Is the sun toxic?

Swan wrote:What is your disability? I mean other than being a moron?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What is your disability? I mean other than being a moron?

James__ was involved in a mishap at sea that reversed his polarization within the magnetosphere, forcing him to wear a Van Allen belt whenever the ozone becomes depleted.
.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


Dude the NY Times is a cartoon. Why waste your time reading it, and since you are you proved that you are a liberal turd

I live in Kentucky and I remember McConnell's 2014 campaign. And ignore my son. I never had any kids. If I did they'd know what a turd is and I didn't see your picture so he's obviously talking about someone else.

And ignore my son. I never had any kids.

LOL you are really weird, even for a weird liberal NY Times cartoon reader

MAGA people kept me as a disabled Veteran from having a life in the U.S. Christians are silently MAGA because the church teaches them how to discriminate.

What is your disability? I mean other than being a moron?

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What is your disability? I mean other than being a moron?

James__ was involved in a mishap at sea that reversed his polarization within the magnetosphere, forcing him to wear a Van Allen belt whenever the ozone becomes depleted.
.

I don't think I am familiar with this type of ailment. Can we get a visual please?

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:What is your disability? I mean other than being a moron?

James__ was involved in a mishap at sea that reversed his polarization within the magnetosphere, forcing him to wear a Van Allen belt whenever the ozone becomes depleted.
.

I don't think I am familiar with this type of ailment. Can we get a visual please?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I can't believe this thread has gone 8 pages, over crappy cell phone images... Cell phone cameras are made for selfies, and mostly rely on software to produce acceptable results. The camera optics is barely acceptable for the intended application. Earth surrounded by glass, based on crappy cell phone images, software enhanced. The lens on the camera is glass, and produces the artifacts. That, and the firmware trying to make sense, of something non-selfie.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I can't believe this thread has gone 8 pages, over crappy cell phone images... Cell phone cameras are made for selfies, and mostly rely on software to produce acceptable results. The camera optics is barely acceptable for the intended application. Earth surrounded by glass, based on crappy cell phone images, software enhanced. The lens on the camera is glass, and produces the artifacts. That, and the firmware trying to make sense, of something non-selfie.

The double sun image in my signature is not a reflection in the camera lens.

The glass around the Earth is the real reason for climate change alarmism.

Everything happens for a reason.

Spongy Iris wrote:The double sun image in my signature is not a reflection in the camera lens.

The glass around the Earth is the real reason for climate change alarmism.

Everything happens for a reason.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:The double sun image in my signature is not a reflection in the camera lens.

The glass around the Earth is the real reason for climate change alarmism.

Everything happens for a reason.

Spongy Iris, I have a clarification question for you.

Please watch THIS VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1nCqRnMyYE

At what point does it transition from real to fake?

This particular space shuttle launch was, as all of them were, watched by large crowds of people. The launch was filmed, as all of them were. Every space shuttle launch involved the fuel tanks being jettisoned at 28 miles altitude (@ 3:08 into the video). Of course the space shuttle continues climbing with no glass visible overhead.

The video then shows footage from orbit ~240 miles up.

Now in THIS OTHER VIDEO the space shuttle crew captures video of the main tank free-falling to earth. The video is taken from an altitude in excess of 70 miles up. At about the 0:10 second mark, we get an amazing view out over the horizon.

There's no glass. There are no copper needles. Feel free to pause the video at that point.

James_ wrote:

You might find this interesting.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85640.new;topicseen#new

HarveyH55 wrote:Thing is no camera actually captures what we see with our eyes.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:The double sun image in my signature is not a reflection in the camera lens.

The glass around the Earth is the real reason for climate change alarmism.

Everything happens for a reason.

Spongy Iris, I have a clarification question for you.

Please watch THIS VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1nCqRnMyYE

At what point does it transition from real to fake?

