Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

... Maybe I could employ my subjective belief in a higher being technique with your permission, to demonstrate impact in the real world with you? It might be fun.

I could send you an image by way of thought, or you could invite me to describe the painting on the wall near your computer, as an example.

Again, such a thing requires your permission and cooperation, and being shall we say, a "non-believer" I'm doubtful you'd even say yes. Besides, my technique involves liaising with your higher being. 

But, it's all my subjective reality, right? You or I having a higher being can never be objectively proven, can it? My subjective reality could never affect your objective reality, could it? ...

Even though this was not directed to me I will offer to take you up on it:

I am a hard atheist: I firmly believe that there are no gods, angels, demons, etc. I do not believe there are any "higher powers" in the sense that that term is normally used. (There are certainly plenty of real forces in the world more powerful than humans, but the term "higher being" is normally used to describe something "spiritual," outside the material world.) Science is the only way we can know what is real, and reality is not subjective. Reality does not depend on anybody's belief.

You offered to demonstrate that your belief in a higher power could enable you to describe a painting on Jack's wall, were he to give you permission.

I give you my permission to describe the painting on my wall to the left of my computer at the other end of the wall. There are windows immediately to the left of my computer, and on the other side of the windows hangs a painting that is of particular significance to me because it hung on the wall of my childhood home. I do not believe you can.

If you need specific permission to "liaise" with my "higher being," I give you that permission. I don't believe such a being exists, but you have my permission.

You should state what is shown in the painting and name the style of art. I will state that there is no ambiguity regarding what is shown, or the style of art. Extra points if you can provide the name of the painting.

When folks use the Bible as such, for example to put down homosexuality or cheating on your wife, they are doing so against what the Bible actually says and against many times what their own sect says they believe.

Where in the Bible does it say homosexuality or adultery are acceptable?

I mean there is plenty of historical example of redemption coming from Christianity over the last 2000 years.

So you have actual examples of people being saved from hell?

It matters a great deal what you mean by religion here. Do you doubt folks have legitimate religious experiences? Mystical ones?

I accept people have lots of imagined things.
People from all sorts of religions, primarily seeing what they want to.
But that didn't address my point at all.

Yes, its a great tool for a different problem.

And my comment was directly addressing yours.
We are meant to be believing the Bible because it was divinely inspired by God and its prophets.
It is built entirely upon authority.
Once you recognise that authority is wrong, there is no reason to follow any of it.

This is fundamentally different to science. I don't care what cult stuff Pythagoras was into. That doesn't' negate the evidence supporting a RE, or things like right angle triangles having a^2+b^2=c^2.
That is because none of that is based upon the authority of Pythagoras, so I can discard all the cult crap while keeping the stuff supported by evidence and reason.

You can't do that with religion, because there is no evidence and reason.
Instead, you discard the parts you don't like and accept the parts you do like; meaning you aren't following it, you are just pretending, by only "following" what you like.

Does it surprise you certain moral laws would be more useful back then than now? Would be more morally true?

I would say an omnipotent god would not need such things.
Then there is the question of when does it change and how are we meant to know?
Did it suddenly change when Jesus came? If so, what caused that change?
If not, then for how long were these outdated laws still in place without Jesus to overthrow them?
And given it has been 2000 years since Jesus, why should any of those laws still apply?

So you end up in the same position of not knowing why any should apply now.

Or you can agree with theology behind the New Covenant which places the old laws "irrelevant" to this time.

Given there is no basis for that, no.

One of the conundrums with belief in a higher being and belief, is one can never really be sure if it's the higher being believed in, doing any response, or the belief in the higher being and belief in a specific outcome, which is the prime mover.

As if it doesn't exist at all, and that higher being, because it doesn't exist, isn't doing anything.

If it actually did exist and did interact there would be trivial ways for it to show this.

e.g. compare this to a kid building something with their parents help.
You could easily have physical evidence of the parents coming in and physically helping with it.
You could have less direct help of the parents teaching the child.

But we don't have any of this for your higher being.
There is nothing to indicate it exists.

Christmas has the word "Christ" in the very name

After it was stolen by the Christians and perverted.
Prior to that it was known by many names including things like Saturnalia, Yule, and Deis Natalis Solis Invicti.

Stealing it, and sticking a certainly fabricated account of the Birth of Jesus doesn't change that.

Even look at the traditions, of things like bringing an evergreen tree into your house.
It isn't. It is just the paganism remaining.

Even Easter

Named after the goddess Eostre?

You really are just like a flat earther, unable to accept reality, aren't you?

Great job projecting.

It is quite well established that these holidays have pagan origins, that Christians stole.
But Christians seem to be too good at denying reality to accept that.

My subjective reality could never affect your objective reality, could it?

I have already stated that your beliefs can affect your actions which can affect the real world.
What you can't demonstrate is what you believe in actually effecting the world rather than you.

i.e. a person believing a god exists may do all sorts of things, like help others or fly planes into buildings. But that is that person doing it, not the god they believe in.

Maybe I could employ my subjective belief in a higher being technique with your permission, to demonstrate impact in the real world with you? It might be fun.
I could send you an image by way of thought, or you could invite me to describe the painting on the wall near your computer, as an example.
Again, such a thing requires your permission and cooperation, and being shall we say, a "non-believer" I'm doubtful you'd even say yes. Besides, my technique involves liaising with your higher being. 

I fail to see how such a thing would require my permission and cooperation, and I have no higher being to liase with.
But sure, go ahead. But I don't have a painting on my wall.
Instead, beside my computer I have a set of shelves. Fully describe what type of shelves these are and the contents of the shelf directly next to my computer monitor.

Midwinter festivals are universal among cultures that have a significant winter season. Pointing out that Christmas comes at the same time as Roman Saturnalia doesn't mean that Christians don't have their own mid-winter festival, as original as any mid-winter festival can be. As practiced in European cultures Christmas has nothing to do with Saturnalia and almost nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. I mean, there are not now, and were not then, snow-covered pine trees, or sleighs or reindeer in Bethlehem or Nazareth. Or in Rome where saturnalia would have been celebrated.

In high latitudes where winter is a time of significant hardship, the solstice is a time to celebrate that the days are starting to get longer and spring is in the offing. European cultures have always had mid-winter celebrations, and when they converted to Christianity the celebration became a celebration of the birth of Jesus, even though nobody has any idea what time of year he was born. So might as well make it mid-winter.

Proving the Firmament exists beyond any doubt would be proof of our Creator, as Von Braun found out first hand with his rockets hitting it over and over again. That’s why he turned to Christianity and the Bible, and specifically chose a passage describing the Firmament as his favorite passage, and his last wish was that they inscribe the number of that passage on his tombstone. And he prayed for Gods forgiveness in keeping it a secret from the world, not for his safety but for his families safety. That’s why he left only the passage number on his tombstone and let everyone decide why he put it there.

I believe he wanted to tell us, but couldn’t harm his family by revealing it.

There’s no other possible explanation for all this

Proving the Firmament exists beyond any doubt would be proof of our Creator

Firstly, so go prove it rather than continually asserting pathetic crap.
So far there is absolutely no evidence for your magic dome, while there is plenty of evidence refuting its existence.

Secondly, why would that prove our creator (and creator, being a regular none, is not capitalised, except by crazy people)?
Why not just an incredibly powerful group of aliens, keeping us a pet or pretty thing to display on a shelf?
Which could have simply taken us from wherever we started?
That means they wouldn't have created us, just the prison we are in.

Just like how people will create an enclosure in a zoo, and then put animals there. That doesn't mean they created the animals.

as Von Braun found out first hand with his rockets hitting it over and over again

You sure do love spouting pure BS with absolutely no basis in reality don't you?

There’s no other possible explanation for all this

You have already been provided plenty, which are really just massive holes for your pathetic BS.
Firstly, there are many interpretations of that passage, because lots of Christians like pretending the Bible is true, so the manipulates parts of it which don't match reality, to pretend the Bible doesn't contradict reality.
For lots of Christians, that passage is not referring to a magic solid dome that keeps us trapped like a snow-globe, but the universe.

Secondly, you have absolutely no basis that HE chose it. Generally people who are alive choose what goes on a tombstone, not the person who died. You have provided nothing to support your claim that HE chose it.

So the simplest and most straightforward explanation for this is someone (not necessarily von Braun) chose it, based upon the interpretation that the universe shows God's handiwork.

No need for any of your conspiracy BS which requires on ongoing global conspiracy to hide that we are in a snow-globe.

When others write a message or note on someone’s tombstone, they say he was a great father or husband or whatever, it’s not a message from the deceased.

Others who knew him said it was his favorite passage as well, so it’s obviously important to him, and his tombstone confirms that fact even more so.

Among all the passages in the Bible, he loved this one describing the Firmament above them all.

He’d certainly know if the Firmament existed or not, better than anyone else on Earth.

Amazing bunch of coincidences or random chance he loved that passage so much, or maybe it is easy to figure out why he became a Christian

When others write a message or note on someone’s tombstone, they say he was a great father or husband or whatever

Or, whatever they want.
The person was already dead, so they clearly didn't write it.

Others who knew him said it was his favorite passage as well

Then appeal to that, not his tombstone.

Among all the passages in the Bible, he loved this one describing the Firmament above them all.

Or, he loves the one describing the UNIVERSE above them all.

Again, you are baselessly asserting he believes it means a firmament; while the vast majority of modern Christians interpret it to mean the universe or something of the like, because they don't want their crappy book to contradict reality.

No need for any BS special pleading.
No need for any global conspiracy.
No need for any amazing coincidences.

Just simple people interpreting their unholy book to pretend it doesn't contradict reality, and then someone who works on getting into things into space picks a verse about space.

Again, this is the most likely explanation by far.

So this is in no way any evidence supporting your BS firmament.

Do you have any proof or evidence at all of your magic firmament? NO!
You can only appeal to convoluted crap.

Again, you are baselessly asserting he believes it means a firmament; while the vast majority of modern Christians interpret it to mean the universe or something of the like, because they don't want their crappy book to contradict reality.

Those who interpret any words from other versions of the Bible may be wrong or partly mistaken, or it’s intentionally altered incorrectly.

I’ve already told you about this, yet you still argue about it, so let’s go over it again….

We must always assume that the Bible, in parts not tampered and skewed by others later on, are describing things that are real, things that really happened, and if they seem like they weren’t real, we assume they’ve been altered or revised by others later on. Which is found through analysis and consistency with other passages or they aren’t consistent with the others.

The Firmament is not at all the same thing, doesn’t mean the same thing, as an expanse or the skies. 

An expanse? An expanse of what? How does a Firmament mean an expanse? It doesn’t mean an expanse or skies. Skies are not an expanse or vice versa. 

The Firmanent is not even the original word or from the actual translation from Hebrew, and its original word is the only accurate description.

Although Firmament is not the correct term used in the KJV, it still works as a solid, real barrier which holds the waters and divides the waters above it from those below it on the Earth.

That definitely must be a solid barrier above the Earth, to hold the waters above Earth within it from those on Earth.

We all know that the waters on the Earth are real, that they actually exist, and that means the waters above Earth within the Firmament are real and actually exist. It cannot mean real waters on Earth and not real waters above Earth. It has to follow the same way, mean both waters are real and exist.

It cannot possibly mean the skies or universe or an expanse of whatever they don’t say, it can only mean it is a real thing, a real barrier, because only a real barrier can hold real waters above the Earth.

Firmament itself means a firm and real and solid object or surface or barrier or wall. As in terra firma meaning the surface of Earth and is real.

Even skies or an expanse don’t mean universe or endless space. And they cannot hold waters above Earth at all.

They also describe the stars as lights within the Firmament, below the Firmament. Again that cannot mean ‘space’ or ‘endless universe’, being placed within the Firmament.

So all the passages which mention the Firmament must make sense, and they do. But they don’t make sense as skies or an expanse.

Rainwater is also not held within the Firmament, it is created within clouds below the Firmament near the Earth, and even that isn’t water from ‘space’ or a ‘universe’


You have to use logic here, not cherry pick a word from a passage and claim it means skies or an expanse of an endless universe!

Again, we can, and should, and must, prove the Firmament exists and is real.

When they’re now putting rockets up to cruising altitudes of planes and making fake ‘black space scenes’ supposedly from cameras on rockets.

But we can see they are below the blue ‘skies’ above them. No object can block out something below it, only above it.

But when they show these fake ‘black of space’ shots, it gets much worse. 

