Comments by "hongry life" (@hongry-life) on "This Morning" channel.

  1.  @joaopintovb  I was thinking of the electrical charges of earth and the air above earth in various gradations. Those are measurable and measured but not calculated with by any science. While gravity and the pendulum experiment really have to take it into account, because it would influence the results and even could mean that the experiments have wrong conclusions. Gravity is said to be a pulling force but no force pulls except for magnetism. I think it is made up to make the current propagated theory work.
    2
  2.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Nope, everyone uses flat maps.
    2
  3. Globe just means 'lump'. If you mean ball? That is a projection of a flat map. Even NASA said in a report that the findings were based on "a stationary flat surface of earth". Look it up.
    2
  4. Oh, the words trick. A circle is round, isn't it?
    2
  5.  @tatchy1001  I said that a circle is round. Idk the sha[pe ofthe surface of earth on which surface we reside. It may be a circle or asomething with corners of what the Bible sppeaks for example. The surface (part) on which we reside is more or less flat as I think. Idk what the shape of the rest is, the sky. I believe the ancient models (Yggdrasil/Norse cosmos, Hindu cosmos, Biblical cosmos) over the newly invented NASA model that is not proven to exist yet.
    2
  6.  @labbeaj  The Bible says that it is the number of a man.
    2
  7.  @drmantistoboggan2870  That's interesting. So gravity pulls on planes in the air (btw Smithsonian calls gravity 'weight' as I just read) and the pilots continuously have to pull on their handle to fly upwards strongly (I mean pushing in the right direction actually, not pulling) to correct that massive pulling of the gravity force (gravity waves or particles Idk, like with the unknown and still much studied 'light' unknown waves or particles). Btw... would the word 'light' mean that light is light of weight I wonder? It's hard to talk in scientific language while words have so many meanings.
    1
  8. @ Congrats on your eyes seeing trillions of miles far. Not that it's truth though, not even comical. I must leave you living in your fantasies then.
    1
  9. @snaptrap5558 Interesting that you have no vanishing point in your perspective, very unique. Unlimited eyesight must be great to experience. So far you're the only one in the world having that, that I know of.
    1
  10. @snaptrap5558 He means calculated when he says documented. Nothing is actually measured in space.
    1
  11. Who is the 'we' that you talk about? You do realize that you categorize yourself with your own words this way, creating the box that you fit in? It looks like you created your bully club by this action or refer to one or you would like the bullying to extend to more people than only you?
    1
  12. In other words: You state nothing of relevance or importance for the discussion.
    1
  13.  @SylouCool  Science which doesn't develop in ages and doesn't tolerate any discussion about it.
    1
  14.  @frankhernandez6524  @frankhernandez6524 The terminology for any scientific discusion about things being 'round' is wrong. 'Round' is not an exact description, because multiple things are 'round', like a circle AND a ball. This is pop science of Brian and easy to tackle this way because of use of words with multiplke meanings and understandings. That was my point. Further: a round ball is many round circles, like a round cilinder also is. I know all these word games, but maybe you don't. Further: If you say 'these people' then you are creating boxes and are generalizing, which is not a scientific approach, nor is it proof of anything, nor is it friendly or respectful. It's more like a haughty and consdescending attitude. Change that, for gaining more wisdom per discussions, in mutual respect.
    1
  15.  @TalesOfWar  People just repeat what they are told, without researching or questioning anything. There is not an easy way to go check if the truth is told. So far the things that you say and thus think are way less logical than the towers on the grounds and the cables on the ocean floors, etc. Why even need those cables with the said satellites in space? Why even need towers? Why still no coverage in desolated areas despite 10.000 or so satellites up there? No logic. It doesn't make sense.
    1
  16.  @snaptrap5558  How is it explained to you how a balloon clings to your hair?
    1
  17.  @drmantistoboggan2870  How do you know that they are not real? How is gravity been proven to exist? It isn't. Nobody can tell what it is, particles or waves, whatever. Calculating with formulas is not the same as proving the existence of something. So why do you order me around and do you refuse to check if what you strongly believe is truth? Did you go measure and find that charges of earth and of the air do not exist, while there are many publications on it?
    1
  18.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Like I said: calculating with something is not the same as proving that it exists. I think that gravity does not exist and the effects are a combination of already known forces, properties, qualities. No extra newly invented force is needed to explain the appearances. My claim is not dismissed because it is measured by 100s of scientists. If you do not look into that then your claims are dismissed.
    1
  19.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Now that you accepted the electrics of air above earth to exist, I am debunking Foucault and Cavendish with it, but you didn't react to that yet.
    1
  20.  @drmantistoboggan2870  The celestial sphere. Yes, I talked about that. The electrical currents were not eliminated or calculated with for the Cavendish and Foucault experiments so they are debunked.
    1
  21.  @drmantistoboggan2870  I think you do not understand the effect of electrical currents in the air on the metals and other materials being used in experiments.
    1
  22.  @drmantistoboggan2870  It's weird that the flat map can be folded around a ball and still you can find the longitude and latitude. But everyone prefers the use of the flat map over the ball. Also it's weird that the needle of a compass always points to the north, wherever you are, even in the southern hemisphere where it should point backwards or to the ground. Why does the attraction of the North not have any effect on the pendulum? So many questions. What about the differences in gravity on earth? Does the Pendulum react to that and does the calculation stay the same no matter how much gravity is measured? What about the attraction of the moon, said to cause even tides in the salt water bodies because of electric currents, but what does it do to the pendulum? The moon never takes an atom from earth's atmosphere anyway for some reason, despite all gravity effects on other materials. Weird, right?
