General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

T Brown
LADbible Stories
comments

Comments by "T Brown" (@tbrown3356) on "Flat Earther Reacts To Internet Trolls | @ladbiblestories" video.

Can't have gas pressure without a container. If a sky vacuum was above us then our air would escape. It's entropy and gas laws that debunk outerspace.
6
Please provide the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) of any experiment proving we live on a spinning ball.
6
George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
5
Models are not reality. Models are not Science either. In reality earth is flat and we have sun arrivals and sun departures. And something called perspective.
3
Roland Roland I think you are getting confused by your limited perspective of the sky. You just see a small sliver of the sky from where you are. Based on what direction you are facing the stars will appear to you to be rotating either clockwise or counterclockwise because again you are not seeing the entire sky at once.
3
Roland Roland No, I just won't accept you saying you have proof the earth is a spinning ball and then making a bunch of assumptions. You have no evidence that earth has geographical poles but you want me to assume there's celestial poles. You have no evidence earth is moving but you want me to assume it's like spinning in a room looking at the ceiling. Your model is not reality. It's all just imagination.
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I have not heard 1 proof that earth is a sphere. Just assumptions that can be easily debunked. Most people just allow you globe believing zealots to assume things.
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Now you're just naming people. What did Galileo observe?
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien If earth turns underneath a pendulum then that means it would turn underneath other objects including a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen however. So it's pretty dumb to believe earth only turns underneath a pendulum.
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I never claimed earth was a disc. That's a strawman argument. Earth is the dry plane we live on. How deep it goes down, I don't know. I'm not sure what you believe is impossible. Your compass attracts to the magnetic field. Going east is just circling the magnetic field. Simple.
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Galileo and Copernicus are just men looking at lights in the sky using their imaginations to try to make sense of the patterns they see. They never proved earth is a spinning ball in orbit.
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Well I've heard all of your evidence and just as I said, it's all just the same old assumptions without evidence. Have a great day!
3
@fn4ndor It's not my job to prove that the earth is flat and stationary. You have the Heliocentrism model that claims we're on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. But there's no proof of any of this. But just to be nice I'll give you my Flat earth proofs: https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/ https://globeterminator.com/flight/ https://globeterminator.com/no-vacuum-of-space/ https://globeterminator.com/coriolis/
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien The horizon that we see is not earth curvature. You just argued that using zoom on a camera can push the horizon back farther than geometrically possible if the Earth were a sphere. No need for you to be angry. You've only admitted that we don't live on a ball. Life goes on. Earth is flat
3
@jackevans7665 You see curvature because it's in your mind. The bridge is parallel at the ends. And the horizon is claimed to be geometric earth curvature. Observations Debunked that claim. Earth's flat and stationary. Deal with it!
3
@jackevans7665 do you understand that if the horizon is Earth curvature it must match with the claimed radius of the Earth? So based on the height of the observer you should be able to draw a tangent to the curvature. You can calculate the distance to that curvature with the formula I gave you. The problem for you and other Globe believers is that when we do that calculation the distance to the horizon is farther than the claimed radius. This proves that there is no geometric horizon or Earth curvature and therefore debunks a spherical Earth. Welcome to flat earth!!!
3
@jackevans7665 Just breathe and stop rapid firing off ignorant claims. Let it sink in that you don't live on a spinning water ball. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
3
@_61514 Thanks. I like Nathan Oakley 1980 or flat earth debate and Flat earth brothers. Give me a sec and I'll post the links.
3
@_61514 You're welcome. Most of the other commenters here are like cult members. They don't want their beliefs challenged. It makes them angry.
3
Because earth is flat and stationary.
3
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You just said that helium is leaving and at the same time said the air is a container itself. 😂😂😂😂😂 How is the air containing itself. That defies entropy which states that disorder always increases in time. "When a gas expands into a vacuum, its entropy increases because the increased volume allows for greater atomic or molecular disorder. ... The greater the number of atoms or molecules in the gas, the greater the disorder.Aug 14, 2020" LibreTexts › chem 18.3: Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Chemistry LibreTexts
3
@GOODBOIN8 If you are still a globe believer after reading the comments from your 2 compadres here, then there's no helping you. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
3
@bigwhopper6501 Because the scientific method can't be applied. Shapes are not something science deals with. Science deals with how and why questions, not what is questions. Pseudoscientists have convinced the masses that there's scientific evidence of a spinning ball, when there isn't.
3
@bigwhopper6501 It's in plain English. You need me to explain what he said to you. Lol. Have a great day.
3
@bigwhopper6501 I can't have a rational conversation with you because you don't know what science is. And you are not willing to look into things because you are not an expert right? We should just trust guys like Michio Kaku right? Lol.
3
@bigwhopper6501 What he is telling you is that he doesn't use the scientific method. Yet he is in a field called science. So the claims being made about black holes, galaxies, gravity, solar system are all just fly by the seat of your pants guesswork. He can't be more clear. "The Scientific Method “DISTINGUISHES SCIENCE” from other forms of explanation because of its Requirement of SYSTEMATIC EXPERIMENTATION.” http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/
3
@bigwhopper6501 Suddenly, you are an expert on what physisists do. Lol. You claimed that theoretical physisists assume things and then experiments are done by physisists. Great! Let's have the hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for just one experiment in the entire history of science proving earth is a sphere or moving.
3
@RABIDJOCK You can't love others if you don't love God. And if you love God then you love the truth and his word. God bless you brother.
3
@Wintermute87 What size should the not actual size of a light in the sky change to when it's at a not actual distance and not actual angle from you?
2
Roland Roland Begging the question fallacies laced through your comment. You have to prove we're on a spinning ball. Not just assume Hemispheres, celestial poles, etc.
2
Roland Roland When you say Hemispheres you are assuming a sphere exists. That's not providing earth is a sphere. And when you say celestial poles you are assuming geographical poles which assume a sphere and doesn't prove it. That's called circular reasoning or more specifically a begging the question fallacy.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Eratostenes did not do an experiment. He didn't have a dependent variable and independent variable to conduct an experiment. He assumed earth was a sphere and used spherical trigonometry to calculate a circumference. But he forgot to prove earth is a sphere.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I have not made any assumptions. You said that everyone who proved a spherical earth. Who? Your only example is Eratostenes, and you keep calling what he did an experiment even though I pointed out to you that he didn't have any dependent variable or independent variable to even do an experiment. Anyone can assume the earth is a sphere. Proving it has not been done ever.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I guess you believe that Galileo is the only person that can observe Earth movement. The rest of us just see the sun rotating above us in the sky and never feel the Earth moving. Galileo was clearly making an assumption.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Kepler's law assumes that the lights in the sky are planets orbiting the Sun along with the Earth as a sphere orbiting the Sun . It's just a model. He never proved any of it. When things in the model don't work they just add some new idea. Because it's just a model that is abstract they can always just change it.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Magellan voyage is easy to understand on a flat plane. If you use a compass the North end of your compass is attracted to the magnetic field. Any direction away from the magnetic field is going south. If you circle the magnetic field One direction it's going east. If you circle at the opposite direction you're going west. So he just sailed around the continents. That's all circumnavigation is.
