A personal experience for climate change deniers

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I've explained many of the visible indications of Heaven's glass with you in other posts over the years.

Nope. You have explained the visibility of other things but claimed they were somehow evidence of a planetary glass enclosure that remains totally invisible. It's that invisibility that you have never explained.

Spongy Iris wrote: The unique blue color of most of the sky which doesn't match the color of the earths atmospheric oxygen.

Nope. That's the sky which exactly matches the color it should be. This, in no way, shape or form, explains the invisibility that a planetary glass enclosure should not have.

Clean, transparent glass that is curved will always be clearly visible.

Spongy Iris wrote:The yellow sky at the horizon at sunset. The white sky at the horizon when the sun is high.

Nope. Those are atmospherics that are visible and does not explain the invisibility of your glass.

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote][b]Spongy Iris wrote: The disc of the moon behind it's reflection doesn't align with its reflection.

What reflection?

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun in my signature.

That's the effect of the lens of the camera that took the picture and the angle of the photo. The photo itself was probably taken from behind a layer of glass, e.g. a sliding glass door.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote: The artifact that shows up on camera lens when you photograph the sun at an indirect angle.

That's called a lens flare. It too is well understood and is a feature in most graphics packages. Anyway, the name tells you that it is an effect of the lens.

This is from Photoshop Essentials:

This is from a GIMP tutorial on lens flares:

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote][b]Spongy Iris wrote: The Libyan glass fields indicating the sky did fall in the ancient past.

Nope. Glass falling from the altitude you specify will burn up on reentry. The Libyan glass fields show you what happens when lightning strikes in the desert.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I've explained many of the visible indications of Heaven's glass with you in other posts over the years.

Nope. You have explained the visibility of other things but claimed they were somehow evidence of a planetary glass enclosure that remains totally invisible. It's that invisibility that you have never explained.

Spongy Iris wrote: The unique blue color of most of the sky which doesn't match the color of the earths atmospheric oxygen.

Nope. That's the sky which exactly matches the color it should be. This, in no way, shape or form, explains the invisibility that a planetary glass enclosure should not have.

Clean, transparent glass that is curved will always be clearly visible.

Spongy Iris wrote:The yellow sky at the horizon at sunset. The white sky at the horizon when the sun is high.

Nope. Those are atmospherics that are visible and does not explain the invisibility of your glass

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote][b]Spongy Iris wrote: The disc of the moon behind it's reflection doesn't align with its reflection.

What reflection?

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun in my signature.

That's the effect of the lens of the camera that took the picture and the angle of the photo. The photo itself was probably taken from behind a layer of glass, e.g. a sliding glass door.

Check out this pic:



See how the crescent moon doesn't align with the circle behind it?

Looks like it's always a new moon in Heaven.

This effect is the same as my signature. The 2 reflections on the top and bottom of Heaven don't line up. The relection on the top of Heaven is so dim it can barely be perceived, like a new moon.

Also, I took the double sun pic outdoors, not behind any glass other than Heaven. Here's the original before zooming in.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote][b]Spongy Iris wrote: The disc of the moon behind it's reflection doesn't align with its reflection.

What reflection?

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun in my signature.

That's the effect of the lens of the camera that took the picture and the angle of the photo. The photo itself was probably taken from behind a layer of glass, e.g. a sliding glass door.

Check out this pic:



See how the crescent moon doesn't align with the circle behind it?

Looks like it's always a new moon in Heaven.

This effect is the same as my signature. The 2 reflections on the top and bottom of Heaven don't line up. The relection on the top of Heaven is so dim it can barely be perceived, like a new moon.

Also, I took the double sun pic outdoors, not behind any glass other than Heaven. Here's the original before zooming in.

Now that one is easy... It's the reflection off the powerline. Transmission lines aren't insulated. Go inspect the spot in the photo, should see a metal band around the cable at that same place, as in the photo. Probably wouldn't need to go to that exact pole either, should be common.