We see the rocket is below the blue ‘skies’, it is clear between us and the rocket, nothing of a blue at all is seen.

So how could the rocket show a ‘black of space’ out one side, to its left or right side, while we see it is entirely blue above it?

That is, wouldn’t a rocket camera pointed straight up on its nose be ‘the black of space’ too, if it’s black across the rocket sideways?

They’ll never show us that one, because if they make a fake ‘black of space’ shown ABOVE the rocket, while we see only the blue above the rocket, it would immediately prove its been faked.

But it would HAVE to be black above the rocket if it’s black to its side, but they can’t show us that view.

They know people are idiots and won’t figure out it’s faked and cannot work as they show it.

Space is seen as black but not above the rocket, only to its side!

That’s hilarious

Those who interpret any words from other versions of the Bible may be wrong or partly mistaken

And so he is wrong about thinking that verse meant the universe.
That doesn't mean he thinks there is a dome.

I’ve already told you about this

Yes, we have been over this, many times. And yet you still play dumb.
Again, what is important here is NOT what the Bible says, or what the Bible means.

What is important here is what HE thinks the Bible says/means.

So showing the Bible says/means something is entirely useless for your pathetic position and just makes you look more reseparate and pathetic.
What you need to do is show HE thinks it says/means this.

So all that BS of you going on about what the Bible says/means is entirely pointless.

And if you want to use logic, then you realise the Bible contradicts itself and throw it away as useless garbage.

Unless you want to try proving HE thinks it says/means that, stop bringing it up, as it is just making your position look even more pathetic.

Again, we can, and should, and must, prove the Firmament exists and is real.

And yet you make no attempt to do so, instead making up whatever pathetic excuses you can to pretend it has already been done or you shouldn't have to.

When they’re now putting rockets up to cruising altitudes of planes

Again, appealing to your fantasy and more baseless claims will not help you.

You have absolutely no basis to claim they are at the cruising altitude of planes.

But we can see they are below the blue ‘skies’ above them. No object can block out something below it, only above it.

Again you appeal to your fantasy as if there is no other way.

Once more, we see it THROUGH the blue skies.
The blue skies are not opaque.

it is clear between us and the rocket, nothing of a blue at all is seen.

Prove it.
Prove there is absolutely no additional blue between us and the rocket.
In doing so, clearly explain how you have compensated for any possible automatic white balancing.

So how could the rocket show a ‘black of space’ out one side, to its left or right side, while we see it is entirely blue above it?

Because the camera viewing to the side is in space while the camera you are appealing to looking up is on Earth's surface will the atmosphere above.

That is, wouldn’t a rocket camera pointed straight up on its nose be ‘the black of space’ too, if it’s black across the rocket sideways?

Yes, and there are plenty of examples.

e.g.
Once the rocket is in space and tumbling, you can see Earth illuminated and clearly blue, while seeing the vast majority of every other direction is black, only broken up by the sun and the moon.

Here is a 360 video where you can just look up:

They’ll never show us that one

So yet again you appeal to your wilful ignorance to lie to everyone.

Over 85-90 % of air, exists below 10000 feet, and much lower than that, just above the surface.

Higher than 50-60000 feet is where there’s no air at all.

You claim the blue colour is within the air, which would show the air below us as blue, when we are above most of the air in a plane.

The blue obviously isn’t in the air, when we are above most air, we can not see any blue within it.

The direction we see through the air doesn’t matter, if it’s in the air, it would look blue in air from below AND above it!

From a plane at 30-40000 feet, we’re above most air, with little air above us in a plane.

So where do we then see it is blue, is still above us in a plane, and see no blue, but only clear air is below us!

The air is not blue, it’s proven as not blue, right there.

You claim the blue colour is within the air...

No, we don't.  We claim that the blue color is because of the way that sunlight scatters through the air.

It’s always blue higher than air, when we’re above the air, or almost all the air.

The scattering excuse is nonsense. The sun is always above us at any altitude above Earth. You claim the air itself is blue in colour, from the sunlight scattering the molecules of air to become blue, tinted as blue, seen as blue, in any direction it’s seen at, across from it, below it, and from above it, if it really was the air which was blue in colour from scattered sunlight.

But it’s simply bs. Proven as bs, for absolute fact.

