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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
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 an earthquake happens, the earth vibrates like a bell that has been rung. Maurice Ewing monitored similar vibrations of the moon.
Seismic vibrations can be more easliy understood if they are traveling simultaneously across the shell of the earth. If the earth were solid, I don't think these vibrations could travel halfway around the world.

So the earth is like a giant parabolic chamber....





posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   


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.

So God's sitting up there waiting for his created people, of his inverted Earth (which is focused inwardly on His Almighty Self) to do wrong so that he can drop his heavenly bladder's contents on them? He's waiting up there, holding in his pressing need of watery release, waiting for these stupid humans down here (whom he is totally screwing with, by making this inverted world you're describing) to become sinful so He can drop his watery load on them. Right?

Bottom Line: Why would I want to worship a God that's less mature than me? I wouldn't contrive to build a giant water bag and drop it on my child's head. I wouldn't mess with him and tell him that the world is inverted either.

Seems like Cyrus Teed and the Inverted-Earthers are preaching about a God who in the end, seems unworshippable. You know?

[edit on 6-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Good job Plumbo, on that MiG 25 thing, there is more to it then that though. It is only fair that I answer some of your questions.


Originaly posted by Plumbo
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


Fusion crust on meteorites - Caused by material on the meteroite melting/burning as it enters the atmosphere.

Illumination of the atmosphere during meteorite impact(of glass) - The meteorite has impacted the air in the upper atmosphere, the meteorite has now heated up. Material of the meteorite hits it's critical temprature and combusts instataniously causing a flash.

Rainbows, Halos, Glories, Circumzenith arcs - Rainbows are caused by droplets of water and only occur if you are facing away from the sun. Try it yourself, get a graden hose and put it on a setting that creates lots of mist, on a bright sunny day it away from the sun, an watch, instant rainbow. Halos are caused by ice crystals in high altitude clouds that act like prizims and scatter the light frequencies.

Caustics: auroras - Caused by ions in the upper atmosphere, being highly charged by solar radiation. Glass would block out this radiation.

UV block - Caused by the ozone layer, O3 molecules are broken down by solar energy.

O3 (ozone) --- UV ---> O2 + O

UV energy is very effectivly absorbed by this process.

Greenhouse gases, Mirages: Fata Morganas, Superior, Sun/Moon scale inconsistensies - What do you want to know about them? Be more specific so I can answer, then I'll get back to them.

Comet's tail curvature - Comets are not stationary in space, they move, fast. Material that is blased off from the comet away from the sun, as it moves the material lose momentum and slows down. Different speeds of material that have been ejected would create a curve.

Tektite origin - Caused by materials of the meteorite being melted, and gases expanding inside forming a bubble.













[edit on 8/6/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
When an earthquake happens, the earth vibrates like a bell that has been rung. Maurice Ewing monitored similar vibrations of the moon.
Seismic vibrations can be more easliy understood if they are traveling simultaneously across the shell of the earth. If the earth were solid, I don't think these vibrations could travel halfway around the world.


The inside of the earth is not solid though, it is a fluid. Waves of energy especially the ones caused by earthquakes, can travel vast distances in a fluid. Also the timeing of arival of some of these waves indicate that there is shells of fluid with varauble viscosities. It has a ripple effect inside the earth, the dynamics of which your diagram dosent show.

Where does lava come from? Hell?

[edit on 8/6/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Fusion crust on meteorites - Caused by material on the meteroite melting/burning as it enters the atmosphere.


yes, but why does it burn?


Illumination of the atmosphere during meteorite impact(of glass) - The meteorite has impacted the air in the upper atmosphere, the meteorite has now heated up. Material of the meteorite hits it's critical temprature and combusts instataniously causing a flash.



hmmm, impacting air. seems a little intangible.
Now impacting glass, that's a whole other story.



Rainbows, Halos, Glories, Circumzenith arcs - Rainbows are caused by droplets of water and only occur if you are facing away from the sun. Try it yourself, get a graden hose and put it on a setting that creates lots of mist, on a bright sunny day it away from the sun, an watch, instant rainbow. Halos are caused by ice crystals in high altitude clouds that act like prizims and scatter the light frequencies.


Already explained this. Please reread the first page.


Caustics: auroras - Caused by ions in the upper atmosphere, being highly charged by solar radiation. Glass would block out this radiation.


