'Greenhouse' Effect?

HarveyH55 wrote:
This is just a start, to compellingly a list of deliberately false, or misleading claims of climate-change. Anyone of reasonable intelligence, and education should have spotted, and made some attempt to correct, but ignored.

A greenhouse, works by blocking convection with cooler outside air, by means of a physical barrier. Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar. 0.04% CO2 isn't sufficient to create even a one molecule thick 'blanket' that covers the entire surface. Everything that flows, will take the path of least resistance. Even if there were patches of heat deflecting gasses, it would still find a path to escape back into space.

Failing the greenhouse analogy, we move on to infrared, instead of thermal energy. Thermal energy absorbed by the earth's surface, magically transforms, and radiates as infrared. Which CO2 absorbs, and radiates back to the surface, to be transformed back to thermal energy. The transformation magic is a little sketchy, but bypasses the thermal energy limitations, block convection scheme. But, it's still flawed, and misleading. CO2 can't have a limitless capacity to absorb energy. The molecular bond will eventually fail. It's not directional. It's going to absorb from both the surface, and sunlight. It will also radiate in all directions. Only a fraction will be direct back toward the earth's surface. Only half the planet is exposed to sunlight. No additional energy added at night

What keeps planes in the air? To answer it, the Times turned to John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of several textbooks in the field.

What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the aerodynamic force known as lift.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

The air "heated" by compression stays aloft, and cold marine air remains at the surface, producing an inversion over the Southern California region.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-11/how-an-inversion-over-la-basin-acts-like-a-lid-on-a-pot

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
This is just a start, to compellingly a list of deliberately false, or misleading claims of climate-change. Anyone of reasonable intelligence, and education should have spotted, and made some attempt to correct, but ignored.

A greenhouse, works by blocking convection with cooler outside air, by means of a physical barrier. Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar. 0.04% CO2 isn't sufficient to create even a one molecule thick 'blanket' that covers the entire surface. Everything that flows, will take the path of least resistance. Even if there were patches of heat deflecting gasses, it would still find a path to escape back into space.

Failing the greenhouse analogy, we move on to infrared, instead of thermal energy. Thermal energy absorbed by the earth's surface, magically transforms, and radiates as infrared. Which CO2 absorbs, and radiates back to the surface, to be transformed back to thermal energy. The transformation magic is a little sketchy, but bypasses the thermal energy limitations, block convection scheme. But, it's still flawed, and misleading. CO2 can't have a limitless capacity to absorb energy. The molecular bond will eventually fail. It's not directional. It's going to absorb from both the surface, and sunlight. It will also radiate in all directions. Only a fraction will be direct back toward the earth's surface. Only half the planet is exposed to sunlight. No additional energy added at night

The tropopause creates a thermal barrier the same as a greenhouse has a barrier.
What you might consider a problem is that scientists do not understand why the lapse rate (2º C./km) is able to block the rise of clouds.
Then if you consider

What keeps planes in the air? To answer it, the Times turned to John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of several textbooks in the field.

What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the aerodynamic force known as lift.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

When smog creates a warm air inversion over

The air "heated" by compression stays aloft, and cold marine air remains at the surface, producing an inversion over the Southern California region.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-11/how-an-inversion-over-la-basin-acts-like-a-lid-on-a-pot

When warm air traps cooler air, it has smog to act as a "black body". The tropopause has no such mass that influences its ability to stay cool when both layers above and below it are warmer. Just a couple of things that scientists haven't explained about the Earth's atmosphere.

HarveyH55 wrote:
This is just a start, to compellingly a list of deliberately false, or misleading claims of climate-change. Anyone of reasonable intelligence, and education should have spotted, and made some attempt to correct, but ignored.

A greenhouse, works by blocking convection with cooler outside air, by means of a physical barrier. Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar. 0.04% CO2 isn't sufficient to create even a one molecule thick 'blanket' that covers the entire surface. Everything that flows, will take the path of least resistance. Even if there were patches of heat deflecting gasses, it would still find a path to escape back into space.

Failing the greenhouse analogy, we move on to infrared, instead of thermal energy. Thermal energy absorbed by the earth's surface, magically transforms, and radiates as infrared. Which CO2 absorbs, and radiates back to the surface, to be transformed back to thermal energy. The transformation magic is a little sketchy, but bypasses the thermal energy limitations, block convection scheme. But, it's still flawed, and misleading. CO2 can't have a limitless capacity to absorb energy. The molecular bond will eventually fail. It's not directional. It's going to absorb from both the surface, and sunlight. It will also radiate in all directions. Only a fraction will be direct back toward the earth's surface. Only half the planet is exposed to sunlight. No additional energy added at night

Im a BM wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
This is just a start, to compellingly a list of deliberately false, or misleading claims of climate-change. Anyone of reasonable intelligence, and education should have spotted, and made some attempt to correct, but ignored.