This particular space shuttle launch was, as all of them were, watched by large crowds of people. The launch was filmed, as all of them were. Every space shuttle launch involved the fuel tanks being jettisoned at 28 miles altitude (@ 3:08 into the video). Of course the space shuttle continues climbing with no glass visible overhead.

The video then shows footage from orbit ~240 miles up.

Now in THIS OTHER VIDEO the space shuttle crew captures video of the main tank free-falling to earth. The video is taken from an altitude in excess of 70 miles up. At about the 0:10 second mark, we get an amazing view out over the horizon.

There's no glass. There are no copper needles. Feel free to pause the video at that point.

Spongy Iris wrote:There's no way any rockets launched from Earth make it high enough to get anywhere near Heaven.

Spongy Iris wrote:It would be very dangerous for rockets to be colliding with Heaven repeatedly, and I can't imagine those who really know what they are doing would allow such reckless endeavors.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Thing is no camera actually captures what we see with our eyes.

True. One problem with discussing this topic is that much illumination can be garnered from a Darwinian evolution explanation/discussion ... but that would probably prove somewhat unpopular.

Nonetheless, I'll throw in 2-cents because I'm a big fan: Lions see/perceive the world in their own way, with colors and motion facilitating hunting, among other things. We can't know how lions' brains actually visualize the things their eyes feed them. One thing we do observe, however, is that black and white stripes throw them off their game a bit at distances over 30 meters, meaning that anything with black and white stripes has a statistical advantage of surviving hungry lions on the prowl. If they have not been smelled already and are not withing 30 meters (and/or not already being pursued), hungry lions might very well just continue on their way, completely unawares, even in an open field.

Also, this is the point in the discussion where Into the Night often mentions the kinds of phenomenology you mentioned. If you know any intelligence analysts, they can tell you that phenomenology occurs over all sensory areas, not just visible. Any sensor can be fooled, especially human senses. In fact, our intelligence community is pretty good at fooling sensors.

I'm glad Spongy Iris has a belief that helps him make sense of the world, or at least affords him comfort amid the complexity and chaos, but it pains me that it requires him to deny other things as a result.

I wonder if there is any amount of "never seeing the glass" that will change his mind. Spongy Iris has been very careful to maintain the unfalsifiability of his belief. I think we can agree that he will not be saying "this view from this angle showing no glass will change my mind" or "a straight up view from this altitude showing no glass will change my mind." He knows that the moment he specifies what will falsify his belief, his belief will be falsified by some military or NASA video/imagery.
.

HarveyH55 wrote:Wonder if our intelligence community still uses water-boarding, just more discretely...

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:The double sun image in my signature is not a reflection in the camera lens.

The glass around the Earth is the real reason for climate change alarmism.

Everything happens for a reason.

Spongy Iris, I have a clarification question for you.

Please watch THIS VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1nCqRnMyYE

At what point does it transition from real to fake?

This particular space shuttle launch was, as all of them were, watched by large crowds of people. The launch was filmed, as all of them were. Every space shuttle launch involved the fuel tanks being jettisoned at 28 miles altitude (@ 3:08 into the video). Of course the space shuttle continues climbing with no glass visible overhead.

The video then shows footage from orbit ~240 miles up.

Now in THIS OTHER VIDEO the space shuttle crew captures video of the main tank free-falling to earth. The video is taken from an altitude in excess of 70 miles up. At about the 0:10 second mark, we get an amazing view out over the horizon.

There's no glass. There are no copper needles. Feel free to pause the video at that point.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Thing is no camera actually captures what we see with our eyes.

True. One problem with discussing this topic is that much illumination can be garnered from a Darwinian evolution explanation/discussion ... but that would probably prove somewhat unpopular.

Nonetheless, I'll throw in 2-cents because I'm a big fan: Lions see/perceive the world in their own way, with colors and motion facilitating hunting, among other things. We can't know how lions' brains actually visualize the things their eyes feed them. One thing we do observe, however, is that black and white stripes throw them off their game a bit at distances over 30 meters, meaning that anything with black and white stripes has a statistical advantage of surviving hungry lions on the prowl. If they have not been smelled already and are not withing 30 meters (and/or not already being pursued), hungry lions might very well just continue on their way, completely unawares, even in an open field.