    1
  23.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Look into electricity and magnetism and what they do.
    1
  24.  @Ben-no4lz  People went to the crow's nest to see more and farther because of waves obstructing the sight while standing on the deck.
    1
  25.  @Ben-no4lz  Works the same: Flat on you belly you cannot see the almost vanished setting sun because of waves obstructing your view. How far did your sight reach when lying flat and when standing at that spot? What was the difference in distance to the sun?
    1
  26.  @fastmclaren71  "Explain why things in the distance(inside the dome) get smaller the further away they are. But things attached to the dome stay relatively exactly the same size. i.e., stars, the sun, the moon, etc." The stars are at a fixed distance or farther distance you think? The sun and moon are not pf fixed apparent size, because you see them passing by and changing in size. The sun becomes smaller nearing your horizon (end of your personal eyesight). And many photos of the sun and moon show even different sizes being taken on different spots on earth. I see a fairly small moon, but I saw photos of a huge moon on other places on earth, I never saw a big moon liker that where I live (around 50 degrees north). So how to deal with those discrepancies in views?
    1
  27.  @Ben-no4lz  'appears'
    1
  28.  @Ben-no4lz  There is never a calm sea with no waves. The waves are way higher than you think and they DO obstruct the viewing over the water surface the lower you watch.
    1
  29.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Eratosthenes assumed that the sun rays come in parallel. Or he was a space traveler in order to know that.
    1
  30.  @allroundlad  Drawings then?
    1
  31.  @rogerparker9228  It's the working of perspective and objects seemingly vanishing in the vanishing point. The closer to your horizon the more the view is obstructed at the lowest level. @ beach and mast seeing thesis
    1
  32.  @drmantistoboggan2870  I wonder why you believe the fairytales without examining if what is said is truth. And most important: what is not said and being left out to make any truth that is said a lie, by omission of facts. Look with new eyes and start to examine the theory that you strongly believe in. The heliocentric belief + the balls hurling through space with unmeasrurable speeds (which are unmeasurably fast according to 'science', thus only calculated) in various directions at the same time is called a theory for a reason, it cannot be proven.
    1
  33.  @snaptrap5558  Who is 'we'? I'd like to read your own personal opinion.
    1
  34.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Ok, so the amateur with his amateur telescope can do what the self proclaimed official does for 50 million dollars a day.. Now think further.
    1
  35.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Yes, I can see trillions of miles far according to you. I see the Milky way far far away. How far was that exactly? Again, study the limits of the eye and perspective, how that works exactly and then think about how you're being fooled.
    1
  36.  @drmantistoboggan2870  I'm not fooled at all. Why do you believe false claims without testing for truth? I dissected some of the dictated theories and they turned out to contain false evidence, clearly plain wrong, by inserted assumptions mostly, that I know now is not being tested for truth by you and all others who believe the dictated THEORY, which is not tested in reality so far. It's curious how masses assume the dictated knowledge collectively, but they do not test that knowledge for truth, even calculate with false evidences and non valid formulas.
    1
  37. Well, that is an opinion, not a fact. Not much of an argument for the discussion :)
    1
  38.  @snaptrap5558  Idk who or what flat earth is?
    1
  39.  @somerandomguy4240  Yes, the geocentric model with celestial sphere(s) around the earth.
    1
  40.  @TalesOfWar  I do not claim that the surface of earth on which we walk is a ball, you do that, so you have to prove that. So far the heliocentric model as spread by current science is still just a theory and not proven. So go prove it. Not to me, but to yourself. Let go of all indoctrination and start to research the matter. There was nothing wrong with the older earth model with the celestial sphere around it and there were no anomalies in that model. So if you adhere to a newly invented theory you should be able to prove the truth of it to yourself.
    1
  41.  @drmantistoboggan2870  I claimed that a sphere is not a ball in math and that the maths are different for either sphere or ball. The current scientists confuse them and I think that most heliocentric believers do not know and notice it either.
    1
  42. Yes, the eye cannot see trillions of miles far and still 'science' claims that that happens.
    1
  43.  @joaopintovb  How is it measured and what are the other speeds in what other directions that the earth is subject to?
    1
  44.  @joaopintovb  First: There is nothing in 'outer space', only in low earth 'orbit', which word only could denote 'round', like of a circle or ball. Second. Try the Sagnac experiment with no rotation/spin but with magnetism. You will see that light is bent by magnetism as well. So then what is it?
    1
  45.  @joaopintovb  There is no law of gravity. Try to investigate this claim for yourself. Look closer at the equation in which big G defines little g and vice versa. Is that a valid method in math?
    1
  46.  @drmantistoboggan2870  We have footage (never unedited photos) showing earth from the moon, but the earth is equally big in those CGI cartoons as the size of the moon is as seen from earth. How is that possible if the moon and the earth have very different sizes?
    1
  47.  @drmantistoboggan2870  So in the ISS footage you should see the stars if the ISS is at the dark side of earth? And you should see 1000s of satellites floating in space?
    1
  48.  @drmantistoboggan2870  What is a 'gravitational field' exactly in 'gravimetry'?
    1
  49. ​ @drmantistoboggan2870  It's what rainfall does for example, it charges the earth with a negative charge, the air above earth's surface is positively charged, but the charge varies per height and temperature. How is this calculated with in Foucault's pendulum experiment for example and in the theory of gravity? Etymology and meaning of the word gravity: Learned borrowing from Latin gravitās (“weight”) (compare French gravité), from gravis (“heavy”). Doublet of gravitas. First attested in the 16th century.
    1
  50.  @drmantistoboggan2870  Why haven't you measured this charge and why do you not calculate with it?
    1