Over 85-90 % of air, exists below 10000 feet, and much lower than that, just above the surface.

You sure do love spouting pure BS don't you?
And yet even with that pure BS, you still can't decide if it is 85 or 90.

We can easily figure out how much atmosphere is there based upon air pressure.
The air pressure at 10 000 ft is roughly 0.7 atm, i.e. 70% of the atmosphere is still above you.

Even at 35000 ft, the cruising altitude for most jets, it is only down to roughly 0.2 atm, with 20% still above you.

You claim the blue colour is within the air, which would show the air below us as blue

And it does, as demonstrated several times we you just dismiss or flee from.

The direction we see through the air doesn’t matter

No, what is far more important is what other light is coming through from the direction you are looking.
Again, if there is no other significant source of light, only the blue from the sky, it will look clearly blue.
But if there is another source of light, such as light shining off the ground, then that light will typically dominate and you just get a blue tint.

but only clear air is below us!

You keep baselessly asserting this crap, yet you make no attempt to prove it.

Again, you were already provided a picture demonstrating the blue tint as you look towards a distant mountain. It was apparently so damaging you had to flee from it repeatedly, even now changing the subject to more pathetic BS from you which you have fled from yet again.

You just keep running around in circles, spouting the same refuted BS again and again, only to flee from the refutation of it.

I’ve never seen any blue air in front of any mountain before, and if there were any blue air to see in front of mountains, and buildings, and everywhere you look out to, I’m sure your image of blue air in front of a mountain would be something we’d always see through blue air.

If you really think that one image is proof of blue air, why don’t you always see blue air like that?

Because it’s not like that, you need to find one single image edited or caused to be bluish in tint on PART of one single mountain!

Oh gee, look at that blue air, it must be true if it’s in that image!!! Forget it’s not blue anywhere you look, or in any other images of mountains, but one image does, so it’s obviously true!

Loony land time, get the big butterfly net ready for the nut cases!!

I’ve never seen any blue air in front of any mountain before

Because you don't want to, so you dismiss it or make excuses.

if there were any blue air to see in front of mountains, and buildings, and everywhere you look out to, I’m sure your image of blue air in front of a mountain would be something we’d always see through blue air.

Again, it is not simply a solid blue wall.
Instead it is a faint blue which is built up by seeing through a large amount of atmosphere.
If you are just looking at a building 1 m away from you, you wont see it.
But if you are looking at something several km away, then there is a blue tint.

you need to find one single image

No, I picked that image for one simple reason, but your pathetic cowardice and refusal to answer trivial questions prevented that reason from being reached.
It was good because it had both foreground and background in it, allowing an easy comparison between the green of the grass and trees near the camera and those on the mountain, showing a clear blue tint; and it was simply the first one I found.

The hard part of taking such pictures is not having automatic white balance try to "correct" the picture to remove the blue.

But there are loads of them.

The other big issue is the pathetic excuses you make, saying it isn't the air that is blue, it is the grass/trees on the mountain that is.

And you lying about the saturated regions of the image doesn't help.

Loony land time, get the big butterfly net ready for the nut cases!!

Thanks for summing up your post again.
The biggest nutcase here is you.

Now again, do you have any proof of your firmament? Because so far all the evidence shows it doesn't exist; and your only response is to dismiss it as fake and outright lie about it.

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

They’ve removed those videos of course, but I’ve seen them.

We’re now able to build rockets that reach the Firmament, as at least one already did, before they edited it with ‘black space’ scenes added on later.

No doubt that’s exactly what Von Braun saw his rockets do, hit the Firmament and bounce off along the walls or crash down to Earth, and became a believer in the Bible from that point on, to his grave and tombstone referring to the Firmament.

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

If the rockets hit the firmament, then why are the rockets not destroyed when they hit the firmament?

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

They’ve removed those videos of course, but I’ve seen them.

You mean you baselessly assert you have seen these, yet you cannot provide any evidence to support this BS claim of yours.

Even more striking notice your claim, you say the rocket bounced along its walls.

This is what it should look like if a rocket hit the firmament:

Notice that it doesn't bounce?

So if you see the rocket after this collision, it hasn't bounced off anything.

So it is more likely you saw a video showing something like rocket exhaust, believed BS about it, and then repeated the same lie to countless people.

