Remember me
▼ Content

Pangea?



Page 2 of 2<12
28-04-2024 06:30
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
IBdaMann wrote:

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


All camera lenses have more than one layer of glass.

That is what is responsible for making an "artifact on the lens."

I took this picture Nov. 10 2023.



It's easy to snap a picture of the Sun and get an artifact on the lens. Unless you point the camera directly at the Sun, you're going to see an artifact on the lens at just about any indirect angle. You can see the above artifact to the right of the big blob of Sun light reflecting on glass.

What an artifact on the lens is capturing is like a filament burning inside of an incandescent bulb: it is the actual Sun burning or enlightened behind Heaven's glass.

I can't see the actual Sun with my eyes, just with a camera. Often the actual Sun appears as green light on camera. With my eyes, I just see the Sun reflecting on Heaven's glass.

Here is another example which captures a filament burning behind a light bulb. The filament is an upside down V. But you can also see the energy of the filament reflecting off the metal behind the light bulb.



Another point is check again the Sun pic from Nov 10 2023 above. Zoom in to see the artifact of the actual Sun on the camera lens is 2 over lapping green circles. This shows the actual energy of the Sun hitting both layers of Heaven.

This experiment is easily repeated.
Edited on 28-04-2024 06:31
28-04-2024 08:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
John Marsriver wrote: I took this picture Nov. 10 2023.

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

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

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





Watch the video. No glass.

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

Watch the video. No glass.

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


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-04-2024 20:01
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: I took this picture Nov. 10 2023.

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

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

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





Watch the video. No glass.

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

Watch the video. No glass.

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


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

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


Edited on 28-04-2024 20:02
28-04-2024 23:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
John Marsriver wrote: Dude you can't even see the glass on an illuminated light bulb I photographed from 5 feet away.

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



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

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

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

Question: Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?
28-04-2024 23:35
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: Dude you can't even see the glass on an illuminated light bulb I photographed from 5 feet away.

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



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

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

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

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


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

The picture shows what happens when you shine a light through a prism. You discard it because it doesn't fit into your world view. That is your problem, not mine. You should try not to allow your preconceived notions to influence your judgment of the way things are.
Edited on 28-04-2024 23:37
29-04-2024 00:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
John Marsriver wrote: You can't see the lightbulb glass in my picture because the light emanating beyond the glass is brighter than the glass, stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't answer my question: Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? The presumption is yes, that you do believe in such because the only "evidence" for them are blurry, unintelligible images, i.e. your acceptance criteria.
29-04-2024 01:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
John Marsriver wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
John Marsriver wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: You're not funny.

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

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

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

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

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

... or was that totally not funny?


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

You don't appreciate ANY humor. Must really suck to be you.
John Marsriver wrote:
I don't have any problem determining there is glass all around Earth, the Atlantic is saltier than the Pacific, and that salt dissolved in water reduces the water's volume slightly.

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

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


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

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problems on to anybody else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2024 01:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
keepit wrote:
I do. They can't even tell you where or in what they were educated. It certainly isn't in a us school or a western school.

Omniscience fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2024 01:18
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: You can't see the lightbulb glass in my picture because the light emanating beyond the glass is brighter than the glass, stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

It's hard for me to believe you are really that delusional.
29-04-2024 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
John Marsriver wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: You can't see the lightbulb glass in my picture because the light emanating beyond the glass is brighter than the glass, stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Your claim is falsified.

* Camera lens effects are not what is in the sky.
* Experiments left on the Moon's surface that are still responding.
* The ISS, and the Mir space station before it.
* These 'ere stones fallin' from the sky.
* Amateur rocketeers.
* Visible equipment left on the Moon's surface viewable with a good telescope, including the lander platforms.
* The work of SpaceX.
* The existence of telecommunications systems and weather satellites.
* GPS


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 29-04-2024 01:52
29-04-2024 02:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
John Marsriver wrote: Your statement that you falsified my claim is the most delusional statement in this thread.

