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

  1.  @jonathanconnor7920  And you claim the triangle argument is not conceptual but your video only shows math and drawings. Where is the video of a person making a right angle turns to form a triangle. In reality 3 right angle turns form a square. Lol.
    3
  2.  @jonathanconnor7920  The oil rigs are visibly in front of the horizon. But because that destroys your model it must be a mirage. Lol. Refraction can move objects above or below the horizon but it can't take a physical barrier and place it behind an object. Lol.
    3
  3.  @jonathanconnor7920  And every time you globies are tasked with proving your wild claims you say "you can do it yourself." Lol it's your argument, so back it or shut up about it. Lol.
    3
  4.  @Captain_Pudding  Are you going to be honest now that your globehead friend on here has said that the horizon is behind the platforms and you claimed it was obstructing them? Lol. Can't be both behind and obstructing the platforms. Lol.
    3
  5.  @Captain_Pudding  We only have 1 place where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. Just one horizon. Lol.
    3
  6.  @jonathanconnor7920  If the rigs appear in front of the horizon then that means the horizon is visibly behind the rigs. Lol. Captain claimed he saw the horizon obstructing the platforms. Talk it over guys and figure out which lie to tell. Lol.
    3
  7.  @jarodstrain8905  It's redundant to say the apparent line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is apparent. All horizons are apparent. And they are all visible. And there is just one horizon. It's just not geometric is it? Lol.
    3
  8.  @Captain_Pudding  Your model must have a geometric horizon. But the black swan debunked that.
    3
  9.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  We have reality, not a model. And there are many black swans, meaning many photos and videos of the horizon being farther than geometrically possible. But all it takes is just one black swan (day where the horizon is farther than geometrically possible) to debunk there being a geometric horizon. Your model must have a geometric horizon because it's the edge of your sphere based on the claimed radius of 3959 miles. It can't take days off. Lol.
    3
  10.  @whatarewedoinghere42  Appeal to concensus fallacy. What majority of people believe doesn't make your argument valid. And I don't live my life in fear. Read the comments on here and you can see that globies are hateful and afraid that there precious globe is a lie. Lol.
    3
  11. Time is a convention. A concept. It's not physical or material. You just created a straw man fallacy so you can win an argument with yourself. Let that sink in. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    3
  12.  @Lipi19821  I'll address the other flaw in your logic Lipi because Memphis destroyed your money argument already. Just because a person claims to be a scientist doesn't mean they are practicing science. Science is a method which validates cause and effect relationships. It's not a person or a body of people.
    3
  13. Yeah globies will believe anything.
    3
  14. Because earth is flat and stationary.
    3
  15.  @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
  16.  @omotolaa.3006  I think he was trying to say there's no A. But if the A is wrong then the whole model is wrong. Heliocentrism was wrong from the start so trying to build on something that is wrong just creates a huge disaster. Lol.
    3
  17. You know the globies have lost the debate when they start complaining about how loud a person is. Where's all that science to prove the sphere? Lol.
    3
  18. “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.” Michio Kaku PhD Physics
    3
  19.  @GOODBOIN8  If you are still a globe believer after reading the comments from your 2 compadres here, then there's no helping you. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    3
  20.  @DANGJOS  Prove it is a sphere. Don't just declare it.
    3
  21.  @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
  22.  @bigwhopper6501  It's in plain English. You need me to explain what he said to you. Lol. Have a great day.
    3
  23.  @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
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26. Yeah it was a great demolishing of the Pseudoscientist's philosophical argument using Occam's Razor. "Occam's razor simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one. Occam's razor makes no absolute assertions. It does not claim that the simplest answer is always correct."  YourDictionary › examples › exam... Examples of Occam's Razor Is the simpler explanation that we are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun and can never experience it or Earth is flat and stationary as we observe? Hmmm.
    3
  27.  @vukknezevic4258  Not sure what that means. Traveling in an airplane or in a train is much different than traveling on a spinning ball as it whirls through a vacuum chasing the sun. Lol.
