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

  1.  @anqistenning8558  Look at how Magellan's circumnavigation is done on a flat plane. And this is just a visual for you. I'm not claiming this model is correct. Just to help you see that circumnavigation is easily explained on a flat plane.
    1
  2.  @algladyou  You're using double speak now. You can't say that the lighthouse is curving away to be missing half of it but then pretend that we can't tell if it's leaning back. Lol. And when the guy goes higher you can see the land and light house is still standing straight up.
    1
  3.  @anqistenning8558  The location of earth's magnetic field is where we consider north on our flat plane. We have no evidence of any universe outside of the one I am in. Universe actually means one spoken word.
    1
  4.  @algladyou  And yes being higher up will give you a better angle than being lower to the ground. Children know this you moron. Lol. You're the only person I know that believes the lower you are the farther you can see. That's right you think we're all underwater also. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  5.  @algladyou  You believe a lighthouse is missing half of it because of Earth curvature but believe we can't tell if it's leaning. Even though we're zoomed in looking at the lighthouse. Is refraction making the lighthouse stand straight up also? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  6.  @algladyou  Your degree of tilt does not match with what you believe is earth curvature. You ha video with half the lighthouse missing and the hill it was on and are crediting it to earth curve. But then say that the tilt of the building is minimal. Your curve doesn't match your tilt buddy. So we can believe that earth is massively curving with buildings minimally tilting or realize that nothing is curving. Hmmm.
    1
  7.  @algladyou  I don't know what formula you or Wolfie are using. I know that the amount of curvature to hide over half a light house and the hill it's on is quite massive. Following that curve you can't have a light house standing straight up.
    1
  8.  @algladyou  The whole point of the light house missing half of it is that it is supposed to be curving away, not standing straight. That's a contradiction to say it's curving away but standing straight. Lol.
    1
  9.  @algladyou  Please post the formula. I'm not getting how you are talking about angles with feet and inches. Perspective involves angles. You're confusing angles with feet and inches. They are not the same. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  10.  @algladyou  You said earth curves at around 69 miles per 1 degree. Lol. Do you have any evidence of that? Seems like your formula is based on your religious belief. Lol. So your .13 degree tilt is wrong. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  11.  @algladyou  Have you realized yet that you are converting incompatible units of measure? Feet doesn't convert to degrees you imbecile. 😂😂😂😂😄. Keep following Wolfie and you'll stay dumb.
    1
  12.  @algladyou  Almarjyou 2020. "You can convert feet (unit measuring length) to degrees (unit measuring angles)." Hey dumbo they are different dimensions. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. So as I said before. Can you explain how the earth could be curving away but have a light house standing straight up and not following the same curvature in the foreground? Better and simpler solution: The camera when up higher had a better viewing angle of the light house. When he zoomed in from higher up the water didn't get magnified to block his view. When he went lower and zoomed in the water was magnified and obscured the bottom of the light house.
    1
  13.  @algladyou  So hypothetically if the earth is a globe you can also use measurements of different dimensions together. I guess if we're pretending we can throw in fairies and unicorns also. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  14.  @algladyou  You're using a math that says there are minutes in a mile. And you are trying to apply this to how much buildings would be tilting if the ground beneath them were curving. If I said the tilt of the lighthouse should be 20 minutes you would probably laugh (or maybe it would make sense to you). That's the math you are using though dumbo. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  15.  @algladyou  I begged the question for you to see if the horizon was geometric. It's not. So I don't need to beg the question anymore. The geometry doesn't work. You moaned and groaned about refraction. The lighthouse is your example. Now you want to apply spherical earth math that pressupposes a sphere. Lol.
    1
  16.  @algladyou  Do you get that your math can't be trusted? The geometry doesn't work even according to you. If we throw out the math then there's no reason to believe we live on the sphere at all. And because we have tested the math and found that the horizon is not geometric there is no basis to use a radius value which the whole Heliocentrism model is based on. So you can't assume how much tilt buildings should have based on Earth radius value. And we can't assume missing feet of a light house based on Earth radius value. We can't assume the distance of lights in the sky based on the radius value.
    1
  17.  @algladyou  That being said. If the ground is curving away how can we see the light house standing straight up? Don't give me any BS math based on fairytale math either. I don't care what your religion says about the degree of tilt per mile. Your math has been disproven when you conceded that the geometry doesn't work because we're underwater. 😂😂😂😂😂😂.
    1
  18.  @algladyou  Here's the math you're try to use to dictate what we should see: "Nautical miles are based on one minute of arc on the sphere of Earth, with 60 minutes of arc per degree longitude."  Softschools.com › difference › nauti... Nautical mile vs. Mile - Softschools.com 😂😂😂😂. Do you see the problem? You're using a unit of time for a unit of length. But it doesn't even matter, because when we used normal geometry to test your radius it didn't work. So now you showing me a light house and wanting to use your math, I'm supposed to accept it? No thanks you keep measuring the lengths of objects with your watch. I'll stick to reality. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  19. “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
