Comments by "T Brown" (@tbrown3356) on "Flat Earther vs Scientist: Does Flat Earth Theory Make Sense? | Agree To Disagree | LADbible" video.

  1. Put an old man in front of him talking about philosophy. Lol.
    39
  2.  @mrxexes  People get sick so that would be feeling a virus. And the fact that we never experience earth moving coupled with no evidence we are logically makes sense that earth is not moving. Add to that earth doesn't turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane, I'd say it's very clear earth is stationary. But you can still choose to believe that we are whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. Lol.
    5
  3. Neil Degrasse Tyson says you can't see curvature from 120,000 feet up. Not going to see it from 35,000 feet up. Lol.
    5
  4. Science is not a person but a method that validates cause-and-effect relationships. Science is also not a concensus. Look up scientific method.
    4
  5.  @Captain_Pudding  You are in serious denial if you can't see the horizon behind the second platform, or you need your eyes checked. Lol. You don't get to just declare where the horizon is. It's that crystal clear line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. Lol. Now you'll carry on about me being a troll and pretend that you don't see the debunking of your sphere model. That or you'll claim refraction has moved your sphere edge from being in front of the platforms to magically being behind the platforms. Lol.
    4
  6.  @jonathanconnor7920  A video from a different day. Lol. Your physical sphere edge can't be moving from day to day. Just one day of it being farther than 9 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height debunks it being a sphere. Hence the name black swan.
    4
  7.  @arkimus1911  Doesn't matter how much distortion is on the platforms. They are set at a distance. The only purpose for them is to show you globeheads that the horizon is farther than your sphere allows. RIP globe. Lol. Now you grow up. Everything you were taught as a kid is not true. Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the globe are all just fun stories but as an adult are absurd. Lol.
    4
  8.  @jonathanconnor7920  Nobody makes 3 right angle turns to form a triangle. Your triangle argument is conceptual. And the black swan destroys the sphere. Just takes one day of a geometric impossibility to prove that we don't live on a sphere. In reality there are many black swans.
    4
  9.  @jonathanconnor7920  Another video from a different day. Is your sphere only a sphere on most days? Lol. Refraction cannot move the horizon if it's earth curve from being in front of platforms one day and behind them on another day. Lol. Refraction is not magic. Lol.
    4
  10.  @jonathanconnor7920  Are you going to show refraction moving a physical barrier from in front of an object to behind it? Or do you concede that refraction can't do this but you believe in magic? Lol.
    4
  11.  @jarodstrain8905  From Jonathan who claimed refraction is making us see through earth curve. Lol. You have yet a different story about seeing around objects. Lol. That's just as magical. You want people to believe we are seeing over Earth curve and objects are then made to appear standing perpendicular. Lol. Globies believe they can see through and over physical barriers now. Lol. Anything to hold on to your model.
    4
  12.  @jonathanconnor7920  You believe I have lost an argument when you have 3 globies here with 3 different stories. Captain sees the horizon obstructing the platforms. Jonathan believes refraction brings the horizon from in front of the platforms to behind like magic. Jarod beliefs we are seeing over Earth curve to objects behind it like magic. So we have 1 blind guy and 2 guys believing in magic. Lol.
    4
  13.  @jarodstrain8905  And you just literally typed that we don't see physical objects. WTF? Lol. You are so lost. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    4
  14.  @Captain_Pudding  Your original claim was the horizon is obstructing the platforms. Decided to use the refraction argument now? Lol.
    4
  15. Well it was fun making you globies squeal. Gotta get back to reality now guys. Carry on talking about magic. Lol.
    4
  16. Yeah I wish the claimed scientist would have actually said something scientific. Lol.
    4
  17. "Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity Gravity - Wikipedia 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" Sounds like Newton was wrong in your own religion/model. Gravity is just assumed and can't be scientifically proven.
    4
  18. What? Now you have to make up arguments to argue against. Ever heard of straw man fallacy? Lol.
    4
  19. The old guy was not that loud. Lol.
    4
  20. CC.12 The Coriolis Effect : When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to                     ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line APPEAR to travel in a curved path on the Earth.” Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders — CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html We now know that earth is stationary and there is no earth-based coriolis. If the earth turned then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    4
  21.  @beelzzebub  Appeal to concensus fallacy. The truth doesn't depend on if Majority of people believe it. "In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so". Wikipedia
    4
  22. I walked "around" my house today. Is my house a sphere? Lol.
    3
  23.  @algladyou  I'm curious what is predicted by the earth being a sphere? Predictions of eclipses and star paths were being done long before people imagined being in a sphere.
    3
  24.  @mynameray2320  Models are reifications and not reality. But if you want proof the earth is not a sphere. Here you go: It uses modus tollens. 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 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon in the video below is more than 9 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). RIP Globe!!! https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    3
  25.  @mynameray2320  The geometry is based on your globes claimed radius. So you're under the magical belief that a physical sphere edge can be moved from in front of objects to behind them. Lol. Can you demonstrate refraction ever doing this?
    3
  26. The lights in the sky don't cause the land we live on's shape. Your logic is flawed.
    3
  27. "Excelsior College › owl Ad Hominem Fallacy - Excelsior College OWL Ad Hominem Fallacy. Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument."
    3
  28.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Globies ask for evidence and handwaved dismiss it when they get it. Lol. Refraction does not allow us to see through the ground and also make the land we see through the ground stand perpendicular. Lol.
    3
  29.  @jonathanconnor7920  In reality nobody ever makes 3 right angle turns to form a triangle. But in your imagination you can say due this and due that for directions and pretend that you did it. But if you stick to just north, east, south, west directions it can't be done. Only in your imagination. And again a video from a different day doesn't address having the horizon be farther than where it must be in order to be a sphere.
    3
  30.  @arkimus1911  Beep wrong. Lol. Strong argument there. Lol.
    3
  31.  @jonathanconnor7920  The propane tank doesn't move the propane tank behind the object. What you have to demonstrate is that a physical object in front of an object can be magically moved behind the object. Good luck 👍
    3
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @Captain_Pudding  We only have 1 place where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. Just one horizon. Lol.
    3
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @Captain_Pudding  Your model must have a geometric horizon. But the black swan debunked that.
    3
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42. 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
  43.  @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
  44. Yeah globies will believe anything.
    3
  45.  @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
  46. 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
  47. “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
  48.  @DANGJOS  Prove it is a sphere. Don't just declare it.
    3
  49. 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
  50.  @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
  51. You spelled "stupid" wrong stupid. Lol.
    3
  52.  @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
  53.  @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
  54.  @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
  55.  @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
  56.  @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
  57.  @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
  58.  @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
  59.  @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
  60.  @negatorxx  I see Out of Time already tried to explain this to you. Lol. Keep worshipping the heliocentrism religion. Lol.
    3
  61.  @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
  62.  @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
  63.  @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
  64.  @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
  65. 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
  66.  @nr197  Take it easy. Appreciate the peaceful dialogue.
    3
  67. Yeah he destroyed the old guy with that one. Lol.
    2
  68. Bullied on a comment section? Lol.
    2
  69. Lol. It didn't stand out that a claimed scientist provided no science. Lol. Just tone of voices. Lol.
    2
  70.  @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
  71. Go easy on the old guy. He's been brainwashed. Lol.
    2
  72. Don't be so mean to the old guy, he's been brainwashed.
    2
  73.  @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
  74. 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
  75.  @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
  76.  @DrFreakishfreak  It should not require you to do research. It's basic knowledge right? Lol. Seeing what you believe are spheres through a telescope proves what? Satellites are not taking pictures of Earth because they are claimed to be in a region violating natural and gas laws. So are you telling me that without the belief in outerspace you don't have any proof that we live on a sphere? So then there is no proof because natural and gas laws debunk outerspace.
    2
  77.  @beelzzebub  Can't answer the devastating question can you? Lol.
    2
  78.  @beelzzebub  There is no scientific community. Science is a method. You either use the scientific method or not. Heliocentrism is a religion that people are free to believe in. I'm not trying to make people give up their religion. Just don't claim it's science. And don't call people morons for not following your Heliocentrism model/religion.
    2
  79.  @beelzzebub  You just had your model destroyed and went through stages of grief. You started off with denial, then anger, bargaining and some more anger. Now you're right back to denial. I thought you might get to sadness and eventually acceptance. Lol. You're not ready to give up your religion yet. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    2
  80.  @7c233  And you believe that the air is tethered to the ground. 😂😂😂😂😂😂. "When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to     *ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY*" Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders — CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html That means the air is NOT tethered to the ground you moron. The air is freely moving. The air is gas. Gas has no bonds. It's not a liquid or solid you nutcase. Lol. So a helicopter going straight up would have the earth rotating underneath. Destinations would come to it. But that doesn't happen does it? Earth is stationary.
    2
  81. The so called scientist didn't provide any science. Lol.
    2
  82.  @_RobBanks  day/night, seasons, time zones? Yes all of those things happen on our flat plane.
    2
  83.  @outoftime7740  You are having too much fun destroying these globies on here. They'll be having nightmares about this. Lol. I'm enjoying it though. KrisP chicken still asking about boats over the horizon in 2020. Lol. And he thinks he can see forever. Superman vision. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    2
  84.  @rectilprojectil1069  KrisP if you keep west you'll make a circle. If you keep east you'll make a circle. Lol. Sorry Out Of Time. I had to get him. I'm sure you're tired of answering dumb questions. Lol.
    2
  85. Newton believed there was a pull between objects that was relative to the mass of objects. We now know that the earth is flat and stationary, so that would make Newton categorically wrong. Even in your own model gravity is no longer defined as a force but rather the bending of concepts (space time). Lol.
    2
  86.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You don't know it. I do. The earth is flat and stationary and there is no need for any imaginary forces to hold together a heliocentrism model. So in reality Newton was categorically wrong. And you just admitted that in your own model he was wrong. Now define gravity and tell me where it is observed in nature.
    2
  87. That was a great point. Why should we assume we are moving?
    1
  88.  @stratfreak76  Why are you talking about a car which is actually moving. I asked why we should assume the earth is moving. Lol. Go ahead and tell me about other things that actually move. It still doesn't prove the Earth is moving. That's just an assumption.
    1
  89.  @stratfreak76  So do you have any evidence that the earth is moving or you want to talk about cars moving? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  90.  @stratfreak76  So you are going to talk about cars moving. Lol. The debate is about earth moving. Lol. We don't observe or experience this, so if you are going to tell me we are moving then you need to prove it. Talking about moving cars is not proving the Earth is moving.
    1
  91.  @stratfreak76  Furthermore the comment was made in response to the pseudoscientist bringing up Occam's Razor (if there are a given set of explanations, the simplest one is most likely correct). So the simplest explanation to not feeling earth is moving is that it's not moving. You missed the point and have lost your credibility.
    1
  92. Newton was wrong and his concept was replaced in 1915 by Einstein.
    1
  93. Trump believes in the globe and has a space force. Lol. You should love him.
    1
  94. Flat Earth society is set up to deceive people into believing that this is what flat Earth is. It's not. Google Nathan Oakley 1980 for real arguments.
    1
  95.  Samael Levithan  You are correct. There is no magical force holding us down. The current rhetoric is actually space time being warped by mass and gravity not being a force. Warping concepts. Lol.
    1
  96. Flat Earth is not a theory. The earth is flat and stationary. And yes governments are lying to people. And satanists do worship Satan. If you don't believe in God then you are a child of Satan.
    1
  97. "Excelsior College › owl Ad Hominem Fallacy - Excelsior College OWL Ad Hominem Fallacy. Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument."
    1
  98. Go easy on the old guy. Lol.
    1
  99.  @globestrikeback1888  It's just a simulation.
    1
  100.  @globestrikeback1888  No, Google Earth is a simulation. Lol.
    1
  101.  @globestrikeback1888  We don't live on a sphere so it's pointless to use sphere trigonometry. Lol.
    1
  102.  @globestrikeback1888  What you do is babble on about navigation systems. Not realizing that they all depict a flat map to guide people around. Nobody ever has to account for curvature. And your claim that the only way to accurately find the distance between destinations is using spherical trigonometry is not true. Distances can be measured.
    1
  103.  @globestrikeback1888  Lastly, heading is begging the question of a sphere because it assumes true north which refers to earth being on an axis. I've had this conversation with you before, but you continue to be deceptive.