A greenhouse, works by blocking convection with cooler outside air, by means of a physical barrier. Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar. 0.04% CO2 isn't sufficient to create even a one molecule thick 'blanket' that covers the entire surface. Everything that flows, will take the path of least resistance. Even if there were patches of heat deflecting gasses, it would still find a path to escape back into space.

Failing the greenhouse analogy, we move on to infrared, instead of thermal energy. Thermal energy absorbed by the earth's surface, magically transforms, and radiates as infrared. Which CO2 absorbs, and radiates back to the surface, to be transformed back to thermal energy. The transformation magic is a little sketchy, but bypasses the thermal energy limitations, block convection scheme. But, it's still flawed, and misleading. CO2 can't have a limitless capacity to absorb energy. The molecular bond will eventually fail. It's not directional. It's going to absorb from both the surface, and sunlight. It will also radiate in all directions. Only a fraction will be direct back toward the earth's surface. Only half the planet is exposed to sunlight. No additional energy added at night

I remember it well. 1970, seventh grade.

"Greenhouse effect" was already a well known term.

The movie "Soylent Green" included a reference to "greenhouse effect" in the first scene, to help explain why humanity was resorting to cannibalism.

A handful of fringe scientists had taken a different view. They were overhyping the newest knowledge about the history of glacial cycles. A few of them were predicting an imminent ice age.

Similarly, a handful of geologists were overhyping the newest knowledge about plate tectonics. But the widely disseminated story that California would somehow fall into the sea didn't come from anyone in the scientific community. But that didn't stop folks from selling sea front property in Nevada.

One thing that Harvey said that is actually accurate is that "Everything that flows, will take the path of least resistance."

A photon with a wavelength in the infrared range does not have the option of changing direction to find the path of least resistance.

If there is a molecule of greenhouse gas in the way, the (infrared) photon can't just go around it and head to outer space.

To understand "greenhouse effect" beyond the straw man that trolls use to represent it,

There are no "magical" energy transformations occurring.

Most of the radiant energy that arrives to the earth's surface is NOT in the infrared range. Two thirds of that energy is VISIBLE light, which is either absorbed or reflected by the surface.

The temperature of the atmosphere is not in any kind of "equilibrium".

No new source of energy is required to raise temperature as more greenhouse gas is added to the atmosphere.

As it tries to flow along the path of least resistance, infrared light emitted from the surface encounters obstacles on its way to outer space.

The average number of people standing in the hallway to get out the door of building will increase if the doorway is impeded. It doesn't mean that there are more people in the building than before, now trying to get out. By closing time, the building will be empty. It just took longer for everyone to get out. On average, there were more people standing in the hallway waiting to get out.

As for invoking "thermal energy limitations" while suggesting that there must be something "magical" about the transformations well known to basic physics...

Reminds me of the troll who says an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0.

It is an easy straw man to knock down, presenting an absurd position as one of the "misleading claims of climate change".

If climate change is not even theoretically possible... I'm hearing "problem solved".

HarveyH55 wrote:
Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar

False.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar

False.

Would you point it out?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar

False.

Would you point it out?

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]

Nice meander, but why would 'brilliant' scientists go along with the 'greenhouse; buzzword, if it has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works. These gasses present no barrier to convection.

The IR energy comes from the earth surface. Only some of which might radiate back toward the surface. It was already there at one time, nothing added. From you exiting a building analogy, it's people re-entering the building, to hop in line to leave again...

HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]

Nice meander, but why would 'brilliant' scientists go along with the 'greenhouse; buzzword, if it has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works. These gasses present no barrier to convection.

The IR energy comes from the earth surface. Only some of which might radiate back toward the surface. It was already there at one time, nothing added. From you exiting a building analogy, it's people re-entering the building, to hop in line to leave again...

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

O2 in air is colorless, it only turns blue in solid and liquid form which is not part of air. O4 is red

Next

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

O2 in air is colorless, it only turns blue in solid and liquid form which is not part of air. O4 is red

Next

The molecules are still blue. They just can't be seen cuz they are spread out in gas form.

Freeze them, and you will see blue, at least the oxygen part of air.

