Can Someone Explain Why There is not Glass in the Atmosphere?

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.

I came to the conclusion 2 years ago that the entire universe is merely contained within the walls of an inverted earth, which is not solid but only a shell in which we live on the inside surface. This theory was originally brought to the public scene about a century ago by a man by the name of Cyrus Teed who, conducted the Rectilineator experiment along the Florida coastline which agruably proved that the earth's surface was concave and not convex.
www.s-line.de...

The new twist to this old thoery that I'm proposing is that there is a layer of glass at the top of the atmosphere which distorts our perception of the heavens. I believe it causes an opposite effect in curvature which deceived our eyes into thinking we live on a convex earth. If this is true, I can't really take the credit for discovering the glass because it is recorded in the bible, namely in Gen 9:13, Jeremiah 5:21-22, Psalm 104:9, Job 37:18, Job 38:20 and 1Corinthians 13:12.

But aside from the religious view of glass being present, I'd like to call to your attention a handful of visual and temperature effects that point to there being glass in the sky.

1) The Rainbow


Now, if you really think about what we have been taught in defining why rainbows appear in the sky, it really doesn't make much sense, to me anyway. They say that rainbows are created by the billions of tiny drops of water in the atmosphere which refract sunlight projected at an acute angle.
Each drop containing the full spectrum of colors and each drop bending at the precise uniformed angle to "bow" the rainbow.

But we all probably know that it takes some form of a "glass" prism to actually divide the white light into the spectrum of colors.

I believe that the tiny drops of water in the air are merely a surface on which the glass-filtered light projects itself; same with water sprayed from a garden hose. A flashlight can produce a rainbow, too, but keep in mind that the glass bulb in the flashlight is filtering the light. Oil spills and bubbles too are only surfaces of projection. The halos around streetlights at night are formed only because there is a glass bulb filtering the light.

I belive that the rainbow is formed because of the glass in the sky...



2.) Glass lenses distort objects.


If you've ever swished a spoon around inside a glass of water, if you've ever looked through a concave or convex glass lens, you'll know what I'm talking about.

So, in that respect, as we watch the sun and moon traverse across the sky, we notice it appears to grow in size at the horizon and shrink at the zenith. I know that this is only an optical illusion but it appears to be the exact opposite of what we feel in temperature. In the coolness of the evening and/or morning the sun appears huge against the horizon andconversely in the heat of a summer's afternoon, it looks very tiny up in the sky.

So the glass causes a perception that is not real...


3.)Glass blocks most UV light.
I belive that the real reason we are protected from the sun's UV rays is due to the glass, not the ozone.

4.)Glass causes chromatic abberation.
If you've looked through a refracting telescope, you know how glass can divide the blues and reds causing chromatic abberation. Just can't but into the solar wind explanation. In the same way, I believe this to be the real reason we see a comet's tail. The curvature of the tail also gives more credense to there being a curved glass present.



5.) Glass heats up air.

Similar to a greenhouse, the glass in the sky prevents the frigid cold of (inner)space from penetration us here on the ground.

6.)Fusion crust on meterorites


If you've ever seen a meteorite, you've probalby noticed a thin, black glassy coating encapsulating it. They say this is because of the burn-up which occurs during entry. Well, I kind of agree, but I believe that the intense heat-friction caused by the rock skidding across the glass sky actually causes the rock to melt through and burns the glass to the point that it literally takes a molten coating of the glass with it.

Also if you've ever rubbed 2 quartz crystals together, it produces light.


www.primitiveways.com...

This is why a meteorite can light up a night sky and make it seem like daylight. The silicon-dioxide from the meteroite and the silicon-dioxide from the sky rub together and literally brighten up the sky.

7.) Space Shuttle needs glass tiles.

The SS's tiles are coated with an abrasive glass called frit, which is dichotic glass, meaning it was once baked at extremely high temperatures. They use frit to prevent the craft from accumulating fusion crust on it's surface. The temperature attained for the glass in the sky to melt is lower than the once baked frit and the frit actually repels the atmsopheric glass. The frit, being very abrasive, is also used to speed up the temperature by causing friction, in order to melt through.

8.) Other visual anomolies

Halos, circumzenith archs, glories, superior mirages all can be more easily explained if there is glass present in the stmospher.

So there are my reasons for believing there is glass up in the sky.
If there is anyone that can show me how and/or why I'm wrong, I would love to hear from you.

A simple answer is that glass is heavier than air and the force of gravity would cause it to fall to the Earth. Also I don't think God does windows. Can you imagine trying to clean a glass window that size?

Well I'm hoping for a more thorough answer. Because I'm convinced that this glass is perfectly balanced in the earth equally distributing its force.
I don't think it get dirty either because the air is so thin that any dirt particles never make it up that high.

It's a shame all those spacecraft keep crashing through that glass ceiling...who pays for the repairs by chance?

The serious flaw in this idea (besides the obvious), is that we (and other nations) have sent numerous craft into space and beyond, outside this magical glass dome, and yet nobody ever mentioned crashing through it....

