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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy


If I've understood this correctly, what you are saying is that the earth we live on is actually a sphere but we live on the inner surface. The Sun is in the centre of this sphere and all the planets are revolving around the sun. Is this correct?


well, almost.

The sun along with the planets and moon revolve around the central celestial sphere. They stay close to the ecliptic, which is what is tilted, not earth. The sun revolves in a perpetual cylindrical circuit every 365 days. Not all the planets revolve around the sun, just mercury and venus. The other revolve around the celestial sphere.


How does your theory explain atmospheres on other planets? do they have their own glass spheres keeping the atmosphere in? how would you add this in your diagrams from above?


I don't think so. They have gases surrounding them.




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   


The sun along with the planets and moon revolve around the central celestial sphere


So why can't we, or space craft sent outside the glass sphere, see the celestial sphere?



The other revolve around the celestial sphere.


why then do the planets all obey kepler's third law? this has been verified not only from the surface of the earth but from space, outside the glass sphere.


I can't see any logical reason for believing this theory. Your own signature tells us to try and make things simple, or see things in a simple way, your theory requires us to completely ignore all the evidence we see that tells us that the earth is a sphere that orbits the sun.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
So why can't we, or space craft sent outside the glass sphere, see the celestial sphere?


I'm not quite sure they cannot.



why then do the planets all obey kepler's third law? this has been verified not only from the surface of the earth but from space, outside the glass sphere.


I think a better question would be why do planets orbit in ellipses.


your theory requires us to completely ignore all the evidence we see that tells us that the earth is a sphere that orbits the sun.


Yes, "the evidence we see". Ignore it when it comes to curvature of the earth.
The earth is concave, we live inside the inner surface.
This has been proven.

1. Rectilineator experiment.
2. Tamarack plumb bobs divergance.
And 3. The glassosphere. If you wish to ignore the glass, go right ahead, sir.

But, if you accept it, you can simply explain the auroras, a comet's tail, the reddish tint of a lunar eclipse, superior mirages, fata morganas, sundogs, rainbows, halos, glories, the real reason behind a star's red shift, UV block, greenhouse effect, fusion crust of a meterorite.

You can simply explain why objects are held to earth without using the fictitious gravity in your answer.

You can simply explain why tides occur due to the pressure relief the moon and sun cause.

The earth is a huge pressurized container.

You can simply explain where the mysterious stone spheres of Costa Rica originated from(they're about the size of a plante's satelite)

You can simply explain where tektites came from, without using an ad hock answer that makes as much sence as sledge hammer splattering Mr. Bill.

I think the real reason behind your stubborness to change is that your heart is not right with your Creator.

Jeremiah 5:23 says that the Jewish people's heart were rebellious and revolted. They refuse to fear their maker. He is so close to us, about as close as you are to me.

Is it possible that the eyes of your heart will not accept the truth?
Denial is VERY strong medicine, paddy.

Do me a favor...
Go to your closet, turn off the lights, kneel down and pray to the God of all creation. Ask him to reveal himself to you. you gotta be honest with him. You gotta be contrite, broken. He wishes to bring healing to you.
The bible says he knows all our thoughts. Ask him, if he is really up there in the heart of the earth, if he would show you. Jeremiah 29:13 says that he will, if we seek him with all our heart.

Understand that he loves you. He sent his Son Jesus to die for your sins. He wants you to have eternal life.

Psalm 24:1 says that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. The world and they that dwell therein. He's talking about all of the universe when he says this, not just a little insignificant planet.

The glass is there. Tektites prove it. It is physical evidence we can touch and hold. No other theory makes more sense. Our pysical eyes can see it, now we just need to have the eyes of our hearts see it.

Let me know when you are convinced of this.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   


I think a better question would be why do planets orbit in ellipses.


Planets orbit in ellipses because that it the nature of the force of gravity. I've proven it for homework. It isn't very hard.



Ignore it when it comes to curvature of the earth.


The curvature of the earth is concave? Link, as you can see from the link the results supporting this theory could very easily be incorrect.

