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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
That isn't caused by refections, it's caused by various tempratures of the atmosphere at different layers. Also when the sun is low on the horizon there is more "air" in the field of view then in mid-day when the sun is above the horizon. Instead of 120km of air infront of the sun, you are looking through 800km of atmophere at sun rise, this also give it a red colour when it's on the horizon. The wave lengths of light are streched as it passed though a greater volume of air. This creates distortions. Just like the twinkle of stars.

In reality it's just an illusion. Take top of the sun in the image (your virtual one) and the top of the water. The sun's center is in the middle of the two.





posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
What about ICBMs that can go above the projected altitude of the atmosphere.

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.



ICBM's use very steep re-entry angles. They don't need to skid for long. They leave traces in the sky, probably scars in the glass. They have heat shields too to protect them. They decelerate when re-entering, no doubt encountering glass resistance.


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.


A nuclear blast might seem gargantuan, but in the global scheme, it's not that big. Also the spherical glass evenly distributes the blow and diminishes it.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
That isn't caused by refections, it's caused by various tempratures of the atmosphere at different layers. Also when the sun is low on the horizon there is more "air" in the field of view then in mid-day when the sun is above the horizon. Instead of 120km of air infront of the sun, you are looking through 800km of atmophere at sun rise, this also give it a red colour when it's on the horizon. The wave lengths of light are streched as it passed though a greater volume of air. This creates distortions. Just like the twinkle of stars.


Glass is an easier answer, and better. You see an inversion. Glass is reflective.
It seems pretty funny, to me anyway, that all these atmospheric explanations talk about different temperatures in the "air" or this invisible "air" layer at the top of the atmosphere causing such intense heat resistance that a heat shield is needed to break through "air". Pulling wool over someone's eyes is one thing, but making something out of "thin air" is another.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Goldeagle,

Do you think I am insane?


apc

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Have you ever seen heat rising off pavement?
Off a car hood?
See that distortion effect in the air?
It really isn't that hard to understand... unless you refuse to.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Do you think I am insane?

Well, I'm not sure if my opinion counts as much too you but I think your insane.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voidmaster
Well, I'm not sure if my opinion counts as much


No, it does not. I don't know your iq.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

His temperament is something I can't excuse. [...] But if it's true about him that he ins't easily angered nor easily provoked, maybe's there's still hope for you.

Hope for me and all the other millions of non whole-biblers, you mean, right? I never knew an American hardcore whole-bibler who gave a crap about the people on other side of the Earth, however. You know, China, India, etc? How will you convince them of [A:] The supremacy of the whole bible, and [2:] The Teed inverted Earth theory?



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.

Sorry man, now you're getting annoying. To brush me off with such childish words about hellfire shows how little interest in truth you actually have.

I tried to support your goals here, but in the end, I fear for your sanity and for gullible people you might convert to your cult or whatever.

It's one thing to borrow an old theory from a crazy cult-leader guy (who you dismiss out of hand by calling him an "apostate") but isn't it Teed who was GIVEN this vision? You came up with the glass part on your own, and that's fine, but let's give credit where credit is due. It's Teed/Koresh who got this ball rolling. Can you talk a little more about him and the moment of lightning that struck him, giving him this vision? At some point, if you'd like to have a revolution happen, you will have to defend your usurping of Cyrus Teed's theory, won't you?

Also, if you really were serious, wouldn't you try to recreate the rectilineator experiment yourself? As performed way back then, it's not going to be credible to your converts today, and it could easily be done again, so why not spend your time organizing such an effort? Unless that experiment is done again, this is all moot.



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

Well at least now we know that you see yourself as being "sent". So this is your holy mission, to re-emphasize a theory which a crackpot cult leader already ran with? Your modification of it won't give this theory any more legs this time, I'm afraid.



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.

Thanks for the same words of warning I get from every other pawn of the Hebrew God. I will be quite comfy in Hell, thanks very much. I'll have the screams of such sinners as the Dali Lama, Jimi Hendrix, etc. to comfort me.