2
@fn4ndor The lights in the sky don't go around a flat stationary plane. They are always in the sky above you. Perspective creates visual angles to those lights in the sky.
2
@fn4ndor You can't see Africa from Europe because objects shrink in angular size with distance. From Europe Africa would be too small to see. Your vision is limited.
2
@Adamklo Mountains shrink in angular size with distance. Visual angles are not earth curve. Maybe if you tried to answer my first argument with the geometric horizon you would have realized that there's no geometric horizon (earth curve).
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien even if the observer was 20 ft high The horizon distance would only be about four or five miles away. Earth is flat!!!
2
@marvinmartinsYT I can only address one globe zealot at a time. Wait your turn.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Sounds like you are saying that the horizon is not earth curve but created by optics. Welcome to flat earth!!!
2
Better luck next time globies
2
@jackevans7665 Your model claims that the horizon is earth curve. Your radius has been debunked. It's over buddy. Earth's flat!!!
2
@_61514 https://www.youtube.com/c/FLATEARTHBROTHERS
2
@_61514 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEBXm-WGXMca39E9kSmbZmg
2
Let's do it. Here's the globe earth Debunked. https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You already lost. Give somebody else a shot at the title.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien None of what you wrote made any sense if you're trying to prove the globe. The horizon is apart of optics. It's the visible line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. Globies believe it's earth curvature. Are you conceding again that the horizon is just optical and not physical earth curvature? That's the point I'm making also. Welcome to flat earth!!! Let's see how the Captain fares.
2
@captainjackpugh6050 The video is about the distance to the horizon. If the horizon is earth curve then it can be no more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height in feet. Do the math yourself. Earth's flat!!!
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien If earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p) the horizon can be no more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height in feet (q). If an observer at 5 feet height views the horizon over 10 miles away (not q) earth cannot be a sphere (not p). Here's the simple math below: 1.23×√5= 1.23×2.24= 2.76 miles. The horizon we see in the observation is behind the second platform which is 9.41 miles away. RIP globe!!!
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Here's the formula cited just in case you don't believe me. "√2Rh = √41807040h = √41807040 5280 √h miles ≈ 1.22459 √h miles . For example, if our eye is 5 feet about sea level, then the horizon distance is about 1.22459√5=2.738 miles away." https://sites.math.washington.edu › ...PDF How far away is the horizon?
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You believe that by using camera zoom you can change the distance to where the earth is physically curving away from 2.7 miles away to over 10 miles away? You're proving that the horizon is not physical earth curve. It's an optical effect by your own explanation. Again this is also my argument. Welcome to flat earth where we've known for years now that the horizon is caused by visual angles which can be summarized with the word perspective.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You can't move something physical to a farther away distance by using zoom. You're literally arguing that physical earth curve was in front of platforms and with camera zoom you moved earth curve behind a platformd by a distance of over 7 miles. This is tantamount to saying a tree 5 miles away from you can be moved by camera zoom to 12 miles away. That's not possible. Only logical explanation is that the horizon is not geometric (earth curve). Earth is flat!!!
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien We only have one horizon (visible line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground). The horizon we see is not geometric (earth curvature). You've conceded that already but arguing camera zoom can move the distance to the horizon back and forth. That's called an optical effect (perspective) not earth curve.
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You robbed poor Captain Jack of his opportunity to debate a flat earther, just so you can take another L. At least he got to see how it goes. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
2
@captainjackpugh6050 Did you learn anything Captain Jack? Still eager to debate a flat Earther?
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Your double speak, "How I proved you can't see the curvature at 10 miles" and now " I'm arguing you are seeing the physical thing every where." Are you crazy? 😂😂😂😂😂😂. Stalk me on another post. You've already lost here.
2
@captainjackpugh6050 Yeah that other guy won't stop stalking me. Here's my argument once again. If earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p) the horizon can be no more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height in feet (q). If an observer at 5 feet height views the horizon over 10 miles away (not q) earth cannot be a sphere (not p). Here's the simple math below: 1.23×√5= 1.23×2.24= 2.76 miles. The horizon we see in the observation is behind the second platform which is 9.41 miles away. RIP globe!!!
2
@captainjackpugh6050 Okay so here's the observation showing the horizon farther than 10 feet away from a person at 5 (really 1 foot) feet height. https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
2
@captainjackpugh6050 Here's the fuller video for you. https://youtu.be/JXtev0SKP8s
2
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You said such experiments only worked with gravity. I'm asking you for an experiment. So if the speed of something falling is the dependent variable and gravity is the independent variable, how are you going to manipulate or vary gravity to validate that it causes the speed of something falling?
2
Visual angles are not actual angles. Your eyes and all optics have visual angles and parallel lines appear to converge with distance. The ground is not actually rising and the sky is not actually dropping. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
2
Neil Degrasse Tyson PhD Astrophysics “That stuff is FLAT !”
2
@bigwhopper6501 Here's one of your experts quotes: Michio Kaku PhD Physics "In Science, we always say that you make observations you have a theory you make more observations and it’s a very very tedious process… WRONG !! Nobody that I know of in my field und – [UNDERSTANDS]…uses the so-called Scientific Method. In our field, it’s by the seat of your pants, it’s leaps of logic, it’s GUESSWORK"
2
@bigwhopper6501 You can search for it in YouTube. https://youtu.be/jGYC349v2S4
2
@bigwhopper6501 You claimed science and experiments not me. It's okay if you don't have any experiments. Just stop declaring science and experiments prove a spinning ball earth. That's dishonest, don't you agree?
2
@bigwhopper6501 Have a good day then.
2
If the evidence is weak, or based on logical fallacies and assumptions then it should be rejected. What is your evidence that we live on a spinning ball?
2
@tracewyrm 1. Solid objects have bonds and can't fly in the air without providing energy to lift them and keep them in air. Mass attracting mass is over 100 years out of date. George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA 2. I have not claimed a dome. Natural and gas laws debunk a sky vacuum however. I also have not claimed anything about antarctica. 3. We don't have any evidence of meteors. People see lights in the sky shoot by and imagine it's giant rocks from a region that doesn't exist. Other people claim craters in the ground are from giant rocks from a region that doesn't exist. No evidence of meteors however. 4. Strawman argument. I don't claim to know who is lying and why. Truth is most people deceive themselves by not looking into things enough and just believing what they were taught in elementary school. 5. Burden of proof reversal fallacy. I don't have to prove what a lunar eclipse is or accept that lunar eclipse prove earth is a sphere in orbit. What is your evidence of what a lunar eclipse is? 6. Begging the question fallacy. You have to prove earth is a sphere with a core. Scientists have only been able to dig about 8 miles. Reversing the burden of proof on me to prove what magma is, does not prove your claims.
2
@tracewyrm It seems your evidence for your spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun is all just based on assumptions and asking me questions rather than proving your model/religion. Here's an argument that is based on modus tollens and even begs the question of a sphere in your favor. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p) then the distance to the horizon can be no more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height (q). The video below shows from an observer at 1 foot height the horizon is over 10 miles away when it can't be farther than 1.2 miles away (not q), therefore earth is not a sphere. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
2
@RABIDJOCK Perspective buddy. There is no geometric horizon (earth curve). Just perspective.
