Pangea?

IBdaMann wrote:

I don't recall any photography actually showing earth encased in glass. Would you please post it.

John Marsriver wrote: I took this picture Nov. 10 2023.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: I took this picture Nov. 10 2023.

Once again, we have a photograph of something you claim is an effect, and not a photograph of glass.

You are arguing that this glass is "always clearly visible" and at the same time is always completely invisible. Forget about special "lens flare" effects, I want a photograph of the glass, which will have amazingly visible glare if it is round.

I also need an explanation as to why the glass isn't completely shattered/cracked from all the asteroids that similarly cratered the moon.

Watch the video. No glass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJla-JsVNpw

Watch the video. No glass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlMne06CGP8

John Marsriver wrote: Dude you can't even see the glass on an illuminated light bulb I photographed from 5 feet away.

John Marsriver wrote: But here is proof, from an amateur rocket, with a camera mounted to it, falling from about 50 miles high, that the sunlight is passing through a glass prism.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: Dude you can't even see the glass on an illuminated light bulb I photographed from 5 feet away.

Well, not when you photograph it, of course not. However, when a photographer who is not incompetent takes the photo, the illuminated light bulb's glass is completely visible.

John Marsriver wrote: But here is proof, from an amateur rocket, with a camera mounted to it, falling from about 50 miles high, that the sunlight is passing through a glass prism.

Aside from the fact that this is simply a bad image that is to be discraded, all this image reveals is another "effect" that falls under the category of phenomenology. It doesn't prove anything beyond the image is bad and should be discarded.

I provided you two falsifying videos for which you have no rebuttal. It would seem that we're done here.

Question: Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?

John Marsriver wrote: You can't see the lightbulb glass in my picture because the light emanating beyond the glass is brighter than the glass, stupid.

John Marsriver wrote: The picture shows what happens when you shine a light through a prism.

John Marsriver wrote: You discard it because it doesn't fit into your world view.

John Marsriver wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You're not funny.

Either the problem is at my end, i.e. I'm not funny, or the problem is at your end, i.e. you're too stupid to understand a punchline or to even recognize one when you read one.

Hmmm, I wonder where the problem is. Can we deduce the solution? Let's see.
* You fell for a lame, obvious hoax.
* You believe that adding salt to water decreases the water's volume.
* You therefore believe that salt quantity determines the ocean level in different places where the salt quantity differs.
* You think there is/was glass surrounding the earth.

The results are in. Yes, we have sufficient information to determine that you are your problem, not I.

Whereas it is impossible for you to find me to be funny, I find you to be hillarious. Please keep it up. What's the next hoax we should "believe"?

I know, once upon a time, a carbon fiber-protected self-immolator removed all the salt from the ocean, causing the ocean's volume to violently increase as he set himself on fire, bursting his flaming body through the earth's surrounding glass and becoming the sun that shines upon Swan's tomatoes every day, right? Am I close?

... or was that totally not funny?

You are again using death to make a joke. I do not appreciate sick humor.

You don't appreciate ANY humor. Must really suck to be you.

John Marsriver wrote:
I don't have any problem determining there is glass all around Earth, the Atlantic is saltier than the Pacific, and that salt dissolved in water reduces the water's volume slightly.

Still trying to deny physics, eh?

John Marsriver wrote:
You do. But I do not think it should be my problem if you can't accept the conclusions of the tests repeatedly shown to you here.

What 'tests'? Making shit up won't help.

I cannot believe you are as ignorant as your comments indicate.

keepit wrote:
I do. They can't even tell you where or in what they were educated. It certainly isn't in a us school or a western school.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You can't see the lightbulb glass in my picture because the light emanating beyond the glass is brighter than the glass, stupid.

That's exactly what I wrote, moron. I quite clearly said it was a bad picture to be discarded. Learn to read.

John Marsriver wrote: The picture shows what happens when you shine a light through a prism.

You were supposed to be providing a photograph of earth's surrounding glass. Learn to read.

John Marsriver wrote: You discard it because it doesn't fit into your world view.

I falsified your claim of surrounding glass. You discard the videos because they don't fit into your delusional world view.

You didn't answer my question: Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? The presumption is yes, that you do believe in such because the only "evidence" for them are blurry, unintelligible images, i.e. your acceptance criteria.

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You can't see the lightbulb glass in my picture because the light emanating beyond the glass is brighter than the glass, stupid.

That's exactly what I wrote, moron. I quite clearly said it was a bad picture to be discarded. Learn to read.