In fact, if Heaven is full of whole-biblers, I would rather tunnel OUT of your inverted Earth and into the lava below us. Spending forever with them would be hell of a different sort altogether.



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).

I'd like to hear more about your "choosing" and how this came about. You really feel compelled by some spirit to preach this idea? Because I've met men who had ideas and who were NOT motivated by spirit, but who were actually willing to get off their arse and prove it. Are you working toward financing for a new rectilineator experiment? Because without proof, you cannot simply say "Gravity doesn't exist!" without being laughed at.

Again, I'm trying to help you, just in the same way you think you are trying to help me. Don't get all hurt.


[edit on 8-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
I think the glass acts as a resonator skewing and elongating the results.


You have a very strange idea of known science. If the glass resonated to skew the frequency of doppler transsponders, then why doesn't it affect normal radio signals bouncing back to earth below the atmosphere? Why aren't other signals affected?

Also, how about the fact that we have used laser altimeters on both Mars and the surface of the moon to make detailed maps of the terrain? Is there glass close to them as well to "skew" those results?

I would trust NASA on their very worst day than anything that you have tried to back up with your claims - and you have the audacity to quote, "Speculation is not science." You have done nothing but speculate.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Goldeagle,

Do you think I am insane?


No, just you have your own opinions which are a bit different then what people are use to hearing. Unfortunately, I don't share your views. Other then that I don't think your crazy.

[edit on 8/8/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
ICBM's use very steep re-entry angles. They don't need to skid for long. They leave traces in the sky, probably scars in the glass. They have heat shields too to protect them. They decelerate when re-entering, no doubt encountering glass resistance.


Yet they impact the glass at a hard angle (twice even) and still survive. This glass would have to be a bit thick in order to engulf a space shuttle and reseal itself by heat. The missiles would get damaged.



Originally posted by Plumbo
A nuclear blast might seem gargantuan, but in the global scheme, it's not that big. Also the spherical glass evenly distributes the blow and diminishes it.


Oh, in space everything is more spectacular. Nuclear blasts without exception. There is no air to slow down the blast waves so the hold their energy and travel further. They are strong enough to even affect the Earth's electormagnetic fields. Most the test were in the megatonage.

This leads to another question, what do the magnetic feilds in your model of the world look like? In practicality, a compass would not work in your world. What generates these feilds, if you say there is no core?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Hope for me and all the other millions of non whole-biblers, you mean, right? I never knew an American hardcore whole-bibler who gave a crap about the people on other side of the Earth, however. You know, China, India, etc?


yeah. how sad.


How will you convince them of [A:] The supremacy of the whole bible,


Don't believe all the words are from God. Some have been altered.



I tried to support your goals here, but in the end, I fear for your sanity and for gullible people you might convert to your cult or whatever.


Oh I see, you had this preconceived notion that as long as I didn't allude to hellfire, then you'd throw kisses my way and butter me up to be this extraordinary amazing guy. But if I "hypocritically" talked about God's judgement and his mercy, heaven forbid, you'd dismiss me as some bible thumping jerk just like the rest of them.

Well I think I have a better idea of what makes you tick. You've been duped before, you were the gullible one who knocked on doors telling people what you were programmed to say. You've emerged out of the emotional and spiritual scars other biblers cut you with...and you're gonna make damn sure this doesn't happen again to anyone else, as far as you can help it. But you still carry the pain, otherwise you wouldn't still be lashing out.

I've drawn your interest in this theory. I think you're open to "cult-like" ideologies.
But you don't want to get burned again. I read your testimony where you dabbled in many arenas...atheism, hinduism, etc. You're dismissing my theory because I ultimately point to a Hebrew God of the bible, in whom you're quite pissed off at.

But really, beneath the layers of blame, you have to ultimately blame the people who screwed with your mind, and not the God who they claim were sent by. (Which they were not).

So now you have me telling you that I was "sent".
Well, sobeit. Take it or leave it.
If you think I'm not sent, move on.

If you decide that it's your mission to protect the gullible and unpretentious, then become my thorn in your eyes.