    1
  104.  @globestrikeback1888  When you say heading you will change the actual direction the person is traveling to the assumed globehead direction which is based on traveling over a sphere. But in reality you are traveling level over a plane and never down a ball. I know the trick you are using buddy. Lol.
    1
  105.  @globestrikeback1888  Definitions exposing your trick: "Heading is typically based on compass directions, so 0° (or 360°) indicates a direction toward true North, 90° indicates a direction toward true East, 180° is true South, and 270° is true West."  Wikipedia › wiki › Heading_(navig... Heading (navigation) - Wikipedia
    1
  106.  @globestrikeback1888  "true north noun north according to the earth's axis, not magnetic north." "compass readings vary from 7.9° to 6.7° west of true north"
    1
  107.  @globestrikeback1888  Do you see how you are committing a begging the question fallacy where your arguments premises "heading, true north" assume the truth of the conclusion (ie. earth is a sphere)? If I don't accept "heading" or "true north" can you tell me what directions I would need to travel? This would mean using magnetic north only to determine directions. So when you say traveling north, you are actually talking about magnetic north. And south will be just away from magnetic north not down a sphere. I guarantee you it won't be traveling over a sphere but rather the plane that is our reality. Lol.
    1
  108.  @globestrikeback1888  That's the assumption. Earth's flat so there's no need for declination. In reality magnetic north is the correct north. Don't you find it funny how your model always needs corrections or adjustments to be made. Compasses work fine on our flat plane.
    1
  109.  @globestrikeback1888  I posted the definition for "heading." You can't argue with the definition. Lol.
    1
  110.  @globestrikeback1888  Without using heading you are not able to perform your deception. You're like a magician who has had his trick exposed. There's nothing left for you to argue about. Continuing to try to do your trick is pathetic. Lol.
    1
  111.  @globestrikeback1888  Sorry buddy but you are guilty of model reification. The map is not the terrain. You're changing directions and trying to make reality conform to your model. Lol. But at the same time holding onto a belief that your model always works. If that were true you wouldn't need declination and need to deny compasses. Lol. You also would not need deceptive words like heading to make believe you're on a sphere.
    1
  112.  @globestrikeback1888  People can identify north 2 ways. There's the north star Polaris. And then there's magnetic north. Earth has no poles, so claiming a geographic north is a begging the question fallacy. You have to prove we are on a sphere first before claiming a geographic north (North Pole). So if you don't accept the magnetic north, then you only have the north star. You don't get to turn directions away from magnetic north and the north star into true north ( ie. south down a ball).
    1
  113. Stop whining. The pseudoscientist couldn't prove the globe. He chose to talk about philosophy. Lol.
    1
  114. If you like this topic check out this show. https://youtu.be/BjnuU2n5JMM
    1
  115. 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
  116.  @Jacob-jj8gi  We have never been to the moon. Please don't try to argue for others.
    1
  117.  @jameslegrand848  But why what?
    1
  118.  @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
  119.  @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
  120.  @berenjor  "*”How do you have Gas Pressure WITHOUT a Container ??”* .
    1
  121.  @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
  122.  @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
  123. Stop whining. The old guy lost.
    1
  124. Go easy on the old guy. Lol.
    1
  125. He's wrong because of his dental work? Lol. Now that's just dumb. Lol.
    1
  126.  @algladyou  "By 8 B.C. the Chinese could predict eclipses by using the 135 month period; and by A.D. 206 they could predict eclipses by analyzing the motion of the moon. By A.D. 390 they could predict how much of the moon would be in shadow. ... One of the most important events to predict were eclipses."  https://www.quora.com › How-did-a... How did ancient people calculate eclipses? - Quora
    1
  127.  @mynameray2320  Don't just handwave dismiss your sphere not matching with geometry. There should be earth curvature obstructing objects but it's not there. Lol. Your model/religion must have a geometric horizon (earth curve) but it's been debunked. So now that it's been proven that the horizon is not earth curve, you can become a flat Earther where we know the horizon is caused by perspective. Address this and then I will address your stars question.
    1
  128.  @algladyou  Do you see the edge of the propane tank? I need you to show that edge magically be moved behind the object. Lol. Refraction can't move a physical barrier behind an object that it is in front of. Lol.
    1
  129.  @algladyou  Refraction can loom objects from below the horizon, sink objects from above the horizon, stretch and stoop objects. But it can't move the horizon from in front of objects to behind objects. Lol. In your model the horizon is earth curve and is a physical barrier obstructing objects. Lol. We did the geometry and oops it's not where it must be. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  130.  @algladyou  So unless you can show a physical barrier behind moved from in front of an object to behind it, you don't get to claim refraction can do magic. Good luck 👍
    1
  131.  @algladyou  There is a horizon. That's the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles it would be there at 1.2 miles away using geometry. It's farther than 9 miles away. That's a geometric impossibility. So if you are saying that the horizon we see is refracted then it's not geometric. Your model must have a geometric horizon (earth curve). We only have one horizon and you are saying it's optical. Welcome to flat Earth!!!
    1
  132.  @algladyou  In my video the observer height is 1 foot. That means the distance to the horizon must be no more than 1.2 miles away. If it's ever more then we don't have a physical geometric edge of a sphere as the horizon. Once it's been debunked as geometric it can't go back to being geometric. The horizon we see is not geometric as you admitted when you said it's refracted. Lol. Unfortunately, it's supposed to be your sphere edge. Thanks for the assistance with debunking the globe. You can show me as many videos from different days as you like but we proved the horizon is not earth curve.
    1
  133.  @algladyou  I'm not sure why you are talking about lighthouses missing something. We know that the horizon is not earth curve. Now when you see the sun go over the horizon, remember it didn't go over Earth curve. Lol. You have no choice now but to study up on perspective. Good luck 👍
    1
  134.  @algladyou  So you are saying that the lower we get to the ground, the farther the distance to the horizon is? You're a moron. Lol. One last time, I will try to help you understand. If the horizon we see is farther than where the geometry places your claimed earth curve then the horizon can't be earth curve ever. It's been disproven. That's the end of the globe which must have a geometric horizon. I know you won't get this. Lol.
    1
  135.  @algladyou  Almarjyou 2020 "You can see farther the lower you are to the ground." That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.
    1
  136.  @algladyou  So if you know you can see farther higher up, then explain why you are arguing that an observer at 1 foot height can see the horizon over 9 miles away. Why was your sphere edge missing from 1.2 miles away? Also, what is your basis for saying we should see everything on our flat plane? Please don't tell me it's a simulation or drawing.
    1
  137.  @algladyou  I just watched the video you made and left you a nice comment. I'm embarrassed for you. You literally used a pillow and some blocks and declared what refraction would do on your pillow models. Then ended with "explain this", like you did something. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  138.  @algladyou  So if the horizon is earth curve, how can it be behind the platform on one day and in front of it on another? Do you realize you are saying your physical sphere edge is moving?
    1
  139.  @algladyou  Just one argument at a time. You're bouncing all over the place. So if the horizon is earth curve, how can it be behind the platform on one day and in front of it on another? Do you realize you are saying your physical sphere edge is moving?
    1
  140.  @algladyou  Is the horizon earth curve?
    1
  141.  @algladyou  Can you answer my question? Because we're talking around each other. Is the horizon earth curve?
    1
  142.  @algladyou  I asked if the horizon was earth curve. Yes or no?
    1
  143.  @algladyou  Just calm down. You're freaking out. Lol. Is the horizon earth curve? Simple yes or no.
    1
  144.  @algladyou  Sounds like you are saying that the horizon is earth curve. Yes or no?
    1
  145.  @algladyou  Is it starting register to you why your globe is debunked. Answer the question. Is the horizon earth curve?
    1
  146.  @algladyou  Let me help you out. Here's what your model/religion says. "The old saying turns out to be just about true. For a six-foot tall person, the horizon is a little more than 3 miles (5 km) away. Geometry tells us that the distance of the horizon – i.e. the farthest point the eye can see before Earth curves out beneath our view – depends simply on the height of the observer.Sep 12, 2012"  https://www.livescience.com › 3211... How Far Away is the Horizon? | Live Science
    1
  147.  @algladyou  Do you agree with your model/religion?
    1
  148.  @algladyou  Are you conceding? You won't answer me. Lol.
    1
  149.  @algladyou  If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles, there is a set distance where it must be curving away (geometric horizon). If that distance is ever farther than geometrically possible, bye bye globe. Your globe can't grow and shrink. At least that hasn't been made up yet. That will be the new theory. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  150.  @algladyou  In reality, on our flat plane the horizon is the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. It's how optics work. We see with perspective. Things in the distance get smaller and parallel lines appear to converge creating a vanishing point. There's also angular resolution effects. We know that boats don't go over Earth curve. And now that I have shown you that the horizon can't be earth curve you don't have a sphere.
    1
  151.  @algladyou  And until you can demonstrate refraction moving a physical barrier from in front of an object to behind it you don't have an argument. I don't care what you believe refraction can do. You have to prove it. Good luck 👍
    1
  152.  @algladyou  That is the point my special friend. Do you believe that is earth curve moving closer and farther or are you ready to concede that the horizon is not earth curve? 😂😂😂😂😂😂. You just debunked yourself. Keep showing that video. Then show it on different days. It all just proves that the horizon is not earth curve.
    1
  153.  @algladyou  A flat plane going in front of something. Lol. That's what happens you moron. Lol. The parallel lines converging is the horizon. You see it everyday. The alternative was that the horizon is earth curve. Well we disproved that being the case. Unless people still believe that refraction can magically grow and shrink the size of the earth.
    1
  154.  @algladyou  Refraction made you look a further curve? Lol. So you saw past the earth curve to another earth curve? Lol. I guess you can just make this stuff up as you go. Lol.
    1
  155.  @algladyou  You're delusional. I have to go. You're just making things up now. "We saw over the curve to the second curve because of refraction." Almarjyou 2020.
    1
  156.  @algladyou  "Of course a curve is also on top of the atmosphere making it can be seen." Almarjyou 2020. Lol.
    1
  157.  @shayandatta408  Nobody really cares what you think. It's been proven that heliocentrism is a lie.
    1
  158.  @anqistenning8558  Funny how you don't know that. Even funnier you think the lights in the sky causes the ground we live on to be a sphere.
    1
  159.  @anqistenning8558  Bruh round is not the same as spherical is it? Bruh, how does your telescope looking at round lights in the sky prove the ground we live on is a sphere? Bruh it's been proven that the ground we live on is missing a key quality to be a sphere. Curvature. Lol. But keep playing with your telescope imagining things you can't prove.
    1
  160.  @algladyou  Yes the sky and ground (which is level plane) converge with distance to give us the horizon which obscures objects. You already admitted that the horizon is not geometric. If it's light bending, then that's optical effects and not physical earth curve. Your religion must have a geometric horizon not a refracted one. We only have one horizon and you admitted it's not geometric. Thanks!
    1
  161.  @algladyou  Are you that gullible to fall for a video that has used an angle of view that zooms in on the water in front to create the horizon? Lol. Is that the earth curving to you? But the things behind the horizon all being perfectly level and perpendicular didn't tip you off that nothing is curving. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  162.  @algladyou  Your video just demonstrated how the horizon has nothing to do with earth curve. You can position your camera and zoom the right way and create the horizon (line where the sky meets the surface) to look like a plane is below the sea. And you just showed level water (flat plane) obscuring objects. The very thing you don't think is possible. You really are special. 😂😂😂😂
    1
  163.  @anqistenning8558  I make no claims about lights in the sky I have never been to. That's what globies do. You can't see curvature at 40,000 ft. Your high priest Neil Degrasse Tyson even says that from 128,000 feet you cannot see curvature. "That stuff is flat." Lol.
    1
  164.  @anqistenning8558  Yes we have seasons and cycles and the earth is flat. I'm not going to beg the question for you and discuss latitude because latitude and longitude are positions on a sphere right? So physics student. Can you give me the dependent variable (natural observed phenomenon) and independent variable (assumed cause of Naturally observed phenomenon) of any experiment proving something about seasons is caused by earth being a sphere or moving? Go.
    1
  165.  @anqistenning8558  When it comes to your religion, I think him being a world renowned astrophysicist trumps your idiot claim of seeing curvature at 40,000 feet.
    1
  166.  @anqistenning8558  Here's your high priest himself. https://youtu.be/YSg2DLWNIKg
    1
  167.  @anqistenning8558  Science is not a concensus. It's a method validating cause and effect relationships in the physical and natural world.
    1
  168.  @anqistenning8558  Notice how I asked for you to give me a dependent variable and independent variable for any experiment ever done proving seasons are caused by a spherical earth or Earth moving; and you just went on a long rant about what your religion says?
    1
  169.  @anqistenning8558  Every photo you take with the ground in it is a flat Earth photo.
    1
  170.  @anqistenning8558  Your evidence is just concensus. You're missing the science. Lol.
    1
  171.  @anqistenning8558  Is your proof telling me that earth is too big to tell if it's a sphere? That's not proving it's a sphere.
    1
  172.  @anqistenning8558  I'm not asking you to make excuses for why no one ever observes or experiences earth curvature. I'm asking you to prove it is a sphere. It's ok to say you just believe it because that's what you were told as a child.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  173.  @anqistenning8558  Having weather doesn't prove a sphere. Lol. And earthquakes don't prove a sphere. Gravity has never been proven. It's currently being defined as curving or warping concepts. And we are not in any orbit. Was this your best evidence of the Earth being a sphere? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  174.  @algladyou  We've already agreed that there is no geometric horizon. Your model needs a physical edge obscuring objects not light bending and perspective. Are you trying to tell me you're a flat Earther now? So when globies believe boats have gone over the horizon, I expect you to tell them it's just how the light is bending. Has nothing to do with a physical earth curve.
    1
  175.  @algladyou  Do you have any more videos demonstrating that light bending and perspective is what obscures objects? Unfortunately, for you globies you need to show that the horizon is earth curve. Lol.
    1
  176.  @algladyou  You said "perspective has to have the same distance with the sky." What? I'm not sure what you are even talking about. Then you said the geometric horizon can be moved. Lol. That would make it no longer match the geometry. Do you even understand what you are saying?
    1
  177.  @algladyou  You've given up your earth curve. Lol. So now you have your answer to why we can't see forever. It's perspective and refraction (light bending). Why is part of the mountain or light house missing? It's perspective and light bending. Where does the sun go. It's obscured by perspective and light bending. Welcome to flat Earth buddy. Good to have you. I've been trying to explain this to globies, but you really grasp the fact that optics and light effects are what creates the horizon. Lol.
    1
  178.  @algladyou  You've already demonstrated how camera angling can produce obscuring with a flat plane. Nice videos. Loved the airplane one because it clearly shows how everything is level in the background, but still there is that line in the foreground that could cause people to think earth curve. But you're too smart for that now. Then your other videos beautifully display that refraction can create obscuring of objects moving the horizon closer and further. There are many globies that still believe the horizon iss earth curving away. Let's get the word out that the horizon is not geometric and earth curve. Lol.
    1
  179.  @algladyou  I never claimed to have the distance or size of the sun. But it seems you are saying that the distance to the horizon is caused by light bending and optics. But at the same time now trying to say it's geometric. Can't be both. I'm going to need you to decide.
    1
  180.  @algladyou  The distance to the horizon was your proof that the earth is a sphere. You demonstrated that light bending can change the distance to the horizon by over 9 miles. So we don't have a geometric horizon. Congratulations!
    1
  181.  @algladyou  Globies always ask why we can't see all the way across our flat plane. You're saying light bends and atmosphere. So that should answer the globies. I would add that objects shrink with distance. But let's not confuse globies too much.Lol. I'm not sure what you are asking about the plane and sun. You've already demonstrated how the light bends and obscures objects. Now you don't believe what you have been arguing about. So it's Refraction when it doesn't suit your model but earth curve when you feel it matches your model. That's cherry picking. Lol.
    1
  182.  @algladyou  And you don't get to say where perspective limits occur. I'm not even sure what you saying 2 miles top, bottom 5 or 6 even means. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  183.  @algladyou  I've shown you a video of the horizon being farther than 9 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height. You said the horizon is refracted (ie. not geometric). I say okay welcome to flat Earth where we know the horizon distance is not earth curve. Then you sent even more videos showing that the horizon is not physical earth curve. I think we are agreeing. Lol.
    1
  184.  @algladyou  Let's try it this way. If the distance to the horizon which is in your model earth curve is proof of your curve and you demonstrate that the distance to the horizon is not fixed, and the geometry doesn't work we still see a horizon. Haven't you just debunked your own model which held that the horizon was earth curve? You just proved that we can still see the horizon and it's not earth curve. Are you starting to get it?
    1
  185.  @algladyou  The plane video you sent is the camera man zooming in on the water in the foreground. Do you think the water was earth curve and then the hoses plane and everything in the background just decided to not follow the curve and be perpendicular and level to the water? You are an idiot. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  186.  @algladyou  This has dragged on long enough. You've disproven your own model but you're too dumb to get it.
    1
  187.  @algladyou  Pay attention. The distance to the horizon was your proof that the earth curves. You proved that the distance to the horizon is not geometric. Your model must have a geometric horizon, meaning a fixed distance to the horizon. You keep showing that the distance to the horizon is not fixed or geometric. I don't know how else to explain it to you. So I am going to wish you well. Maybe later it will sink in that you can't claim earth curve obstructing anymore because you debunked it yourself.
    1
  188.  @anqistenning8558  So now you are saying that there is no refraction while your slow globehead friend is saying that the horizon is refracted. Lol.
    1
  189.  @algladyou  I needed a break from your stupidity. Lol. The argument is this. Your model says the horizon is the farthest you can see before earth curves away. So we would see a line all the way across our view. Realistically things beyond that line wouldn't be perpendicular either as they'd be following the curve of the earth. We'll ignore that for now. That line has a distance based on the geometry of your sphere model's radius. From an observer at 1 foot height that line must be there at 1.2 miles away. It would always be in front of the both platforms if the earth is a sphere. In the video it's over 9 miles away and we know this because the second platform is 9.41 miles away. Your claim that refraction can move this line from in front of the platforms to behind the platforms means that the line is no longer geometric. It's also not possible to do as the same refraction would also move the platforms. We still see the horizon however (the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. So we now know that the horizon we see is not dependent on earth curve as it's not geometric. You showing me objects you're putting in water or a propane tank with playdough being lifted slightly to show more of it does not change the fact that the horizon is not earth curve. We've proven that we can have horizons where earth curve can't be. Do you get that the line we see is not earth curve but in your model it must be always. One time that it's not, you can't ever claim again that it is what it's been shown to not be. Even worse, there has been many other videos showing that it's not earth curve because it's too far to be.
    1
  190.  @algladyou  And the horizon is not in question. The horizon is real. The distance to the horizon is what either proves or disproves your sphere.
    1
  191.  @algladyou  Not talking about the platform or anything else but the distance to the horizon. If it's behind the second platform then it's over 9.41 miles away. That means we're looking at a horizon that is not based on the geometry of where your sphere must be curving.
    1
  192.  @algladyou  I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate by dipping something in water. The video I sent you has a clear horizon behind the second platform. That horizon can't be earth curve. It's too far.
    1
  193.  @algladyou  And the video with the plane uses Atmospheric magnification effect. Here it is demonstrated. https://youtu.be/bbzfQ8v_JZk
    1
  194.  @algladyou  I'm not talking about your dumb water video. I'm talking about the airplane video. Where you think the water in front is earth curve. Lol.
    1
  195.  @algladyou  So what makes more sense Atmospheric magnification or the water being earth curve with everything in the background not curving? Hmmm. Lol.
    1
  196. You're dipping objects in water and trying to make sense out of it. Lol. Now you and I have both demonstrated horizons that are not earth curve. Only problem is your model needs a geometric horizon. We keep showing that it's not earth curve. I've shown a horizon being farther than possible. You've shown a horizon created by Atmospheric magnification. Neither are earth curve. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  197.  @algladyou  I'm not talking about any cup. We know a cup is curved. I'm talking about the distance to the horizon being geometric or not. I don't know what you are trying to prove with your cup. The Atmospheric magnification was in response to your video about the airplane. You keep wanting to talk about dipping something in water. It's not comparable to reality and what we see in my video. Unless you think we're all underwater. The horizon is clearly behind the second platform.
    1
  198.  @algladyou  If you put a flat object in water it will do the same thing. We're trying to prove that the earth is curving. That's done by using geometry to see if it curves based on the sphere radius. You're saying look I dipped something in water and the line moved. One, that's not the same as our atmo because we're not underwater. Two, it doesn't change the fact that the horizon we see is not geometric.
    1
  199.  @algladyou  I don't care about a cup. I'm not sure what you are referring to with a cup. Atmospheric magnification is what was happening in your airplane video. Why is that not registering with you.
    1
  200.  @algladyou  Your propane tank doesn't move the edge of the propane tank behind the playdough. And Atmospheric magnification is with the water being magnified to create a horizon line. Like in your airplane video. It's not actually a plane below earth curve.
    1
  201.  @algladyou  I give you a real world example of your globe being debunked and you start showing me objects in water. Now we all have to pretend that we live under water so you can hold on to your religion. Water is a different medium and will bend light. But our air is not placing physical barriers behind objects it should be in front of. You have some serious issues if you believe that. See how your propane tank video barely showed another color and just briefly. Are you dumb enough to believe that from that video physical barriers are being placed miles away?
    1
  202.  @algladyou  The tank is too small to see. I bet you hear that a lot. Lol. And I posted a video showing how Atmospheric magnification works. It's what is happening in your airplane video. I have not seen any lighthouse videos. It's likely perspective. Objects shrinking with distance.
    1
  203.  @algladyou  Here's the same debunking of your globe on a different day. Is it also Refraction? Were we underwater that day also? https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  204.  @algladyou  And more. Lol. https://youtu.be/U8rMbjcKS3A
    1
  205.  @algladyou  Are you seriously going to deny your own eyes? https://youtu.be/knXKKPeGZ3c
    1
  206.  @algladyou  Lol. Denial. It's all a refraction. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  207.  @algladyou  What am I supposed to be seeing in your video. He shows a day where he is higher up and had a better angle and can see more of the lighthouse. Then he goes down lower and he can't see as much of it. That's the same whether flat or curved earth. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  208.  @algladyou  I'm not sure what you are even saying. It's clearly not earth curve. The fact that the lighthouse is standing perpendicular (straight up) and not leaning back is proof nothing is curving. And you seriously don't know that going lower gives you less of a viewing angle? So when you zoom in it's going to magnify the water that's now in your viewing angle creating the line across the screen. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the lenses statements. I guess you have an inside joke with yourself. Lol. Why do you think the lighthouse is not leaning back if the earth is curving away?
    1
  209.  @anqistenning8558  I'm not sure why globies believe that there is an edge. You've been looking at too many models. The earth is the dry land we live on. It's surrounded by a lot of water. How far it goes is unknown. Is there more dry land out there? Who knows. My guess is that there is containment for the water and we know gas pressure requires a container. Funny that you don't demand there be an edge to the universe. It can go on and on without question.
    1
  210.  @anqistenning8558  Circumnavigating is going around the dry land. If I stay east using a compass I'm just making a circle. Because north is in the center and south is away from the center.
    1
  211.  @anqistenning8558  And earth is a plane we live on. It is our universe. We don't know if the water ever ends. You're just living on a model that has made earth a ball.
    1
  212.  @anqistenning8558  The Antarctica surrounding us is just a model also.
    1
  213.  @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
  214.  @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
  215.  @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
  216.  @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
  217.  @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
  218.  @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
  219.  @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
  220.  @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
  221.  @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
  222.  @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
  223.  @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
  224.  @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
  225.  @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
  226.  @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
  227.  @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
  228.  @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
  229.  @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
  230.  @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
  231. “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
  232. Light. Lol.
    1
  233. I missed the joke there.
    1
  234. Yeah the old guy looked so lost. Lol.
    1
  235. 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
  236. There is no gravity.
    1
  237. 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
  238. 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
  239. 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
  240.  @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
  241.  @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
  242.  @rayzen9534  Earth is flat. Can you prove otherwise?
    1
  243.  @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
  244.  @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
  245.  @rayzen9534  I'll take that as you conceding you have no proof that the earth is a sphere. Lol.