As for the plumb line experiment, the results there have been shown to fit well with what can be expected from a convex earth theory. However the proponents of a concave earth theory have happily ignored the outcomes and only used selective results that support their theories.

Geometrically I would have no problem believing that the earth could be inverted and we could be living on the inside of a sphere, coordinate transformations can easily produce these effects, however these transformations will not preserve physical laws that have been shown to be extremely accurate.



You can simply explain why objects are held to earth without using the fictitious gravity in your answer.

Please elaborate on how things are held on the surface of the earth? Gravitic rays maybe? How are they any more real than gravity? And similarly for any other 'force' you care to mention.



You can simply explain why tides occur due to the pressure relief the moon and sun cause.

So can I, using Newton's laws of gravity and conservation of angular momentum.



You can simply explain where the mysterious stone spheres of Costa Rica originated from(they're about the size of a plante's satelite)

Link None of these sphere's are anywhere near the size of a planets satelite, the largest is about 2.15 meters across.




You can simply explain where tektites came from, without using an ad hock answer that makes as much sence as sledge hammer splattering Mr. Bill.

Oh its a fantastic explanation, I couldn't agree more, but that doesn't make it right. How, if there is glass in the atmosphere, can you explain the lack of glass around terrestrial impact craters? Yes, there is glass there, but surely if a meteor of significant size 'burned through' a layer of glass there would be huge amounts of glass at the impact site and on the ground leading up to the impact site? Also if meteors burned through the glass layer then all meteors that impacted the earth would create tektites, but this is not the case, they are located in strewnfields which are located in precise areas around the world. I am not saying that the only method of producing tektites is meteor impact, there is good evidence to show that some came from the moon.



I think the real reason behind your stubborness to change is that your heart is not right with your Creator.


My stubborness has nothing to do with any relation I may or may not have with anything you would like to call a Creator. My stubborness is with the lack of evidence and extreme folly of the theory that has been developed by ignoring explanations that go against it and focus on specific results that only superficially support the claims.



Understand that he loves you. He sent his Son Jesus to die for your sins. He wants you to have eternal life.


I feel like this might be a good 'place' to quote Laplace (haha pun intended!).


Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.


or maybe Galileo would be better



I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect intended us to forgo their use.


I believe in some sort of 'higher power', but certainly not one that intervenes in daily life. The bible is no more the work of God than what I am writing now, there is no definitive version of the bible, it purely a collection of stories that conformed to a view that people had of what they wanted to teach people, certain religious writings were left out and others were added, who decided that the ones that were left out were not what God wanted us to read?
However that is beside the point and has very little to do with the actual point of the thread.

The evidence presented as proof of a 'glasosphere', is far from proof, its is speculation that runs counter, not only to what we see everyday, but also to sound scientific theory that has led to the advances we have seen in the last few hundred years.:bnghd:



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
Planets orbit in ellipses because that it the nature of the force of gravity. I've proven it for homework. It isn't very hard.


Let me get this straight.
You've proven there is a force called gravity?



as you can see from the link the results supporting this theory could very easily be incorrect.


Sure, and so could a spinning earth.
By the way, why don't we plunge off this spinning earth like a toddler off a merry-go-round?
Oh, I'm way ahead of ya.....Gravity.

But why does the equator bulge?
Let's see....cause the earth spins?
Oh, o.k. then why don't we plunge off of it like a toddler off a merry-go-round?


However the proponents of a concave earth theory have happily ignored the outcomes and only used selective results that support their theories.


I like your terminology, paddy.

"Happily ignored" Let's all happily ignore the glassosphere. It's not that hard to do.
All you gotta do is believe that the earth is spinning and we live ON it and not IN it.


Geometrically I would have no problem believing that the earth could be inverted and we could be living on the inside of a sphere, coordinate transformations can easily produce these effects, however these transformations will not preserve physical laws that have been shown to be extremely accurate.


Well good for you. I'm glad you can be objective.
Ahhh, as far as the coordinate tranforms, what exact physical laws are you talking 'bout? I hope you won't say "gravity."



Please elaborate on how things are held on the surface of the earth? Gravitic rays maybe? How are they any more real than gravity? And similarly for any other 'force' you care to mention.