Also, this is the point in the discussion where Into the Night often mentions the kinds of phenomenology you mentioned. If you know any intelligence analysts, they can tell you that phenomenology occurs over all sensory areas, not just visible. Any sensor can be fooled, especially human senses. In fact, our intelligence community is pretty good at fooling sensors.

I'm glad Spongy Iris has a belief that helps him make sense of the world, or at least affords him comfort amid the complexity and chaos, but it pains me that it requires him to deny other things as a result.

I wonder if there is any amount of "never seeing the glass" that will change his mind. Spongy Iris has been very careful to maintain the unfalsifiability of his belief. I think we can agree that he will not be saying "this view from this angle showing no glass will change my mind" or "a straight up view from this altitude showing no glass will change my mind." He knows that the moment he specifies what will falsify his belief, his belief will be falsified by some military or NASA video/imagery.
.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:There's no way any rockets launched from Earth make it high enough to get anywhere near Heaven.

... except that that is what is in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNHhTyaxJg

You stated that the glass exists at 60 miles, and this video is taken above 70 miles, and you can see the video. Also, you can see the amazing view out over the horizon at the 10-second mark roughly.

This video directly contradicts your statement. Do you have any sort of explanation beyond mere denial of what your eyes are seeing?

Spongy Iris wrote:It would be very dangerous for rockets to be colliding with Heaven repeatedly, and I can't imagine those who really know what they are doing would allow such reckless endeavors.

... unless there is no danger at all, as the above video shows.

By the way, I'm a huge Tom Lehrer fan. My children got a huge kick out of Poisoning Pigeons in the Park. I don't think Tom Lehrer ever saw any glass either.

.

Spongy Iris wrote:NASA is not a credible source on the subject of traveling to space

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:There's no way any rockets launched from Earth make it high enough to get anywhere near Heaven.

... except that that is what is in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNHhTyaxJg

You stated that the glass exists at 60 miles, and this video is taken above 70 miles, and you can see the video. Also, you can see the amazing view out over the horizon at the 10-second mark roughly.

This video directly contradicts your statement. Do you have any sort of explanation beyond mere denial of what your eyes are seeing?

Spongy Iris wrote:It would be very dangerous for rockets to be colliding with Heaven repeatedly, and I can't imagine those who really know what they are doing would allow such reckless endeavors.

... unless there is no danger at all, as the above video shows.

By the way, I'm a huge Tom Lehrer fan. My children got a huge kick out of Poisoning Pigeons in the Park. I don't think Tom Lehrer ever saw any glass either.

.

NASA is not a credible source on the subject of traveling to space, nor putting satellites into orbit. Their statements about how high their rockets travel are dismissed.

Into the Night wrote:

While this does demonstrate phenomenology to some degree, Spongy's theory does fly in the face of pretty convincing evidence, such as the launch and travel to orbit of the Space Shuttle Atlantis, so vividly filmed in IBdaMann's reference URL, as well as the entire Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. He is also denying science, namely Kepler's laws. It also disagrees with the Bible, which describes God's kingdom to be everywhere, not just some limited place above the surface of Earth.

So what Spongy has become is a fundamentalist of his own religion, and it has nothing to do with the Bible, any space program. It also denies the existence of meteorites, GPS and other satellites, cosmic rays, and even sunlight, ozone, and sunburns. Glass blocks UVb frequencies and above. The GPS satellites are in 55 deg orbits at a nice 'low' altitude of 10900 nautical miles. Weather and communications satellites are in much higher orbit, so they can maintain a stationary position in the sky. He cannot explain why these satellites behave the way they do in orbit, since he denies Kepler's laws.