I've been poor for many years now. Reconducting an experiment that has already been proven to be very accurate doesn't seem like an interest to me.

Besides ther are many mouths to feed, right?

Now get all hurt ...and then be healed.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Jeez I can't keep up with this thread anymore it's too much too read!!! :bnghd:

Anyway I'm assuming you've heard how the Discovery space shuttle landed this morning really early at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

The last few pages have been stuff about illusions and reflections you can see, but why not try to focus on something else like the space shuttle landing and takeoff? And how about satellites? I'd like to see a good debate on satellites


Now I'm not for either side anymore because both have provided huge amounts of information and devoted countless hours towards either proving or disproving the existance of glass in the atmosphere.

Plus I'm still mad about how this thread hasn't been moved back to ATS where it belongs. But you know what would be even cooler, if they let Plumbo and someone else have an official debate on ATS. I say go for it mods!



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069

You have a very strange idea of known science. If the glass resonated to skew the frequency of doppler transsponders, then why doesn't it affect normal radio signals bouncing back to earth below the atmosphere? Why aren't other signals affected?


It does.

Ever hear of short-wave radio?

Unlike FM radio, which are line of sight and limited to 40-50 miles, short-wave radio actually uses the glass to "bounce off" from transmitter to reciever antenna. You know this refracting entity as the "ionosphere", but it's really the "glasosphere".


Also, how about the fact that we have used laser altimeters on both Mars and the surface of the moon to make detailed maps of the terrain? Is there glass close to them as well to "skew" those results?


Terrain is pretty accurate. But you still need a viable reference object to comprehend the actual scale.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Here are some interesting ponderances I grabbed from one of Rolf Keppler's sites....

Is it not peculiar that...

1. Every known form of energy decays, even light, namely with the square of the distance, and yet light rays of stars are still reaching us from billions of light years away.
2. Everything is subject to lines of force, (which are curved as is well known), but only light supposedly travels in a perfectly straight line.
3. According to French experiments (Prof. Allais), after 8 m distance it is no longer useful and geodesists (surveyors of the earth) have to use correction factors.
4. That night is never truly dark.
5. Even though light is supposed to travel straight, a glowing mountain can be seen even after the sun has long since set.
6. That the poles of the earth at the great distance of 150 million km from the sun do not receive equal amounts of heat, though the difference of that distance is only 6000 km.
7. That we have winter even though the sun is supposed to be 5 million km closer on December 12.
8. In all the seasons we do not have the same temperatures, if the sun is a glowing ball of heat.
9. All planets move from East to West, only the earth turns from West to East which is in the opposite direction to all other paths of the planets.
10. In a centrifuge all heavy materials collect on the outside (away from the center) only the lighter ones are near the center, yet only the rotating earth reverses the whole process.
11. The earth never cools off completely, although it is travelling in icecold (-273° C) space with a supposed velocity of 800 km/s around the sun.
12. That with this enormous speed in space, high and lows can form in the atmosphere, and everywhere a layer of air with the same altitude can remain. And all this is in addition to the earth's own revolution of 30 km/s.
13. That on a rotating sphere, the heavy land masses are found in the upper half and the lighter water mass on the lower half, instead of a collection of the landmasses near the equator.
14. That in the vacuum of space earth does not lose its air.
15. A vacuum conducts neither rays, nor light, nor heat nor gravity, but this is not valid for the sun and its planets.
16. Earth performs a revolution against its path around the sun.
17. That fixed stars do not show a parallax (moving from their postion) while the earth races around the sun 1.2 billion km per year.
18. That at a solar eclipse, when the sun is 150 million km distant, the shape of the eclipse is different at various places on the earth.
19. That fixed stars never move although they are found in a moving, expanding universe.
20. That we never see the back of the sun, although we are moving around it, while the low and high tides happen at exactly the opposite sides of the earth.
21. That Icelanders at certain times can see Greenland.
22. That one can see the Alps from the Arber and one can see Africa from Sicily.
23. That two plumb lines hanging in a deep mine diverge at the bottom instead of converge.
24. That the velocity of the earth was already measured in 1906 by two American university professors and in 1930 by the Zeiss-Works in JENA, and that each time the value zero was found.
25. That already in 1898 the direction of surface curvature of the earth was scientifically determined and measured without official science making any use of this (rectilineator).
26. That television amateurs in England and Holland received programs from Moscow, Peking, and Australia and those in Austria received programs form the USA and South America.
27. That in radio transmission, a second directional theory can be used which brings even better results.
28. That dust clouds caused by the landing of a satellite or space probe on the moon was 100 times larger than expected.
29. That you can not see any stars from the moon.
30. That the altitudes of mountains on the moon were not correct at all but showed values 100 times smaller.
31. That it is not possible to obtain scientific measurement data about the shape and size of the moon.
32. That on satellite flights, the horizon is always at eye level, according to a statement made by a former astronaut to his colleague in trouble.
33. That at the time when Stoltenberg was Minister of Research (Germany) and was visited by the astronaut Borman in Bonn, he said they had seen photos of the earth from which one could assume that the earth was a ball.
34. That based on satellite flights, one calculated a pear shaped earth while press photos showed a solid ball taken on a flight to the moon.
35. That a news agency reworked the space photos to show a solid earth.
36. That at an altitude of 200 km, one could photograph the solid earth, when the diameter of the earth was more than 12 000 km.
37. That with infrared photography one could see the shore of a 24 km long lake although one should only be able to see the roof of a boathouse.
38. That the magnetic field of the earth is supposed to be caused by an iron core at the center of the earth, although it is known that iron becomes unmagnetic at the Curie point at 750° C .
39. That Copernicus was a Lord of a Cathedral and not an astronomer, and he definitely stated that his world view was a theory.
40. That in mathematics for calculations of unknown magnitudes, one designs mathematical models which can often lead to rather useful solutions but do not always agree with the actual reality.