Just like the lying scum who claimed the GoFast rocket hit the firmament when it used its yo-yo despin mechanism. Even though again it didn't disintegrate and kept going up and had no damage at all from such a high speed collision.

Like usual, you just spout pure BS with no evidence at all.

Once more, all the evidence shows there is no firmament.
We have countless objects in space, and countless rocket launches.
This includes things like GPS satellites and TV satellites, which are used by so many people it isn't funny.
All the evidence is against you.
Yet you keep clinging to this BS because you are desperate to dismiss space as fake so you can dismiss all the evidence from space clearly showing Earth is round, so you cling to your FE safety blanket.

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

They’ve removed those videos of course, but I’ve seen them.

We’re now able to build rockets that reach the Firmament, as at least one already did, before they edited it with ‘black space’ scenes added on later.

No doubt that’s exactly what Von Braun saw his rockets do, hit the Firmament and bounce off along the walls or crash down to Earth, and became a believer in the Bible from that point on, to his grave and tombstone referring to the Firmament.

Firmament is just another name for the heavens, or outer space.

You saying a rocket hit the firmament means nothing. What, the rocket hit outer space? The rocket hit an absence of atmosphere?

Try telling any astronaut from any of the countries sending rockets into outer space, the firmament is not simply outer space.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 14, 2025, 03:20:49 AM

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

If the rockets hit the firmament, then why are the rockets not destroyed when they hit the firmament?

Good question finally. I think it would have something to do with the makeup of the Firmament walls themselves, which nobody knows is made of.

When I saw the video of a rocket contacting the walls of the Firmament, it seemed like the water within it reacted to the hit. And so did the water react to its travel bouncing up and down against the walls with what looks like ripples in the water, it looked very much like a wake from a boat moving on the water. Bizarre but that’s what it looked like. I have no care what others believe or not, I see what is there to see, and this is exactly what I saw.

But that may answer your question why the rockets don’t smash up.

It’s possible that the walls flex, like a giant thick clear rubber sheet. It would explain the water ripples and the rocket not smashing into pieces, and bouncing off the walls leaving a wake of water in the firmament.

Very fascinating this all is to me

Good question finally. I think it would have something to do with the makeup of the Firmament walls themselves, which nobody knows is made of.

i.e. when your magic fails, you just appeal to more magic.

The problem isn't just the walls of your magic dome, it is also the water you claim is above.
You have a rocket going many times the speed of sound allegedly running into it, yet not being destroyed.
Even if that rocket went right into water it would be destroyed.

it looked very much like a wake from a boat moving on the water

So it looked like rocket exhaust?

I see what is there to see

No, you see what you want to see, regardless of what is there.

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2025, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 14, 2025, 03:20:49 AM

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

If the rockets hit the firmament, then why are the rockets not destroyed when they hit the firmament?

Good question finally. I think it would have something to do with the makeup of the Firmament walls themselves, which nobody knows is made of.

When I saw the video of a rocket contacting the walls of the Firmament, it seemed like the water within it reacted to the hit. And so did the water react to its travel bouncing up and down against the walls with what looks like ripples in the water, it looked very much like a wake from a boat moving on the water. Bizarre but that’s what it looked like. I have no care what others believe or not, I see what is there to see, and this is exactly what I saw.

But that may answer your question why the rockets don’t smash up.

It’s possible that the walls flex, like a giant thick clear rubber sheet. It would explain the water ripples and the rocket not smashing into pieces, and bouncing off the walls leaving a wake of water in the firmament.

Very fascinating this all is to me

When you finish writing your sci fi fantasy novel about a flat earth in a another dimension - I wont be reading it. It sounds like shit.

One of superman's enemies, Brainiac, had a bad habit of shrinking entire cities and encasing them in a clear plastic dome on board his spaceship. You've been reading too many superman comics.

Or you frothed at the mouth watching that totally shit tv series, under the dome.

You either read too many comic books or watch too much tv. Either way, you've rotted your own brain. I pray you dont have children who you are teaching to be idiots.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 15, 2025, 01:19:01 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2025, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 14, 2025, 03:20:49 AM

I’ve seen videos of rockets flying straight upward that eventually hit the Firmament and bounced along its walls, creating ripples in its waters.