There is no changing his religion. He must deny all of these things to maintain this belief.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

While this does demonstrate phenomenology to some degree, Spongy's theory does fly in the face of pretty convincing evidence, such as the launch and travel to orbit of the Space Shuttle Atlantis, so vividly filmed in IBdaMann's reference URL, as well as the entire Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. He is also denying science, namely Kepler's laws. It also disagrees with the Bible, which describes God's kingdom to be everywhere, not just some limited place above the surface of Earth.

So what Spongy has become is a fundamentalist of his own religion, and it has nothing to do with the Bible, any space program. It also denies the existence of meteorites, GPS and other satellites, cosmic rays, and even sunlight, ozone, and sunburns. Glass blocks UVb frequencies and above. The GPS satellites are in 55 deg orbits at a nice 'low' altitude of 10900 nautical miles. Weather and communications satellites are in much higher orbit, so they can maintain a stationary position in the sky. He cannot explain why these satellites behave the way they do in orbit, since he denies Kepler's laws.

There is no changing his religion. He must deny all of these things to maintain this belief.

Reports of any rockets being launched into space are dismissed as lies.

Satellites and GPS are not denied. Only the reported means by which satellites are transported to space are denied. It is theorized satellites orbit in a tubular system outside of Heaven

Spongy Iris wrote:
The deadly intense radiation outside Heaven is blocked by Heaven's glass. When you say glass blocks UVB radiation, you are saying additional glass inside Heaven blocks UVB radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
My theory says the Sun, Moon, Planets, Stars, and Satellites spin around Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The Bible is a book of riddles. It says the kingdom of God is at hand. A riddle about Heaven is Genesis 1:6-8.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Meteorites are not denied. They are theorized to be fired from altitudes a bit below 30 miles, inside Heaven, while meteors never penetrate the outer wall Heaven.

Spongy Iris wrote:
My theory is there are Black Walls surrounding Earth about 35000 miles up, spinning the opposite way,

Spongy Iris wrote:
causing gravity,

Spongy Iris wrote:
generating the friction for the Moon

Spongy Iris wrote:
to gets its energy from Earth,

Spongy Iris wrote:
and the n gets its energy from the Moon, and the stars, planets, and satellites, get their energy from the Sun.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Much of what I put forward in this post is theory.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But the glass around Earth has been proven in my signature.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And this also proves rocket launches to space are false stories.

Into the Night wrote:

Then it would not be possible to get a sunburn. Since it is possible (particular in the late morning), UVb does reach the surface of Earth.

Ozone creation happens because of UVb entering Earth's atmosphere.
Ozone destruction happens because of UVc entering Earth's atmosphere.

So you deny Galileo, Kepler, Tycho Brae, and Copernicus.

Since the presence of mass causes gravity, such a sphere would REDUCE gravity on the surface of Earth, not cause it.

Spongy Iris wrote:Heaven's glass is pure silicon dioxide, as judged by the
samples found in the Libyan desert.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Heaven's glass is pure silicon dioxide, as judged by the
samples found in the Libyan desert.

Then I would see it when I look at the moon. I should also see a double moon as you indicate in your signature, your reason for believing the earth is surrounded by glass.

I don't see the silicon dioxide glass when I look at the moon. Nobody sees any double lunar image, ever ... nor does anyone ever see a double solar image. Only cameras under certain conditions get the double image effect.

Some things you need to explain/clarify:

1. If this glass is pure silicon dioxide glass, as determined in Libya, how is the glass able to withstand the impacts of huge meteors without cracking? Our sky should be nothing but smashed windshield and clearly visible in it's entirety, preventing any view of the moon or even any clear view of the sun.

2. How is glass made of pure silicon dioxide not only transparent but completely invisible? It apparently reflects no glare at any angle and doesn't create the double sun effect in your signature for our human eyes. It is impossibly invisible.

.

Spongy Iris wrote:Look here. The glass turned the Moon yellow.

Spongy Iris wrote:And look here. This is a double Moon.

Spongy Iris wrote:I thought I explained to you earlier glass is very invisible.