2
@RABIDJOCK The horizon is not earth curvature. That's been proven already. No need to keep debating that the earth is a sphere. If you don't accept that the sun is going away from you and your limited perspective, then that is your perogative.
2
@RABIDJOCK Proof the horizon is not physical. So sun never goes below earth curve. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
2
@RABIDJOCK Measurable earth curvature would convince me earth was a sphere. Did you watch the video I sent you? It debunks earth curvature.
2
@RABIDJOCK And all maps are flat. And they work to get people to destinations. So welcome to flat Earth!!!
2
@RABIDJOCK Your argument was earth is a sphere because you thought the sun goes down because it goes below the horizon. I provided you with evidence that the horizon is not earth curvature because the geometry doesn't match with the claimed earth radius. I explained to you even how as the sun departs it appears lower and lower in the sky until leaving your visual limit. As the sun arrives and moves towards you it raises in the sky based on your perspective. You didn't acknowledge if you understood but just moved onto a new question.
2
@RABIDJOCK Debunked video. Lol. If the horizon is earth curve then the distance to the horizon can be no more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height. At 1 foot height seeing the horizon over 10 miles away proves that the horizon is not geometric and can't be the curvature of the earth. That's the end of the globe.
2
@RABIDJOCK And here's a video showing you the sun simply moving away from you. https://youtu.be/t1bQuhIEUgI
2
@RABIDJOCK Stop jumping all over the place and stick with one argument. Your argument was sunsets proving the spherical earth. Address the argument about there being no geometric horizon. And address my perspective argument.
2
@RABIDJOCK If you don't want to address the DEBUNKING of your argument then have a great day!
2
@rip5905 1. Sun leaves your limited visual angle. 2. Just because the sun leaves your limited visual angle, doesn't mean it's traveled a great distance. We don't know the actual size or actual distance to the sun, so it's kinda dumb to predict what it should do just based on your limited visual angles. 3. Sun leaves your limited visual angle then it's night. Sun arrives in your limited visual angle then it's day. 4. Not sure what seeing satellites in the sky proves. I've also never looked up and saw one, but so what. That doesn't mean they are in space (2nd law of thermodynamics violation) or orbiting earth. You gotta prove earth is a sphere that can be orbited first, not just assume seeing an object in the sky is proof.
2
George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
2
Earth's not a planet. It's the stationary flat dry land we live on.
1
So earth drifted (turned) underneath a gyro. Great, well it should also turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A helicopter or drone could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. But those things don't happen so perhaps the drone didn't prove drift as is claimed.
1
@cgeyye9916 If the earth didn't turn underneath the gyro, then there's no 15 degree per hour drift (earth turning). Make up your mind. Is there drift or no drift? Conservation of momentum is arguing that there's no drift (earth turn) underneath objects. So no proof earth turns then.
1
@cgeyye9916 You're holding 2 beliefs simultaneously. You believe the gyro shows earth drift (turn) underneath but then you are saying conservation of momentum which means no drift (turn). If earth doesn't drift (turn) underneath objects then you have no proof it drifts (turns). Check out the website below where Neil Degrasse Tyson is explaining that earth turned underneath a ball helping a field goal go in. Because if the earth turned then that would be what happens. You're arguing conservation of momentum which is no earth turn. https://www.nfl.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-earth-s-rotation-helped-cincy-win-0ap3000000555398
1
@cgeyye9916 I just need you to pick your poison. Are you arguing that earth doesn't drift underneath objects or that there is drift? Either way you lose.
1
Please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving we live on a spinning ball.
1
@morry7380 No hypothesis means no experiment, which means no science.
1
@morry7380 You tell me. It's your claim we live on a spinning ball. We can cross scientific evidence off the list of proof. What evidence do you have that we live on a spinning ball?
1
@morry7380 It's not my responsibility to prove the earth is flat. You claimed there is scientific evidence of a spinning ball. Turns out you don't have just 1 experiment. You can't even produce a viable hypothesis.
1
@morry7380 Any scientific evidence of gravity? And you have to be more specific on your other claims. Just saying physics is not evidence or claiming people not here saw something is not a good argument.
1
@morry7380 It's okay if you don't have any evidence. Just don't claim flat Earthers deny science when you can't provide just 1 experiment to prove we live on a spinning ball. That's being dishonest right?
1
@KaffiRawr The scientific method can't be applied to the shape or aspect of the earth, therefore there's no scientific evidence. So what evidence do you have that earth is a sphere?
1
@KaffiRawr None of what you said can or has been done
1
@KaffiRawr 1. You can't measure any curvature over distance. 2. You can't go around a globe. 3. So no voila. You can't see earth curvature at sea. The horizon is not geometric (earth curve). There's no space because earth is a closed system. Can't have gas pressure without a container. Not sure what you are talking about with traveling east. Maybe you can be more specific.
1
@KaffiRawr You said you could measure curvature but provided nothing more than looking at the horizon and that curvature can be seen from a region defying natural and gas laws. Not sure why it matters if you travel shorter or longer circles. That is the same on a plane or sphere. You think traveling over a ball is a straight line. Lol. Traveling east or west continually will be making an arc on a sphere and a plane. Traveling north or south on a plane however is a straight line while on a ball it's still an arc. What airplanes cross the ocean and not the north pole? Technically, there's no geographic north pole. Only a magnetic pole. Nobody says we live on a disc. Not sure why you believe things are not working or what has to grow. And I would love for you to use science. None of what you said was science. You just stated that things don't work on a disc that you have imagined and claimed they do work on a globe you have imagined. I'll make it clearer for you because you don't seem to understand what I said. Science answers how and why questions by using the scientific method to validate or invalidate assumed causes of observed effects. Earth being flat or a sphere is not a science question. If you are claiming that a phenomenon happens because of Earth being a sphere then you will have to be able to manipulate or vary earth being a sphere. You obviously can't do that. Neither can flat Earthers. So science is not possible as experiments can't be done. There are other ways perhaps to determine the shape of the earth. But claiming science and experiments is dishonest.
1
@KaffiRawr I googled your claim that planes don't fly over the north pole. First of all let me help you out. There's no north geographical pole on a flat plane. But the region that has the magnetic pole is said to have been avoided in the past because of the possibility of fuel freezing, no place safe to land if problems arise, and navigation problems from being close to the magnetic field. Other things were the cold war causing flights to be prohibited there. It's claimed now that flights are taking this shorter route as better maps and navigation has improved. So earth being a sphere has nothing to do with this. Did you think that this was scientific evidence of the earth being a sphere? Lol. "For modern airliners, flying over the North Pole has become a relatively mundane affair. Many carriers take advantage of what is sometimes called “Santa’s Shortcut” as a way to cut flight hours and fuel costs. But transpolar flight wasn’t always so common, or so safe." https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/do-planes-fly-over-the-north-pole-transpolar-flights
1
@KaffiRawr Now I do have proof that the horizon is not earth curve. It uses modus tollens if p then q, not q therefore not p. It even begs the question that earth is a sphere for you. If earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p) the distance to the horizon can be no more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height (q). There are many observations of the horizon being farther than geometrically possible. However, the famous black swan in the video below shows from the observer height of 1 foot the horizon distance is farther than 10 miles away (not q) proving therefore earth is not a sphere (not p). https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
1
@KaffiRawr You need to concede your assumption here was wrong. Let's see if you have any integrity. Lol. Your quote: "Q: Why do airplanes cross the ocean, and not the north pole? A: It's shorter. Like it wouldn't be on a disk." Rebuttal to your claim below: "For modern airliners, flying over the North Pole has become a relatively mundane affair. Many carriers take advantage of what is sometimes called “Santa’s Shortcut” as a way to cut flight hours and fuel costs. But transpolar flight wasn’t always so common, or so safe." https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/do-planes-fly-over-the-north-pole-transpolar-flights
1
@KaffiRawr You still didn't concede on your claim about airplanes not flying over what you globies call the north pole. Lol. No integrity I guess. Lol.