Spongy Iris wrote:That was taken from an amateur rocket that had just broken in half. It was falling and spinning around. I'm guessing it was about 50 miles high.

Spongy Iris wrote: Just before the white reflection of the sun was about enter into the camera view, you can see the light shining through Heaven, which caused the yellow hue of this picture. The false view as to why the sky appears yellow at sunset, is that the light is passing through more atmosphere, and this somehow changes the light from blue to yellow.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there is no air 50 miles high. So why did the sky appear yellow in this picture?

HarveyH55 wrote:Now that one is easy... It's the reflection off the powerline. Transmission lines aren't insulated. Go inspect the spot in the photo, should see a metal band around the cable at that same place, as in the photo. Probably wouldn't need to go to that exact pole either, should be common.

Spongy Iris wrote:Check out this pic:

See how the crescent moon doesn't align with the circle behind it?

Spongy Iris wrote:Here is the color that charged air on Earth makes. This picture was taken of the air around a transformer explosion.



Here is the color of the sky when sunlight hits Heaven.



The reason earth's air charges as a cyan color is because it is mostly nitrogen and some oxygen.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Now that one is easy... It's the reflection off the powerline. Transmission lines aren't insulated. Go inspect the spot in the photo, should see a metal band around the cable at that same place, as in the photo. Probably wouldn't need to go to that exact pole either, should be common.

Harvey, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you take (and post here or PM them to me) two photos, from a mounted camera (i.e. camera position and angle fixed and cannot move/shift/adjust), of a setting such as this one:

... whereby nothing moves, all cars are parked and won't move ... and no birds or animals. The two photos are to be taken about six to eight minutes apart with only the sun (or moon) moving, i.e. the pictures will be nearly identical with the only differences being the position of the sun/moon in the sky and the shadows on the ground. If you could do that, I'll create some more Spongy Iris proof-of-glass.

HarveyH55 wrote:Kind of tough around here.

HarveyH55 wrote:10 days into a broken toe, not sure about climbing a ladder just yet.

HarveyH55 wrote: Might take a few tries to get the sun in it.

HarveyH55 wrote: Really haven't witnessed the glass-effect.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Now that one is easy... It's the reflection off the powerline. Transmission lines aren't insulated. Go inspect the spot in the photo, should see a metal band around the cable at that same place, as in the photo. Probably wouldn't need to go to that exact pole either, should be common.

Harvey, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you take (and post here or PM them to me) two photos, from a mounted camera (i.e. camera position and angle fixed and cannot move/shift/adjust), of a setting such as this one:

... whereby nothing moves, all cars are parked and won't move ... and no birds or animals. The two photos are to be taken about six to eight minutes apart with only the sun (or moon) moving, i.e. the pictures will be nearly identical with the only differences being the position of the sun/moon in the sky and the shadows on the ground. If you could do that, I'll create some more Spongy Iris proof-of-glass.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Kind of tough around here.

Well, if you can't, you can't. I totally get it.

If the opportunity presents itself someday, we can do it then.

HarveyH55 wrote:10 days into a broken toe, not sure about climbing a ladder just yet.

I warned you about kickboxing with sabal palmettos.

HarveyH55 wrote: Might take a few tries to get the sun in it.

... or the moon. We can even do one with an airplane, but you'll have to take two very quick pictures in rapid succession.

HarveyH55 wrote: Really haven't witnessed the glass-effect.

Leave that to me.

HarveyH55 wrote:You need the bright light near the power line... I do time lapse videos, but have a similar interval timer option that takes individual frames. Haven't had need to mess with it, since I wanted video. Thinking about just setting up the camera, and let shoot. Then see if anything useful comes out. I really have a bad alley way for this. My side is residential, opposite is commercial. Bigger buildings, and lot of lighting at night.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote][b]Spongy Iris wrote: The disc of the moon behind it's reflection doesn't align with its reflection.

What reflection?

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun in my signature.

That's the effect of the lens of the camera that took the picture and the angle of the photo. The photo itself was probably taken from behind a layer of glass, e.g. a sliding glass door.