You can also charge air molecules, such as was done during this transformer explosion, to see the air on earth is electric blue, not sky blue.

https://youtu.be/q1_ZtCXLnes?si=n8FXZCVhfrFt8UI3

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

O2 in air is colorless, it only turns blue in solid and liquid form which is not part of air. O4 is red

Next

The molecules are still blue. They just can't be seen cuz they are spread out in gas form.

Freeze them, and you will see blue, at least the oxygen part of air.

You can also charge air molecules, such as was done during this transformer explosion, to see the air on earth is electric blue, not sky blue.

https://youtu.be/q1_ZtCXLnes?si=n8FXZCVhfrFt8UI3

LOL so air below freezing is blue on your planet.

Not here dick

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

O2 in air is colorless, it only turns blue in solid and liquid form which is not part of air. O4 is red

Next

The molecules are still blue. They just can't be seen cuz they are spread out in gas form.

Freeze them, and you will see blue, at least the oxygen part of air.

You can also charge air molecules, such as was done during this transformer explosion, to see the air on earth is electric blue, not sky blue.

https://youtu.be/q1_ZtCXLnes?si=n8FXZCVhfrFt8UI3

LOL so air below freezing is blue on your planet.

Not here dick

Oxygen and nitrogen don't freeze until below -300 F.

Where's here?

Most places where I have lived, people seem to speak of the freezing point of water as literally "freezing."

Sorry you couldn't understand, I meant turn oxygen from a gas into a liquid, by turning the temperature of an air filled sealed compartment very low. Get it now?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

O2 in air is colorless, it only turns blue in solid and liquid form which is not part of air. O4 is red

Next

The molecules are still blue. They just can't be seen cuz they are spread out in gas form.

Freeze them, and you will see blue, at least the oxygen part of air.

You can also charge air molecules, such as was done during this transformer explosion, to see the air on earth is electric blue, not sky blue.

https://youtu.be/q1_ZtCXLnes?si=n8FXZCVhfrFt8UI3

LOL so air below freezing is blue on your planet.

Not here dick

Oxygen and nitrogen don't freeze until below -300 F.

Where's here?

Most places where I have lived, people seem to speak of the freezing point of water as literally "freezing."

Sorry you couldn't understand, I meant turn oxygen from a gas into a liquid, by turning the temperature of an air filled sealed compartment very low. Get it now?

LOL so O2 is really blue but is only clear because there is too little in air to see. This would mean that 100% pure O2 mixed with acetylene and escaping the tank is blue. Been there done that the pure O2 is clear

Sorry little girl, but just because you make it up in a lame attempt to fool people does not make it real

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

O2 in air is colorless, it only turns blue in solid and liquid form which is not part of air. O4 is red

Next

The molecules are still blue. They just can't be seen cuz they are spread out in gas form.

Freeze them, and you will see blue, at least the oxygen part of air.

You can also charge air molecules, such as was done during this transformer explosion, to see the air on earth is electric blue, not sky blue.

https://youtu.be/q1_ZtCXLnes?si=n8FXZCVhfrFt8UI3

LOL so air below freezing is blue on your planet.

Not here dick

Oxygen and nitrogen don't freeze until below -300 F.

Where's here?

Most places where I have lived, people seem to speak of the freezing point of water as literally "freezing."

Sorry you couldn't understand, I meant turn oxygen from a gas into a liquid, by turning the temperature of an air filled sealed compartment very low. Get it now?

LOL so O2 is really blue but is only clear because there is too little in air to see. This would mean that 100% pure O2 mixed with acetylene and escaping the tank is blue. Been there done that the pure O2 is clear

Sorry little girl, but just because you make it up in a lame attempt to fool people does not make it real

If you can extract and isolate liquid oxygen from the atmosphere, you will find it to be sky blue.

Why would it's molecules change color just cuz they got spread apart further? Does that make sense to you?

If you want to create a combustion reaction of acetylene and oxygen, to weld metals, that will make a bright white flame, with a bit of orange.

https://youtu.be/fs1UhhJH0E8?si=mn8T-RNhm4UEnWir

I'm no chemistry expert like James and sea lover, but here's the formula for that welding flame.

The combustion of acetylene is described by the balanced chemical equation 2C₂H₂(g) + 5O₂ (g) ⟶ 4CO₂ (g) + 2H₂O(g).

See that process yields carbon dioxide and water. Not pure O2.

But if you see pure O2 leaking, from its separate tank, it's in gas form, and the molecules are too far apart to see their color in the air.

Now, why would a transformer explosion cause the air in NYC to turn electric blue?

It must be because the air got electrified around the explosion. That reveals the color of the air.