by Wilhelm Moestel, April 1968



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
This leads to another question, what do the magnetic feilds in your model of the world look like? In practicality, a compass would not work in your world. What generates these feilds, if you say there is no core?


Did I ever say ther was no core?

This diagram shows a positive(south) and negative pole(north) at the core, which is covered by the black celestial sphere.

Electromagnetism's source is from God's throne.
Go to Sharper Image and check out one of those lightning balls.


Also, is there any truth to point #38 above?

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
That you can not see any stars from the moon.


It's the same here on Earth. The light from our sun overpowers the light from the stars. You have to wait until you're not on the sunny-side to see the stars come out. I always thought that this one was a no-brainer.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Plumbo
That you can not see any stars from the moon.


It's the same here on Earth. The light from our sun overpowers the light from the stars. You have to wait until you're not on the sunny-side to see the stars come out. I always thought that this one was a no-brainer.


Irrelevant to presence of glass.
Is this the only point you want to counter?
Gnat straining is highly discouraged especially when there are moutains of evidence to the existence of glass in the sky.

Not my words anyway.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Plumbo]


apc

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Plumbo, do you just ignore everything that you can't explain with this notion of glass?

Would you mind commenting on my previous mentioning of thermal convection causing light to distort? You claim all mirages are caused by this glass sphere, when in fact you can have mirages only a few meters in front of you. For example: on a hot day, heat rises off pavement (roads). This hot rising air will refract light. If the road in question is going over a hill, you can stand on one side of the hill and, through the refraction, see what is on the other side of the hill.

Is there a layer of glass right down on the surface that noone notices?

You repeatedly contradict yourself. You say others who claim to have been sent by God were not. In the same breath you claim that you yourself were sent by God. Are you saying you are a prophet? Are you saying you are Jesus reincarnate?

You refuse to justify yourself beyond "glass explains it better." You do not understand the physics nor the science behind what you are attempting to argue.

Another interesting point: glass isn't solid. How does that fit into your notion?

>Couldn't resist a few of these points:

2. Everything is subject to lines of force, (which are curved as is well known), but only light supposedly travels in a perfectly straight line.