1
@KaffiRawr My comments keep deleting.
1
@boterlettersukkel That's not a viable hypothesis. Your hypothesis states that a causes b. You must manipulate or vary a to see if it causes b. Measuring how fast ships sail doesn't prove earth is a sphere. Your assumed cause for an observed effect in nature must be something real and that you can manipulate or vary. Good luck varying or manipulating the shape of the earth. Lol. You could just concede there's no science for a spherical earth and that was always a lie.
1
@KaffiRawr What sphere? Lol. You have to prove we live on a sphere. Not just reify one and pretend to be drawing measurements on one. Lol. All you have is a model reification fallacy.
1
@boterlettersukkel If you manipulate or vary the speed of the ship it will cause the change of the ships distance. That has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Lol.
1
@KaffiRawr If you claim a hypothesis, then you are claiming to have science. In science you use the scientific method. After formulating a viable hypothesis. You must manipulate or vary your assumed cause to validate if it causes the observed phenomenon. Your buddy said DV was ship distance and his IV he said was earth shape. But he wants to vary ship speed in his hypothetical experiment. So that would make his IV ship speed and not earth shape. Lol.
1
@boterlettersukkel Still claiming that ships going over the horizon is proof of Earth curve? The horizon has been proven to not be geometric (earth curve). Where have you been? The black swan debunked the globe.
1
@boterlettersukkel And navigation is done using triangulation and trilateration measurements on a flat grid with Cartesian coordinates. These can be converted to latitude and longitude coordinates on a sphere, but measurements are all done on a flat plane. And all navigation is done using flat maps. Not sure what you mean by navigation proves a sphere. Just something else you probably don't understand.
1
@boterlettersukkel Thanks for the catch on the word "doped." Changed it to speed.
1
@boterlettersukkel Terrestrial refraction uses 7/6 of the radius, a radius you can't do geometry to measure because light bends in air. Geometry requires a tangent, that you can't get because we have an "atmosphere." That's quite a paradox you got there. So the horizon can never be geometric (earth curve). Welcome to flat earth!!! So ships over the horizon is not ships over Earth curve. Lol.
1
@boterlettersukkel Sextant observations rely on the horizon, which you just conceded is not geometric (earth curve).
1
@boterlettersukkel All maps are flat and work for navigation. Nobody uses a spherical map for navigation. Lol.
1
@boterlettersukkel "Plane surveying, which assumes that the Earth is flat, is the most commonly practised form of surveying. It consists primarily of locating the positions of features on the ground (or fairly close to it). This is achieved, in the first instance, by a combination of angular and linear measurement. Linear measurement is therefore at the foundation of surveying, which is at the foundation of the geomatics and geodetic science disciplines. It is this process of measuring things on the ground which is fundamental to later, fancier measurement systems. All of photogrammetry comes to nothing unless we can ascertain its results with respect to what is really on the ground. GPS is worthless if the base stations' locations are not known and receivers can't be tested against ground values. Mapping and GIS require the ability to check data in the database against what's on the ground." http://www.vermessungsseiten.de/englisch/vermtech/plane.htm
1
@boterlettersukkel And you gave me a hypothesis of sphere earth causes ship distances. And when it came to the experiment you talked about varying ship speed, which is not sphere earth. Perhaps you think ship speed is caused by sphere earth. Lol. That would be a different experiment with your DV then being ship speed and IV being sphere earth. Your problem is you are never going to be able to vary or manipulate sphere earth. Lol.
1
@anarchycastro Hemisphere is a begging the question fallacy where you are assuming there's halves of a sphere to conclude you're on a sphere. That's circular reasoning. An argument that uses fallacy is invalid.
1
@anarchycastro I'm not sure what is going on in your brain that makes you think that people in Australia and New Zealand can't see the same constellations on our flat plane.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Well then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on this topic. You didn't even know how to spell Eratostenes, and you said he did an experiment which is wrong. I doubt you know much about what he actually did.
1
Roland Roland There's that begging the question fallacy of a celestial pole again.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You said Eratostenes proved it and now you are saying Pythagoras introduced the notion. That's not proving something is it?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I didn't claim you misspelling a name was scientific proof. I said he didn't have any dependent variable or independent variable, so he didn't have an experiment as you claimed. Assumptions made in your last post: 1. Sun has parallel rays. 2. Angle of shadows is caused by only earth curve. 3. Meridian. That already puts us on your imaginary spinning ball doesn't it? Eratostenes only had assumptions. No experiments and therefore no science. It was pseudoscience. pseu·do·sci·ence /ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/ Learn to pronounce noun a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. "the new pseudoscience of “counseling”"
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You said that the distance between the 2 cities (IV) causes the angles the sun hits objects (DV). None of that has anything to do with earth curvature. So Eratostenes just assumed earth curvature then correct? You said earth circumference is the constant. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. That's literally proving that you are just assuming your desired conclusion. That's not an experiment. 😂😂😂😂😂
1
@swedishbloke Don't create strawman arguments. And no the sun going down is not possible (nor is that happening), but the sun does leave your limited perspective.
1
@fn4ndor Earth doesn't rotate. You're just making assumptions about the sun without knowing anything about it.
1
@Adamklo 1. You just skipped the DEBUNKING of your imaginary sphere. 2. Mass warping space time is a mathematical concept. Mathematical concepts don't cause any effects in nature. And Gas pressure gradients come after first having gas pressure. You can't have gas pressure without a container. See 2. 4. Not sure how a train proves earth is moving. The claimed proof was earth drifting (turning) underneath objects. Are you arguing that there's no drift ,(turn)?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I can only respond to one globe zealot at a time.
1
@Adamklo So no 15 degree per hour drift (earth turn). Thanks. But drift was supposed to be what globies claim is observable with the gyro or pendulum. Thanks for clearing it up. There's no drift.
1
@Adamklo Gravity is not even a force in your own religion. Read below: George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien The horizon from an observer at 1 foot height can be no more than 1.2 miles away. It's geometrically impossible for the geometric horizon (earth curve) to go from 1.2 miles away to over 10 miles away at 1 foot height. This observation and many others proves earth is not a sphere.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You're not operating on the really is level. Gravity is not a force but you the globe zealot can think of it as a force, because globe zealots don't have to operate on the really is level do they?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien The horizon distance in the observation is known because the second platform is 9.41 MI away. So the horizon being behind that second platform must be over 10 mi away.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien The distance is known by the platforms. The second platform is 9.41 miles away. And again the height of the observer can be 20 feet up. It still will only give you a horizon of 5.28 miles. Do the math. 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height in feet.