Air pressure.
Imagine the earth as an air-inflated balloon. There are unevenly distributed levels of pressure in different regions of the balloon. The center is relatively low in pressure compared to the inside edge. The greater the pressure, the greater the attraction of objects. Not that complex, even simple, Einstein. The glassosphere created after the Flood, significantly increased pressure beneath and caused a vacuum above. The moon and sun relieve pressure to areas beneath them. This is why we have tides.
No gravitation. Sir Issac couldn't even define the puppy. He had to resort to saying the hand of Providence pushed the initial orb to get it goin.
Read Velikovsky's Cosmos w/o Gravitiation for starters. He's a little whacky in other areas I'll admit.



You can simply explain why tides occur due to the pressure relief the moon and sun cause.



So can I, using Newton's laws of gravity and conservation of angular momentum.

Ah yes. The magic of gravity.
Here's a lil' secret paddy.....gravity is not real.



You can simply explain where the mysterious stone spheres of Costa Rica originated from(they're about the size of a plante's satelite)
Link None of these sphere's are anywhere near the size of a planets satelite, the largest is about 2.15 meters across.

Tell you what, go up into "outer" space with a tape measure and see how big, say Triton is. kay? Or better yet, take this photo of it and go into Photoshop and hit Command-U. This will bring up the Hue/Saturation adjustment. Now sap all the color out.

Now start searching the web for some pics of the Costa Rica spheres.
Compare textures. Test, prove, retest.


but surely if a meteor of significant size 'burned through' a layer of glass there would be huge amounts of glass at the impact site and on the ground leading up to the impact site?


Glass is lighter than rock. Tektites are also much smaller in relation to meteorites. Most tektites are small enough to be diverted by wind and land away from impact sites. The largest tektite is about 8 in. The largest meteorite is 60 tonnes.


I am not saying that the only method of producing tektites is meteor impact, there is good evidence to show that some came from the moon.


Well, gee, I guess then you're "undecided" like the rest of them.

But the moon theory has some bad holes. Ask Rock Hunter, he's a geologist. There are no similarities between moon rock and tektites. There''s no cosmic radiation found in tektites. "Good" evidence?

If there are problems and unanswered questions with the terrestrial cratering theory which is popular. There are certainly serious ones with the lunar volcanism theory which has been mostly abandoned.




My stubborness is with the lack of evidence and extreme folly of the theory that has been developed by ignoring explanations that go against it and focus on specific results that only superficially support the claims.


pssss. there's glass in the sky. Plenty of evidence too. Let the scales fall.

Plumbo's Editorial additions...

Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis, because I neglected the glass in the sky. Now that I know the glassosphere distorts our visual perception, I humbly recant all of my hypothesis.

Okay, its plagerism, sorry.



I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect intended us to forgo their use.


Sence.....
Touch. feeling the tektite and fusion crust.
Sight. See initial post.

Reason....Isaiah 1:18

Intellect....Galileo forgot the glass. So I must be a little smarter. At least more handsome.



I believe in some sort of 'higher power', but certainly not one that intervenes in daily life.


"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."


The bible is no more the work of God than what I am writing now, there is no definitive version of the bible, it purely a collection of stories that conformed to a view that people had of what they wanted to teach people, certain religious writings were left out and others were added, who decided that the ones that were left out were not what God wanted us to read?


It pointed out the glass in the sky, without reading it, I would not have discovered it. Prasie God!


However that is beside the point and has very little to do with the actual point of the thread.
The evidence presented as proof of a 'glasosphere', is far from proof, its is speculation that runs counter, not only to what we see everyday, but also to sound scientific theory that has led to the advances we have seen in the last few hundred years.:bnghd:


Harry needs his spectacles to speculate what you're talking about.

God-hide-things-wise-prudent-reveal-babes

This is fun! I lik puting fun litel smilees.

Did u ever meet my Daddie?...Hees REALLY smart



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   


"Happily ignored" Let's all happily ignore the glassosphere. It's not that hard to do.


You have Zero evidence for a glasosphere, absolutely none, its in your head and in the selective passages you decide you like in the bible.