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

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

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

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

Once again (third time), you didn't answer my question: Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? The presumption is yes, that you do believe in such because the only "evidence" for them are blurry, unintelligible images, i.e. your acceptance criteria.
29-04-2024 02:33
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: Your statement that you falsified my claim is the most delusional statement in this thread.

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

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

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

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

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


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

You can't see how an artifact captured using a filament light bulb is basically the same phenomenon on a smaller scale as capturing an artifact using the Sun.

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

You proudly cherish your delusions, and run victory laps proclaiming your stupidity.
Edited on 29-04-2024 02:33
29-04-2024 04:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
John Marsriver wrote: You don't understand the difference between a lens flare and an artifact on the lens.

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

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

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

This discussion ended a few posts back, but you didn't notice. I'll have someone send over the memo.
29-04-2024 04:40
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: You don't understand the difference between a lens flare and an artifact on the lens.

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

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

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

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


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

Now I am just mocking you.

But that reminds me, you must be absolutely oblivious, if you think Earth can be spinning 1000 mph at the equator, and life on Earth would survive that rotation speed without a windshield.
Edited on 29-04-2024 04:42
29-04-2024 06:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
John Marsriver wrote: when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.

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

Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?

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

Why would I have any sort of problem observing humanity's survival of earth's rotation?
29-04-2024 06:59
John Marsriver
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.

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

Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?

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

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


How would it be cracked?

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

The answer is too much CO2 from burning coal and breathing.

Why do you think bright lights cannot be seen through glass?

The reason you can observe life surviving Earth's rotation is because there is a protective glass shield containing the air you breathe.
Edited on 29-04-2024 07:07
29-04-2024 08:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
John Marsriver wrote: How would it be cracked?

Collisions with massive asteroids and/or meteors traveling at many times the speed of sound. Why is the moon cratered?

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

Lights can be seen through glass. Shattered glass, however, obscures objects as it loses its transparency.

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

You haven't shown this, and I have posted videos that falsify your assertion.
29-04-2024 08:39
hayden jordan
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
The reason you can observe life surviving Earth's rotation is because there is a protective glass shield containing the air you breathe.


You act as if air can defy the laws of gravity. Maybe having a third grade education is finally coming back to kick you in the ass.
29-04-2024 09:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
John Marsriver wrote:
You ended the discussion a while back, when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.
You aren't having a discussion.
John Marsriver wrote:
Now I am just mocking you.
I see no mocking here.
John Marsriver wrote:
But that reminds me, you must be absolutely oblivious, if you think Earth can be spinning 1000 mph at the equator, and life on Earth would survive that rotation speed without a windshield.

None needed. The atmosphere moves with the surface of Earth, so there is no overall 1000mph wind. Winds can be calm because the surface of Earth, you, and every plant around you, is moving at the same 1000mph (assuming you are at the equator).

As Einstein said...it's all relative.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 29-04-2024 09:15
29-04-2024 09:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
John Marsriver wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
John Marsriver wrote: when you declared victory by posting a picture of a shattered windshield.

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

Do you believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster?

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

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


How would it be cracked?

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

Already done. Meteor bounce communication is a well established technology. It's cheaper than hiring a satellite channel. Oh...remember THEM? GPS, Weather satellites, telecommunications, etc.
John Marsriver wrote:
The answer is too much CO2 from burning coal and breathing.

Define 'too much CO2'. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth.
John Marsriver wrote:
Why do you think bright lights cannot be seen through glass?

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

Nope. Apparently you deny gravity.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2024 19:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
hayden jordan wrote:
The reason you can observe life surviving Earth's rotation is because there is a protective glass shield containing the air you breathe.


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

It doesn't. That's why birds and aircraft and hot air balloons can fly.
hayden jordan wrote:
Maybe having a third grade education is finally coming back to kick you in the ass.


Mantra 1a.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 29-04-2024 19:50
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Pangea?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact