Comments by "T Brown" (@tbrown3356) on "LADbible Stories" channel.

  1.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  You don't know the distance to the sun is 93 million miles away. What is your evidence of the distance to the sun? I bet you it's assumed by first assuming the earth is a sphere in orbit. Lol. That's called circular reasoning in steroids.
    1
  2.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  And from the article you sent me about calculating the distance to the sun: "That is the angular size of the Earth's radius when seen from the Sun, normally expressed in arcseconds." Sure enough the distance to the sun is an assumption based on the assumption of Earth being a sphere in orbit. Lol.
    1
  3.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Models are always a reification as you are treating a model as a concrete thing. That's why it's called the heliocentric model. It's not reality. Lol.
    1
  4.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  1. Latitude is another begging the question fallacy. Can't help yourself can you? Based on where you are located and what direction you are facing the stars will appear to rotate differently. You're seeing just a fraction of the sky.
    1
  5.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  2. Yes you can bring objects back that were assumed to have gone over Earth curve. Lol. But as the objects continue to go away from you there will be a new vanishing point. Even telescopes have vanishing points. Lol.
    1
  6. Read the definition of latitude. It's a place north or south of the equator. Equator is an imaginary line on a sphere. All of this is a begging the question fallacy where your premises draw your desired conclusion. If you can't beg the question you have no argument. Lol. "lat·i·tude /ˈladəˌt(y)o͞od/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: All Geography Photography noun 1. the angular distance of a place north or south of the earth's equator, or of a celestial object north or south of the celestial equator, usually expressed in degrees and minutes. "at a latitude of 51° N"
    1
  7.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  I don't subscribe to models. Models are reifications. Models are not science or reality.
    1
  8.  @DANGJOS  Nothing ever goes over Earth curve. It was assumed that the horizon was earth curve. Then people got telescopes and started zooming in on objects that had disappeared over the horizon and lo and behold it was still there. Lol.
    1
  9.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  I said I don't have a model. I have reality. Models are not reality.
    1
  10.  @DANGJOS  Yes, that is the globehead phenomenon. To flat Earthers it's not miraculous that things shrink with distance and disappear over the horizon, which globies thought was earth curve. And still to this day globies can't grasp how objects disappear bottom up because they need to hijack perspective.
    1
  11.  @DANGJOS  The geometric horizon has been debunked. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles, then the distance to the horizon can never be no more than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height. The distance to the horizon from an observer at 1 foot height has been filmed at being farther than 9 miles away. Therefore the earth is not a sphere.
    1
  12.  @DANGJOS  https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  13.  @DANGJOS  That the horizon is geometric earth curve based on there being a 3959 mile radius.
    1
  14.  @DANGJOS  It's only based on geometry of claimed sphere. The horizon is either geometric or it is not. If the horizon we see is not based on the sphere edge (earth curve) or is farther than where geometrically possible for earth to be a sphere on just one day (and there are more than one black swan) then the earth is not a sphere. Read the comments earlier and see how I destroyed the other globeheads on this thread. Lol. Do you really want to be the next victim to claim refraction can move a physical barrier from in front of an object to magically being behind it? Lol.
    1
  15.  @DANGJOS  So if you are throwing out the Geometry because light doesn't travel in straight lines then you are acknowledging that the horizon is not geometric. Even worse you are acknowledging that it's not earth curve ever obstructing objects but light bending. Now just add in perspective effects such as things shrinking with distance and you should understand that you know longer have evidence of Earth curve. You never did, but at least you could try to argue that the horizon was the geometric edge of your imaginary sphere. Lol. You just relinquished the geometry for your globe (no radius). Welcome to flat Earth! RIP Globe!!!
    1
  16.  @DANGJOS  You literally typed that the distance to the horizon is infinite as in impossible to measure or calculate. Lol. So you just conceded that the horizon is not geometric. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  17.  @DANGJOS  Better throw out geodesy then. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  18.  @DANGJOS  So when you say you have videos of things hidden behind the infinite (unmeasurable and incalculable) horizon, that doesn't mean earth curve right? Let that sink in. You said the horizon is infinite, but you are also holding the position that it's earth curve. Are you admitting that earth curvature can't be measured or calculated?😂😂😂😂😂😂.
    1
  19.  @DANGJOS  In the video I posted. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no?
    1
  20.  @DANGJOS  Sticking to the model using basic geometry the horizon should be 1.2 miles away. We should have a physical barrier in front of the platforms. What can move a physical barrier from in front of objects to behind them? There is no kind of refraction that can do this. You're delusional if you believe that is possible. Lol.