    1
  246.  @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
  247.  @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
  248.  @andrewbordeaux1344  Here's spiral star trails. Did you fall for this? Lol. https://youtu.be/_XiIRozt8iU
    1
  249.  @andrewbordeaux1344  Equator is a begging the question fallacy also as it pressupposes a sphere. Lol.
    1
  250.  @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
  251.  @andrewbordeaux1344  See what?
    1
  252.  @andrewbordeaux1344  There is no southern celestial pole because there's no southern geographic pole. But since you have taken a class, go ahead and post some of your evidence. Please don't let it be star trails videos. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  253.  @antegelo8809  Don't handwave dismiss Sergi's argument about flights. Here it is in more detail: "A Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both ‘allegedly’ spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ 1.5 hours !!  (But it’s ~ 4.5 hrs’ !! ) Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph." Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph “Alleged” rotation speed = 1360 mph. https://globeterminator.com/coriolis/
    1
  254.  @andrewbordeaux1344  Sounds like your Southern Crux rotates around the sky and it's not stationary like Polaris. "As the Southern Cross spins around the sky once a day we can use it to find the time as long as we know the date. The diagram above illustrates how the Cross changes its orientation during a night in mid June. A similar scheme can be used during other months.Aug 4, 2010"  https://maas.museum › 2010/08/04 Using the Southern Cross to find the date or the time – Observations So if you are in Australia at night you see the southern Crux at night then as the night leaves and day comes that constellation rotates over other southern continents on our flat plane before eventually coming around again for Australia at night. Sorry they didn't explain that to you in your astronomy class.
    1
  255.  Brogerr  I never claimed an edge. That's a straw man argument. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  256.  Brogerr  You even argued against your own claim with sarcasm. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  257.  Brogerr  Know what must have an edge? Your sphere must have an edge where objects can no longer be seen behind. And it must be based on the geometry of your sphere with a 3959 mile radius. But the black swan debunks your sphere edge. Check out the website below and kiss your globe goodbye. https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
    1
  258.  Brogerr  More evidence that your globe ain't Curving (no sphere edge). https://globeterminator.com/bolivian-salt-flats/
    1
  259.  @andrewbordeaux1344  Then it's rotating just like all the other lights in the sky accept Polaris. There are no geographic poles, so no celestial poles. Only magnetic poles. The Southern Crux is not helping to find a magnetic pole either. It does help people to find their way away from directional north. The north star points the way north to where the magnetic pole is and directional north. Sorry Andres, but this is not a good argument for you. It's just circular reasoning where you beg the question of a celestial pole to conclude the earth being a sphere. You have to prove there are geographical poles not make assumptions about lights in the sky.
    1
  260.  @GalaxyTracker  You said changing a "curved surface to a flat." Lol. Wander why we need to do that? Because earth is flat and we never have to account for earth curve when navigating. I don't care about sending you a GIS system. I don't even know what it is. It sounds like from your own post it has errors. Any system starting out with the earth is a globe is going to have errors converting that into reality. How does using GIS prove the ground we live on is a sphere?
    1
  261.  @GalaxyTracker  So you're using a begging the question fallacy where your premise (earth is a sphere that has to be changed to flat surface) must be accepted in order to draw your desired conclusion that earth is a sphere. That's called circular reasoning dumbo. Your argument is fallacious. Now that your argument has been debunked, would you like to check my post for grammatical errors again? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  262.  @GalaxyTracker  So you have a program that tries to automatically print a globe earth. Did the program, program itself? Lol. So you're using a program that was programmed to print a globe earth as proof of a globe earth? Do you know what circular reasoning is? Lol.
    1
  263.  @francescomedri1371  I'm not trying to convince others of anything. They keep making claims that use the same logical fallacies. But since you asked for observations. Here you go. https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/ https://globeterminator.com/flight/ https://globeterminator.com/essm-block-i-sea-sparrow/ https://globeterminator.com/coriolis/
    1
  264.  @francescomedri1371  Lol. You know that was a load of nonsense you wrote. CC.12 The Coriolis Effect : When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to    ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line APPEAR to travel in a curved path on the Earth.” Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders — CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html The earth rotates independently, meaning it's not tethered to the atmosphere. 1. gases don't behave that way because gases have no bonds. 2. If the earth were tethered to the atmosphere then you don't have Two reference frames and therefore can't have the coriolis effect. Do you understand this? Now objects in the air (not tethered to earth) are freely moving. If an object moving were in the air hovering, it would appear that the object deviates because the earth turns. That's the coriolis effect. Now if the earth turned underneath objects a drone, helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. But that doesn't happen because the earth doesn't turn underneath anything. We know the earth is stationary because of this.
    1
  265.  @andrewbordeaux1344  I already debunked your argument. You're begging the question of celestial poles to conclude geographical poles. You have to prove there are geographical poles, not assume things about lights in the sky that you have no clue about to make erroneous assumptions about the earth.
    1
  266.  @francescomedri1371  Coriolis effect is an apparent deviation (not actual deviation). It's also an effect. Effects don't cause winds or hurricanes. Hurricanes are ACTUALLY deviating and have nothing to do with the Coriolis effect. Sadly, words don't have meaning to you. Rotate Independently means earth is not tethered to the air. If it were then you would only have one reference frame. And again gases have no bonds so they move freely and are able to spread far apart. So now that we are clear that the air is Not attached to the earth, if earth turns it will turn underneath objects in the air like a drone helicopter or airplane. Again a drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. But that doesn't happen because earth doesn't turn.
    1
  267.  @GalaxyTracker  You just said you are trying to take reality which is in 3d and turn it into 2d for a simulation and there are errors. Duh. Then out of nowhere you just concluded that this proves earth is a globe. Lol. Maybe you don't realize this but the earth is flat and we still have at least 3 dimensions. Globies get dumber every day. Lol.
    1
  268.  @francescomedri1371  You said so much wrong in your post like gases reacting slower because they don't have bonds. Wrong. "gas vibrate and move freely at high speeds. liquid vibrate, move about, and slide past each other. solid vibrate (jiggle) but generally do not move from place to place."  Purdue University › chem › character Gases, Liquids, and Solids Anyway, I tried to just stick to where the argument falls apart for you. You want to magically believe the air (gas) is tethered to the earth. That's not true and it would only give 1 reference frame because everything is moving together. Coriolis effect requires 2 different reference frames. You know that if you concede that the air is not turning with the ground you are dead meat. So you talk about a bunch of things and velocity and yada yada yada to distract from the fact that you have to pretend the air is attached to the ground.
    1
  269.  @francescomedri1371  What is an immovable atmosphere? Lol. That's not reality. And if everything in the air turns with the ground and everything on the ground turns with the ground, how do you get 2 different reference frames? Let me guess you're out in space? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  270.  @francescomedri1371  Okay, so the atmosphere is not moving with the earth. You just said that. The plane in the air is not moving with the earth also right? So the earth can turn underneath the plane. So a flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. But it doesn't. This debunks the earth rotating.
    1
  271.  @francescomedri1371  We're talking about the nature of the world we live in. I'm working on the really is level. You're talking about removing the atmosphere, atmosphere tethered to earth, atmosphere not tethered to earth. I get that all you have is a model and apparently it's okay with you to change whatever you want with your model. But I thought we were discussing reality. If you're going to start throwing in fairies and unicorns then I can't debate you. You were supposed to have this perfect model that had all the answers. Lol.
    1
  272.  @francescomedri1371  So I will leave you with this. "For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the “NECESSARY CONDITIONS“): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) — The Earth and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial) — The Atmosphere …and anything in it)…" https://globeterminator.com/coriolis/ "The Coriolis Effect (also called the Coriolis force) is defined as the APPARENT DEFLECTION of objects (such as AIRPLANES, wind, missiles, and ocean currents) moving in a straight path relative to the earth’s surface.” https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-coriolis-effect-1435315 So if an airplane is subject to the Coriolis effect, the causes (2 separate reference frames applies). So let's look at how the causes destroy earth turn. "The Velocity of a Plane (Air Speed) traveling Due East or Due West MUST BE either added or subtracted to the Velocity of the Rotating Earth depending upon the direction of travel of the plane. So if a Plane is traveling Due West at 500 mph (Air Speed) and the Earth is traveling Due East at 860 mph (Ground Speed), the Velocities are ADDED together:  500 mph (Air) + 860 mph (Ground) = 1360 mph.   So a Plane traveling Due West with an Air Speed of 500 mph has a Total Ground Velocity of 1360 mph. Point 5: To find the time “T” the plane flight would take, we use the Formula: “D”istance = “R”ate x “T”ime. Rearranging to solve for time “T”, would be: D/R = T. So the Distance from Charlotte NC to LAX is: 2115 Miles. Rate, from above is: 1360 mph. 2115 Miles/1360 mph.  ERGO, the Flight Time MUST BE:  = 1.5 Hours. Does this ^^^^^^^^^^^ Flight Time EXIST THEREFORE, the Earth is NOT “Spinning” https://globeterminator.com/coriolis/
    1
  273.  @francescomedri1371  It's an observation. You don't even know what science is. You're talking about hypothesis and I'm pretty sure you have no idea what a dependent or independent variable is. Lol.
    1
  274.  @GalaxyTracker  Read your #1, #2, and #3 again. You said you take real world measurements (which are in 3d) and put them in 2d and notice there are problems. That has nothing to do with earth being a sphere or flat. But somehow in your mind you concluded that means earth curve. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  275.  @GalaxyTracker  All that anger. You've tried denial, bargaining, now anger. Next will you have depression and eventually get to acceptance that your globe is gone? Lol. I'm guessing you'll go back to denial. Probably call me a troll and run off. Typical globehead. 😂😂😂
    1
  276. I don't see people dying in the street. Calm down. Lol.
    1
  277.  @tochichiagoro3483  Consensus is not science. Science involves experimentation.
    1
  278.  @tochichiagoro3483  Bob and the gyro. Lol. If the earth turns underneath a gyro then it will turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. But that doesn't happen because the Earth is not turning. Lol.
    1
  279.  @tochichiagoro3483  So Tochi, just post the dependent and independent variable for any experiment ever proving the Earth is a sphere or rotating. Good luck 👍
    1
  280. Stop whining. Earth is flat!!!
    1
  281.  @Captain_Pudding  Here's your proof. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  282.  @Captain_Pudding  The horizon is behind the second platform which is 9 miles away. From an observer at 1 foot height the horizon should be 1.2 miles away. This destroys the earth being a sphere.
    1
  283.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  And science is a method which validates cause and effect relationships in the natural world through systematic experimentation. You have never had science to prove the Earth is a sphere or moving. And I am not claiming science proves the earth is flat or stationary. Science does not answer what is questions. It answers how and why questions. The shape or aspect of the earth are what is questions. And there will never be a way to validate the shape of the earth as a cause of an effect because there is no way to manipulate or vary the shape of the earth. There is also no way to validate earth turn as causing any effect because there is no way to vary or manipulate earth turn. So stop claiming science. There are no experiments to back heliocentrism because the scientific method can't be applied. Got it?
    1
  284.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Models are not reality. 1. There are no hemispheres. All stars rotate east to west. Direction of rotation is dependent on the direction the observer is facing. 2. There is no geometric horizon. So we know ships are not going over Earth curve. But the answer to your question is perspective. The observer is closer to the ground so the ground will block his field of view faster than the sky does as the sky and ground converge to create the apparent line we call the horizon. 3. Irrelevant question. Earth's not curving so no need to talk about curve. 4. I can only expose the lie to you. You need to ask the liars why they lie. 5. I see lights in the sky. Not the artist depictions of those lights. Even if they are spherical it doesn't cause the earth we live on to be spherical. 6. Our heavyness keeps us from flying. We're not held to the ground as we can jump move around. Heavy objects can't fly. That in no way proves that space time is being warped. Lol.
    1
  285.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  11. Objects shrink with distance. 12. Perspective 13. We don't know the distance or actual size of the sun, or it's actual path, or what it is, or how it functions. Hard to say what it should actually do when we know actually nothing about it.
    1
  286.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Models are a reification. The map is not the terrain buddy. Lol.
    1
  287.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  1. Hemispheres begs the question of a sphere. The sky is huge and we can't see all of it from one place. People farther south on the plane see different parts of the sky than people farther north. Simple.
