and at what speed tektites are preformed, preferably with the support of an experiment which can be reproduced by skeptics?
Afterall, that's how the people who write our textbooks come up with their stuff. Just saying whatever you like because it fits a fuzzy, half understood concept in your mind is not science. It's just an untested hypothesis.

Keeping in mind that there are no crator impact in most strewnfields where tektites are found.

A-HA! A clue, sherlock! You mean to tell that no matter how soft the soil or how big the tektite, they never find one that left clear signs of impacting after a fall from the stratosphere? You do realize that I could probably kill a man with a marble from the top of the Sears Tower, right?
An object which falls for 100 seconds has reached roughly the muzzle velocity of an M-16. But the tektites don't leave craters in the strewn fields where they are found? Very interesting.

I already explained this. Rainbows are formed by the glass-filtered light hitting the raindrops. The fact that water refracts light does not and should not imply a rainbow can be created without the aid of a catalytic spherical refracting entity. It's that simple.

You tried to explain it but you were wrong because you keep insisting on water being merely a projective canvas when no such canvas is necessary. A single object which has a different refractive index from the medium through which the wave was previously moving will filter out a given wavelength and a given angle, creating the appearance of a color on itself, without the need to project that color to any other material. Man you are DENSE.

Well they have to define it somehow without glass in their equation.

They didn't just make it up genius. They already knew that we had these things in our atmosphere- they didn't just assume them to make the theory work (which is better than can be said for your glass). It just so happens that something which we know is there can do the job (and this can be readily demonstrated in a lab simply by subjecting those gasses to UV and observing how they radiate the absorbed energy in all directions).

Well they have to define it somehow without glass in their equation.

See above.

Not if the glass were thin enough.

If the glass were thin enough it would not produce large tektites when penetrated because that much glass would have to come from too large of an area. Your theory is self defeating in this aspect. (I'm also a little curious why we're not losing our atmosphere at an alarming rate through these holes- if you've already answered this at least do me the courtesy of telling me which page, because I'm not going to spend a whole hour to fight an already flimsy aspect of your logic.

Any fragments would go upward into inner space, especially when becoming weightless.

Ever hear of gravity? We discussed it earlier. We can see the interaction between bodies in space, we launch objects on paths which compensate for gravitational effects and they go exactly where we intend them to, and without it there would not be rotation or spin to bodies in space.

And I repeat, your ancient shepherd does not have all of the answers. He clearly states that space is an ocean of water and that the sky is vaulted up there like a cieling.

Maybe the reason the shuttle and satellites doesn't leave earth's atmosphere enitrely is because they're still not in zero-gravity, so they call it microgravity...


or

maybe they're just trapped inside with nowhere else to go....

Earlier you were denying gravity because its existence would destroy your theory. Now you seem to be hinting that it exists to some degree?

And we landed on the moon, remember? (I double dare you to break out the old Moon Hoax stuff- the debunking facts are out there and I am aware of them). So much for being "glassosphere" bound.

You have been KO'd my friend.
*goes to a neutral corner and waits for ref's instructions.*

Does anybody out there know why there is such an emphasis placed on the geometric shape of the pyramid? All through history this figure has symbolized power. Even today, we see the symbol used in the economy as a financial icon. It is used in corporate logos as well.

The pyramid shape itself is being seen as a supernatural source of power or energy. The pyramid power has become the primary focus of everything from veterinarian concerns to extraterrestrial messages.

www.algonet.se...

Pyramid Power, an environmentally friendly source of renewable energy. With renewable energy, you can avoid the cost of connecting to the electricity grid and there's no need for extensive surveys, tree clearing or construction works, nor any transformers easements.

www.piramidpower.com...

Radio telescopes operate by detecting the radio waves that all matter emits.
Conventional parabolic telescopes work in teams and the information from each is then patched together to give astronomers a complete picture of what is out there.
Data collected by the antennas is processed by a supercomputer
However, to reach the far end of the universe would require a telescope 100 times the size of conventional dishes.

Instead, scientists working on the Lofar project have resorted to pyramid power, creating 20 to 25,000 simple pyramidal radio antennae, which are being put in place 350 kilometres across the north of the Netherlands.


In the end they will go to make up the world's largest radio telescope.

news.bbc.co.uk...

These are a mere handful of examples of how the pyramid shape is used and is recognized as a sign of power and strength.

What does any of that have to do with glass in the atmosphere? Now your just plain changeing the topic...You should spend more time revising your theory and less time playing with photoshop and flash you might get futher.

All of the members who have took part in this discussion , have given time and enegry to counter your points and most of the time your using semantics to squirm away from the point at hand, throwing inaccurate diagrammes , dodgy flash and bible verses to uphold your feeble theory.

People here on ATS won't buy all your bells and whistles.Go home.

Ignorance Denied.

Please bare with me.

I do intend to stick with the topic of glass in the sky. The objective mind would have to agree that there are too many "coincidenses" alluding to glass in the sky.

I would just like you all to change gears a little. So, please try to respond to my previous post.

thank you.

The pyramid is simple geometry, there is nothing profound about it.The solar panels and antennae simple benefit from being pyramid shaped , the same way round wheels are better than square wheels.

Lots of companys also use other shapes in their logo's.

So where are you going with this ?