Spongy Iris wrote: Please don't tempt me to send you another snarky video.

Spongy Iris wrote:I have been practicing staring at the Sun for a while,

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Then it would not be possible to get a sunburn. Since it is possible (particular in the late morning), UVb does reach the surface of Earth.

Ozone creation happens because of UVb entering Earth's atmosphere.
Ozone destruction happens because of UVc entering Earth's atmosphere.

So you deny Galileo, Kepler, Tycho Brae, and Copernicus.

Since the presence of mass causes gravity, such a sphere would REDUCE gravity on the surface of Earth, not cause it.

Glass made from pure silicon dioxide would not block UVB. Heaven's glass is pure silicon dioxide, as judged by the
samples found in the Libyan desert.

Window glass blocks UVB because it combines sodium dioxide with silicon dioxide.

"Commercial glasses are primarily made of SiO2 - silicon dioxide; the band gap of Silicon Dioxide is about 8.9 eV, which means that it can absorb any light with energies at or above 8.9 eV, which corresponds to a wavelength of about 139 nm (UV has wavelengths in the 100 nm - 400 nm - according to wikipedia: Ultraviolet); so silicon dioxide could absorb the highest-energy ultraviolet light, but there's a lot of dangerous UV that it can't absorb. So viewing glass as silicon dioxide doesn't explain how glass can block UV.

The main components of most glass are silicon dioxide and sodium dioxide; it appears that combining these components yields a material with a smaller bandgap - around 4 eV range. A material with a 4 eV band gap would be able to absorb wavelengths shorter than 310 nm - which is everything but UVA light,"

Spongy Iris wrote:
Galileo and his peers showed Venus revolves around the Sun.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They didn't show Earth revolves around the Sun.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The spinning Earth would push you away from Earth, but the spinning black walls would push you toward Earth. The net effect is you are stuck on Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The phenomenon of Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW), which happens over the North Pole every winter, proves it false that ozone is generated by UV light.

Spongy Iris wrote:
When the stratosphere suddenly warms every winter over the North Pole,

Spongy Iris wrote:
there is no direct UV light hitting the North Pole.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But when SSW happens, at the same time, there is also a sudden increase of ozone over the North Pole.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Heaven's glass is pure silicon dioxide, as judged by the
samples found in the Libyan desert.

Then I would see it when I look at the moon. I should also see a double moon as you indicate in your signature, your reason for believing the earth is surrounded by glass.

I don't see the silicon dioxide glass when I look at the moon. Nobody sees any double lunar image, ever ... nor does anyone ever see a double solar image. Only cameras under certain conditions get the double image effect.

Some things you need to explain/clarify:

1. If this glass is pure silicon dioxide glass, as determined in Libya, how is the glass able to withstand the impacts of huge meteors without cracking? Our sky should be nothing but smashed windshield and clearly visible in it's entirety, preventing any view of the moon or even any clear view of the sun.

2. How is glass made of pure silicon dioxide not only transparent but completely invisible? It apparently reflects no glare at any angle and doesn't create the double sun effect in your signature for our human eyes. It is impossibly invisible.

.

Look here. The glass turned the Moon yellow.



And look here. This is a double Moon. The Moon's crescent doesn't line up with the shaded part of the moon that is slightly visible. Looks like a Venn diagram.



I thought I explained to you earlier glass is very invisible. Please don't tempt me to send you another snarky video.

I have been practicing staring at the Sun for a while, at indirect angles, and I can easily make out Venn diagrams.
This proves to me Heaven is real.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Another couple points it seems I need to repeat for debating duo, are:

Meteorites don't come from outer space. They are shot at the Earth from below Heaven

And satellites aren't shot at the sky.

I don't know where these objects come from. They appear to be advanced technologies.

HarveyH55 wrote:Glass occurs in nature, all around the world.

HarveyH55 wrote: Probably a few other ways that nature melts sand into glass.