Imagine the earth as an air-inflated balloon. There are unevenly distributed levels of pressure in different regions of the balloon...

If there was no gravity why do you need air pressure to stop people falling off the surface? Surely without gravity there is nothing to make people fall, hence no need for variations in air pressure. Also if there were variations in air pressure then surely the atmosphere would try and find an equilibrium and hence the pressure would level itself out though the area between the glass and the surface of the earth, thereby making the pressure between the earth and the glass constant which is demonstrably false. Unless of course there is some source of extra air that can keep the pressure unevenly distributed, and also some method of removing the air so that the air pressure doesn't keep building up. When you show me how this might be achieved I might believe you.
Also why can't we measure the high pressure in areas that are supposedly liable to have people falling off the surface if the pressure wasn't higher?


No gravitation. Sir Issac couldn't even define the puppy. He had to resort to saying the hand of Providence pushed the initial orb to get it goin.


You decide gravity doesn't exist because Newton couldn't say what exactly it was only what the consequences were, yet you quote the bible as if its written in stone and infallible.
Einstein has described gravity exactly, as the distortion of space-time by massive bodies, it has made testable predictions which have been verified. How is the glasosphere theory coming along in that department? What predictions can be made that will proove conclusively that there is glass in the atmosphere? Don't even think of mentioning tektites, they are no more produced by glass in the atmosphere than the glass I'm drinking out of now is.



Ahhh, as far as the coordinate tranforms, what exact physical laws are you talking 'bout? I hope you won't say "gravity.

What I am saying is that if what we see from the surface of the earth (motion of the planets, the sun etc.) is accurately described by laws we have developed with the concave view of the world we now have, then surely, if the earth is actually convex, these laws are still valid in what they predict. The problem is that these laws were developed as if the world was a sphere which we lived on the outside of, since these laws are very accurate, there must exist equvalent laws for the world if it is actually convex. The coordinate transformations can explain geometrically what the world would look like, but these are only coordinate transformations, they do not transform the rules developed in the concave view, into equivalent rules in the convex view. Transforming the rules we have developed into convex equivalents has proved to be extremely hard, if not impossible.



Tell you what, go up into "outer" space with a tape measure and see how big, say Triton is. kay? Or better yet, take this photo of it and go into Photoshop and hit Command-U. This will bring up the Hue/Saturation adjustment. Now sap all the color out.

If the Costa Rica 'spheres' were the satelites of the planets, then why are they granite? Io, one of Jupiter's moons, is a highly active volcanic moon, this suggests that there is molten rock under the surface. Also the Galileo orbiter has found that the moon has an Iron core at least 900km wide. Now, even taking into account that the moons size might be somehow distorted to a camera on an orbiting satelite, there is no reasonable way to explain away the iron in the core.
Also, removing colour from things has a strange ability to make things look alike.

Can you tell me what that is? Is it the surface of an extraterrestrial moon? Is it a rock? Or this:

So which is it to be? which is the satelite? are either of them satelites? Or is one of them a loaf of bread? hint: the costa rica spheres are not satelites



Glass is lighter than rock. Tektites are also much smaller in relation to meteorites. Most tektites are small enough to be diverted by wind and land away from impact sites. The largest tektite is about 8 in. The largest meteorite is 60 tonnes.

This does not explain the strewn fields. Can you explain why they have only been discovered in these areas when according to you they should be created by every meteor that enters the earth's 'atmosphere'? And yet again, since I am not a geologist I am only able to make an educated guess based on what professional geologists have theorised, and from what I have read what they theorise is far more reasonable than what you are saying.



Well, gee, I guess then you're "undecided" like the rest of them.

But the moon theory has some bad holes. Ask Rock Hunter, he's a geologist. There are no similarities between moon rock and tektites. There''s no cosmic radiation found in tektites. "Good" evidence?

There are similarities between tektites and moon rock brought back by Apollo 12, just ask Dr. John A. O'Keefe, ex-NASA astronomer, what he thinks of tektites. That link will point out major problems with current tektite theory, but it in no way reinforces what you are saying.