That is just a similar effect that I'm saying happens, to the air inside Heaven, when it is lit up by the Sun, and surrounding glass above and below, and then projects as a blue mat of light onto Earth.

Though I have a feeling you wouldn't see blue light inside Heaven, but the reflection of that oxygen being projected down, is seen on Earth, when viewed over vast distances.

By comparing electrified air on Earth to the color of the sky, you have evidence to support the assertion that the air inside Heaven is mostly pure oxygen, and we know the air on Earth is closer to 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Obvious to most, there is no physical barrier in the atmosphere, no glass jar

False.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

Space doesn't have any power; it's a vacuum. Given the backlighting, I should be able to see a whole lot of curved glass. I don't see any. Remember, glass is not invisible, and nothing behind it can somehow render it invisible.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

Space doesn't have any power; it's a vacuum. Given the backlighting, I should be able to see a whole lot of curved glass. I don't see any. Remember, glass is not invisible, and nothing behind it can somehow render it invisible.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

Space doesn't have any power; it's a vacuum. Given the backlighting, I should be able to see a whole lot of curved glass. I don't see any. Remember, glass is not invisible, and nothing behind it can somehow render it invisible.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

Space doesn't have any power; it's a vacuum. Given the backlighting, I should be able to see a whole lot of curved glass. I don't see any. Remember, glass is not invisible, and nothing behind it can somehow render it invisible.

Has it ever occurred to you that https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OcMD3LWUwD8&pp=ygUwdGhlIGJsdWVzdCBza2llcyB5b3UndmUgZXZlciBzZWVuIGFyZSBpbiBzZWF0dGxl

is because when the rain washes contaminants out of the air that what's left is N2 and O2 just as it is in the tropopause (N2) and up into the stratosphere (both N2 and O2) and is why the Earth is seen as a blue marble from space?

p.s., If you were to go to the Grand Bahamas and go out on a glass bottom boat, you can see the floor of the Caribbean because of how clear the water is, it lacks algae and phytoplankton, etc. It would look like the clear crystal ball B because there simply is no distortion because the bottom of the boat is in the sea.
Crystal ball A would be looking at the bottom of the Caribbean from outside of the water. Then the surface of the water changes how light moves from inside the sea to outside of the sea. I mean ya'all have visited different countries and have sailed various seas, right?
It's like when I visited Екатеринбюрг, Россия I literally walked on water when I walked on the river Iset. Okay, so it was frozen over but the ice was on water and is the solid form of water.

Spongy Iris wrote:The human eye cannot see any coherent detail of objects ~ 60 to 40000 miles away from it, except color and brightness, and maybe shape, if the object happens to be big enough to be in view at such a far range.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:The human eye cannot see any coherent detail of objects ~ 60 to 40000 miles away from it, except color and brightness, and maybe shape, if the object happens to be big enough to be in view at such a far range.

You can see the moon, right? Especially with a telescope, right? The earth's double-paned glass is certainly big enough, yes? It would be larger than the earth, which makes it much larger than the moon. Surely people would have clearly seen it with a telescope, yes? Anyone looking at the moon would see the curved glass in front of it, yes? What about the sun? We can see the sun, and it would backlight any glass and make it obvious, yes? Also, spherical glass inverts images and we should be seeing inverted images.



I don't see any glass in either of these pictures, but I should.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

Space doesn't have any power; it's a vacuum. Given the backlighting, I should be able to see a whole lot of curved glass. I don't see any. Remember, glass is not invisible, and nothing behind it can somehow render it invisible.

The human eye cannot see any coherent detail of objects ~ 60 to 40000 miles away from it, except color and brightness, and maybe shape, if the object happens to be big enough to be in view at such a far range.

It sounds to me that you have no idea if you are looking at a blue light projection, a couple glass layers, or a black wall.

As your pal would say, omniscience fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:The human eye cannot see any coherent detail of objects ~ 60 to 40000 miles away from it, except color and brightness, and maybe shape, if the object happens to be big enough to be in view at such a far range.

You can see the moon, right? Especially with a telescope, right? The earth's double-paned glass is certainly big enough, yes? It would be larger than the earth, which makes it much larger than the moon. Surely people would have clearly seen it with a telescope, yes? Anyone looking at the moon would see the curved glass in front of it, yes? What about the sun? We can see the sun, and it would backlight any glass and make it obvious, yes? Also, spherical glass inverts images and we should be seeing inverted images.



I don't see any glass in either of these pictures, but I should.

James_ wrote:

The tropopause is inferred by physical behavior just as dark matter is inferred by how it interacts with matter at the gravitational level. With the greenhouse barrier, what creates the cold air inversion of the tropopause? What causes the effect?

