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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
Can you answer as to why you have suggested that comets melt through the glass, after coming to a halt,comets,which I remind you are generally bigger and faster than the space craft you claim to have:


Well, in my theory, the comet shatters as it hits the glass. This causes the ice and other olivine elements to separate. The elements continue to skid across the glass and begin to heat up. They eventually form a glass/olivine composite and melt through and fall to the ground - tektites.

This is the most believable theory on the tektite's origin.

Because I believe the entire universe fits snuggly within the walls of our hollow, inverted earth. Sizes once thought to be astronomical are dramatically diminished. Planets, Sun, Moon, galaxies, nebulae, meteors and comets too are all just a fraction in size compared to what is accepted. The spheres in Costa Rica are more accurate sizes of a planets' satellites.




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Plumbo, is this picture taken from below or above the "glass".




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Fraction of the size? Go look at some craters on google maps I think you will find there quite big, so little comets are out the window.As for the comet breaking up on impact , I see in your diagrammes that the comet comes in on very convenient angle, not all comets will enter the atmosphere at such an angle.Any comet should be able break through this glass dome if a space shuttle can, should it not.Your theory is contradicting itself.

On a lighter note, ever play Halo?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Plumbo, is this picture taken from below or above the "glass".



Did you take this photo?


Originally posted by Merkeva
Fraction of the size? Go look at some craters on google maps I think you will find there quite big, so little comets are out the window.


You really need a valid reference object to know the actual size of something.


As for the comet breaking up on impact , I see in your diagrammes that the comet comes in on very convenient angle, not all comets will enter the atmosphere at such an angle.


Of course not. This diagram is to show the origin of tektites which are strewn over certain strewnfields in Australia lacking any sort of crator impacts.

Comets entering atmosphere at greater angle would simply crash through and not generate tektites.


On a lighter note, ever play Halo?


No.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Ok Take this NASA's Deep impact probe



Crashing into this:




Valid enough reference object for you ?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I extracted the pebble from your impact image and retouched it to camoflage itself amidst a bunch of pebbles....
Next to it are the history of actions I performed in Photoshop to achieve this job.



Here's the original image. Appropratly titles "Pebbles at Deception Pass".




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
We can all mess with perspective, but thats all your doing changing perspective,it proves nothing.

I'd like to know your explanation on the mars rovers and how mars fits into your diagramme of the universe.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Plumbo, is this picture taken from below or above the "glass".

Did you take this photo?


You, Plumbo, seem to have a habit in this thread of answering questions with questions.

Misfit



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
We can all mess with perspective, but thats all your doing changing perspective,it proves nothing.


Well not quite, messing with scale relation proves others can too.


I'd like to know your explanation on the mars rovers and how mars fits into your diagramme of the universe.


Mars, along with the other planets, is very small.
Here's my PS editing...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   


Before I get into the topic I'd like to give a brief background of my beliefs. This topic was discussed in a previous thread but nobody seemed to answer the question satisfactory enough to prove that there isn't glass up in the sky.


Man, are you serious?

Who the hell fixes all of the broken glass every time a shuttle or satellite goes up?
I don't seem to recall news stories of dozens of people getting impaled by falling glass though. Perhaps there's a "doggie door" or something in the atmosphere? Man, this is too much!



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Plumbo, I didn't take that picture, it was a picture taken from this MiG 25 by a space tourist, NOT NASA.




www.forbes.com
Passengers flying in a MiG-25 are traveling at Mach 2.5--that means one mile every two seconds. But first you have to get yourself to Russia and undergo a brief medical check. Passengers are allowed to sit in the cockpit of the plane, and as the plane takes off, the curvature of the earth is visible below, as well as the thin blue strip of atmosphere, with black space above you. Eric Telenius, a Space Adventures client, went up in the MiG last year. "It feels totally smooth," he says. "Don't expect any dramatic thrills." Telenius says the most impressive part was the view. "You see the earth's curvature and a bright sun in a black sky. It's also cool because you realize you're the highest person in the world at that moment." The flight costs $12,595 and includes accommodations in Moscow. Flights on other type of MiGs are also available.


Remember MiG 25 don't have heat sheilds. In comparison the temprature of the SR-71's Blackbird's outer surface at MACH 3.0 (much faster then the MiG 25) at those altitudes reach 426°C the melting point of glass is 1400-1600 °C. It can't skid along the glass to heat up to those tempratures, aircraft grade aluminum will melt by the time it reaches 900°C. The SR-71 Blackbird travels into a low orbit above the air atmosphere, so does this MiG 25, both are incapable of heating up enough to melt trough a glass layer without being damaged.

So Plumbo, was this picture taken from above or below the glass?



Works Cited:
www.pbs.org...
images.forbes.com...
hypertextbook.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Plumbo, I didn't take that picture,


Thank you for answering my question first, you are a true gentleman.

This leads me to answer your question....and that is...

I wasn't there to verify it, so I could not tell you.

But, I was in this single engine plane when I took this photo.
(I have the gift of performing miracles, so me and plane can go above the glass)


Catch my drift?

by the way, you're a pilot aren't you?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
.....the melting point of glass is 1400-1600 °C.


by the by the way...

What is the temperature that the heat shield on the shuttle reaches, GoldEagle?


apc

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

But, I was in this single engine plane when I took this photo.
...
Catch my drift?

Im assuming by "drift" you are implying that the tourist photo is actually a flight sim computer screenshot like yours?
Soooo instead of attesting to the fact that you are once again shown to be so blatently ignorant to reality, you are calling the contrary proof a fraud? Trying to say that noone has ever taken an aircraft to that altitude (above (below?) your mythical glass)? Trying to say that everyone who has, is lying? And their photos are all faked?