John Marsriver wrote: The picture shows what happens when you shine a light through a prism.

You were supposed to be providing a photograph of earth's surrounding glass. Learn to read.

John Marsriver wrote: You discard it because it doesn't fit into your world view.

I falsified your claim of surrounding glass. You discard the videos because they don't fit into your delusional world view.

You didn't answer my question: Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? The presumption is yes, that you do believe in such because the only "evidence" for them are blurry, unintelligible images, i.e. your acceptance criteria.

Your statement that you falsified my claim is the most delusional statement in this thread.

It's hard for me to believe you are really that delusional.

John Marsriver wrote: Your statement that you falsified my claim is the most delusional statement in this thread.

John Marsriver wrote: It's hard for me to believe you are really that delusional.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: Your statement that you falsified my claim is the most delusional statement in this thread.

This is where you offer your bitch-slap rebuttal ... but I don't see any rebuttal.

John Marsriver wrote: It's hard for me to believe you are really that delusional.

This is where you offer your bitch-slap rebuttal ... but I don't see any rebuttal.

So, you've got nothing. It is therefore your position that it's hard for you to believe the reality in which you live, and that you must retreat into some fantasy refuge of your own creation. OK.

Once again (third time), you didn't answer my question: Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? The presumption is yes, that you do believe in such because the only "evidence" for them are blurry, unintelligible images, i.e. your acceptance criteria.

John Marsriver wrote: You don't understand the difference between a lens flare and an artifact on the lens.

John Marsriver wrote:You have no concept how light can blind an eye and camera from seeing and capturing objects.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You don't understand the difference between a lens flare and an artifact on the lens.

I totally understand the difference. Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?

John Marsriver wrote:You have no concept how light can blind an eye and camera from seeing and capturing objects.

I completely understand the concept. You have no concept of how competent photographers and well-placed cameras can capture valid photographic evidence. The videos I posted falsify your assertions, I'm sorry. There's a reason you can't muster any sort of rebuttal, i.e. you're assertions are false.

This discussion ended a few posts back, but you didn't notice. I'll have someone send over the memo.

John Marsriver wrote: when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.

John Marsriver wrote: But that reminds me, you must be absolutely oblivious, if you think Earth can be spinning 1000 mph at the equator, and life on Earth would survive that rotation speed without a windshield.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.

Your theory doesn't come with any explanation. Any glass surrounding the earth should be so thoroughly cracked that nothing would be clearly visible, e.g. stars, moon, etc ...

Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?

John Marsriver wrote: But that reminds me, you must be absolutely oblivious, if you think Earth can be spinning 1000 mph at the equator, and life on Earth would survive that rotation speed without a windshield.

Why would I have any sort of problem observing humanity's survival of earth's rotation?

John Marsriver wrote: How would it be cracked?

John Marsriver wrote: Why do you think bright lights cannot be seen through glass?

John Marsriver wrote: The reason you can observe life surviving Earth's rotation is because there is a protective glass shield containing the air you breathe.

The reason you can observe life surviving Earth's rotation is because there is a protective glass shield containing the air you breathe.

John Marsriver wrote:
You ended the discussion a while back, when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.

John Marsriver wrote:
Now I am just mocking you.

John Marsriver wrote:
But that reminds me, you must be absolutely oblivious, if you think Earth can be spinning 1000 mph at the equator, and life on Earth would survive that rotation speed without a windshield.

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.

Your theory doesn't come with any explanation. Any glass surrounding the earth should be so thoroughly cracked that nothing would be clearly visible, e.g. stars, moon, etc ...

Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?

John Marsriver wrote: But that reminds me, you must be absolutely oblivious, if you think Earth can be spinning 1000 mph at the equator, and life on Earth would survive that rotation speed without a windshield.

Why would I have any sort of problem observing humanity's survival of earth's rotation?

How would it be cracked?

Don't say meteorite unless you can show a meteorite traveling to Earth from Outer Space.

John Marsriver wrote:
The answer is too much CO2 from burning coal and breathing.

John Marsriver wrote:
Why do you think bright lights cannot be seen through glass?

John Marsriver wrote:
The reason you can observe life surviving Earth's rotation is because there is a protective glass shield containing the air you breathe.

hayden jordan wrote:

The reason you can observe life surviving Earth's rotation is because there is a protective glass shield containing the air you breathe.

You act as if air can defy the laws of gravity.

hayden jordan wrote:
Maybe having a third grade education is finally coming back to kick you in the ass.