Check out this pic:



See how the crescent moon doesn't align with the circle behind it?

Looks like it's always a new moon in Heaven.

This effect is the same as my signature. The 2 reflections on the top and bottom of Heaven don't line up. The relection on the top of Heaven is so dim it can barely be perceived, like a new moon.

Also, I took the double sun pic outdoors, not behind any glass other than Heaven. Here's the original before zooming in.

Now that one is easy... It's the reflection off the powerline. Transmission lines aren't insulated. Go inspect the spot in the photo, should see a metal band around the cable at that same place, as in the photo. Probably wouldn't need to go to that exact pole either, should be common.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Here is the color that charged air on Earth makes. This picture was taken of the air around a transformer explosion.



Here is the color of the sky when sunlight hits Heaven.



The reason earth's air charges as a cyan color is because it is mostly nitrogen and some oxygen.

Your argument makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the sky is only one homogenous color without any color gradients or atmospheric factors.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:That was taken from an amateur rocket that had just broken in half. It was falling and spinning around. I'm guessing it was about 50 miles high.

It was less than 50 miles, but that's irrelevant.

Spongy Iris wrote: Just before the white reflection of the sun was about enter into the camera view, you can see the light shining through Heaven, which caused the yellow hue of this picture. The false view as to why the sky appears yellow at sunset, is that the light is passing through more atmosphere, and this somehow changes the light from blue to yellow.

Too funny. The sky around the sun appears yellow and orange because of the sun.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there is no air 50 miles high. So why did the sky appear yellow in this picture?

That wasn't any sky appearing yellow. It was sunlight/glare reflecting off the rocket's shiny surface.

You still haven't explained how your glass is totally invisible. Glass is visible, especially curved glass, yet you have no images of this glass. None. You only have images of other things, mostly blurry things, that you claim are proof of Bigfoot.

Can we jump to your images of this glass and of these needles? If not, why do you believe in this glass? You already know that the glass in the Libyan desert are fulgurites caused by lightning (and there are easy ways to verify this). You already know that every single light/lumination effect you have shown is just that, a light/lumination effect, some of which have atmospheric factors. Do you believe in the Loch Ness monster? The Chupacabra? Nobody has any clear images of them either. Why believe in invisible planetary-sized glass orbs?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:That was taken from an amateur rocket that had just broken in half. It was falling and spinning around. I'm guessing it was about 50 miles high.

It was less than 50 miles, but that's irrelevant.

Spongy Iris wrote: Just before the white reflection of the sun was about enter into the camera view, you can see the light shining through Heaven, which caused the yellow hue of this picture. The false view as to why the sky appears yellow at sunset, is that the light is passing through more atmosphere, and this somehow changes the light from blue to yellow.

Too funny. The sky around the sun appears yellow and orange because of the sun.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there is no air 50 miles high. So why did the sky appear yellow in this picture?

That wasn't any sky appearing yellow. It was sunlight/glare reflecting off the rocket's shiny surface.

You still haven't explained how your glass is totally invisible. Glass is visible, especially curved glass, yet you have no images of this glass. None. You only have images of other things, mostly blurry things, that you claim are proof of Bigfoot.

Can we jump to your images of this glass and of these needles? If not, why do you believe in this glass? You already know that the glass in the Libyan desert are fulgurites caused by lightning (and there are easy ways to verify this). You already know that every single light/lumination effect you have shown is just that, a light/lumination effect, some of which have atmospheric factors. Do you believe in the Loch Ness monster? The Chupacabra? Nobody has any clear images of them either. Why believe in invisible planetary-sized glass orbs?

Spongy Iris wrote:Even if your theory is astoundingly correct, that lightning struck the desert across an oval shaped 130 by 50 km, and made thousands of tonnes of the purest glass known man, please explain why the iron content of the glass is so much lower than the iron content of the desert sand?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Even if your theory is astoundingly correct, that lightning struck the desert across an oval shaped 130 by 50 km, and made thousands of tonnes of the purest glass known man, please explain why the iron content of the glass is so much lower than the iron content of the desert sand?

1. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.
2. We're not talking about one single lightning strike. We're talking about many countless lightning strikes occurring throughout the region throughout the ages and eons.
3. You have been misled about the purity of the Libyan fulgurites. I invite you to search on images of Libyan fulgurites and see that the clearest of them are only translucent. Most have regular sand mixed in with the melted sand, as one would expect.
4. There is no other glass in the Libyan deserts beyond the fulgurites.
5. You have been misled about the chemical composition of the Libyan sand vs. the Libyan fulgurites. Once you look at the images, this will become completely clear.
6. Absolutely none of the Libyan desert glass is invisible. The images will bear this out.
7. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.

Spongy Iris wrote: You are the one evading my questions.

Spongy Iris wrote: Why is the sky yellow in space about 50 miles up when white sunlight shines on it, if there is nothing there?

Spongy Iris wrote: Why is the Libyan desert sand a higher iron composition than the Libyan glass?

Spongy Iris wrote: Why is the sky blue, and not cyan?

Spongy Iris wrote: What causes an artifact on a camera lens?

Spongy Iris wrote: What causes the double sun in my signature?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Even if your theory is astoundingly correct, that lightning struck the desert across an oval shaped 130 by 50 km, and made thousands of tonnes of the purest glass known man, please explain why the iron content of the glass is so much lower than the iron content of the desert sand?

1. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.
2. We're not talking about one single lightning strike. We're talking about many countless lightning strikes occurring throughout the region throughout the ages and eons.
3. You have been misled about the purity of the Libyan fulgurites. I invite you to search on images of Libyan fulgurites and see that the clearest of them are only translucent. Most have regular sand mixed in with the melted sand, as one would expect.
4. There is no other glass in the Libyan deserts beyond the fulgurites.
5. You have been misled about the chemical composition of the Libyan sand vs. the Libyan fulgurites. Once you look at the images, this will become completely clear.
6. Absolutely none of the Libyan desert glass is invisible. The images will bear this out.
7. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.

there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: You are the one evading my questions.

Nope. The opposite is true. I answered every single question you asked while you continue to EVADE all of mine.

Spongy Iris wrote: Why is the sky yellow in space about 50 miles up when white sunlight shines on it, if there is nothing there?

You are guilty of attempting to build your conclusion into your question, which does not align with the content of the video. It is not the sky that is yellow. It is the rocket's shiny surface that glows bright with glare from the sunlight. There was no yellow sky. There was only intense glare from the sun off the rocket. The color of the light is a combined effect of the color of the rocket's surface and the color of the sunlight.

Spongy Iris wrote: Why is the Libyan desert sand a higher iron composition than the Libyan glass?

You are guilty of revising history/reality in the wording of your question. You did not perform any chemical analysis on the Libyan desert glass; if you had you would realize that you were misled. There is no difference in chemical composition save the result of the lightning. All of the Libyan glass was previously just the sand that is mixed in with the glass. Your gullibility in being misled will not change the reality of the fulgurites, no matter how many times you ask.

Spongy Iris wrote: Why is the sky blue, and not cyan?

Why do you believe that the sky is only one color? You are guilty of asking about something that is obviously false.

By the way, the sky is the color that it is from scattering.

Spongy Iris wrote: What causes an artifact on a camera lens?

The list is too long to write here in this thread. Almost anything can cause an artifact. Are you under the impression that there is only one cause?

Spongy Iris wrote: What causes the double sun in my signature?

Wrong question. The correct question is "Why do you believe that a planet-sized orb of invisible glass enclosing the earth is the only way to produce such a cheezy image?" I can make that image in GIMP; I reconstructed it to make the credit card graphic that gave you heartburn. I can make it from two time-delay photographs. I can recreate that effect using sliding glass doors and curved glass virtually anywhere.