    1
  288.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  2. Perspective is real. Objects do shrink with distance and there are vanishing points. Again you have the ground or water closer to you so it's going to obstruct objects before the sky does (bottom up disappearance). Just saying nu uh doesn't change how vision and optics work. Look down a long hallway and you will see the walls ground and ceiling appearing to converge. Lol.
    1
  289.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  3. The horizon is the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. It's an optical effect. The horizon is not geometric as your model requires. The horizon has been observed to be farther than 9 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height. That's a geometric impossibility if the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles. We know the horizon is not earth curve. Lol.
    1
  290.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  4. Why would I know why other people lie. It was a dumb question you asked. Lol.
    1
  291.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  5. I have used a telescope. They look like lights in the sky with various shapes. Can't tell if they are spheres. If they were triangles would that the ground we live on is a triangle? Lol.
    1
  292.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  6. Heavy objects can't fly. Planes require a lot of energy to get them in the air. Not sure how planes flying proves space time being warped. Lol.
    1
  293.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  7. Destroyed your begging the question fallacy.
    1
  294.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  8. Debunked space. Can't have gas pressure without a container.
    1
  295.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  9. Again dumb question. I can't tell you why liars lie.
    1
  296.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  10. You don't know what an experiment is. I'm not claiming an experiment. But from observation, the horizon follows the observer all the way up. Even at 128,000 feet the horizon is at a person's eye level. The horizon would be increasingly falling away if the earth were a sphere.
    1
  297.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  11. You don't like how perspective works do you? Lol. It's real and you can't hijack perspective for earth curve. Lol.
    1
  298.  @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
  299.  @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
  300.  @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
  301.  @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
  302.  @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
  303. 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
  304.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  I don't subscribe to models. Models are reifications. Models are not science or reality.
    1
  305.  @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
  306.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  I said I don't have a model. I have reality. Models are not reality.
    1
  307.  @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
  308.  @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
  309.  @DANGJOS  https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  310.  @DANGJOS  That the horizon is geometric earth curve based on there being a 3959 mile radius.
    1
  311.  @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
  312.  @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
  313.  @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
  314.  @DANGJOS  Better throw out geodesy then. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  315.  @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
  316.  @DANGJOS  In the video I posted. Can you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no?
    1
  317.  @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
  318.  @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
  319.  @DANGJOS  And what explanation do you want about sunsets?
    1
  320.  @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
  321.  @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
  322.  @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
  323.  @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
  324.  @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
  325.  @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
  326.  @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
  327.  @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
  328.  @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
  329.  @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
  330.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Here's a real world demonstration of bottom up disappearance. No simulation cartoon. Lol. https://youtu.be/3rPvhFq7Ykk
    1
  331.  @TheirishkingadventuresBlogspot  Here's more. Sorry he rips apart gravity here also. Lol. https://youtu.be/4uw8-QlrNxM
    1
  332.  @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
  333.  @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
  334.  @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
  335.  @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
  336.  @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
  337.  @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
  338.  @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
  339.  @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
  340.  @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
  341.  @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
  342.  @jarodstrain8905  https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
    1
  343.  @jarodstrain8905  You don't know what science is. And if you can easily debunk it then go ahead and try.
    1
  344.  @jarodstrain8905  Your model needs a geometric horizon but it's been debunked. Bub bye ball. Lol.
    1
  345.  @jarodstrain8905  The model doesn't work with geometry. Lol. Maybe someone should have told you that models are not reality. Lol.
    1
  346.  @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
  347.  @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
  348.  @jarodstrain8905  We tested your radius. It failed. Nobody ever measured the diameter of the earth. It was assumed. We now know definitively that your radius fails. The assumption was wrong.
    1
  349.  @jarodstrain8905  The test is the geometry which you admitted did not match your sphere radius. Remember when you said "the horizon we see is apparent" as in not geometric. Lol.
    1
  350.  @jarodstrain8905  No other tests needed. Black swans continue to prove the earth is not a sphere.
    1
  351.  @jarodstrain8905  You don't have to like the destruction of your model. Lol.
    1
  352.  @jarodstrain8905  Watch the video below. Especially at 24 minutes, so you can learn about refraction. https://youtu.be/Rmx65GT_aYg
    1
  353.  @jarodstrain8905  You're claiming refraction as how we can have a geometric impossibility of the horizon being farther than 10 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height. So the question is what evidence do you have that the earth is a sphere then? It's a begging the question fallacy to claim that light is bending around a sphere that you have no evidence exists. There's no geometry for there being a sphere anymore. The geometry used to be your evidence before the black swans debunked it, and without the geometry of a sphere there is nothing to bend light around.
    1
  354.  @jarodstrain8905  There is no Science, ie. cause of light being bent around spherical earth because earth can't be proven to be a sphere. The geometry was the evidence of a sphere, but the black swan shows that there is no spherical geometry. Claiming refraction is a begging the question fallacy where your premises of light being bent around a sphere must be accepted so you can reach your desired conclusion that earth is a sphere. That's circular reasoning. You have not proven the earth is a sphere. It's now been disproven by black swans debunking the geometry (3959 mile radius).
    1
  355.  @jarodstrain8905  You can't claim objects being obscured with distance is caused by the geometry of a sphere anymore. It's been debunked. It's also not reasonable to say there are geographic poles when we know the earth is not a sphere now.
    1
  356.  @jarodstrain8905  Now please tell me how Eratostenes calculated Earth's circumference using shadow angles from the sun if light bends? The geometry doesn't work if we have an atmosphere and light bending. You don't have a radius. So none of your maths work.
    1
  357.  @jarodstrain8905  Refraction does not prove your spherical geometry. We can't assume light is being bent around a sphere when we don't have the geometry of a sphere. Arguing that light bends in our air (atmosphere) destroys your spherical geometry. Did we not have an atmosphere when Eratostenes calculated the Earth's circumference? 😂😂😂😂😂😂.
    1
  358.  @jarodstrain8905  Does the sun light not bend when entering our atmosphere? C'mon Jarod, tell us how the geometry works with bent light. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  359.  @jarodstrain8905  You have to throw out the earth curve calculator also as it states below it assumes light travels in straight lines and assumes the earth is a sphere: "Earth Curve Calculator This app calculates how much a distant object is obscured by the earth's curvature, and makes the following assumptions: the earth is a convex sphere of radius 6371 kilometres light travels in straight lines" https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
    1
  360.  @jarodstrain8905  So Jarod does light travel in straight lines?
    1
  361.  @jarodstrain8905  So light does travel in straight lines when it suits your model and bends when it doesn't suit your model. That's called cherry picking the data. So when Eratostenes calculated the circumference using the sun light, light travelled through a vacuum and our atmosphere straight? But light in our same medium is bending so much that we can't use geometry to calculate the distance to the horizon? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  362.  @jarodstrain8905  Face it Jarod, you can't do geometry if light bends in our atmosphere. It's fun watching you squirm and contradict yourself though. Lol.
    1
  363.  @jarodstrain8905  There was never any Geometry for your imaginary sphere. Perspective and atmospheric effects like light bending were just hijacked and claimed to be earth curvature.
    1
  364.  @jarodstrain8905  Are these sun rays parallel? https://images.app.goo.gl/MPuHLFYwZ7mpwP347
    1
  365.  @jarodstrain8905  How about these rays? Are they coming in parallel? Lol. https://images.app.goo.gl/pzmgBou9kczoxWkU8
    1
  366.  @jarodstrain8905  I have embarrassed you enough. I'll leave it here. You can continue to cherry pick data so you can hold onto your religious belief in Heliocentrism. Bye now 👋
    1
  367.  @scarybusey  Water doesn't stick to a ball. Your model is even worse than that. It has the water forming the globe in a vacuum with nothing holding or containing the water. That's not a straw man. That's your model. Lol.
    1
  368.  @comradeusa8351  Space and time are not physical or material. They are concepts no different than peace or love. Since 1915 gravity in your model has not been a force. Mass attracting mass is not how gravity is defined currently in your model. No matter how big you pretend your imaginary ball is water won't stick to it because there is no force there. You just have not caught up with the fact that warping space time is the current rhetoric. Lol.
    1
  369.  @comradeusa8351  Can you show me this space time? Lol.
    1
  370.  @comradeusa8351  Also what do you think pseudo means? Lol.
    1
  371.  @comradeusa8351  What was the natural observed phenomenon in Cavendish?
    1
  372.  @comradeusa8351  Pseudo means not genuine, spurious, sham. You're following a guy that used a sham geometry. Lol.
    1
  373.  @comradeusa8351  The natural phenomenon observed was saying the word gravity. Lol. Want to try again? What in nature did Cavendish observe?
    1
  374.  @comradeusa8351  Gravity can't be both the Naturally observed phenomenon and the cause. That's you saying gravity causes gravity. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😄😄😄😄😂
    1
  375.  @comradeusa8351  I'm not accelerating right now. Neither are any other objects in my room.
    1
  376.  @comradeusa8351  You still didn't tell me what Cavendish observed in nature. You said gravity. What does that look like?
    1
  377.  @comradeusa8351  You said all objects are accelerating but now you claim not in my local reference frame. Lol. So who's reference frame are objects accelerating in? And if you can only ever experience the reference frame we are in, how can you validate another reference frame? And I am still waiting for you to tell me what Gravity effect in nature Cavendish observed. Good luck 👍
    1
  378.  @scarybusey  Maybe you can help Reece out. What was the natural phenomenon observed by Cavendish? Please don't respond Gravity. Lol. What effect did he see in nature?
    1
  379.  @Rumpael  Keep holding Reece's jockstrap. It makes him feel good, even though he's speaking nonsense. Lol. Your boy said all objects are accelerating but not in our local reference frame. And you thought it made sense. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  380.  @comradeusa8351  I'm not admitting to gravity. I'm asking you what Cavendish observed in nature. You said gravity but you have not described what he observed.
    1
  381.  @comradeusa8351  How long is it going to take you to tell me and your fanclub what Cavendish observed in nature? Lol.
    1
  382.  @scarybusey  So you can't help Reece explain what natural phenomenon Cavendish observed? Lol. I'm not going to let you change the subject buddy.
    1
  383.  @comradeusa8351  Reece you've gone quiet. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  384.  @scarybusey  Lol. You want to desperately change the subject. What in nature did Cavendish observe? If you can't answer then just concede. 😂😂😂😂
    1
  385.  @comradeusa8351  Thanks Reece. I'll take that as you conceding. Maybe some globies will think you claiming gravity was observed was a good answer but you know you couldn't answer a simple question. What in nature did Cavendish observe? Lol. Night night.
    1
  386.  @madisn8142  Let's not change the subject. There's a question on the table. It was claimed that Cavendish proved gravity with his experiment. I'm asking what Cavendish observed in nature. First part of an experiment. So far I've heard he observed gravity. Lol. Not sure what that means. Lol. You're off track anyway. Acceleration was claimed as proof of gravity. But then Reece admitted we don't have any acceleration in our local reference frame. Lol.
    1
  387.  @madisn8142  You have never been outside of earth. You have just one reference frame which is our physical and natural world. If nothing is accelerating in our natural world then we can't just assume we are. So Reece saying evidence of gravity is accelerating down at 9.8 s/s can't be proven in our natural world. We have to assume it's happening in another reference frame outside of here. 😂😂😂😂
    1
  388.  @scarybusey  Reece's proof of gravity: Acceleration that is happening outside of our natural world reference frame. Cavendish: His natural observed phenomenon was gravity. If you think this is explaining something then you have a mental block. Now I have asked numerous times for any of you globies to simply tell me what effect Cavendish observed in nature. Either you don't know or you know it destroys your argument. Lol.
    1
  389.  @Rumpael  Lol. I'll tell you what effect Cavendish observed in nature. As it is the first and very important part of an experiment. Ready for it...................... He didn't observe anything in nature. He had no dependent variable. Lol. It wasn't an experiment. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  390.  @Rumpael  Subject change. Want to start insulting me now because you have no answer to my arguments? Lol. Do you have anything to add to what I just said about Cavendish or do you want to know my favorite color? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  391.  @Rumpael  If I drop an object that I picked up, then I was the force that caused the object to fall.
    1
  392.  @Rumpael  Stick with one topic. We're talking about gravity. So again if I pick up an object using my energy to bring the object out of equalibrium and drop it back down to it's original position, I am the cause of that happening. How is this evidence of space time being warped or mass attracting mass?
    1
  393.  @Rumpael  Don't have any arguments on your own? Maybe Reece will come on and say something that you can cheer for. Lol. Your argument: If I pick something up and drop it, what caused that object to fall? Me: You picking it up and dropping it. Duh. You: ..........................................
    1
  394.  @scarybusey  Where was the object before you picked it up? It was on the ground, so it will go back to the ground. Duh. Helium balloons fall up though.
    1
  395.  @comradeusa8351  In reality there's an up and a down. Heavy objects go down and light objects (helium balloon) go up. There's no outside force or space time needed in reality. Only globies walk around pretending that up and down are relative to where you're at on an imaginary sphere from a their heliocentrism religion. Lol.
    1
  396.  @comradeusa8351  How does the dumbbell get in the air.? Lol. You had to pick it up. Lol. So you don't have any evidence of an outside force acting on objects. Only a belief that directions don't exist because your model says everything is relative to where the giant imaginary ball is. Lol.
    1
  397.  @comradeusa8351  Objects are not falling Reece. Only if you pick them up and drop them. What is falling around you Reece?
    1
  398.  @comradeusa8351  There are no gravitational fields Reece. You must've attended MSU (Make Shite Up). Lol.
    1
  399.  @comradeusa8351  Do you need me to explain that water turns into gas and rises to form clouds Reece. Then turns back to liquid and goes back to the ground? Lol. Clouds don't just magically appear buddy. There's a cycle that water goes through. Lol.
    1
  400.  @comradeusa8351  Oh dear you also don't know the difference between solids liquids and gases. Gas has this tendency to rise. Liquids and solids have bonds which doesn't allow them the freedom to expand like gas. Can you put a helium balloon on a scale and weigh it? Lol.
    1
  401.  @comradeusa8351  There are no gravitational fields. That's your religious belief. Gas expands in all directions not just down. How would you weigh a gas Reece?
    1
  402.  @comradeusa8351  And you really are special if you don't know that there's a difference between solids liquids and gases. Lol.
    1
  403.  @comradeusa8351  You have not provided any science. I asked you many times for the dependent variable in your Cavendish experiment and you ran away. Only until I engaged someone else about another ridiculous claim did you resurface. If you can't explain your nonsense using real world examples then you are the one being intellectually dishonest.
    1
  404.  @comradeusa8351  Now what objects are falling around you?
    1
  405.  @comradeusa8351  Thank you for finally attempting to answer the question. The dependent variable is the effect you observe in nature. The contraption you are describing is not found in nature is it? No. So you don't have an experiment. So Cavendish didn't prove gravity as a cause of anything. Lol.
    1
  406.  @comradeusa8351  Furthermore what you stated was the angle formed by weighs hanging from a frame causes the resulting angle the rod twisted. Lol. What a mess. This has nothing to do with mass attracting mass or space time being warped. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  407.  @comradeusa8351  See how easy we can move on once you answer a question? Lol.
    1
  408.  @scarybusey  I've embarrassed Reece already with Cavendish. Also demonstrated he has a lack of understanding about water cycles and the difference between solids liquids and gases. And essentially all he has to prove gravity is if you pick up something and drop it, it goes back to where it was before you picked it up. Apparently he thinks the object should stay suspended in air. Lol.
    1
  409.  @scarybusey  And now that I have demolished gravity, here's the debunking of the sphere. It uses modus tollens. 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 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon in the video below is more than 9 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). RIP Globe!!! https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  410.  @Rumpael  Better jump in. Reece needs a cheerleader. Get your pom poms. In cheering voice: Oh Reece you're so smart you're so smart you melt Raffa's heart! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  411.  @scarybusey  I presented my evidence. Maybe pay attention. Lol.
    1
  412.  @scarybusey  Do you understand the modus tollens argument?
    1
  413.  @scarybusey  Here it is again Scary. It uses modus tollens. 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 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The distance to the horizon in the video below is more than 9 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). RIP Globe!!! https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  414.  @comradeusa8351  You claimed to have an experiment and science. I demonstrated to you that Cavendish was not an experiment and science. So I'm using logical consistency and math. Even begging the question for you globies of the earth being a sphere. If you had understanding of science you would know that it answers how and why questions, not what is questions. The shape of the earth is a what is question. It's outside of science. You'll never be able to prove the shape of the earth causes anything because you can't vary or manipulate the shape of the earth in an experiment. Duh. But you Pseudoscientists keep claiming science. Lol. Now stop dodging. Do you see the horizon behind the second platform in the video? Yes or no?
    1
  415.  @comradeusa8351  We only have one horizon. It's the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  416.  @comradeusa8351  You think there's 2 places where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground?
    1
  417.  @comradeusa8351  That sounds magical. Lol. So the physical edge of your sphere that should be 1.2 miles away blocking the platforms has been magically moved behind the platforms. You are so faithful to your religion. Lol.
    1
  418.  @scarybusey  Can you articulate what the argument is on your own? I gave you the modus tollens argument. The video I provided was just to show you the observation. I'll wait for your rebuttal.
    1
  419.  @scarybusey  Let's try this. In the video I sent, can you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no?
    1
  420.  @scarybusey  The argument is that the horizon is earth curve. That's your model. So if so then the distance to the horizon is based on the geometry of the earth based on the 3959 mile radius. If there is ever a day where your earth curve is missing, ie.the horizon being farther out than possible, then earth cannot be a sphere. Showing me a video from a different day doesn't change the fact that my video shows it being farther than possible. Now can you see the horizon behind the 2nd platform in my video? Simple yes or no will do. Lol.
    1
  421.  @scarybusey  Just talking about the distance to the horizon. Did you see it behind the second platform? Lol. That's the end of your globe buddy. You don't have to answer. I know you did. Night night. Lol.
    1
  422.  @scarybusey  Are you still at this? You conceded already when you refused to answer if you could see the horizon behind the second platform. That's an impossibility if the earth is a sphere. The horizon must not ever be more than 1.2 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height. Your sphere edge can't change. Lol.
    1
  423.  @scarybusey  Also it's redundant to say apparent horizon. All horizons are apparent. Lol. The horizon is the line where the sky APPEARS (apparent) to meet the ground. You don't believe you are seeing the sky actually meet the ground do you? We only have one horizon and it's just not geometric. Your model needs a geometric horizon because there's supposed to be earth curve. RIP Globe!!!
    1
  424.  @scarybusey  Let me see if I can simply this for you. Is the horizon earth curve?
    1
  425.  @comradeusa8351  Is the horizon earth curve?
    1
  426.  @scarybusey  There is only one horizon. It's either geometric or not. We don't have a geometric horizon and an apparent horizon. That would be 2 horizons. And again all horizons are apparent. Do you believe there are 2 places where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground? Lol.
    1
  427.  @scarybusey  And here's the real sad part for you globies. The horizon you see in my video your videos and any other time you see the sky appearing to meet the ground. It's all the horizon. Guess what that means? None of them are earth curve or based on the geometry of your imaginary spherical earth. Your model must have a physical edge and it has to always be there. Unfortunately it's not. You asked for proof and you got it. Sorry but you asked for it.
    1
  428.  @scarybusey  You're the moron that believes in 2 horizons. And goes around saying the apparent horizon not realizing all horizons are apparent.
    1
  429.  @scarybusey  That's right. Show me some respect. Now that you have conceded I'm right maybe the rest of the globies on here will follow suit.
    1
  430. You must be psychic. Lol.
    1
  431.  @chaos147ex8  psychic means predicting the future as you did. That's not an insult.
    1
  432.  @memphisflyer8574  I was going to make the same point to him. Thank you for addressing it.
    1
  433.  @Civilixation  All I need is the scientific method. Do you know it? Lol. I can use it to debunk any heliocentrism claim of science. Just by asking for the dependent and independent variable. Lol.
    1
  434. Science is a method which validates cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world through systematic experimentation. This method has not been used to prove we are on a sphere or moving. Science is not under attack. Pseudoscientists are under attack.
    1
  435. There are no scientific theories based on the earth being a sphere or rotating. There's just a lot of assumptions that can't be proven. Please provide one scientific theory based on the earth being a sphere or rotating.
    1
  436. Newton was wrong is a good point. Also the simplest explanation being we are not moving and earth being flat opposed to a sphere whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun.
    1
  437. We don't feel motion and earth has never been proven to be in motion.
    1
  438. Flat Earth is reality not a theory. It's noticeably and observably flat.
    1
  439.  @arthousefilms  Observing lights in the sky doesn't change the ground we live on from being level and stationary. Flying east is flying in a circle over our flat plane.
    1
  440.  @arthousefilms  You clearly don't fly. Planes fly level and never have to dip their nose to reorientate with the ground beneath curving away. Because the ground is not curving away. You've been bamboozled buddy. Lol.
    1
  441.  @arthousefilms  The sun is moving away from you until it goes beyond your vanishing point. Lol. Take an art class.
    1
  442.  @arthousefilms  Dude I dare you to watch Nathan Oakley 1980 and hear your globe get smashed daily. Lol.
    1
  443.  @arthousefilms  When the sun goes beyond a person's vanishing point it's still in the sky visible to others as it circles over the level plane. I can only tell you what it does. You'll have to ask God how it functions.
    1
  444.  @timnicholas5398  The sun doesn't go down. Do you believe street lights down a long street are going down the farther they get from you because they get closer to your horizon? Lol. You should take an art class and learn about perspective. Lol. And as far as the sun shrinking. Don't you find it silly to argue about a light in the sky that you don't know the actual size of, actual distance of, or ACTUALLY what it is to say that the this lights not actual size should shrink? And I could show you videos with the sun appearing to shrink in angular size but you will just deny it. Lol.
    1
  445.  @timnicholas5398  And if something goes beyond the vanishing point then it's not going to be visible. Hence the term vanishing point. Lol.
    1
  446.  @timnicholas5398  Can't see something that is beyond your vanishing point. You can't see the whole sky. Not sure why that shocks you. Lol. You don't know the size or distance if the sun. It's all based on the assumption of Earth being a sphere in orbit. Earth is not a sphere and not in orbit.
    1
  447. It's called the Heliocentrism model. Models are not facts or reality. Models are reifications and therefore opinions. So it is "agree or disagree."
    1
  448.  @Marius229  You think laughing emojis will hide the fact that your argument just got obliterated. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  449.  @Marius229  So now you are agreeing that it is about agreeing to disagree. So your original post was wrong. That was a quick concession. 😂😂😂
    1
  450. Magellan sailed in a circle over the flat water. Lol.
    1
  451.  @ilovemayka27  You can't prove the shapes of lights in the sky. Round is not sphere. And even if the lights in the sky are spherical they don't cause the ground we live on to be a sphere.
    1
  452.  @ilovemayka27  The shape or aspect of the earth is outside of science because it's a what is question. Science answers how and why questions not what is questions. No science has ever been done to prove a sphere or Earth turning. You can't manipulate earth shape or Earth turn in an experiment, so you can never validate it as causing any effect observed in nature. Earth curvature or Earth turn is never observed however, so there is no reason to believe it is a sphere or moving. And yes we can agree to disagree.
    1
  453. I don't think there is any evidence the old guy would accept. He's been brainwashed by the sphere model. But it wouldn't hurt to try your solution I guess. Lol.
    1
  454. I walked around my house. Is my house a sphere? Lol.
    1
  455. CC.12 The Coriolis Effect : When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to                     ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line APPEAR to travel in a curved path on the Earth.” Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders — CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html We now know that earth is stationary and there is no earth-based coriolis. If the earth turned then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  456. Go easy on the old guy. He's been brainwashed for a long time.
    1
  457.  @Captain_Pudding  Show me gravity.
    1
  458.  @arkimus1911  The globehead claim is that there is gravity. Can you show me it? Lol. If you can't then it's just assumed. Good luck 👍
    1
  459.  thesparitan  What are we experiencing all the time? Can you show me gravity? Newton's concept was replaced by Einstein's concept in 1915. Neither can be demonstrated scientifically. Good luck trying. Lol.
    1
  460.  @michaelthomas7898  Newton died and was wrong. He was mortal. Lol. Einstein who replaced his model also died and was mortal. Lol.