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: The color of Earth's air. The color of Heaven's air.

Air is invisible; it has no color.

So I can see what you are talking about, in the picture below, where is the glass?

Air on Earth is about 20% oxygen, and oxygen is blue. So your statement that air has no color is incorrect.

That mat of blue light in your picture, often called the sky, that is the color of oxygen.

However it is not the color of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, which would be a much paler blue.

How do you explain that away? It is common evidence which shows the chasm of Heaven enveloping the Earth

Ok, to answer your question, why you can't see glass in your picture? Cuz it's overpowered by the black walls of the universe.

Space doesn't have any power; it's a vacuum. Given the backlighting, I should be able to see a whole lot of curved glass. I don't see any. Remember, glass is not invisible, and nothing behind it can somehow render it invisible.

The human eye cannot see any coherent detail of objects ~ 60 to 40000 miles away from it, except color and brightness, and maybe shape, if the object happens to be big enough to be in view at such a far range.

It sounds to me that you have no idea if you are looking at a blue light projection, a couple glass layers, or a black wall.

As your pal would say, omniscience fallacy.

Don't you understand basic human physiology and physics? You can see leaves on a tree. Are they really emitting that much energy? This would have more to do with the millions of receptors in the back of the eye. The minimal amount of light emitted by objects is amplified just as a radio is amplified by a receiver.
The tropopause is inferred by physical behavior just as dark matter is inferred by how it interacts with matter at the gravitational level. With the greenhouse barrier, what creates the cold air inversion of the tropopause? What causes the effect?

Spongy Iris wrote:

James_ wrote:

The tropopause is inferred by physical behavior just as dark matter is inferred by how it interacts with matter at the gravitational level. With the greenhouse barrier, what creates the cold air inversion of the tropopause? What causes the effect?

The air gets colder and colder the higher you go up to about 60 miles, I think that is the refrigeration effect of Heaven. It's a cold double layer glass blanket around Earth, which I think cools down by vacuuming lots of air out of it.

But there is a hot air inversion at the stratosphere, at about 30 miles high, around the ozone layer. I think there are copper wires or needles in the stratosphere, for conducting radio waves, and producing ozone. That must be why it heats up in that area of the atmosphere, and also why most clouds don't rise past the stratosphere

Spongy Iris wrote:

James_ wrote:

The tropopause is inferred by physical behavior just as dark matter is inferred by how it interacts with matter at the gravitational level. With the greenhouse barrier, what creates the cold air inversion of the tropopause? What causes the effect?

The air gets colder and colder the higher you go up to about 60 miles, I think that is the refrigeration effect of Heaven. It's a cold double layer glass blanket around Earth, which I think cools down by vacuuming lots of air out of it.

But there is a hot air inversion at the stratosphere, at about 30 miles high, around the ozone layer. I think there are copper wires or needles in the stratosphere, for conducting radio waves, and producing ozone. That must be why it heats up in that area of the atmosphere, and also why most clouds don't rise past the stratosphere

Spongy Iris wrote:

James_ wrote:

The tropopause is inferred by physical behavior just as dark matter is inferred by how it interacts with matter at the gravitational level. With the greenhouse barrier, what creates the cold air inversion of the tropopause? What causes the effect?

The air gets colder and colder the higher you go up to about 60 miles, I think that is the refrigeration effect of Heaven. It's a cold double layer glass blanket around Earth, which I think cools down by vacuuming lots of air out of it.

But there is a hot air inversion at the stratosphere, at about 30 miles high, around the ozone layer. I think there are copper wires or needles in the stratosphere, for conducting radio waves, and producing ozone. That must be why it heats up in that area of the atmosphere, and also why most clouds don't rise past the stratosphere

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James_ wrote:

The tropopause is inferred by physical behavior just as dark matter is inferred by how it interacts with matter at the gravitational level. With the greenhouse barrier, what creates the cold air inversion of the tropopause? What causes the effect?

The air gets colder and colder the higher you go up to about 60 miles, I think that is the refrigeration effect of Heaven. It's a cold double layer glass blanket around Earth, which I think cools down by vacuuming lots of air out of it.

But there is a hot air inversion at the stratosphere, at about 30 miles high, around the ozone layer. I think there are copper wires or needles in the stratosphere, for conducting radio waves, and producing ozone. That must be why it heats up in that area of the atmosphere, and also why most clouds don't rise past the stratosphere

Maybe you could learn something about the Chapman cycle?
https://ourzoneisozone.weebly.com/the-chapman-cycle.html