You, on the other hand, are claiming that glass that is invisible (that doesn't affect light in any way) nonetheless is visible and is affecting light in that way. Your claim is a contradiction. If you are insisting that a planetary glass enclosure is affecting light to that extent, you are insisting that it is not invisible, and you need to explain why it cannot be seen when it is so very visible as you insist.

So would you please answer my question as to why you believe in a planetary enclosure of glass that is so clearly visible and that is totally invisible? I don't see why you can't also answer my question while you ask more of you own.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Even if your theory is astoundingly correct, that lightning struck the desert across an oval shaped 130 by 50 km, and made thousands of tonnes of the purest glass known man, please explain why the iron content of the glass is so much lower than the iron content of the desert sand?

1. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.
2. We're not talking about one single lightning strike. We're talking about many countless lightning strikes occurring throughout the region throughout the ages and eons.
3. You have been misled about the purity of the Libyan fulgurites. I invite you to search on images of Libyan fulgurites and see that the clearest of them are only translucent. Most have regular sand mixed in with the melted sand, as one would expect.
4. There is no other glass in the Libyan deserts beyond the fulgurites.
5. You have been misled about the chemical composition of the Libyan sand vs. the Libyan fulgurites. Once you look at the images, this will become completely clear.
6. Absolutely none of the Libyan desert glass is invisible. The images will bear this out.
7. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.

nnaMadBI, I think you have things backwards. Правильно! Я некогда не буду быть зрозуміти вас. Why does glass in one area of the desert have a higher iron content? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/115-years-ago-the-tunguska-asteroid-impact-event
See how easy that was nnaMadBI?
And as for

there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth

Another easily understood aspect of the Earth and events "surrounding" the Earth's history; https://skybrary.aero/articles/tropopause
Anvil clouds are formed by an invisible barrier that surrounds the Earth trapping the "heat" in those clouds (gasses) in the troposphere.

@spongy iris, with respect to your double image. If you look at an object in water that extends out of it, it seems to shift and be 2 different objects, one in the water and one out of the water. It is possible that your camera captured the image on each side of the pane of glass that you took your picture through.
This gets into a prism and when we look at the Sun through glass, we see the light in the direction that we're looking. At night, turn on the headlights on your car and then walk around it. If you're walking perpendicular to the path of your headlights away from your car, you won't see any light unless it's refracted (reflected) off of something.

Spongy Iris wrote: The rocket is not yellow. It is gray.

Spongy Iris wrote: Why would white sunlight reflecting off a gray rocket be yellow?

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted that you cannot accept the results analyzing the different iron contents of Libyan sand,

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted you cannot accept the sky is blue and not cyan.

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted you cannot tell the difference between lens flares, reflections of sunlight off dust, and an artifact of the lens.

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted you like to manipulate images,

Spongy Iris wrote: ... but all I did was take a picture of the sun dimmed by smoke in the air, at a slightly indirect angle.

Spongy Iris wrote:Did you want to have a serious debate, or do you want to keep goofing off?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The rocket is not yellow. It is gray.

This is a distracting and irrelevant pivot. I wrote that the color of the light is a combined effect of the color of the rocket's surface and the color of the sunlight.

Spongy Iris wrote: Why would white sunlight reflecting off a gray rocket be yellow?

Why are you characterizing heavy yellow and orange as "white"? Anyway, when you combine the sunlight at that moment and at that angle with the color and reflectiveness of the rocket's surface, you get exactly what you see in the video.

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted that you cannot accept the results analyzing the different iron contents of Libyan sand,

I have noted that you simply will not be honest enough to admit that you have not taken a portable kit to Libya and personally tested the chemical composition of any Libyan glass. You think that everyone else will simply accept what you say as TRUE despite it being obvious that you don't understand anything about the Libyan desert glass.

Further, I have noted that you are locked into a death-struggle to conceal your gullibility. You were told by someone to believe that Libyan desert sand is somehow very different compositionally from the Libyan desert glass ... and you OBEYED without performing your due diligence and independent research.