Reason....Isaiah 1:18

That is not a reason, its speculation, the bible is not a source of accurate scientific data.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
You have Zero evidence for a glasosphere, absolutely none, its in your head and in the selective passages you decide you like in the bible.


I think you're being a little selective in your reasoning.
(there's glass up in the sky)



Unless of course there is some source of extra air that can keep the pressure unevenly distributed, and also some method of removing the air so that the air pressure doesn't keep building up. When you show me how this might be achieved I might believe you.


Well yes there may just be a source of extra air. Job 26:6 says tat hell is naked before him and he stretches out the north over the empty place. So in theory this glasosphere may have a hole in it, in the north. In the arctic region, we see the visual phenomena of superior mirages and even sometimes TWO suns. There may just be some of opening there. Thanks for your insightful analysis, this was always intriguing me. Also there may be some sort of polar opening in the ground that leads to hell and discharges air. Now, when Elihu asks Job about how God balances the clouds in 37:16, we can understand better than Job.


Einstein has described gravity exactly, as the distortion of space-time by massive bodies, it has made testable predictions which have been verified. How is the glasosphere theory coming along in that department?


The consequences of gravity have a just as verifiable consequences of air pressure. With a little help from the more intelligent minds like you my love, we can make it work.


What predictions can be made that will proove conclusively that there is glass in the atmosphere?


Well you can take a flashlight and shine it against a piece of paper and notice the curvature of the spectrum, then you can adjust the paper around so the curvature reverses itself. This is similar to the differences in curvature to rainbows and circumzenith arcs. Keep in mind the bulb is surrounded by glass. You can throw all stellar spectrum research out the window. To conclude that stars are rotating by noticing a chromatic aberration shift is ludicrous. I think I covered all the visual evidence of glass already. But I’d like your help. What can you tell me about why the glasosphere exists? Consider it making an unbiased homework assignment.
I really blows me away already that the simple rainbow is not all the proof anyone would ever need.



Transforming the rules we have developed into convex equivalents has proved to be extremely hard, if not impossible.


You got your cons mixed up. Maybe that's a slip?

Has anyone ever considered the glasosphere when attempting to develop these coordinates? I highly doubt it.


If the Costa Rica 'spheres' were the satelites of the planets, then why are they granite? Io, one of Jupiter's moons, is a highly active volcanic moon, this suggests that there is molten rock under the surface.


Never said that all satellites are granite. Some are gaseous, some contain iron ore, etc. Just trying to impose a scale reality here. They came from above.


Also, removing colour from things has a strange ability to make things look alike.


Exactly my point...THANX!!!

Q: Houston, how can we convice them that these bodies are gigantic?
A: Add color.


Can you tell me what that is? Is it the surface of an extraterrestrial moon? Is it a rock? Or this:
So which is it to be? which is the satelite? are either of them satelites? Or is one of them a loaf of bread?


Now you're catchin on!!!



Can you explain why they have only been discovered in these areas when according to you they should be created by every meteor that enters the earth's 'atmosphere'?


Not precisely. I'm open to other possibilities originating from the glasosphere.

So, for the record, you believe they came from the moon? Is that your final answer? I'd be interested to know also when you concluded this. Was it a long-settled conclusion or did you just adhere to this side during this debate?


the bible is not a source of accurate scientific data.


Did you go to your closet yet?



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Plumbo, you started this thread asking someone to explain why there isn't glass in the atmosphere, five pages in there have been numerous examples of why it is not there. Anything that shows that there is no glass is explained away by you by quoting parts of the bible.
Basically your reasoning is flawed, you can say that there is glass in the atmosphere but when it contradicts observable facts you start quoting the bible as if it contains a precise layout of the world.
It stagers me that someone can build there whole world view based on two or three lines form a book and the inaccurate and disproven experiments of crackpots who skewed the results to suit their aims.