    1
  20. Moon certainly looks round. Earth's still flat and stationary.
    1
  21. Light. Lol.
    1
  22. I missed the joke there.
    1
  23. Yeah the old guy looked so lost. Lol.
    1
  24. I've been paying attention to this topic for some time now. There is no proof that we live on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. There are only assumptions from an original assumption that it is the Earth's shadow on the moon. From this Aristarchus assumed earth was a sphere in orbit around a distant sun. Eratostenes then came along and used the assumption of a distant sun with earth in orbit around it to deduce a circumference of the earth from shadow angles on sticks. It's all just a begging the question fallacy on steroids. Then in 1969, world leaders decided to solidify in people's minds that it is a sphere by faking the moon landing. They needed a picture to prove their assumptions. Watch "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." You'll see the astroNOTS creating a circle in the window to give the impression of a spherical earth. Then all that was needed was to show that picture and artist paintings and globes to kids in school. And to claim science so people would assume an experiment has been done. Lol. Now with the advanced technology and other outlets of information people can view the moon landing and see it was faked. People can then ask questions about what science was ever used. People have began to realize that water is level, airplanes fly level. Circumnavigation is just going in a circle. Boats don't actually go over Earth curve and can be brought back with telescopes or cameras with enough zoom. People now understand how perspective works including vanishing points and things shrinking with distance. Do your own research on each claimed proof and you will realize it's all just assumptions. Most arguments will start with you first having to assume some premises in order to draw the conclusion of a sphere. If you don't assume the premises you will get insulted and the globehead will run off. Lol.
    1
  25. There is no gravity.
    1
  26. 😂😂😂😂😂😂. No you don't.
    1
  27.  @jonc2914  You fly from Antarctica to South America. That's not flying around a spinning ball. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  28.  @jonc2914  Across Antarctica is not literally flying around a spinning ball. So when you claimed to be a pilot that has literally flown around the world you were lying?
    1
  29.  @jonc2914  You've already helped me make my point. You lied. Have a great day!
    1
  30. There is no science that proves the earth is a sphere or rotating. Please provide the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving the Earth is a sphere or rotating.
    1
  31. You can't use science to determine the shape of the earth. Science answers how and why questions (cause and effect). Shapes are a what is question. It's either you observe a sphere or you don't. Anybody claiming science proves a sphere is just trying to convince you they did an experiment when they haven't. Ask them for the scientific hypothesis for the experiment they did. They'll insult you and run away. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  32. What is gravity? Is there any scientific evidence of gravity. Please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving gravity.
    1
  33.  @cl8531  There is not a scientific hypothesis. Then there's no experiment. Then there's no scientific evidence of gravity.
    1
  34.  @cl8531  Natural phenomenons are observed. If gravity can't be observed then it's not real.
    1
  35.  @cl8531  Ad hominem attack and run off. Lol. Not looking good for the globe.
    1
  36. Your own model says Newton was wrong and Einstein replaced him in 1915. Earth is flat and stationary and there is no scientific evidence for gravity (Newton or Einstein).
    1
  37.  @nottheterminator968  "Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass."  Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity Gravity - Wikipedia
    1
  38. Globies bought moon rocks and land on the moon. Think you should talk with them about your pyramid scheme. Lol.
    1
  39.  @tommyknockers5492  They pay you for nothing. NASA is okay though because they make 22.6 billion dollars a year. Can't have gas pressure without a container. If the sky were a vacuum Earth's gas pressure would fill the available space leaving earth with no air to breathe. Gas pressure in a vacuum with no barrier, not expanding defies entropy and gas laws.
    1
  40.  @tommyknockers5492  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
    1
  41.  @GalaxyTracker  You didn't address anything he said or explain how he is stupid. You just pulled a 5 year old tactic and called him names and made assumptions about his education.
    1
  42.  @rayzen9534  Earth is flat. Can you prove otherwise?
    1
  43.  @rayzen9534  Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters, or to induce them to make false conclusions.  Literary Devices › red-herring Red Herring - Examples and Definition of Red Herring - Literary Devices
    1
  44.  @rayzen9534  The argument is about you proving the Earth is a sphere. If you can't then just say you can't. Don't change the topic to distract away from the argument.
    1
  45.  @rayzen9534  I'll take that as you conceding you have no proof that the earth is a sphere. Lol.
    1
  46.  @antegelo8809  Using modus tollens the globe is debunked. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p) then the distance to the horizon can never be more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer height (q), the distance to the horizon has been filmed to be over 10 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). So we now know that the earth can't be a sphere as the heliocentric model claims because the geometry doesn't work. Seeing lights in the sky through a telescope can't change the fact that the ground you live on has been proven to not be a sphere. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  47.  @andrewbordeaux1344  You have not seen another fixed point in the sky. And saying hemispheres is a begging the question fallacy where your premises (hemispheres) assume your desired conclusion that the earth is a sphere. Let me guess, you will now proceed to post star trails videos. Lol. I can post spiral trails videos also, because it's easy to use photo shop and create star trails that are not a real representation of the sky.
    1
  48.  @andrewbordeaux1344  Here's spiral star trails. Did you fall for this? Lol. https://youtu.be/_XiIRozt8iU
    1
  49.  @andrewbordeaux1344  Equator is a begging the question fallacy also as it pressupposes a sphere. Lol.
    1
  50.  @andrewbordeaux1344  And all people studying astronomy are not here. You're the one here lying about stars. Nobody can see star trails. It's done using photo shop. 😂😂😂😂
    1