HarveyH55 wrote: Why would shattered heaven glass only be found in Libya?

HarveyH55 wrote: What ever broke the heaven glass, should exist to break it again.

HarveyH55 wrote: Did God repair the shattered glass? Is there another glass separating us from hell?

HarveyH55 wrote: Or, with Biden in charge, are we living in hell?

Remembering back to my high school drinking days... Did you know that if you throw your empty beer bottles in the bonfire, they are melted blobs the next morning...

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Glass occurs in nature, all around the world.

That's what Spongy Iris is saying ... except when he says that there is glass all around the world, he means that there is glass all around the world.

HarveyH55 wrote: Probably a few other ways that nature melts sand into glass.

Eventually, Global Warming will be the primary method.

HarveyH55 wrote: Why would shattered heaven glass only be found in Libya?

It might have to if it wanted to train at a terrorist training camp.

HarveyH55 wrote: What ever broke the heaven glass, should exist to break it again.

Spongy Iris is saying that there's a big glass gun that fires the glass at earth. Naturally all planetary glass enclosures come equipped with glass mortars as standard equipment.

HarveyH55 wrote: Did God repair the shattered glass? Is there another glass separating us from hell?

Yes, it's separating us from California.

HarveyH55 wrote: Or, with Biden in charge, are we living in hell?

Remembering back to my high school drinking days... Did you know that if you throw your empty beer bottles in the bonfire, they are melted blobs the next morning...

I'm assuming that's how God makes his planetary glass enclosures, you know, through recycling in that way. That's why He has to have separation from California because they would have Him arrested for the bon fire.

HarveyH55 wrote:I was curious why Libyan desert glass is so different from natural glass found over the world.

IBdaMann wrote:
[
I'm assuming that's how God makes his planetary glass enclosures, you know, through recycling in that way. That's why He has to have separation from California because they would have Him arrested for the bon fire.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:I'm assuming that's how God makes his planetary glass enclosures, you know, through recycling in that way. That's why He has to have separation from California because they would have Him arrested for the bon fire.

Between God and scientists, Christ you are sooo much like them.

James_ wrote: Anymore though I do not believe in giving information away fro free in the hopes that someone (a person) can accept reality.

James_ wrote: It is as I have mentioned in this forum before, history has recorded the fact that when Rome fell it had properly added the necessary commas.

James_ wrote: the Renaissance period warmed

James_ wrote: ... followed by a time of "significant" cooling.

James_ wrote: To disagree with recorded history makes what you say suspect to being untruthful, not correct, a fabrication or falsehood.

James_ wrote:As to why anyone is mean? Not my problem or concern, unless it's a Christian who won't let me have a life.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[
I'm assuming that's how God makes his planetary glass enclosures, you know, through recycling in that way. That's why He has to have separation from California because they would have Him arrested for the bon fire.

Between Christians and scientists, God you are sooo much like them. Anymore though I do not believe in giving information away fro free in the hopes that someone (a person) can accept reality.
It is as I have mentioned in this forum before, history has recorded the fact that when Rome fell it had cooled, the Renaissance period warmed followed by a time of "significant" cooling.
To disagree with recorded history makes what you say suspect to being untruthful, not correct, a fabrication or falsehood. As to why or what anything means? Not my problem or concern.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[
I'm assuming that's how God makes his planetary glass enclosures, you know, through recycling in that way. That's why He has to have separation from California because they would have Him arrested for the bon fire.

Between Christians and scientists, God you are sooo much like them. Anymore though I do not believe in giving information away fro free in the hopes that someone (a person) can accept reality.
It is as I have mentioned in this forum before, history has recorded the fact that when Rome fell it had cooled, the Renaissance period warmed followed by a time of "significant" cooling.
To disagree with recorded history makes what you say suspect to being untruthful, not correct, a fabrication or falsehood. As to why or what anything means? Not my problem or concern.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

James_ wrote: We don't need to know the temperature of the Earth. What we need to understand are temperature fluctuations.