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

  1.  @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
  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
  3.  @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
  4.  @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
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @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
  8.  @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
  9.  @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
  10.  @marvinmartinsYT  I can only address one globe zealot at a time. Wait your turn.
    2
  11.  @Conan-Le-Cimmerien  Sounds like you are saying that the horizon is not earth curve but created by optics. Welcome to flat earth!!!
    2
  12. Better luck next time globies
    2
  13.  @jackevans7665  Your model claims that the horizon is earth curve. Your radius has been debunked. It's over buddy. Earth's flat!!!
    2
  14.  @_61514  https://www.youtube.com/c/FLATEARTHBROTHERS
    2
  15.  @_61514  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEBXm-WGXMca39E9kSmbZmg
    2
  16.  @DANGJOS  The horizon is an apparent line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. There has been plenty of videos showing boats being brought back from over the horizon using camera zoom. This is a 2015 argument buddy. You're like 5 years behind. Today it's being demonstrated that there is no geometric horizon, which your model must have. You can use Google or search YouTube yourself to easily see this. Take it easy.
    2
  17. Go easy on the old guy. He's been brainwashed. Lol.
    2
  18. Let's do it. Here's the globe earth Debunked. https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
    2
  19.  @Conan-Le-Cimmerien  You already lost. Give somebody else a shot at the title.
    2
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26.  @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
  27.  @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
  28.  @captainjackpugh6050  Did you learn anything Captain Jack? Still eager to debate a flat Earther?
    2
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @captainjackpugh6050  Here's the fuller video for you. https://youtu.be/JXtev0SKP8s
    2
  33.  @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
  34. Don't be so mean to the old guy, he's been brainwashed.
    2
  35.  @joshm1389  That makes sense also for what the pseudoscientist was trying to say. Just one correction. BC means Before Christ. BCE means Before Common Era.
    2
  36. 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
  37. Newton didn't create all the natural laws. The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with Newton. Gas laws have nothing to do with Newton. Lol.
    2
  38. Neil Degrasse Tyson PhD Astrophysics “That stuff is FLAT !”
    2
  39.  @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
  40.  @bigwhopper6501  You can search for it in YouTube. https://youtu.be/jGYC349v2S4
    2
  41.  @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
  42.  @bigwhopper6501  Have a good day then.
    2
  43.  @SwordTune  Spectroscopy. Lol. You globies are so delusional. You can't tell what something is made of that you can't get to. Astronomical spectroscopy is a joke. Lol.
    2
  44. 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
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @RABIDJOCK  Perspective buddy. There is no geometric horizon (earth curve). Just perspective.
    2
  48.  @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
  49.  @RABIDJOCK  Proof the horizon is not physical. So sun never goes below earth curve. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    2
  50.  @RABIDJOCK  Measurable earth curvature would convince me earth was a sphere. Did you watch the video I sent you? It debunks earth curvature.
    2