Alrighty then.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Plumbo, God bless ya buddy. Frankly I think this idea is awesome.

However, if the silica got up into orbit due to floodwaters, isn't that like, several miles of floodwater around the whole earth? Now, to have the surface of water all over Earth reach orbit, wouldn't you affect the geology of Earth pretty severely?

Here's a graphic I found:



So we can see mount everest in the picture, and that's all that's needed to fulfill the biblical flood's covering the tip tops of the mountains, but you're saying the floodwaters got how high, exactly? High enough to deposit silica into orbit?

If you could give us a height of that silica in orbit, we could calculate the square footage of the water and see if the topography of Earth reflects such weight pressing down on it.

Also, where did the water all go?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   


Do you see any heat tiles or any form of heat sheilding on the surface of this MiG 25? Is there any indication that it impacted or skid on the glass? If it did melt through the glass, molten glass in the engine intake would cripple the planes engine. It's external temprature reaches a maximum 426°C at top speed, aluminum melts at 660°C. There is no way this plane reached 1400°C to melt glass.


Originally posted by Plumbo
I wasn't there to verify it, so I could not tell you.


I wasn't, you weren't either, why don't you ask the many people that went into low orbit as tourists on the MiG 25 or some SR-71 pilots. Or even better, go for the ride yourself. Then tell us if there is glass up there, don't forget to take some pictures.


Originally posted by Plumbo
by the by the way...

What is the temperature that the heat shield on the shuttle reaches, GoldEagle?


The Space Shuttle's heat shields during re-entry reach a temprature of ~14,000°C. There is a serious flaw in your glass theory pertaining to the space shuttle, but I'll get back to it later.

Another thing, objects are small in space such as asteriods and comets according to you. Then what caused this??




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by Merkeva
We can all mess with perspective, but thats all your doing changing perspective,it proves nothing.


Well not quite, messing with scale relation proves others can too.


I'd like to know your explanation on the mars rovers and how mars fits into your diagramme of the universe.


Mars, along with the other planets, is very small.
Here's my PS editing...


I asked your for an explaination of how mars fits into your diagramme , not a PS edited photo of the "mars rover teamsters",Plumbo edited photos arent answers you will have to do alot better than that and frankly that terrain looks nothing like mars.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Do you see any heat tiles or any form of heat sheilding on the surface of this MiG 25? Is there any indication that it impacted or skid on the glass? If it did melt through the glass, molten glass in the engine intake would cripple the planes engine. It's external temprature reaches a maximum 426°C at top speed, aluminum melts at 660°C. There is no way this plane reached 1400°C to melt glass.


ok. It seems quite clear that this plane has not ascended above the glass. That leaves me to ponder the next obvious question and that is why does the earth appear convex and the sky black?


flying at Mach 2.5, 25 kilometres into the upper atmosphere (where you'll be above 99% of it, by the way), in a MiG-25 Foxbat with over 1000km of horizon before (or actually beneath) you.

www.iwantoneofthose.com...

I think the key is the fact that 99% is not 100%. I'm guessing that the plane hovers just beneath the glass, and because of this closeness to it, the optical perception of the earth reversing already begins to form.

Now, if this plane could claim that it can exit 100% the atmosphere, (like the space shuttle) then you have a valid agrument against my glass theory.

I think you're being rather biased against proof of glass. I presented much evidence. I'd like you to answer some of the points I brought up.

Fusion crust on meteorites
Illumination of the atmosphere during meteorite impact(of glass)
Rainbows, Halos, Glories, Circumzenith arcs
Caustics: auroras
UV block
Greenhouse gases
Sun/Moon scale inconsistensies
Mirages: Fata Morganas, Superior
Comet's tail curvature
Tektite origin


Another thing, objects are small in space such as asteriods and comets according to you. Then what caused this??



I'm guessing a big chunck of ice. There'a a lot of it encased in the celestial sphere. At the time of the Flood, it probably came down.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
However, if the silica got up into orbit due to floodwaters, isn't that like, several miles of floodwater around the whole earth? Now, to have the surface of water all over Earth reach orbit, wouldn't you affect the geology of Earth pretty severely?


Hi Smallpeeps!

Picture the waters above contained in a hollow, celestial sphere, which had yet to fall down to earth. The silica was already there, too...(heavenly silica).
So you're not getting earth's ocean water reaching up into the sky, the water is already there from above. The bible says that floods of water issue forth from the mouth of God. So, if he is in the center of the earth, these waters are coming from a central location.

hope this helps...



If you could give us a height of that silica in orbit, we could calculate the square footage of the water and see if the topography of Earth reflects such weight pressing down on it.

Also, where did the water all go?


Well, after the flood the water abated due to, I believe pressure from the glass bound. Plateaus in the southwest relfect this. The mean land elevation prior to the flood was at the top of these plateaus. The water mostly just filled the oceans deeper, much of it is still beneath the ground as well. God said he spread abroad the earth in Is. 44:25, this combined with the continental drift in the time of Peleg(Genesis 5), physically stretched out the earth's shell, so now it is greater in circumference than before. Earthquakes I believe are signs of a separating earth. Mountains are remnats of expansion, not once ascending from continental buckling.
Tsunamis are a direct effect of water displacement inside a concave container.

God bless you too, friend.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Ok Plumbo one last thing before I bow out, how can earth be inverted if we take
geophysical-based proof.

Large Earthquakes send seismic waves through the body of the Earth. We can receive these at observatories on the other side of the world. When we plot travel times vs location we get curves that not only prove that the Earth is round but also give details of its internal structure, which consists of multiple layered shells.

Link :geology.about.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join