If the rockets hit the firmament, then why are the rockets not destroyed when they hit the firmament?

Good question finally. I think it would have something to do with the makeup of the Firmament walls themselves, which nobody knows is made of.

When I saw the video of a rocket contacting the walls of the Firmament, it seemed like the water within it reacted to the hit. And so did the water react to its travel bouncing up and down against the walls with what looks like ripples in the water, it looked very much like a wake from a boat moving on the water. Bizarre but that’s what it looked like. I have no care what others believe or not, I see what is there to see, and this is exactly what I saw.

But that may answer your question why the rockets don’t smash up.

It’s possible that the walls flex, like a giant thick clear rubber sheet. It would explain the water ripples and the rocket not smashing into pieces, and bouncing off the walls leaving a wake of water in the firmament.

Very fascinating this all is to me

When you finish writing your sci fi fantasy novel about a flat earth in a another dimension - I wont be reading it. It sounds like shit.

One of superman's enemies, Brainiac, had a bad habit of shrinking entire cities and encasing them in a clear plastic dome on board his spaceship. You've been reading too many superman comics.

Or you frothed at the mouth watching that totally shit tv series, under the dome.

You either read too many comic books or watch too much tv. Either way, you've rotted your own brain. I pray you dont have children who you are teaching to be idiots.

Says the person who believes whatever NASA tells him instantly. Your brain is rotted  to that point.

You have no idea when you’re being played as a fool, you just accept your gods word as true. And it is far worse than any religion, because it hides under the name of science.  But if you want to believe an iPhone blurs out multiple distinct belts into the same feature seen on all the other videos, because NASA claims they sent a ‘space probe’ to Saturn, you win the idiot award this year, congratulations

You have a rocket going many times the speed of sound allegedly running into it, yet not being destroyed

Do you know what happens when something flies faster than the speed of sound, at any altitude in air?

Guess

I know it from seeing the SR-71 Blackbird (my favourite plane) at an air show years ago.

You don’t even need to see it flying when you hear a sonic boom, it’s unmistakeable.

I’ve never ever heard a rocket make a sonic boom, but they’re supposed to flying faster than Mach 1 at lower altitudes than the Blackbird I saw.

But you have to use your brain to figure that one out, I just thought I’d let you know in case you decide to start using your brain again someday.

Says the person who believes whatever NASA tells him instantly.

You sure do love your strawmen don't you?

Where have we ever indicated anything like that?

Do you know what happens when something flies faster than the speed of sound, at any altitude in air?

Yes. It goes fast.
Note that your ability to hear a sonic boom from it will vary depending upon many factor. But primarily that is from it flying fast and low.
The higher it is the less likely you are to hear it.

You don’t even need to see it flying when you hear a sonic boom, it’s unmistakeable.

And what altitude was it flying at and what direction was it flying?

at lower altitudes

You mean you pretend it is at lower altitudes.

But you have to use your brain to figure that one out, I just thought I’d let you know in case you decide to start using your brain again someday.

There you go projecting again.
You should really try to use your brain some time.
It would make you look much less like a complete imbecile.

Do you even understand why sonic booms occur?
I'll give you a clue, it is NOT simply that it is going faster than the speed of sound.

I know it from seeing the SR-71 Blackbird (my favourite plane) at an air show years ago.

You don’t even need to see it flying when you hear a sonic boom, it’s unmistakeable.

I noticed you actually didn’t say you heard a sonic boom from the SR-71.  So when would that have been.  Anyway..

Since you claim you’re a fan of the SR-71….

Author Brian Shul on piloting the SR-71


The SR-71 pilot loved photography and got pictures that are a rare opportunity for others.

Watch the video.  Might be a photo of earth’s curvature.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

I’ve never ever heard a rocket make a sonic boom, but they’re supposed to flying faster than Mach 1 at lower altitudes than the Blackbird I saw.

Not so much at lift off, but the Space Shuttle and Falcon 9 boosters are well known for their double sonic booms on their landing approaches.

As for launch sonic booms…

Although sonic booms are a constant feature of supersonic flight, you won’t typically hear them during a rocket’s ascent. This is because, during the launch, the shockwave is moving above your head and parallel to the ground, meaning the sound never reaches your ears.