Gravity bends light. Light must travel in a straight line relative to the space it is traveling in. If the space is bent, light will also bend.


4. That night is never truly dark.

It is if you're in a sealed room. Otherwise, it's a little difficult to get away from all sources of light.


5. Even though light is supposed to travel straight, a glowing mountain can be seen even after the sun has long since set.

Mountains reflect light.


7. That we have winter even though the sun is supposed to be 5 million km closer on December 12.

The Earth is round. It is tilted... only half the planet has winter then.


8. In all the seasons we do not have the same temperatures, if the sun is a glowing ball of heat.

The Earth is round. It is tilted.


9. All planets move from East to West, only the earth turns from West to East which is in the opposite direction to all other paths of the planets.

Wow...


10. In a centrifuge all heavy materials collect on the outside (away from the center) only the lighter ones are near the center, yet only the rotating earth reverses the whole process.

We call this Gravity.


11. The earth never cools off completely, although it is travelling in icecold (-273° C) space with a supposed velocity of 800 km/s around the sun.

As the author previously pointed out, the Sun is pretty hot.


12. That with this enormous speed in space, high and lows can form in the atmosphere, and everywhere a layer of air with the same altitude can remain. And all this is in addition to the earth's own revolution of 30 km/s.

The fact that the Earth is spinning and revolving around a big hot star gives us our changing atmospheric pressures.


13. That on a rotating sphere, the heavy land masses are found in the upper half and the lighter water mass on the lower half, instead of a collection of the landmasses near the equator.

Land doesn't float on water. Dry land is just the high spots.


14. That in the vacuum of space earth does not lose its air.

Again, we call this Gravity.


15. A vacuum conducts neither rays, nor light, nor heat nor gravity, but this is not valid for the sun and its planets.

This is plain wrong.


17. That fixed stars do not show a parallax (moving from their postion) while the earth races around the sun 1.2 billion km per year.

They do.


18. That at a solar eclipse, when the sun is 150 million km distant, the shape of the eclipse is different at various places on the earth.

This is called perspective.


19. That fixed stars never move although they are found in a moving, expanding universe.

They do.


20. That we never see the back of the sun, although we are moving around it, while the low and high tides happen at exactly the opposite sides of the earth.

The Moon is responsible for the tides.


25. That already in 1898 the direction of surface curvature of the earth was scientifically determined and measured without official science making any use of this (rectilineator).

It was measured by the Ancient Egyptians too.


31. That it is not possible to obtain scientific measurement data about the shape and size of the moon.

Wrong.


32. That on satellite flights, the horizon is always at eye level, according to a statement made by a former astronaut to his colleague in trouble.

Was this in a movie?


34. That based on satellite flights, one calculated a pear shaped earth while press photos showed a solid ball taken on a flight to the moon.

It is a little oblong.


35. That a news agency reworked the space photos to show a solid earth.

I take it they still do?


36. That at an altitude of 200 km, one could photograph the solid earth, when the diameter of the earth was more than 12 000 km.

I can photograph my entire beachball from a few inches away, too.


38. That the magnetic field of the earth is supposed to be caused by an iron core at the center of the earth, although it is known that iron becomes unmagnetic at the Curie point at 750° C .

The iron is spinning.


[edit on 9-8-2005 by apc]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Plumbo, do you just ignore everything that you can't explain with this notion of glass?


I ignored you because your queston is misleading.


You claim all mirages are caused by this glass sphere


I'm not saying ALL thermal reflections are from glass.
But what I am saying is that in a desert, when an oasis, which is literally hundreds of miles away, appears before you, a simple reflection in a concave earth explains it rather easily. Yo can arguably say that a double inversed sun is a product of this thermal reflection, you can also arguably say that it's caused by the glass in the sky.



Is there a layer of glass right down on the surface that noone notices?


Stupid questions don't deserve answers.


Are you saying you are a prophet?
Nope.


Are you saying you are Jesus reincarnate?
Nope.



new topics




 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join