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

  1. Stop whining. The pseudoscientist couldn't prove the globe. He chose to talk about philosophy. Lol.
    1
  2. If you like this topic check out this show. https://youtu.be/BjnuU2n5JMM
    1
  3. 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 “The answer is that gravitation IS NOT A FORCE between two objects.”    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
  4.  @Jacob-jj8gi  We have never been to the moon. Please don't try to argue for others.
    1
  5.  @jameslegrand848  But why what?
    1
  6.  @jameslegrand848  The moon is in a region that defies natural and gas laws. Gas pressure can't be next to a vacuum and not disperse into the vacuum spontaneously. Earth has gas pressure which requires a container. So I know men didn't travel into a sky vaccum to go to the moon.
    1
  7.  @berenjor  This is how I know we never went to the moon in outerspace and there are no satellites in outerspace: "How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp… the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ?? " https://globeterminator.com/no-vacuum-of-space/
    1
  8.  @berenjor  "*”How do you have Gas Pressure WITHOUT a Container ??”* .
    1
  9.  @berenjor  “The atoms and molecules in GASES are much more spread out than in solids or liquids.  They vibrate and move freely at high speeds. A GAS WILL FILL ANY *CONTAINER*, but IF THE CONTAINER   IS NOT SEALED, *THE GAS WILL ESCAPE*. https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/607-solids-liquids-and-gases
    1
  10.  @berenjor  So the question is can you demostrate gas pressure without a container? Because earth has gas pressure and in your Heliocentrism model there's no container. That defies entropy.
    1
  11. Stop whining. The old guy lost.
    1
  12. Go easy on the old guy. Lol.
    1
  13. Please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving we live on a spinning ball.
    1
  14.  @morry7380  No hypothesis means no experiment, which means no science.
    1
  15.  @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
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @KaffiRawr  None of what you said can or has been done
    1
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26.  @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
  27.  @KaffiRawr  My comments keep deleting.
    1
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34.  @boterlettersukkel  Thanks for the catch on the word "doped." Changed it to speed.
    1
  35.  @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
  36.  @boterlettersukkel  Sextant observations rely on the horizon, which you just conceded is not geometric (earth curve).
    1
  37.  @boterlettersukkel  All maps are flat and work for navigation. Nobody uses a spherical map for navigation. Lol.
    1
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  Roland Roland  There's that begging the question fallacy of a celestial pole again.
    1
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48.  @fn4ndor  Earth doesn't rotate. You're just making assumptions about the sun without knowing anything about it.
    1
  49.  @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
  50.  @Conan-Le-Cimmerien  I can only respond to one globe zealot at a time.
    1