Well, if there's an opening in the glass in the arctic region, then the caustics are merely projected in to that region from the glass.


UV block - Caused by the ozone layer, O3 molecules are broken down by solar energy.

O3 (ozone) --- UV ---> O2 + O

UV energy is very effectivly absorbed by this process.


Well you just said glass blocks radiation. Does it or does it not block UV radiation as well.


Greenhouse gases, Mirages: Fata Morganas, Superior, Sun/Moon scale inconsistensies - What do you want to know about them? Be more specific so I can answer, then I'll get back to them.


I don't think you really absorbed all the info I initially provided. All these factors had beed explained. Please go back.


Comet's tail curvature - Comets are not stationary in space, they move, fast. Material that is blased off from the comet away from the sun, as it moves the material lose momentum and slows down. Different speeds of material that have been ejected would create a curve.


Yes I can give a textbook answer too. I think chromatic abberation from glass is a more realistic answer however.


Tektite origin - Caused by materials of the meteorite being melted, and gases expanding inside forming a bubble.


Doesn't meteorites carry cosmic radiation? Tektites don't.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
The inside of the earth is not solid though, it is a fluid. Waves of energy especially the ones caused by earthquakes, can travel vast distances in a fluid. Also the timeing of arival of some of these waves indicate that there is shells of fluid with varauble viscosities. It has a ripple effect inside the earth, the dynamics of which your diagram dosent show.


A bell rings with layers of reverberations. i.e. ripple effect.
Why do you think American Indians could tell when a herd or enemies were approaching from far away by putting their ear to the ground?

The earth is a giant parabolic chamber. Reverberations can be detected rather easily.


Where does lava come from? Hell?


It comes from the direction of hell(downward). Hell in biblical terms can mean both the place of extreme heat(caverns beneath the earth's shell, or completely removed from the earth(outer darkness).



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

So God's sitting up there waiting for his created people, of his inverted Earth (which is focused inwardly on His Almighty Self) to do wrong so that he can drop his heavenly bladder's contents on them? He's waiting up there, holding in his pressing need of watery release, waiting for these stupid humans down here (whom he is totally screwing with, by making this inverted world you're describing) to become sinful so He can drop his watery load on them. Right?


Well, not quite. He promised never to flood the earth again with giving us the rainbow as a sign or promise. This rainbow is a scientific sign, the glass which produces the rainbow actually keeps the water at bay.


Bottom Line: Why would I want to worship a God that's less mature than me? I wouldn't contrive to build a giant water bag and drop it on my child's head. I wouldn't mess with him and tell him that the world is inverted either.


Sounds like you have some issues with your Creator.
The fact the bitterness is exhibited toward some sort of higher power tells me you would be bitter no matter how the earth was shaped. I won't tell you God loves you. You'd have to experience that for yourself.


Seems like Cyrus Teed and the Inverted-Earthers are preaching about a God who in the end, seems unworshippable. You know?


No, I don't. My beliefs only draw me closer to Him in experiencing an intimate relationship. But I also revere Him because quite frankly He has the power to do anything He wishes. It's His world, His creation. Might not seem fair, but He made you, He knows the exact number of hairs on your head. He has the power to create and destroy. It's not a democrosy.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The glass in the atmosphere you claim exists is not a parabola, you say it's a sphere.

Do you know the dynamics of a parabola?

Parabolas have a focal point, all energy from the point emitted will become become parallel. This will not work with your "Spherical" model. This would work in an elliptic enviroment, but not parabolic.






Is your model for the world elliptic?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Plumbo, you putting up quite a fight. But it seems that religious reasons are driving you, even with your theory being full of holes, that's why no matter how hard I try you will not stop. I always belived that you shouldn't interfere with one's religious beliefs. From now on I try to be scientific.


Originally posted by Plumbo
yes, but why does it burn?


Heat generated by air friction. Simple as that.


Originally posted by Plumbo
hmmm, impacting air. seems a little intangible.
Now impacting glass, that's a whole other story.


The initial combustion of a meteorite would be as if a head of a match was struck. The intial combustion, metals such as magensium would burn away. Causing the bright light upon combustion due to friction with the atmosphere, not the impact of glass.


Originally posted by Plumbo
Already explained this. Please reread the first page.


I did and it dosn't prove nothing. I was just as lost as I was in the begining.