    1
  461.  thesparitan  "Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein." https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-showed-newton-was-wrong-about-gravity-now-scientists-are-ncna1038671
    1
  462.  thesparitan  There is no actual experiment to validate Newton or Einstein's concepts. Lol. Show me this gravity you claim causes things. So far you've just said predictions of star paths and atomic clocks. Lol.
    1
  463.  thesparitan  Just post the dependent variable and independent variable in any experiment ever done. I'm not interested in reading about assumptions of orbits and theories about a region that doesn't exist.
    1
  464.  @michaelthomas7898  Mortal means can die. News flash Newton died. Lol. And I don't have to prove why Newton was wrong. He got replaced by Einstein in 1915. Both men never validated any of their assumptions about gravity through science. Go ahead and post the dependent variable and independent variable in any experiment ever proving their assumptions.
    1
  465.  thesparitan  I already did. What was the dependent variable (Natural phenomenon) and independent variable (cause of natural phenomenon) in any experiment ever validating gravity (Einstein or Newton). I don't care about articles making things up about a region that is not real. You sent me articles about black holes and orbits. Oh and gravitational lensing which is basically trying to prove your assumption with your assumption. Lol.
    1
  466.  thesparitan  I'm asking you for science. You're not providing any science. Maybe you don't know what science is. You seem to think observing the sky and making assumptions is science. Science requires validating your assumption of what causes an effect by manipulating said cause. You gonna manipulate space time or lights in the sky? Lol. You can't show me this gravity, so how you gonna manipulate it. Lol.
    1
  467.  thesparitan  I just want the dependent variable and independent variable for the experiment. Just some of that science you said I deny. Lol.
    1
  468.  thesparitan  I'll help you out. Einstein observed lights near the sun and assumed gravity bends light. Do you believe that was an experiment. What did Einstein manipulate? Lol. He did pseudoscience. Observe and declare. Lol.
    1
  469.  thesparitan  Let me see if I can do what Einstein did. If the stars flicker then it's caused by unicorn farts. Watch the stars tonight to see if Unicorns are real. Lol.
    1
  470.  @michaelthomas7898  Thanks Michael. He's immortal because people keep crediting him for a BS concept that got replaced in 1915. Meanwhile he's still dead. Lol.
    1
  471.  thesparitan  So you are not going to provide the dependent and independent variable for the experiment proving gravity? Lol. That sounds like a concession.
    1
  472.  @Victor-gh3ur  Victor you said the southern Crux destroys all the globe models. Lol.
    1
  473.  @michaelthomas7898  Lol. He didn't prove any of his theories. Lol. I know he didn't.
    1
  474.  @TijmenZwaan  What? The dependent variable is the natural phenomenon observed. The independent variable is the assumed cause of the dependent variable. In the experiment you will manipulate or vary the independent variable to see if you get the dependent variable. That's how you validate the cause.
    1
  475.  thesparitan  You gave me nothing. Last chance. What is the dependent variable in your experiment?
    1
  476.  thesparitan  Lol. You want me to explain your argument for you. Lol. Now that is pathetic. Lol. It's your argument.
    1
  477.  thesparitan  People reading this will see you never made an argument. I asked you several times for the dependent variable and independent variable in any experiment ever proving gravity and no answer. Lol.
    1
  478.  @mattsmith1440  There are no massive objects accelerating towards the earth. Lol. I'm looking outside my window now and nothing massive is accelerating towards the ground. Lol.
    1
  479.  @arkimus1911  If I lift up a bowling ball and drop it then I caused it to fall. Lol.
    1
  480.  @Jw-un8oh  People can't fly genius. How does that prove a magical force or space time warping?
    1
  481.  @shemoyacunnison  Show me that Narnia doesn't exist is the same as you saying show me that gravity doesn't exist. Lol.I am not required to disprove your imagination. Lol.
    1
  482.  @mattsmith1440  Because I picked it up genius. You can't just insert that mass is attracting mass or space time is being warped because I pick something up and drop it. Lol.
    1
  483.  @arkimus1911  Why does a bowling ball not go up? Lol. A five year old could explain to you that a bowling ball is a heavy object so it can't fly. Lol. It was at rest with no force acting on it before it is picked up and taken out of it's equalibrium position and dropped. The force would be me. Lol. Globies are like little children. Lol.
    1
  484.  @arkimus1911  So let's do an experiment. First thing we need is to observe a natural phenomenon (dependent variable). What are you observing in nature that you are going to assume gravity causes? I'll wait.....
    1
  485. I'll check back later globies. Try to come up with an observed effect in nature that you are crediting this magical concept of gravity for. Lol.
    1
  486.  @dylanshandley1246  Okay your natural phenomenon is rain drops falling. So if you say rain drops falling down are caused by gravity. First define gravity and then manipulate it or vary it. Go.
    1
  487.  @dylanshandley1246  Dylan define gravity then tell me how you are going to manipulate or vary it to cause rain drops to fall. Lol. Go.
    1
  488.  thesparitan  Ad hominem attacks now. Lol. Sounds like you are upset because you lost. Lol. Let others have a try now buddy. You had your shot. Lol. It fell apart for you when I asked you for your dependent and independent variables for your experiment. Lol.
    1
  489.  @dylanshandley1246  Still there Dylan? Mr raindrops. Lol. Can you define gravity and tell us how you are going to manipulate or vary it to cause raindrops to fall? Lol.
    1
  490.  thesparitan  You asked me to explain your argument. I don't know what your argument is. You explain it and then I will debunk it. Go.
    1
  491.  thesparitan  You need to manipulate or vary your assumed cause. His assumed cause is gravity, so define it then tell how you are going to manipulate it. Good luck 👍
    1
  492.  @dylanshandley1246  What are you going to manipulate or vary to cause the raindrops to fall? You're just observing but not manipulating anything. Lol.
    1
  493.  thesparitan  He assumed it. Lol.
    1
  494.  @KiiDxLegacy  "Independent Variable Definition. An independent variable is defines as the variable that is changed or controlled in a scientific experiment. It represents the cause or reason for an outcome. Independent variables are the variables that the experimenter changes to test their dependent variable.Jan 9, 2019"  ThoughtCo › ... › Chemical Laws Independent Variable Definition and Examples - ThoughtCo
    1
  495.  thesparitan  An atomic clock is not a Naturally observed phenomenon. It's a man-made device. The cause of why a man-made device does anything is always the man that made it.
    1
  496.  thesparitan  A man-made device can't be your phenomenon. There's no need to go out trying to do experiments on why clocks work the way they do. Lol.
    1
  497.  thesparitan  You want to know why a car operates the way it does go to a mechanic or car manufacturer. You want to know about an effect in nature, well that's where science comes in.
    1
  498.  thesparitan  You see atomic clocks laying around in nature? Lol.
    1
  499.  thesparitan  I'm 36 and way more knowledgeable than you. I have been educating you on the scientific method. Something you should have learned in the 5th grade. You can't make an object and then attribute whatever that object does to how nature works. A clock made by men and their ability to predict what it will do, does not validate your concept of space time. Sorry.
    1
  500.  @KiiDxLegacy  You just said clocks are found in nature. Lol. Are clocks not man-made? Lol. Globies in 2020 "clocks are natural." 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  501.  @michaelthomas7898  I'm asking for scientific proof of their gravity concepts. I don't need to know them personally. Lol.
    1
  502.  thesparitan  Science studies effects in our natural and physical world, not man made devices. Sorry buddy.
    1
  503.  thesparitan  So you have no scientific evidence of gravity. Looking at clock time differences is not science. You're assuming that something a man made device does is caused by a concept from your model.
    1
  504.  thesparitan  Ask the clock maker why the clock does what it does. I asked you for scientific evidence of gravity. Lol. Differences in clock times does not validate mass warping space-time or mass attracting mass. Lol.
    1
  505.  thesparitan  Are man made objects affected by laws of physics? Sure some laws, but does this question validate gravity through science? No.
    1
  506.  @arkimus1911  Weight is the heavyness of a person or thing. Does it shock you that things can be heavy? My helium balloon doesn't have any weight to it and goes up. Wow. Lol.
    1
  507.  thesparitan  You lose an argument and then start with the insults. Lol.
    1
  508.  thesparitan  Globeheads always claim "you don't understand" when they lose a debate. Lol.
    1
  509.  thesparitan  What is your question?
    1
  510.  thesparitan  You are the guy that believes observing an effect on man-made clocks in different locations is proof of mass warping space time. Lol. That's not science. Your last question to me was to come up with something that better explains the universe than gravity. The whole idea of universe is from your model/religion. I don't need to explain your model. What we can observe in the natural world does not match with your model/religion which says we are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun as it moves through a galaxy. We don't observe or experience any of that. So I don't need a magical force to make your fairytale model work. Lol.
    1
  511.  thesparitan  Newton's Laws were wrong. Not laws. A law is something always observed to happen without exception. So when you say laws of physics, you are being misleading. We're talking specifically about Newton's claimed Laws around gravity. Which in your own religion has been debunked by Einstein. Einstein does not have a law either as space-time is a concept that cannot be observed in the natural world. So my original comment was some laws of physics work on man-made objects. This is of course a red herring anyhow as science is not concerned with the effects of man-made objects. Science studies the effects of the physical and natural world. What science discovers can then be used to create technology.
    1
  512.  thesparitan  Now with an electromagnetic field you can manipulate electromagnetic field by moving electric charges. And the electric field can be observed in nature. What you want to do is observe man-made clocks in different locations and then assume the changes are caused by a conceptual medium being warped. Lol.
    1
  513.  thesparitan  I already explained that what you call a law is not actually a law. Electric currents are real and observed in nature. Can you please show me space time? Lol.
    1
  514.  thesparitan  So let's stay on topic. You want to prove space time is a cause but you have not even proven space time is real. Even worse you don't even have a natural phenomenon (effect in nature) to attribute space time to. Clocks are not natural. Science works with real effects in nature and real things as causes. You have neither. Lol.
    1
  515.  thesparitan  You asked about laws of physics affecting man-made objects. You don't even remember your own arguments.
    1
  516.  thesparitan  You literally just typed that you don't need to prove that gravity exists. Lol. If gravity is not real then it cannot cause anything. 😂😂😂😂😂😂. I can just assume that Unicorns farts causes your man-made clocks to have different times. Or little fairies. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  517.  thesparitan  And if you think insulting you is telling you that you are wrong then I guess I talked about you like a dog. Lol.
    1
  518.  thesparitan  What is the effect of gravity? And what is the concept of gravity? If gravity is just a concept that can't be proven, then you can't say that it causes any effects. It's that simple.
    1
  519.  thesparitan  Your question about clocks is irrelevant. And has already been answered. The men that made the clocks are the cause of it doing whatever it does. And the thing you claim is the cause can't even be proven to be real. Sorry to destroy your magical belief. Have a nice life. Lol.
    1
  520.  thesparitan  I already refuted your evidence. Clocks effects are caused by the men that made them. Do you have any effects observed in nature? If you are going to say that clocks are a measurement tool, then I agree clocks measure man's convention of time. But clocks can't make concepts physical or material. Something not physical or material can't cause effects. So unless you can prove space time is physical or material you have no argument. Good day. Lol.
    1
  521.  thesparitan  Clocks are designed to measure man's convention of time. You already admitted that space time is not physical or material. So if clocks are measuring space time, then clocks are measuring a concept. Science validates the cause of effects in nature. We already know the cause of man-made object effects. That would be man. And if you have an effect observed in nature ( don't worry, you don't) then to validate the cause of the effect you must have something physical or material that you can vary or manipulate to see if you are causing the effect. Again you already admitted space time is not physical or material.
    1
  522.  thesparitan  If space time doesn't have matter then it's not material or physical. Lol.
    1
  523.  thesparitan  If space time doesn't have matter then it's not physical or material. Lol.
    1
  524.  thesparitan  "na·ture /ˈnāCHər/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." "the breathtaking beauty of nature"
    1
  525.  thesparitan  Clocks are human made. Not natural. Words have meaning buddy. "nat·u·ral /ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: adjective 1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
    1
  526.  thesparitan  "Definition of the natural world. : all of the animals, plants, and other things existing in nature and not made or caused by people."  Merriam-Webster › dictionary › the ... The Natural World | Definition of The Natural World by Merriam ...