Also Plumbo why do you ignore any of the points I raise that involve scientific data? You never talked about the suspect results of the rectilineator or the Tamarack mine experiments, you ignored the points I raised about the need to have variations of air pressure or why we can't measure these variations when they clearly need to be huge to keep people on the surface of the earth, you also fail to realise that if there was glass in the atmosphere we would see 'rainbows' all the time, which we don't, you also ignore that if we remove colour from things we can make them look like whatever we want, I could make the skin on the back of my hand look like the surface costa rican spheres but that doesn't mean that my hand is a sphere. And finally as if more proof was needed to show that you refuse to accept vaild points that throw serious doubt on the glasosphere theory, we have this gem of a quote:


Not precisely. I'm open to other possibilities originating from the glasosphere.


Basically what I read from this is that you'll believe anything as long as it supports the glasosphere theory and discredit anything else as not obey scripture if it says there is no glasosphere.

I believe the best word to describe this theory and all the evidence for it is hokum, pure, unadulterated, hokum.

Plumbo there is no way to reason with you and therefore I will no longer attempt to, all I can do is laugh.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
Also Plumbo why do you ignore any of the points I raise that involve scientific data?


You have bypassed my others proofs of glass.
Comet's tail, red shift, fusion crust, UV block.


You never talked about the suspect results of the rectilineator or the Tamarack mine experiments


What suspect results in the Rectilineator and Tamarack mine experiments?
The subjective one's that Donald Simanek addressed?


you ignored the points I raised about the need to have variations of air pressure or why we can't measure these variations when they clearly need to be huge to keep people on the surface of the earth


Pressure combined with atomic weight.


you also fail to realise that if there was glass in the atmosphere we would see 'rainbows' all the time


No, it just takes 1(one) to prove there is glass in the sky.


you also ignore that if we remove colour from things we can make them look like whatever we want, I could make the skin on the back of my hand look like the surface costa rican spheres but that doesn't mean that my hand is a sphere.


Then how can you be sure about the size of any orb in the cosmos?



Plumbo there is no way to reason with you and therefore I will no longer attempt to, all I can do is laugh.


But did you go to your closet yet?

I have a feeling that your heart is not right with God. I'll be praying for you.
God bless you, paddy.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
And finally as if more proof was needed to show that you refuse to accept vaild points that throw serious doubt on the glasosphere theory, we have this gem of a quote:



Not precisely. I'm open to other possibilities originating from the glasosphere.

Comet Impact Version



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Another one of my points of no evidence.


Green house gases act like panes of glass in the sky allowing the sun's heat to enter but preventing escape.


Entergy:The Power of People



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
If we are inside of the earth as you say, then why don't we see the earth curving up at the horizon? This doesn't make any sense at all. Notice how the clouds in this picture appear to be lower than the small peaks in the foreground. It appears this way because the atmosphere curves away from the viewer, thus high altitude objects in the distance appear lower than objects in the foreground.



[edit on 6-7-2005 by savannah]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by savannah
If we are inside of the earth as you say, then why don't we see the earth curving up at the horizon? This doesn't make any sense at all. Notice how the clouds in this picture appear to be lower than the small peaks in the foreground. It appears this way because the atmosphere curves away from the viewer, thus high altitude objects in the distance appear lower than objects in the foreground.


Well, Savannah, you're perception is correct. But reality is a different matter altogether. In my inverted model of the cosmos, our line on sight bends upward, so in effect what we think is horizontally straight, is actually curving upward. So, objects in the foreground will naturally appear to be higher than known higher objects in the distance.

Numerous tests can be and have been applied to prove that the earth's surface is concave. The glass in the sky distorts our perception ever further.

Take, for example, the Great Pyramid in so-called Egypt. It's base is said to have a slight convex curvature at the center of each of its 4 sides. This has been said to be the exact curvature of the earth's surface. The tests were performed by lasers.

Well, there is an alternate way of understanding this phenomena. And that is, that it is not the pyramid that has the arch, but rather the concave earth. This supposition is alluding to the laser(light) as bending or 'sagging' so to speak. Thus the sideral base of the structure is straight as an arrow.

Look back in this thread to see my diamgram of the Actual vs. Percieved. Look also at the picture of the high altitude sky which seems spherical as the earth appears concave.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I'm sorry, I can't take it anymore..

this is an entire thread of





Glass in the atmosphere.... give me a break, you've been given multiple pages of why there isn't, but will you budge no...