Originally posted by Plumbo
Well, if there's an opening in the glass in the arctic region, then the caustics are merely projected in to that region from the glass.


Now there is an opening? How do you know? Did you metion there was an opening over the arctic regions?


Originally posted by Plumbo
Well you just said glass blocks radiation. Does it or does it not block UV radiation as well.


Remember my side of the arguement, I don't think there is glass up there. You where implying that I was saying that with the thought in mind that glass is up there. Let me rephrase that; There is no glass up there, UV radiation is absorbed by the ozone layer through chemical reactions. You bent my answer to make it appear that I was wrong, don't do that.


Originally posted by Plumbo
I don't think you really absorbed all the info I initially provided. All these factors had beed explained. Please go back.


I did. Still lost, lot more questions then answers. Some incosistancies. I'll go over it again soon.


Originally posted by Plumbo
Yes I can give a textbook answer too. I think chromatic abberation from glass is a more realistic answer however.


How sure are you that your answer is correct?


Originally posted by Plumbo
Doesn't meteorites carry cosmic radiation? Tektites don't.


How do you explain tektites with multiple layers? I read up more about tektites, they are caused by meterite impacts. They may not be created by the means I metioned but by sand melting and gases inside expanding from an impact's heat. This is definate.

I also don't understand why we don't see the reflection of the ground in the sky if glass is up there.



I made that on PS. That's what I would expect to see if glass is up there. Why is there no reflection? No reflection because nothing is up there.

[edit on 8/6/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Plumbo, do you believe we went to the moon and why is it that the physical diameter of the moon will not fit into the geometric model of the concave earth along with the physical size of the planet mars - both of which we have firsthand measurement of??

The diameter of the concave earth, would not account for the firsthand measured distance to the moon using doppler transponders on missions like - oh lets say, Apollo. The distance to the moon is greater than the distance inside the theoretical concave earth. Does the doppler principal change within the space of the concave earth? Do electromagnetic wavelengths change because of some magic principal that the doppler effect used to calculate the range of the Apollo missions are inaccurate? It took us about 66 hours to travel to the moon and somehow, in your model it iwould not take that long. In fact, it would only take less than an hour, and what do you have to say about the mountains of information that the size of the moon is pretty close to what NASA says it is?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   


Sounds like you have some issues with your Creator.

Yeah, and my issue is that he wouldn't be a jerk. I believe in a different God, Plumbo, one that doesn't need to punish little humans when they mess up. If this is some revolution you're starting (by saying that the Earth doesn't make revolutions), you've got no hope, friend. I mean, at least the OTHER whole-biblers (those who accept every word of the bible) aren't trying to convince me that God's messing with our heads by creating a sphere that's inverted but still thrills our hearts at the prospect of galaxies and stars --NO, you're saying this is all a practical joke. How is that helping us?

Some people loathe the bible, you know. How will your ministry succeed with them? You're making God look like an even bigger jerk.



The fact the bitterness is exhibited toward some sort of higher power tells me you would be bitter no matter how the earth was shaped. I won't tell you God loves you. You'd have to experience that for yourself.

Wrong, entirely. I spent my youth doorknocking and trying to tell people about some crazy religious crap because that's what people told me to do. Now as an adult, I chafe when people preach stuff meant to enslave others to a crazy Hebrew God. That's what you're saying: The God of the Hebrews (who slaughtered children, women, etc) is ALSO screwing with our heads in the extreme by making us dream about outer space when in fact, we are locked in a sphere shaped prison with HIM! No, I do not like this part of your theory. I don't want to be trapped in an earth-ball with the childish God of the Hebrews.

I'd respect you a bit more if you laid off the inverted-Earth theory and spent a little more time in the Religious Conspiracies forum, talking about the bible. Over there, I could tell you about how I see God and why your God seems like a child.

It's one thing to flood the Earth. Okay, I can see that I suppose. But to flood the Earth from within a context like you're describing?! That God sat at the center of this sphere and crapped water onto us? Man, that just sounds silly!

Don't get your feelings hurt, because I'm just telling you how I see your theory. Remember, you chose to bear this flag, so you can't get sad when people like me come out and challenge parts of it. This is not a God I want to worship. He's a practical joker.

[edit on 7-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
smallpeeps shares the exact same views I have. I never liked to attack ones religious beliefs but in the end it turns out that your attacking mine.