1
@marvinmartinsYT That was completely incoherent. Models are not science. Science validates the cause of an effect in nature through systematic experimentation. That has nothing to do with being able to use a computer.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien The distance to the horizon is all we're looking at. It can't be farther than 9.41 miles away from an observer height of 1 foot. Not even 20 feet. That's a geometric impossibility. Earth is flat!!!
1
@jackevans7665 Can you show us this view you have of the golden gate bridge ends not being parallel to each other? Image below looks parallel to me. https://images.app.goo.gl/cDjnLaXNRxQNikiBA I didn't make any argument about seeing below the horizon. Try to comprehend. The distance to the horizon being farther than geometrically possible is what debunks the globe. Your model claims that the horizon is earth curvature. So then it must match with the claimed radius. Equation below for the distance to the horizon and following the maths is the argument and observations killing the globe: "√2Rh = √41807040h = √41807040 5280 √h miles ≈ 1.22459 √h miles . For example, if our eye is 5 feet about sea level, then the horizon distance is about 1.22459√5=2.738 miles away." https://sites.math.washington.edu › ...PDF How far away is the horizon? https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
1
@jackevans7665 "For a six-foot tall person, the horizon is a little more than 3 miles (5 km) away. Geometry tells us that the distance of the horizon – i.e. the farthest point the eye can see before Earth curves out beneath our view – depends simply on the height of the observer.Sep 12, 2012" Live Science › 32111-how-far-... How Far Away is the Horizon? | Live Science
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You're not doing anything physical. Your entire model is abstract. No physics (physical) to it.
1
We're all already contributing to 52 billion dollars a year to NASA and nobody can go to a region defying natural and gas laws.
1
Moon certainly looks round. Earth's still flat and stationary.
1
😂😂😂😂😂😂. No you don't.
1
@jonc2914 You fly from Antarctica to South America. That's not flying around a spinning ball. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
@jonc2914 Across Antarctica is not literally flying around a spinning ball. So when you claimed to be a pilot that has literally flown around the world you were lying?
1
@jonc2914 You've already helped me make my point. You lied. Have a great day!
1
What is gravity? Is there any scientific evidence of gravity. Please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving gravity.
1
@cl8531 There is not a scientific hypothesis. Then there's no experiment. Then there's no scientific evidence of gravity.
1
@cl8531 Natural phenomenons are observed. If gravity can't be observed then it's not real.
1
@cl8531 Ad hominem attack and run off. Lol. Not looking good for the globe.
1
Globies bought moon rocks and land on the moon. Think you should talk with them about your pyramid scheme. Lol.
1
@tommyknockers5492 They pay you for nothing. NASA is okay though because they make 22.6 billion dollars a year. Can't have gas pressure without a container. If the sky were a vacuum Earth's gas pressure would fill the available space leaving earth with no air to breathe. Gas pressure in a vacuum with no barrier, not expanding defies entropy and gas laws.
1
@tommyknockers5492 Gravity? George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
1
Since you said "plead." Lol. If you are using your compass you can be in all 3 places on our plane looking south (away from the magnetic field) at DIFFERENT TIMES and see the same constellations because the stars obviously rotate around to each place.
1
@bentebent5298 They don't all see the same constellation at the same time. It's night in one place and day in the other. "Canberra ACT, Australia is 9 hours ahead of South Africa 7:52 AM Friday, in Canberra ACT, Australia is 10:52 PM Thursday, in South Africa"
1
Science? Can you post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving that the earth is a spinning ball?
1
@GOODBOIN8 "√2Rh = √41807040h = √41807040 5280 √h miles ≈ 1.22459 √h miles . For example, if our eye is 5 feet about sea level, then the horizon distance is about 1.22459√5=2.738 miles away. https://sites.math.washington.edu › ...PDF How far away is the horizon?" Any more excuses?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien If you know that the horizon is not physical earth curvature then welcome to flat earth!!! Give this lad a chance to get there on his own.
1
@GOODBOIN8 Did you run away?
1
@marvinmartinsYT Nervous laughter exposes you have no answer.
1
Like most of the world does.
1
Space doesn't exist. Can't have gas pressure without a container. https://globeterminator.com/no-vacuum-of-space/
1
@xerosfs George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien we don't have sphere shaped air. Air requires a container in order to form a shape. Your model has no container and therefore can't have sphere shaped air. The air we breathe would filll the available volume or space.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Again, we don't have air forming a sphere unless there's a container. Just continuing to repeat that there's sphere shaped air doesn't make it true. And mass warping space time is a mathematical concept. Mathematical concepts don't cause any effects in nature. You have never proved anything. Now try to comprehend the words below: George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien So if gravity is not a force in your own model, then it's not pulling or pushing on gas is it? Gas/air would escape into the vacuum if it were real.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Gravity is not a force. Read it again. George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Need more quotes? Gravity ISN’T A FORCE.” The Physics Hypertextbook https://physics.info/general-relativity/ “Strictly speaking, gravity IS NOT A FORCE …” http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html “The answer is that gravitation IS NOT A FORCE between two objects.”
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Earth doesn't have sphere shaped air unless there is a container. Gas is not falling, but expanding in all directions to fill the available volume. None of what you are saying makes any sense. Gravity is not a force.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien curvature of what? Tell me what is curving.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You said curvature (gravity) causes a force. So what is curving? This is the crux of your argument.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Space time curving is what you believe is holding gas on earth. Don't say according to Musser. That's what you just argued. Here's my argument summed up in the citation below: "Space in our Universe is three dimensional, and when you combine it with time, you get a four dimensional quantity. When it comes to the notion of spacetime curvature, this is what General Relativity refers to. But under no circumstances should you conceive of space as though it's a material, physical thing; it isn't.Aug 11, 2018" Forbes › sites › 2018/08/11 › as... Ask Ethan: Is Spacetime Really A Fabric? - Forbes
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien So in the end it's just as I said, you believe a mathematical concept is holding gas on earth. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Yes Ethan believes in a mathematical concept. But again, mathematical concepts don't do anything in nature. Space time is not physical or material. So the curving of a mathematical concept won't hold gas to the earth. Have a great night!