    1
  21.  @DANGJOS  Wow, and you just typed that even an infinite plane would have a horizon. Lol. That's the Crux of your argument, that the horizon is earth curve obstructing objects. Do you even know your own model? 😂😂😂😂. I think we are done here. You keep admitting that the horizon is not based on Earth curve. I don't know how you can't see that this is you debunking your own model.
    1
  22.  @DANGJOS  And what explanation do you want about sunsets?
    1
  23.  @DANGJOS  So we are not looking at earth curve obstructing objects? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. I love the black swan so much. It exposes just how insane globies are. Holding 2 positions at once. Lol. So we don't see a physical barrier obstructing objects? Or we do see a physical barrier obstructing objects? C'mon make a choice. Lol.
    1
  24.  @DANGJOS  Do you not remember arguing with me that boats and ships go over the horizon? Even demanding that I show you proof that they can be brought back. Lol. Now you are admitting that the horizon is not earth curve and you never said that it was. Lol. You can't even keep up with your own BS. Later buddy. You've embarrassed yourself.
    1
  25.  @DANGJOS  Well you and I agree that the horizon is not earth curve. And there are no ships or boats being obstructed by the curve of the earth. As for the sun, I don't make any claims about it's distance, size, or even what it is. I don't have a flat Earth model either. Models are reifications and not reality. It's been nice debunking the globe with you. I think you should become a flat Earther. You've already given up the geometric horizon and earth curve obstructing objects. Lol. Have a good day.
    1
  26.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  You said "there are a couple models flat Earthers believe, which do you subscribe to?" So you did ask me about a model. And again models are not reality. A globe model and flat Earth model are both reifications. I subscribe to reality.
    1
  27.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Your Heliocentrism model stopped describing gravity as a force in 1915 when Einstein replaced Newton. So are you disagreeing with your model? Lol. There is no external force holding me to the ground. Force is equated as mass times acceleration. If I am standing still there is no acceleration. So no force. If I start to run then I am using energy to move and I am the force. If I jump in the air then I use energy to get my mass in the air and because I don't have enough energy to stay in the air I come down. Again my mass and my acceleration. I'm the Force. If I pick up a ball and throw it then I was the force that moved the ball. Similarly if I use my energy to pick up a microphone and drop it then I was the force that caused it to fall.
    1
  28.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  The stars in the sky are lights that we can't get to to verify what they are. They don't cause the ground to be a sphere. Not sure why you asked about what the stars are.
    1
  29.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Things disappear bottom up because of the observer's viewing angle. Being closer to the ground than the sky gives less of an angle at the bottom. The ground is going to block your viewing angle before the sky which is much higher up can block the top of objects. That should not be that difficult to understand.
    1
  30.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  You wrote all those words trying to reify a magical force that is not there. Lol. Again force is equated as mass times acceleration. If I am standing still there is no acceleration, so no force. Read the definition of acceleration below: ac·cel·er·a·tion /akˌseləˈrāSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun a vehicle's capacity to gain speed within a short time. "a Formula One car is superior to an Indy car in its acceleration" Similar: speeding up increasing speed increase in speed gain in momentum gathering speed opening up rate of change of velocity Opposite: deceleration slowing down increase in the rate or speed of something. plural noun: accelerations "the acceleration of the industrialization process" PHYSICS the rate of change of velocity per unit of time.
    1
  31.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  The stars are lights that we see in the sky. You and I can't get to them. Nothing more to discuss there unless you can prove what they are. I make no claims other than they are lights (giving off light) and they are in the sky.
    1
  32.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  I don't need a simulation for reality. You see things disappear bottom up in reality. Lol. You can also look down a long hall. Place an object on the floor at the end of the hall. Lower your eyes close to the floor and the object will disappear bottom up. Many people have demonstrated this. But you won't accept reality, you need a cartoon before you can believe it. Lol.