There was no flood. Why would God kill his own children, just because they where bad? Seems evil dosen't it? How are we suppose to learn from our mistakes if God kills us off? He promised never to do it again, but why would someone so loving do it in the first place?

Your persective of the universe is very limited. If God is so almighty why would he stop with just Earth? Without creating a vast and limitless universe for his creation to explore.

This thread was never about glass in the atmosphere, it was about promoting your "new" religion.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Parabolas have a focal point, all energy from the point emitted will become become parallel. This will not work with your "Spherical" model. This would work in an elliptic enviroment, but not parabolic.


Sorry, spherical chamber. Thank you for clearing that up. The layers of reverbertions would still apply. Even be more feasable than your liquid filled theory. Would they not?



Heat generated by air friction. Simple as that.


I understand the textbook answer. Would you not also agree that heat can be generated by friction from a solid surface such as glass?


The initial combustion of a meteorite would be as if a head of a match was struck. The intial combustion, metals such as magensium would burn away. Causing the bright light upon combustion due to friction with the atmosphere, not the impact of glass.


Would you not also agree that due to the heat, the silica in the rock contacted another silica surface and produced light, and created a glassy layer on the rock? Hypothetically, that is.


I did and it dosn't prove nothing. I was just as lost as I was in the begining.


Spectrums need glass or prisms to be visible.Tiny raindrops are merely the surface in which the glass-filtered light is projected onto. This can be evident in a garden hose, a spray bottle mist, etc.


Now there is an opening? How do you know? Did you metion there was an opening over the arctic regions?


If you read my response to cmdrpaddy, I mention there just may be some sort of opening.

Consider there is no UV protection from ozone in the arctic region. A hole, so to speak. There are many superior mirages ther also. Yes, I believe there is an opening there. The auroras in the north are much more vibrant than in the south. If what you said about glass blocking out ionic radiation is true, then this would explain why the auroras in the southern hemisphere are not quite as vibrant. The glass is blocking its' full potential.


There is no glass up there, UV radiation is absorbed by the ozone layer through chemical reactions.


This is your answer. Mine is that glass blocks the radiation. I think mine is more feasable. But that's just my opinion.


Originally posted by Plumbo
Yes I can give a textbook answer too. I think chromatic abberation from glass is a more realistic answer however.



How sure are you that your answer is correct?


Well I think its a better explanation than the solar wind. I think it also alludes to a spherical reflecting catalyst that projects the sun's light on a curve.


How do you explain tektites with multiple layers? I read up more about tektites, they are caused by meterite impacts. They may not be created by the means I metioned but by sand melting and gases inside expanding from an impact's heat. This is definate.


If this is so definite, then why are there no definite answers to its' origin? The meteroite impact theory has many holes in it.


I also don't understand why we don't see the reflection of the ground in the sky if glass is up there.

I made that on PS. That's what I would expect to see if glass is up there. Why is there no reflection?


This is a reflection of earth in the sky.



No reflection because nothing is up there.

This is a closed-minded statement.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   


I understand the textbook answer. Would you not also agree that heat can be generated by friction from a solid surface such as glass?


Not everything hits your glass an nice angles in space so it can skid about. On another note, last Saturday night we saw a massive meteorite streak across the sky, was rather low flying, we could hear a noise, sounded like "fizzing". This indicates that there was metals burning inside of it.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
If this is some revolution you're starting (by saying that the Earth doesn't make revolutions), you've got no hope, friend.


My hope is in the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.)

Revolution will happen.


How will your ministry succeed with them? You're making God look like an even bigger jerk.


His temperament is something I can't excuse. If he gets pissed off at someone like you because you think you would be more merciful and not so much of a "jerk", if he gets pissed of at his chosen people for corrupting themselves, murdering each other, worshipping elements rather than the one who made the elements, if he knows that it's better to cut them off to prevent more exponentially corruption, that's his business. I can't control him. I'm just his message boy. But if it's true about him that he ins't easily angered nor easily provoked, maybe's there's still hope for you.


That's what you're saying: The God of the Hebrews (who slaughtered children, women, etc) is ALSO screwing with our heads in the extreme by making us dream about outer space when in fact, we are locked in a sphere shaped prison with HIM! No, I do not like this part of your theory. I don't want to be trapped in an earth-ball with the childish God of the Hebrews.