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You said you "showed you how we can detect it (space time)" I want you to show me space time. Let's have a look at it. Which do you think weighs more? A box of space or a box of time?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien 1. Gravity in your own religion is not a force. And we're trying to see right now if space time is physical or material. I asked you to show it to me. I also just asked if a box of space weighs more than a box of time. 🤣🤣😂😂😂 2. It is just a Mathematical concept. That's why you can't show me it or weigh it or do anything with it. 3. People telling you they have instruments on earth that can detect ripples in space (2nd law of thermodynamics violation) by two arms moving is nonsensical. The arms moving can be caused by anything. I could say everytime the arms move a unicorn 🦄 farts. 😂😂😂😂😂
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Well I will leave it here. If you believe a concept curving is holding gas on earth then I am just arguing with a zealot. Your evidence is showing lines on a screen going up and down. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Back on the really is level gas pressure requires a container. Your model is wrong. Take it easy.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I don't want you to think I am not addressing any points you made. It's just you make so many dumb points I have to stick to the ones sort of on topic. But you capitalized "light gases escaping." This is nonsensical as your model has no CONTAINER or force to escape. Secondly, you are just reading this from a website and have no actual evidence we are losing helium. NASA is of course buying up all the helium (probably for those satellites they send up 😂😂😂), but we're not running out of helium. It's just difficult to recycle and reuse helium because it doesn't react with any other elements. These methods are improving however. But read below why we really have less helium (hint: it's not escaping into space). "Helium is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It has a very low boiling point, and is monatomic. Helium is small and extremely light, and is the least reactive of all elements; it does not react with any other elements or ions, so there are no helium-bearing minerals in nature.Aug 21, 2020" chem.libretexts.org › Bookshelves Chemistry of Helium (Z=2) - Chemistry LibreTexts
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I've already Debunked that article just in the title "The escape of helium from the Earth's atmosphere." There's no such thing as sphere shaped air unless it's in a container that is sphere shaped. Your model has no CONTAINER or force to contain gas. Remember how you argued that a mathematical concept (space time) curving was holding gas? So helium doesn't need to escape sphere shaped air because it (sphere shaped air) doesn't exist.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien "Three states of matter exist – solid, liquid, and gas. Solids have a definite shape and volume. Liquids have a definite volume, but take the shape of the container. Gases have no definite shape or volume." Lumen Learning › courses › chapter Solid, Liquid and Gas | Chemistry for Non-Majors - Lumen Learning
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien So you see gas has no definite shape or volume. So the word atmosphere is an oxymoron. But earth does have a volume of gas correct? To have a volume of gas you need a container.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien "Due to surface tension. What determines the shape and volume of a gas inside a container? The shape and volume of a gas are the same as those of their container. ... A gas has neither a definite shape nor volume because its particles spread apart and move freely in all directions." quizlet.com › solids-liquids-and-gas... Solids, Liquids and Gases Flashcards - Questions and ... Are you getting the picture?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien "The volume of a gas is determined by the volume of the container it is in. Gases take the shape of their container and the volume of the container...." study.com › academy › answer › w... What determines the volume of a gas? | Study.com
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien And you just disregarded everything and went back to the beginning. 😂😂😂😂😂. Others can maybe learn from our exchange. You're not going to let go of your Heliocentrism religion. Bye now.
1
@captainjackpugh6050 Did you run away Captain Jack?
1
@captainjackpugh6050 Are you a flat Earther now Captain?
1
@captainjackpugh6050 hi
1
@captainjackpugh6050 You have not responded.
1
@captainjackpugh6050 Here's your quote "you are correct a person 5 feet tall cannot view the horizon as a distance of 10 miles." Now you're saying that an observation showing the horizon over 10 miles away doesn't debunk your imaginary globe.
1
Science deals with how and why questions. The shape of the earth is a what is question. The scientific method can't be applied so it's not about science lying. Men practicing pseudoscience lie. Read below how pseudoscience works from a famous Astrophysisist. Michio Kaku PhD Physics “In Science, we always say that you make observations you have a theory you make more observations and it’s a very very tedious process… WRONG !! Nobody that I know of in my field und – [UNDERSTANDS]…uses the so-called Scientific Method. In our field, it’s by the seat of your pants, it’s leaps of logic, it’s GUESSWORK.”
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Can you demonstrate gas pressure without a container? I don't care what your model claims helium is doing.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien What is keeping the air or "atmosphere" here and not expanding off into space?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Any scientific evidence of gravity?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You said more mass causes space time to curve. Space time is not physical, material, or energy and can't be a dependent variable because it can't be observed. And mass is undefined outside of mathematical conventions. Can you please provide a viable hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving gravity? If gravity can't be scientifically proven then your model can't work. Not only is space impossible but water also can't be sticking to a ball. Earth has to be a closed system.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Space time is not physical or material or energy and I am not going to pretend that it acts like matter. If some waves are observable as you claim, then you should be able to vary or manipulate them to cause an effect in nature. So post the dependent variable and independent variable of the experiment. And unfortunately saying that helium will be gone in many years from now is not proving matter is escaping earth. That's an appeal to the future fallacy. If earth is an open system our air/gas would all escape. Earth can't be an open system in a vacuum.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Asking why we have the moon in the sky is not doing an experiment.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Posting an article claiming helium is escaping is not evidence that gas is escaping into a region that violates natural and gas laws.
1
Strawman argument. Nobody says that.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien That article has nothing to do with flat earth. That article says Russia, Finland, Sweden, etc. also doesn't exist. 😂😂😂😂😂
1
@LTLynn Nice strawman argument. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien He was trying to argue this was a flat earth argument. You just Debunked his claim. It has nothing to do with flat earth.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You've already proved that people that believe they're on a ball don't believe Australia exists, or Russia or Finland with your previous post. So we already know that this is not a flat earth argument. If anything it's a spinning ball believers argument. Thanks for debunking Twisted, the person that posted this strawman argument.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien If you can be convinced you are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun, you can be convinced of anything. I got some moon rocks for you. Meet me at the horizon. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien If you hurry up, I'll throw in a free box of space time. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You want to have an argument about what other people believe? You already demonstrated from your links that people not believing countries exist is outside of the flat earth vs globe earth debate. It was a straw man argument by Twisted. You Debunked him. Thanks! This wasn't a serious post. It was meant to be funny. Would you like more jokes or are we done here?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Scientists say Uranus smells like gas. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Here's some land you can buy: "ImageBusiness Insider › ... › Strategy Man Selling Real Estate On The Moon - Business Insider Mar 26, 2013 — Simon Ennis/New York Times Dennis Hope has made millions of dollars selling acres of real estate on the moon. As far as he's concerned, it's his to sell. In 1980 Hope realized that while the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty said no country could own the moon, it said nothing about individuals." 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien It's not funny because you probably bought land on the moon. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You remember me from a month ago? I wish I could say I remember you but you're not different from other globe zealots I crush. Same arguments that get Debunked over and over again.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I learn from every globe zealot I destroy. It's why my arguments are so concise. In the beginning I used to go down several paths of claims to debunk your nonsense. Now I cut it off immediately when you zealots make a logical fallacy or assumption. But it's all the same arguments each time. No need to watch your links and videos about gravity when I can get you to quickly concede it's the curving of space time (mathematical concept).