You can't justify your belief in invisible glass by demanding others explain something that's not true about glass that is not invisible.

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted you cannot accept the sky is blue and not cyan.

I have noted that you have relegated yourself to believing that the sky is only one color, even though it never is, anywhere.

I have also noted that you reject the science of scattering as one component in sky color. You officially deny science as well as deny what your own eyes see.

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted you cannot tell the difference between lens flares, reflections of sunlight off dust, and an artifact of the lens.

I can tell the difference. It has been you, every single time, who has pivoted to change the subject and EVADE whenever I ask you a question.

Spongy Iris wrote: I have noted you like to manipulate images,

I find it relaxing.

Spongy Iris wrote: ... but all I did was take a picture of the sun dimmed by smoke in the air, at a slightly indirect angle.

You have to assume that no one will believe you, especially when you won't be forthright in answering questions and clarifying your position.

You are stuck in a contradictory position, i.e. you believe in totally invisible glass because of very visible aspects of that totally invisible glass. Your argument is completely contradictory and thus totally unbelievable. Yet when asked to clarify, you pivot, you make false statements and you attempt to shift the burden of proof onto those asking for clarification.

Spongy Iris wrote:Did you want to have a serious debate, or do you want to keep goofing off?

I never wanted a debate. I simply wanted you to explain why you believe what you believe. I can ask any Christian, for example, why he believes what he believes and get a rational answer that does not depend on obviously false statements. In your case, you will only respond with obviously false statements.

I'm happy to support your belief in whatever you wish. I was just looking for an explanation. That's all.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Even if your theory is astoundingly correct, that lightning struck the desert across an oval shaped 130 by 50 km, and made thousands of tonnes of the purest glass known man, please explain why the iron content of the glass is so much lower than the iron content of the desert sand?

1. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.
2. We're not talking about one single lightning strike. We're talking about many countless lightning strikes occurring throughout the region throughout the ages and eons.
3. You have been misled about the purity of the Libyan fulgurites. I invite you to search on images of Libyan fulgurites and see that the clearest of them are only translucent. Most have regular sand mixed in with the melted sand, as one would expect.
4. There is no other glass in the Libyan deserts beyond the fulgurites.
5. You have been misled about the chemical composition of the Libyan sand vs. the Libyan fulgurites. Once you look at the images, this will become completely clear.
6. Absolutely none of the Libyan desert glass is invisible. The images will bear this out.
7. You still haven't explained why you believe there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth that you acknowledge believing is invisible.

nnaMadBI, I think you have things backwards. Правильно! Я некогда не буду быть зрозуміти вас. Why does glass in one area of the desert have a higher iron content? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/115-years-ago-the-tunguska-asteroid-impact-event
See how easy that was nnaMadBI?
And as for

there is an orb of invisible glass surrounding the earth

Another easily understood aspect of the Earth and events "surrounding" the Earth's history; https://skybrary.aero/articles/tropopause
Anvil clouds are formed by an invisible barrier that surrounds the Earth trapping the "heat" in those clouds (gasses) in the troposphere.

@spongy iris, with respect to your double image. If you look at an object in water that extends out of it, it seems to shift and be 2 different objects, one in the water and one out of the water. It is possible that your camera captured the image on each side of the pane of glass that you took your picture through.
This gets into a prism and when we look at the Sun through glass, we see the light in the direction that we're looking. At night, turn on the headlights on your car and then walk around it. If you're walking perpendicular to the path of your headlights away from your car, you won't see any light unless it's refracted (reflected) off of something.

I think the sun reflected off 2 layers of glass, not just the front and back of 1 layer. Two layers with space for oxygen in between them.

Your comment makes me wonder how bright an incandescent light bulb would be, if there was no glass around it, but if it was just the burning filament. I don't think the light would spread as far (aside from the point that it would be more of a fire hazard).

Spongy Iris wrote:Feel free to keep goofing off. But I will be ignoring your comments going forward.