Sadly there is an alternate place that you may be allowed to go. You can get out, if that's what you really want, but I doubt that it is, that is, if you really knew how uncomfortable that place is.


I'd respect you a bit more if you laid off the inverted-Earth theory and spent a little more time in the Religious Conspiracies forum, talking about the bible. Over there, I could tell you about how I see God and why your God seems like a child.


I'm not really sent to philosphize about God. I here to tell the world that he exists physically insde the earth.


It's one thing to flood the Earth. Okay, I can see that I suppose. But to flood the Earth from within a context like you're describing?! That God sat at the center of this sphere and crapped water onto us? Man, that just sounds silly!


Well, he would have spit it on us ultimately. But I wouldn't want to provoke him again. I have to warn you you're treading on dangerous territory...calling him a jerk and so forth. I'm afraid for you. In dialogues past you've been a rather helpful support. I hope he can shower you with his mercy and forgiveness.


Don't get your feelings hurt, because I'm just telling you how I see your theory. Remember, you chose to bear this flag, so you can't get sad when people like me come out and challenge parts of it. This is not a God I want to worship. He's a practical joker.


Sometimes I get sad, true, But then I remember that it's not my battle, it's his. I'm just his instrument(limited in knowledge as well).



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle

Not everything hits your glass an nice angles in space so it can skid about. On another note, last Saturday night we saw a massive meteorite streak across the sky, was rather low flying, we could hear a noise, sounded like "fizzing". This indicates that there was metals burning inside of it.



cool, do you any links...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Back to your picture...




In order for a relection to occur in glass the sun would have to come below the horizion. That is if the reflection was of the sun, inverteted.

How relections really work is that the angle of an incoming ray of light is relected in the opposite direction by the same angle. So the image of terrain in a reflection would always be on the opposite of the sun.



[edit on 8/8/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069

The diameter of the concave earth, would not account for the firsthand measured distance to the moon using doppler transponders on missions like - oh lets say, Apollo. The distance to the moon is greater than the distance inside the theoretical concave earth.


I don't believe much of what nasa says.


Does the doppler principal change within the space of the concave earth? Do electromagnetic wavelengths change because of some magic principal that the doppler effect used to calculate the range of the Apollo missions are inaccurate?


I think the glass acts as a resonator skewing and elongating the results.


It took us about 66 hours to travel to the moon and somehow,


so they say.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle

In order for a relection to occur in glass the sun would have to come below the horizion. That is if the reflection was of the sun, inverteted.


The sun we see in the sky IS the inverted image.


How relections really work is that the angle of an incoming ray of light is relected in the opposite direction by the same angle. So the image of terrain in a reflection would always be on the opposite of the sun.



[edit on 8/8/2005 by GoldEagle]


Exactly. The sun we see in the sky is the inverted, virtual image(reflection) of the actual sun, which we get a hint of when seeing fata morganas. That's why the green flash is at the "top" of the sun, it's a reflection of earth.



[edit on 8-8-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
What about ICBMs that can go above the projected altitude of the atmosphere.


www.aerospaceweb.org...
On average, however, a good number to use for the true height of the atmosphere is about 400,000 ft (122,000 m), or 76 miles. It is at this altitude that vehicles such as the Space Shuttle are said to make "atmospheric interface" when they re-enter the atmosphere prior to landing. Another "official" value you might consider is 50 miles, or 264,000 ft (80,540 m). Anyone flying higher than this altitude is officially considered an astronaut by NASA and the US Air Force.


So the your glass layer has an approximate altittude, 122KM above the Earth's surface. This is when the shuttle reaches "atmospheric interface". You would say that is is now skiding on the glass layer. ICBMs travel at an attitude of 1200KM above the surface and follow a parabolic path. Thus makes their angles of incline steep. The outside of a ICBM will reach the same heat of the shuttle on take off around 300 - 600 degrees Celcius and will not be able to skid without suffering damage due to it's structure and angle of incline.

What about high altitude nuclear tests? These occured at altitudes of 500KM. There have also been tests very close to the "glass", 150KM that had massive yeilds. Surely a blast wave without much to slow it down in a vacuum would reach and damage the glass with forces of 12 PSI. A slight 50 KM away.

[edit on 8/8/2005 by GoldEagle]




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join