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Just in the past day or two since you have been stalking me, I got you to concede that gravity is just a mathematical concept, the horizon is not physical earth curvature twice, and there's no force holding gas pressure on earth meaning space is impossible. You're almost like my ally. People probably believe we are some set up team out to debunk the globe. 😂😂😂😂😂
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You still can't even spell Eratostenes. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You said his hypothesis was the distance between the cities causes angle of sun's rays (shadow angles in wells). None of that has anything to do with earth curvature. Foccault's pendulum doesn't need his equations disproved. He claimed his pendulum proves earth turns (drifts) underneath. If earth drifts underneath a pendulum then it would turn (drift) underneath a drone or helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them if earth turned underneath. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half (considerably less time than from Los Angeles California to Charlotte NC). None of that happens because earth doesn't turn. Not logical to believe earth only turns underneath a pendulum or gyro. Gravitational wave is a begging the question fallacy. You have not proved gravity which is space time is real (physical, material, or energy) but you're assuming it's causing something. I am so concise with it.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien And you said Galileo observed earth in orbit like he had some outside view of earth nobody else had. 😂😂😂😂😂
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien "The Velocity of a Plane (Air Speed) traveling Due East or Due West MUST BE either added or subtracted to the Velocity of the Rotating Earth depending upon the direction of travel of the plane. So if a Plane is traveling Due West at 500 mph (Air Speed) and the Earth is traveling Due East at 860 mph (Ground Speed), the Velocities are ADDED together: 500 mph (Air) + 860 mph (Ground) = 1360 mph. So a Plane traveling Due West with an Air Speed of 500 mph has a Total Ground Velocity of 1360 mph. . . . Point 5: To find the time “T” the plane flight would take, we use the Formula: “D”istance = “R”ate x “T”ime. Rearranging to solve for time “T”, would be: D/R = T. So the Distance from Charlotte NC to LAX is: 2115 Miles. Rate, from above is: 1360 mph. 2115 Miles/1360 mph. ERGO, the Flight Time MUST BE: = 1.5 Hours." https://globeterminator.com/coriolis/
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You're assuming earth curvature causes something and in no way varying or manipulating earth curve to validate that it causes shadow angles. Eratostenes didn't manipulate or vary anything. He just made an assumption earth was a sphere and did spherical trigonometry.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I don't have to disprove space time. That's the heliocentric model claim. Now go get some of that space time to show me. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Conservation of momentum is arguing that there is no drift or Earth turn underneath anything. So the pendulum did not prove that there is any Earth drift. So if Earth does not drift underneath anything what is your proof that Earth drifts at all? This also flies in the face of Neil Degrasse Tyson's claim that a field goal was made because earth turned underneath the ball. https://www.nfl.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-earth-s-rotation-helped-cincy-win-0ap3000000555398
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien He (Eratostenes) made the assumption. There was no experiment and still hasn't been to this day proving the earth is a sphere.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Yeah you can't use spherical trigonometry on a flat plane. So he used an equation that doesn't apply. Are you slow? None of what he did was an experiment.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You're arguing conservation of momentum dumbo not me. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien It's your argument that objects turn with the earth dumbo. That's called conservation of momentum. So if objects turn with the earth and there's just one reference frame, then there's no proof earth turns. Would look and feel the same as a stationary earth dumbo. So foccault's pendulum doesn't prove earth turns. No drift.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You're arguing 2 different positions at the same time. You're saying earth doesn't drift (turn) underneath objects and also saying it does drift (turn) underneath a pendulum. Double speak.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I've seen everything Eratostenes. He assumed that shadow angles in wells were because earth curvature. Then he used spherical trigonometry to calculate a circumference. Not an experiment or evidence. Sorry.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Conservation of momentum claims earth is not moving underneath objects dumbo. They are in the same reference frame. Conservation of momentum doesn't prove earth turns (drifts). You need earth to drift underneath objects for proof. You're arguing no drift (turn).
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You just said he Eratostenes assumed the sun's path and distance yourself. Then after that assumption he assumed earth curvature. Then he used spherical trigonometry. Nothing but assumptions.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Conservation of momentum doesn't prove earth rotation. It argues against your claim that the pendulum proves earth drifts. Can't have drift and no drift simultaneously. That's double speak.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Not my job to prove assumptions wrong. That's a burden of proof reversal fallacy.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You argued against earth drift (turning) underneath objects. You argued for objects in the air being in the same reference frame. So no Earth drift (turn) proof. Just another assumption. Thanks. You and I make a great team debunking all the Heliocentrism lies. You set up the dumb argument and I knock it down. See you in the next post. 😂😂😂😂
1
@GOODBOIN8 I didn't say all straight lines bend down. Read slowly. With optics parallel lines appear (not actually) to converge with distance giving you the horizon (visible line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground).
1
@GOODBOIN8 If you can't understand that how vision works then we probably shouldn't go on to other things yet. Now do you understand that you can't see earth curvature looking down a straight road? Yes or no?
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Goodboi N8 claimed he could see earth curvature down a straight road. I'm glad you are telling him he's wrong. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien He was eventually able to grasp that there is "an optical illusion to make the horizon." I think he now gets that he can't see earth curve down a straight road. I'm waiting for his response.
1
@marvinmartinsYT Try to comprehend what I write. Parallel lines appear to converge with distance. The horizon is the sky appearing to meet the ground because of your visual angle decreasing with distance. It's called perspective. Now view the image below with parallel lines appearing to converge. https://images.app.goo.gl/hsp6zhddqzyvnDNn9
1
@marvinmartinsYT "Parallel" lines appear to converge with distance. This is how we see. Click the image and you can see that the lines on the road appear (not actually to be getting closer and closer or converging with distance. That's called perspective. You can call it point of view, but it's all just how optics work. The horizon is the appearance of the sky meeting the ground. The sky doesn't actually meet the ground where it appears to.
1
@marvinmartinsYT https://images.app.goo.gl/eps1woYR3ndYDEtC9 https://images.app.goo.gl/S6zmfXhknWXNneVw8 https://images.app.goo.gl/EPSbVfLTBC5kpNTw8 All you have to do is type in perspective photos and click images. So many come up. But you are lazy and prefer I do your homework for you. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@marvinmartinsYT I already said "you" can call it point of view. I described quite well what I meant by perspective. Can you move past the word and onto what is actually going on? Parallel lines appear to converge (lines tend to meet at a point) with distance. They don't actually meet but from your point of view/perspective they appear to converge with distance. I sent you several links showing this. That's how vision and optics work and that effect called the horizon has nothing to do with earth curvature.
1
@marvinmartinsYT Look at the tall building dumbo. That's vertical lines converging as you look up at the tall building. Click the link below and stop embarrassing yourself. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 https://images.app.goo.gl/9iM8DRLRR8rmrYQd9
1
@marvinmartinsYT You read an image? How dumb are you? If you saw the image then great! Now stop saying vertical lines don't appear to converge with distance when you have seen it with your own eyes.
1
Bye globies. Keep spinning on your imaginary water ball. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
Say ball. That's your belief. You believe you are on a spinning ball. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@RABIDJOCK As objects move away from you they lower in the sky till eventually below your visual limit (horizon). As you move closer the objects appear to rise in the sky. It's just perspective.
1
@RABIDJOCK I'm reading the comments in this thread from others. It seems that the same argument I'm DEBUNKING you with has already been made. Take it easy.
1
Science is a method which establishes the causes of phenomena in nature through systematic experimentation; not people accepting or not accepting. That's called an appeal to concensus fallacy and pseudoscience if you try to pass concensus off as science.
1
@0samabinladem333 If he knows and practices the scientific method then he is a scientist.