    3
  28.  @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
  29. You spelled "stupid" wrong stupid. Lol.
    3
  30.  @memegod1618  "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 https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Map%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics%2C_Sound%2C_Oscillations%2C_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/13%3A_Gravitation/13.08%3A_Einstein's_Theory_of_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
    3
  31.  @bric3688  Appeal to concensus fallacy. What majority of the world believes is not proof that we live on a sphere. Gotta do better than that buddy.
    3
  32.  @beelzzebub  You said "if a helicopter flew straight up and to an intended location." That's two different things. Can a helicopter hover and have destinations come to it? Don't be a weasel.
    3
  33.  @vinuzo9548  Talking about not experiencing movement in a car is not proof the earth is moving. Eratostenes deduced the circumference based on the assumption of a distant sun with parallel rays. The sun distance was assumed by assuming a spherical earth in orbit. That's circular reasoning on steroids. Lol. Nobody traveled around a sphere. Circumnavigation is done by going in a circle around the continents. Like having food in the center of a plate and taking your finger and tracing around the food. Lol.
    3
  34.  @vinuzo9548  Circumnavigate means to go around something. You can't just go straight and go around something. Lol. Magellan travelled westernly. Use a compass and you will see that you can keep west and be going in a circle. You must be new to this topic. Circumnavigation is easily debunked as it can be demonstrated on a globe or plane.
    3
  35.  @vinuzo9548  A compass points toward magnetic north which is in the center of our plane. Lol. Please tell me you don't believe north is up and south is down. Lol.
    3
  36.  @vinuzo9548  Compasses point towards the magnetic field lines which come up in the north (center of flat Earth). How we navigate is by knowing that the magnetic field is the center of the plane. Going south would be going away from the magnetic field. Going east is going in a circle one way (counter clockwise) and west in a circle (clockwise). So when Magellan travelled around the continents he just made a Clockwise (westernly) route around the continents. But globies think that because he sailed west, that means he sailed straight. Lol.
    3
  37.  @negatorxx  Clockwise and counter clockwise rotation depend on the direction the observer is facing. Lol. You can have clockwise and counter clockwise rotation almost anywhere on the plane. Just not if you are under the north star where you are seeing the true rotation of the stars. The sky is huge and because we can only see parts of it at a time it can appear to rotate clockwise and counter clockwise from that limited perspective. Wake up globies. Lol.
    3
  38.  @negatorxx  I see Out of Time already tried to explain this to you. Lol. Keep worshipping the heliocentrism religion. Lol.
    3
  39.  @vinuzo9548  That was a lot of your Heliocentrism religion being preached. Lol. None of that is proven. You're guilty of the reification fallacy. "Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity."  Wikipedia › wiki › Reification_(fall... Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia
    3
  40.  @negatorxx  You're free to follow your religion. After reading the comments here and seeing Out of Time whip your @$$ all over, and you still repeat the same nonsense, clearly there's nothing anyone can say to make you lose your faith in the globe. Lol.
    3
  41.  @vinuzo9548  You claimed circumnavigation proved the globe. Now that I have debunked that, you want to ask me for proof . Lol. Earth is noticeably and observably flat and stationary. Unless you have evidence that we are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun, we can only go by what we observe and experience.
    3
  42.  @outoftime7740  Yeah you have been very clear. They are stuck in a model. Their pseudoscientist high priests even tell them it's the heliocentrism "model." They can't tell what is reality anymore. Lol.
    3
  43. Shouldn't the pseudoscientist be able to prove the globe? Instead he gave philosophical arguments and talked about concensus. Lol. Since 2015 people have just been asking for proof of the globe. Still no answer. Lol.
    3
  44.  @nr197  Take it easy. Appreciate the peaceful dialogue.
    3
  45. Yeah he destroyed the old guy with that one. Lol.
    2
  46. Bullied on a comment section? Lol.
    2
  47. Lol. It didn't stand out that a claimed scientist provided no science. Lol. Just tone of voices. Lol.
    2
  48.  @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
  49.  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
  50.  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