    1
  33.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Here's a real world demonstration of bottom up disappearance. No simulation cartoon. Lol. https://youtu.be/3rPvhFq7Ykk
    1
  34.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Here's more. Sorry he rips apart gravity here also. Lol. https://youtu.be/4uw8-QlrNxM
    1
  35.  @jarodstrain8905  The fallacy fallacy is believing that the conclusion of something is wrong because a fallacy was used. I've never stated that the earth is not a sphere because fallacies are being used. But if all you have is fallacious arguments then you have no proof that the earth is a sphere. Now for your failed attempt at an experiment. The first thing you need for an experiment is a Naturally observed phenomenon. An effect in nature. The line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is not an effect, it's just how we see. Nothing is happening. Why would you try to determine the cause of nothing happening? Only globies would take the horizon and start trying to determine the cause of it. Lol. I guess when you can't prove earth curvature you have to reify it somewhere. Lol. I see the horizon and it's not a phenomenon, just how vision works buddy. Now the other part of an experiment is if you do have a natural phenomenon is that if you pressuppose a cause then you have to manipulate or vary the assumed cause. We can't manipulate the shape of the Earth so you can't use science to prove the shape of the earth. You'll never be able to validate the shape of the earth as the cause of anything.
    1
  36.  @jarodstrain8905  And a scientific hypothesis is a statement of cause and effect. It will include a dependent and independent variable. Lol You don't just say earth is flat as a hypothesis. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  37.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  As I told the other guy the shape or aspect of the earth is outside of science. That's a what is question. Science answers how and why questions. And the earth is flat is not a scientific hypothesis. It's an observable and noticeable fact. It's all you will ever observe and experience.
    1
  38.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  You said weight is mass times gravity. Lol. That's essentially saying weight is mass times mass attracts mass. Lol. Or weight is mass times mass warping space-time. Even worse the definition for matter is a large body of matter. So weight is a large body of matter times a large body of matter attracting a large body of matter. Get the point? You're not saying or proving anything by saying weight is mass times gravity. Lol.
    1
  39.  @jarodstrain8905  Just saying the earth is flat is not a hypothesis. You're just stating a fact. Lol. A hypothesis is stating that something causes something. And then you can either validate that or invalidate it in your experiment in which you will be manipulating or varying your assumed cause to see if you get the effect.
    1
  40.  @jarodstrain8905  You can't observe that the ground you are standing on is flat. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Set a ball on it and see if the ball rolls. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  41.  @jarodstrain8905  And science is not an observation. It's observation and experimentation. The earth is observably flat and stationary. No experiment needed because again this is a what is question, not a how and why question. Science deals with how and why questions. Have a good day.
    1
  42.  @jarodstrain8905  The terrain is flat with hills, mountains and valleys and it's surrounded by water that is flat. Other than earthquakes the terrain is stationary. That's all factual. You're the one making claims of a shape and flying through a vacuum chasing the sun. Unfortunately you can't prove or observe any of what you claim. Now who is being dishonest?
    1
  43.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Shapes are a what is question. You just have to look at it. You have never seen a sphere outside of images from people claiming to be going to a region violating natural and gas laws. Claiming to have science for determining a shape is dumb and demonstrates you don't even know what science is. Science is determining the cause of effects. Shapes are not effects. And again you can never validate earth shape as the cause for any effects because you CAN'T manipulate or vary earth shape. Driving up a hill and being able to see farther is not science. Lol.
    1
  44.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  You've never seen what your model claims earth is (a giant sphere). I guess you are not bright enough to realize that the sphere you have never seen is Earth being a sphere. Your small mind thought I meant a basketball. Lol. Earth has gas pressure and you can't have gas pressure without a container. So we know the sky is not a vacuum. And no your imaginary concept is not containing gas or anything else. You have not presented one experiment proving we live on a sphere. You can't even formulate a viable hypothesis. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You've been given a model that doesn't match with reality. You are free to believe what you want, but claiming science when you can't provide one experiment is you pushing Pseudoscience. You think driving up a hill is a science experiment, as if you driving up a hill causes any natural effects. Lol.
    1
  45.  @jarodstrain8905  https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
    1
  46.  @jarodstrain8905  You don't know what science is. And if you can easily debunk it then go ahead and try.
    1
  47.  @jarodstrain8905  Your model needs a geometric horizon but it's been debunked. Bub bye ball. Lol.
    1
  48.  @jarodstrain8905  The model doesn't work with geometry. Lol. Maybe someone should have told you that models are not reality. Lol.
    1
  49.  @jarodstrain8905  You said I don't understand your model. Your model is not reality and doesn't match with reality. The horizon you see in the black swan is the horizon. Only problem is it's not geometric. Sadly your model needs the horizon to be based on the Geometry of your sphere. Otherwise you don't have a radius that works with the geometry. That means you don't have a sphere. So keep crying refraction. Because refraction just means the horizon we see is not earth curve. Get it? You just debunked your own model. Bub bye.
    1
  50.  @jarodstrain8905  The horizon we see is not geometric then. And you don't have a radius. You're just too dumb to realize this disproves your sphere. Lol.
    1