1
@0samabinladem333 I don't believe he said he was a scientist. But if he knows and practices the scientific method he could be. He said "mainstream science", but he should have said mainstream pseudoscience that pushes heliocentrism. Do you have any science behind your Heliocentrism beliefs. Please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving that the earth is a sphere or rotating.
1
@0samabinladem333 I haven't claimed that science proves the Earth is flat. Your heliocentrism model is claimed to have scientific proof. So go ahead and post the scientific hypothesis for any experiment ever proving that the Earth is a sphere or rotating.
1
@0samabinladem333 do you know what a scientific hypothesis is?
1
@0samabinladem333 here is your opportunity show that there is science behind heliocentrism. How's the dependent variable and independent variable of any experiment ever in the history of heliocentricism that proves Earth is a sphere or rotating.
1
@0samabinladem333 don't you want to shut me up and make me look stupid? All it takes is just posting the dependent variable and independent variable of any experiment ever that proved the Earth was a sphere or rotating. Don't you globies say the whole body of science proves the spinning ball?
1
@0samabinladem333 I asked you to post the dependent variable and independent variable for any experiment ever proving that the earth is a sphere or rotating. You have failed. You sent a link to a video that says it's not using science. So when it's claimed that Heliocentrism has science then that is Pseudoscience.
1
@0samabinladem333 so I guess you are arguing that there is no science behind your spinning ball belief but rather a YouTube video where a guy is drawing cartoons is your best proof for a spinning ball belief. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
@0samabinladem333 you made a big stink about someone denying science and when asked for the science the best you could provide was a YouTube video with the guy drawing cartoons. You should be ashamed of yourself
1
@0samabinladem333 You just deleted all of your comments. What a disgrace you are.
1
@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Mr. Classical just deleted all his comments. Are you still convinced you live on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun, when people are getting their arguments demolished so bad that they have to delete all of their comments?
1
Outerspace is Debunked by earth having gas pressure. If earth were an open system with a sky vaccum the air we breathe would escape. Buying a telescope and seeing lights in the sky can't change that.
1
Begging the question fallacy. You have to prove earth is a sphere not just assume an equator and hemispheres.
1
Has anyone ever measured earth curvature? No.
1
You think google maps makes space real. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
@ryansappington1468 Oh gosh, you don't know how a compass works. The north end of your compass points to a magnetic pole's magnetic field. You are going south if you go any direction outwards or away from that magnetic field. If you circle it one direction you are going east. If you circle the magnetic field the other direction you are going west. So you can keep east or west and circle the continents.
1
George Musser PhD Astrophysics Dr. Georgy: “We can, We do, We must, consider Newtonian Gravity as a force. Now that doesn’t really mean it is one, but we don’t necessarily have to work on the REALLY IS level.” https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA Dr. Georgy: “Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it as A FORCE“. https://youtu.be/SK9-gYCKKqA
1
Great job 👍 to this flat Earther answering all the dumb trolls. After reading the comments here, he should do a part 2.
1
@marvinmartinsYT What science did he deny? Post just 1 viable scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving that the earth is a sphere or moving.
1
@marvinmartinsYT You claimed he denied science. I'm thinking you don't even know what science is. What is an independent variable and dependent variable in an experiment?
1
@marvinmartinsYT Did you Google independent variable and dependent variable yet? It should not take that long.
1
@marvinmartinsYT How can you claim he denied science when you don't even know what science is? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
@marvinmartinsYT I didn't claim science. You said he denies science. That indicates you believe there's science (observation and experiments) that prove earth is a sphere or moving. So let's see if you even know what science is. What is a dependent and independent variable?
1
@marvinmartinsYT I don't care about your degrees. Just answer the simple question. What is an independent variable and a dependent variable? Stop dodging.
1
@marvinmartinsYT in science your dependent variable is an effect you observe in nature. The independent variable is what you assume causes the effect you observed in nature. What effect in nature do you believe is caused by Earth curvature or Earth rotation? More importantly how are you ever going to manipulate or vary Earth curvature or earth rotation to prove that it causes the effect you observed in nature? It can't be done so therefore there is no science proving that the Earth is a sphere or rotating. So nobody has denied science. You just didn't know what science is.
1
@marvinmartinsYT if you manipulate or vary your height or distance then that is your independent variable. So you are saying that height or distance causes the sun to set. So it's not the curvature of the Earth causing the sun to set
1
@marvinmartinsYT asking me my thoughts on covid is irrelevant .
1
@marvinmartinsYT sounds like you are flat earther that recognizes that your point of view or perspective is what causes the Sun to rise or set. It's determined by your height and distance from the Sun . You already conceded that you can't manipulate or very Earth curve so then there is no science to prove Earth is a sphere.
1
@marvinmartinsYT you just said that by manipulating or varying the height and distance of the drone you can cause the sun to set or rise. You don't actually believe that the drone can cause the sun to physically go up or down do you? But from the perspective or point of view of the drone the Sun appears to rise or fall based on the drone going up or down or increasing its distance from the Sun. You also don't know how fast the sun is traveling. Just thought I'd clear up that lie right away.
1
@marvinmartinsYT you making a strong case for the Flat Earth right now. Keep it up!
1
@marvinmartinsYT No subject change. You did your Hypothetical science experiment and found out that perspective/point of view causes sunrises and sunsets. No Earth curve varied or manipulated.
1
@marvinmartinsYT I never claimed science. I'm smart enough to know that I can't manipulate the ground to cause effects in nature. And your dependent variable was sun rise or sunset. You can't just change your experiment and say the dependent variable is now the horizon. Furthermore, in your now new hypothetical experiment with the horizon as the dependent variable and height as the independent variable, you're saying height causes the horizon to do something. That's not proving earth curvature. You can't manipulate or vary height and claim you're varying earth curvature.
1
@marvinmartinsYT There's no curvature in your hypothetical experiment. Just the horizon (dependent variable) and height of the drone (independent variable).
1
@marvinmartinsYT You claimed science not knowing what science is. You made an @$$ out of yourself.
1
@vaolin1703 I have such a great and blessed life on our flat stationary plane. I can work and enjoy my wonderful family and debunk Heliocentrism. At this point I can debunk Heliocentrism with ease. I just ask for the science and watch you morons make all kinds of excuses trying to dodge the question. Then I just point out that there's no geometric horizon, no Earth turning underneath anything, and no sky vaccum above because we have air pressure. It's just that simple.
1
Neil Degrasse Tyson PhD Astrophysics “That stuff is FLAT !”
1
No rover went into a sky vacuum because a sky vaccum would violate natural and gas laws. We have gas pressure on earth and gas pressure requires a container.
1
Maxx Kroes You're saying gas pressure differentials cannot happen in a container. That's false. You can have gas pressure differentials in a container. But to have gas pressure at all it requires the necessary antecedent of a container. It's not relevant what causes the has pressure inside the container. You have a model that has no CONTAINER but we have gas pressure. That's not possible. The gas you're breathing would fill the available space leaving us dead from no air to breathe.
1
The sun is my assumption. But if you're asking scientifically then that means you think your model has science. So post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving the cause of seasons, days, and nights.
1
North magnetic pole. Not north geographical pole.
1