Good points, I pondered this myself. But to me, there are just too many visual proofs of glass present not to ignore the question. I don't want to say conspiracy yet, just like you to stretch your imagination. We believe what we are told about things all too often.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Plumbo]

Also, pictured of the earth's globe from space... its a sphere.

Additionally, any planet or star we look at is a sphere as well with features clearly showing rotation and thus spheres are the norm for large masses like earth.

Craziest theory i ever read on ATS once. Beats the flat earthers even.

Thank you, I'll try to take that as a compliment!
But if a craft is over the glass atmosphere, the earth is being distorted to make it look like a sphere.

Kind of like the same way this glass lens distorts the earth from beneath the glass atmosphere:

Ok, I got your proof... HAM radio...

My buddy can bounce a signal off the moon with refaction EXACTLY as predicted by an all gas atmosphere. Glass would have a much greater degree of refraction.

Testable by anyone with a strong transmitter/receiver.

Interesting. But isn't he just ignorantly implying that it is an all gas atmosphere. And thus his predictions are are only blindly neglecting a glass elememt?

Yes I know the moon can almost double radio frequncy. But HAM radio makes a lot more sense if we live inside the earth. The short radio waves can travel very far even across to the other side of the "globe".

Plumbo: How does your theory explaine the geophysical evidence about the structure of the inner earth. I.e a crust, mantle, outer core inner core??

What's up, Plumbo? Still stumping for Cyrus/Koresh Teed, eh? Man, I have to respect you because you really do claim to believe this and I've never seen a bigger windmill to tilt at.

Seriously tho', if I am not mistaken, Teed's theory is based on a particular law of geometry that says every point outside a sphere, if inverted, would have a twin, smaller point inside the sphere. Am I right? This is why you believe:

1: The "universe" is actually very small, something like 100 miles across at best, right?

2: The stars and constellations I see at night are actually TINY, like two-feet across and encased in black-ice which only looks like a void of space.

3: This big black icy star-studded ball floats above us and the refractive effects of the glass atmosphere make us think it's outer space. At the center of this ice-ball, sits God Almighty.

4: The earth's surface is actually an inverted sphere, and when the biblical flood occurred, lots of sand and silica actually made it up to orbit and remained there after the water subsided, right?

...I just want to summarize Teed's beliefs as I understand them. You believe he was an apostate, though, don't you?

It's hard not to like you because you're sticking to your guns on this one. I think the idea is one of the most fantastic ideas I've ever heard. Please give us more of your excellent 3D stuff because personally I love it.


[edit on 11-5-2005 by smallpeeps]

Thanks smallpeeps....

Now i won't be wasting any more time in this thread.. i thought it was a serious questions not a recruitment for a cult.

Not only would the spacecraft smash through the thing, and radio would bounce differently, but if we were surrounded by a glass bubble, the temperatures would get so hot that Earth would melt.

With no heat exchange system (like outer space) to cool things off, the heat buildup would have slagged the glass and everything else around Earth milennia ago.

(moving this to chit chat... )

No offence, but have you ever actually considered going .... outside? Put down the keyboard, step away from the computer, put some clothes on (assuming you have any), and open that front door

Your 'theory' isnt new, I came across a similair one which said we were actually living on the inside face of a sphere something like 15 years ago, and my physics teacher sat me down, and went through each claim and proved to me using credible methods and facts that were backed up from sources that the claims were rediculous.

There are simply too many things pointing the other way - like for example the grade of glass you allude to simply doesnt exist in nature, pretty much everything a standard person calls 'glass' cannot be created in nature, it requires an intelligent process to make.

thanks buddy, you're a breath of fresh air!
I'll try to post some other graphics in the days to come.

God Bless You for your encouragement!

Hey RH,
Not to techy on what they say is in the inner earth, but we all know they haven't actually drilled more than 9 miles. I think that's should raise some suspicion, don't you?

Now if it is just a shell, then hmmm.

Quest takes the slip!

depends on how you look at it. I see the glass half full, or keeping earth cozy instead of freezing up.

well, yes I know its old, like I mentioned up above it is over 100 years old, but did your physics teacher ever try to explain away the glass?

So far, no one in this thread has tried to explain away the visual evidenses I mentioned initally. Please try a little harder before discard such a claim, please, let's be objective, ok?



not sure what you mean by this?

Please just try to explain away the "proofs" I mentioned initially in this thread, ok?

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Plumbo]

According to dictionary.com, caustics is defined as:

"The enveloping surface formed by light rays reflecting or refracting from a curved surface, especially one with spherical aberration. "

Now look at these atmospheric phenomena....northern lights, sundogs, circumzenith arcs, etc.
and now know that, for the first time in recorded history, you have just understood the real reason they form.

Plain and simple.

Glass

Glass causes caustics. Glass is silicon dioxide which is crystal.
The crystal in the glass spheriod causes the abberation in the sky, not the tiny ice crystals in the sky. The tiny ice crystal only provide a surface to project the caustics.








[edit on 14-5-2005 by Plumbo]