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.
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?
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?
The sun along with the planets and moon revolve around the central celestial sphere
The other revolve around the celestial sphere.
Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
So why can't we, or space craft sent outside the glass sphere, see 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.
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.
I think a better question would be why do planets orbit in ellipses.
Ignore it when it comes to curvature of the earth.
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.
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.
Understand that he loves you. He sent his Son Jesus to die for your sins. He wants you to have eternal life.
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.
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.
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.
as you can see from the link the results supporting this theory could very easily be incorrect.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
"Happily ignored" Let's all happily ignore the glassosphere. It's not that hard to do.
Imagine the earth as an air-inflated balloon. There are unevenly distributed levels of pressure in different regions of the balloon...
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.
Ahhh, as far as the coordinate tranforms, what exact physical laws are you talking 'bout? I hope you won't say "gravity.
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.
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.
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?
Reason....Isaiah 1:18
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.
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.
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?
Transforming the rules we have developed into convex equivalents has proved to be extremely hard, if not impossible.
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, 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?
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'?
the bible is not a source of accurate scientific data.
Not precisely. I'm open to other possibilities originating from the glasosphere.
Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
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
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.
Plumbo there is no way to reason with you and therefore I will no longer attempt to, all I can do is laugh.
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.
Green house gases act like panes of glass in the sky allowing the sun's heat to enter but preventing escape.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.