:shk::shk:

[edit on 7-7-2005 by elevatedone]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Numerous tests can be and have been applied to prove that the earth's surface is concave. The glass in the sky distorts our perception ever further.

Take, for example, the Great Pyramid in so-called Egypt. It's base is said to have a slight convex curvature at the center of each of its 4 sides. This has been said to be the exact curvature of the earth's surface. The tests were performed by lasers.

Let's assume that your information is correct, and that the glass sky distorts our preception. How then do you explain the following. Take 2 clouds that are the same elevation above ground. Put a laser beam on top of one that is level with the ground below and direct it at the other cloud in the distance. Given that we will only measure the laser inside of the glass atmosphere, the glass will not affect the end point of the laser when it reaches the same longitude/latitude as the other cloud. Just to make sure we don't hit the glass the clouds can be 100 feet above sea level and a just a mile apart.

Shouldn't the laser end pont be below the second cloud and eventually strike the gound if the if your theory is correct? Instead we find that the elevation of the laser beam, 1 mile away is now more than 100 feet above sea level. This indicates that the ground is curving downwards as if you were on the outside of a sphere. We haven't crossed into the glass-o-sphere so that didn't effect the laser. What gives?


Finally how do we explain a lunar eclipse if the Earth is not a sphere? The shadow the Earth cast on the moon is always curved which proves that the Earth is a sphere. In your scenario a lunar eclipse wouldn't even be possible. What would come between the Sun and the moon that scientist could predict with stunning accuracy other than the Earth. If there's something else inside your glass-o-sphere that is causing this shadow then why can't we see it and how do scientist predict when it will happen again?




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by savannah
Shouldn't the laser end pont be below the second cloud and eventually strike the gound if the if your theory is correct?

No, the laser travels along the same curvature of the earth, theoretically.



Finally how do we explain a lunar eclipse if the Earth is not a sphere? The shadow the Earth cast on the moon is always curved which proves that the Earth is a sphere. In your scenario a lunar eclipse wouldn't even be possible. What would come between the Sun and the moon that scientist could predict with stunning accuracy other than the Earth. If there's something else inside your glass-o-sphere that is causing this shadow then why can't we see it and how do scientist predict when it will happen again?


Please see the previous page in my response to bordnlazy. There is a funnel-shaped area of darkness due to light's curvature.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by savannah
Shouldn't the laser end pont be below the second cloud and eventually strike the gound if the if your theory is correct?

No, the laser travels along the same curvature of the earth, theoretically.


But according to you, there was some accuracy involved in using lasers.


Originally posted by Plumbo
Take, for example, the Great Pyramid in so-called Egypt. It's base is said to have a slight convex curvature at the center of each of its 4 sides. This has been said to be the exact curvature of the earth's surface. The tests were performed by lasers.


How can you make a statement that uses the accuracy of lasers to prove a point and then turn around a discard lasers when it's not convient? Are you pulling my leg?
What makes that laser beam follow the curvature of the Earth? It can't be glass becuase that's way up in the sky, and gravity woulldn't affect it since *gravity doesn't exist according to an earlier post you made.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
good question. not sure. I'll think about that.
What's your take on this photo.


Long Distance Photo of New York



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It's old and dated, thats what I make of it. The coast line may protrude out a bit at the viewer of the image which makes it look like the horizon is concave. Other than that, it's questionable quality makes it and easily discardable piece of evidence.


jra

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I came across this thread earlier today by accident. I generally don't wonder into BTS, but I did today for some reason. I read this whole thread. I was left quite speechless. I was going to comment earlier, but I just didn't know where to begin or what to say. But seeing as you don't seem to accept any scientific explination or evidence. I decided not to bother, but now I have some questions.

Why is there no reflection of the Earth's surface on the 'glass' sphere above us?

Why are the Moon and other planets normal sphere's yet the Earth inverted?

How do you explain the orbits of the outer planets? (Mars - Pluto)

[edit on 10-7-2005 by jra]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join