    1
  527.  thesparitan  I never claimed a man-made object can't be affected by nature. That's a straw man fallacy. I said science is not concerned with validating the causes of man-made objects. Science establishes cause and effect relationships in the natural world. We've been at this for a while. I think people can read our comments and see that all you have as proof for gravity is clocks doing something. How you extrapolate that out to be space time being warped is just a wild assumption. So my original statement is correct. Gravity is just assumed. Can't be validated. Are you okay with letting the people decide or do you want to keep trying to convince me that clocks prove space time? Lol.
    1
  528.  thesparitan  I never said forces can't affect man-made objects. Lol. You're either confused or a liar. Look at our exchange. Good luck finding that quote 👍
    1
  529.  thesparitan  Sure you can measure things in nature with man-made objects. Never said you couldn't. But the man-made object can't be your effect. For example a thermometer can measure waters changing temperature. But the thermometer itself can't be the phenomenon. Simple. What physical or material thing is clocks measuring? I'll wait...............
    1
  530.  @TijmenZwaan  Time is a man-made convention which helps us differentiate between now and what we perceive as our past. We have created it also to help with daily life routines. The devices we have created to keep track of our concept of time such as clocks and watches are just operating the way they were designed to. Sorry buddy but concepts are not causing effects in our natural world. And looking at the effects of devices men made to track a concept is not science. So gravity as space time being warped by mass is just a bunch of conceptual garbage. RIP Einstein. Lol.
    1
  531.  @TijmenZwaan  Why are you so triggered? Time is not physical or material. It's also not energy. It's our perception of the past. It's in our minds. We've made clocks to track our concept of time. We even have calendars and mark out years and months. But there is nothing physical to it. we used to have 360 days in a year. We can change time, because it's just a concept. Lol. It seems like this is the Crux of your Heliocentrism religion. 😂😂😂😂😂😂. Now just for fun. Which weighs more a box of time or a box of space? Lol.
    1
  532.  @TijmenZwaan  So all this so called proof of gravity boils down to differences between clocks. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  533.  thesparitan  I said sure some laws because not all the claimed laws of physics are laws. I already explained that Gravity is not a law. So I guess you were not a liar but confused.
    1
  534.  thesparitan  You don't have a natural observed phenomenon. That's the first part of an experiment. Observing clocks is not a natural effect. Time is not physical or material. I know this is what your religion is hanging on but you don't have an effect in nature. I'd love to move on to your independent variable (pressupposed cause of an effect in nature) but we can't until you can identify an effect in nature. Good luck 👍
    1
  535.  @TijmenZwaan  Time is not physical or material or energy. It's a concept. It can't cause anything. You can't manipulate or vary it. The same with distance. Saying time or distance causes an object to move is absurd. All things happen in our concept of time and distance. This has become just philosophical and in no way proves anything. Gravity is just a concept in your model. What is the point of it? Lol. The earth is flat and stationary and not surrounded by a vacuum. There's no need to pretend that concepts (space time) are holding gas or water or people to anything. It's simple. But if you want to believe you are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun then suddenly a magical concept is needed. And you have to convince yourself that clocks is proof of concepts (space time) making all of these things work. Lol. You're stuck in a religion. Lol.
    1
  536.  thesparitan  If Gravity is not a law then why are you asking about laws of physics?
    1
  537.  thesparitan  A thermometer is not measuring an invisible force. It's measuring the temperature of water in my example. Water is physical and has matter. W Time is not physical and doesn't have matter.
    1
  538.  thesparitan  What in nature are you measuring? Atom decay? Is atom decay your dependent variable?
    1
  539.  thesparitan  Water is not invisible. How hot it is, is observable. Lol. You've gotten lost in what is physical. Lol. Let me help you. If it has matter then it's physical and material. Physical things can be cold or hot. Lol.
    1
  540.  thesparitan  I keep telling you that you can measure physical things. Lol. Clocks are not measuring anything physical. Time does not have matter. Lol. It's like love and peace. Lol.
    1
  541.  thesparitan  Now can we move forward? What in nature are atomic clocks measuring? Is it atomic decay? I'm trying to help you make your argument. Let me help you so we can at least get to your independent variable. Lol.
    1
  542.  thesparitan  Is atom decay your dependent variable? Lol. Let me help you science. Lol. You can't get there on your own. You don't even know what is physical anymore.
    1
  543.  thesparitan  I tried. I was going to grant you atomic decay. Lol. Time is not a valid dependent variable. Sorry but you don't have an experiment here. Best of luck 👍
    1
  544.  @TijmenZwaan  Water is physical. The thermometer is measuring an aspect of water. You can call that aspect heat or Unicorns. Lol. We've all agreed on heat. Clocks are measuring something not physical. A man-made convention. A concept. In the same way I can't use a thermometer to measure love and say see love is physical or energy and causing effects in nature. The thing you measure has to be physical or energy. Simple. Are you guys really struggling with what is physical?
    1
  545.  thesparitan  Because time is not physical or material. It can't be observed in nature. It's a concept.
    1
  546.  thesparitan  Science is a method. It's not concerned with what you or I believe. Your dependent variable has to be an effect that can be observed in nature. Time cannot. Simple.
    1
  547.  @TijmenZwaan  Time is just a concept. Unless you can prove it is physical or energy. Good luck 👍. Having a perception of a past doesn't make time more than a concept. Sorry.
    1
  548.  thesparitan  Concepts are abstract ideas. They don't have to be referring to anything real. Abstract means existing in thought but not having a physical or concrete existence. Do I need to define any other words for you? Lol.
    1
  549.  thesparitan  I didn't say abstract ideas never refer to anything in the real world. Lol. I said they don't have to refer to anything real. This was in rebuttal to you asking what is the concept of time referring to? Do you know the difference between "don't have to" and "never?" Lol.
    1
  550.  thesparitan  Outerspace. Lol.
    1
  551.  thesparitan  All abstractions don't refer to something real. Here's a list of abstract ideas that don't refer to something real: The Heliocentrism model is an abstract idea. Gravity is an abstract idea. Outerspace is an abstract idea. Space time is an abstract idea. Unicorns are an abstract idea. Narnia is an abstract idea. Do I need to continue or do you get the point? And here it comes..................... Lol.
    1
  552.  thesparitan  Outerspace? Lol. This just keeps getting worse for you. You can't have gas pressure without a container. Earth having gas pressure proves that the sky is not a vacuum. Outerspace would violate entropy and gas laws. The gas would fill the available volume. Sadly, there are no clocks in a region that can't exist. It was bad enough you thought clocks proved gravity, now you think people are going into outerspace with clocks. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  553.  thesparitan  Gravity? You mean the imaginary concept you have been failing to prove is real. Just clocks. Lol. Your concept is not going to overcome entropy and gas laws.
    1
  554.  thesparitan  It's not about what I believe. I have natural and gas laws that prove outerspace doesn't exist.
    1
  555.  thesparitan  To hold a gas, yes you need a jar or container. Because you can't have gas pressure without a container.
    1
  556.  thesparitan  Is earth a bowl now? Lol. Your model has an open system earth surrounded by an ever expanding vacuum. There's nothing to compress or hold gas. Can you demonstrate gas pressure without a container? A bowl would be a container.
    1
  557.  thesparitan  Don't be so triggered. My argument is your model's claim of a sky vaccum is wrong because earth has gas pressure. You can't demonstrate gas pressure without a container. So you start talking about jars and bowls which are containers. Your model has no containment at all.
    1
  558.  thesparitan  You're now being insulting. What's wrong? Can't prove any of your theories? It should be easy right? There should be so much science out there. But you've been stuck trying to prove that clocks prove gravity. And now you're struggling to explain how outerspace is possible if it's violating natural and gas laws.
    1
  559.  thesparitan  Observing clocks is not an experiment. Here's your chance to clarify. What are you trying to prove if you are observing clocks?
    1
  560.  thesparitan  So you don't want to clarify? Lol. So then you do believe observing clocks prove gravity as I said.
    1
  561.  thesparitan  Are you really going to pretend that you are not trying to prove time dilation in order to prove gravity? Lol.
    1
  562.  thesparitan  You've clearly lost the debate buddy. Now you're trying to attack me personally because you can't prove your model/religion. Lol. I won't do the same. I think here is where we end this debate. God bless you 🙏. One last lol.
    1
  563. No
    1
  564. Gas expands to fill the available volume. Space in your religion is a near perfect vaccum meaning it would have plenty of volume for our gas to disperse into leaving us all without air to breathe. And you can't prove the lights in the sky are all spherical. And the shape of the lights in the sky doesn't make where we live a sphere. Lastly, nobody claimed we were on a merry go round. Lol.
    1
  565. And the nerve of him to call himself a scientist. That old guy is a pseudoscientist. Lol.
    1
  566. Go easy on the old guy, he's just brainwashed. Lol.
    1
  567. Yeah the arrogance of that old guy. Lol.
    1
  568.  @leek07a  The guys that are being called scientists like Michio Kaku admit that they are not doing science. That's why I posted the quote to you. In fact, the shape of the earth and earth rotation are outside of science because those are what is questions. Science deals with how and why questions. Earth turning or Earth shape are either observable or not. There is no science that proves the earth is a sphere or rotating. So it does come down to what we can observe. Got it?
    1
  569.  @leek07a  Science is fine. You're pushing Pseudoscience if you claim the earth being a sphere is proven by science. Go ahead and post an experiment that proved this. Otherwise you are a brainwashed idiot.
    1
  570.  @alexanotsiri3375  You said telescopes can see earth curvature. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Telescopes are used to see far away objects. We're on the earth. You don't need a telescope to see the ground you are on.
    1
  571.  @alexanotsiri3375  “Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode. The NATO Seasparrow requires a constant signal for homing.” http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf
    1
  572.  @alexanotsiri3375  After you see the proofs debunking your sphere model. You will realize that flat earth is not a theory but reality.
    1
  573.  @leek07a  Angular size changes with distance. You can't see something that has gotten too small for angular resolution. Put your finger up in front of your ugly face and you'll see it looks as big as the tree down the street. Are they actually the same size? Of course not. So how big would Big Ben be in angular size from New York harbor chief?
    1
  574. Math doesn't change the earth from being flat. Lol.
    1
  575. 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
  576. We don't have a solar system, so that's a fail. You essentially said your concept can predict what happens in your made up model. Lol.
    1
  577.  @unholyXromance Since you know what a scientific theory is. Can you please define gravity and tell us what effect in nature it is causing? If you can't then gravity is just a theory in the colloquial sense but not a scientific theory.
    1
  578.  @unholyXromance  You said gravity is both a force and an effect. Gravity can't be both the cause and the effect. It's like saying gravity causes gravity. You need a clearer definition. Then you pressupposed that earth is a sphere orbiting the sun, which you can't prove. It sounds like you can't give an effect in nature that you can say gravity is causing.
    1
  579.  @unholyXromance  Gravity by your own explanation is just a theory but NOT a scientific theory. It's only an idea used to explain other abstract ideas. But there are no experiments involving gravity. It's not physical/material or energy. So you could never manipulate or vary it in an experiment to validate it as causing anything in nature. Gravity is just a concept needed to hold together the heliocentric model. It has no need in reality.
    1
  580.  @unholyXromance  You sadly don't know what a scientific experiment is. First step is to observe a natural phenomenon. That's why I asked you about what you observed in nature that you assume gravity causes. You've now told me about being on the moon and something with a syringe. Lol. The scientific method is simple. Observe an effect in nature. Formulate a hypothesis (explanation for effect observed). Then manipulate or vary assumed cause to either validate or invalidate your hypothesis. If your assumed cause, causes the effect then you retest it. If it continues to cause the effect then you have a scientific theory. So you huffed and puffed about science and what a scientific theory is, but apparently don't know what it is yourself. Lol.
    1
  581.  @unholyXromance  You believe gravity causes tides and seasons. Okay now for your experiment how are you going to manipulate or vary gravity to validate that it causes tides or seasons? You can't. So gravity is not a scientific theory. It's just a concept or theory in the colloquial sense. Have a good day.
    1
  582.  @unholyXromance  Picking up things and dropping them is not a natural observed phenomenon. We know the cause. The person that dropped it. There's no effect that we need to validate a cause for. As for the apple falling from a tree. Well the tree grew up and picked the apple up. Then the stem breaks and apple goes back to the ground. No imaginary forces necessary. Just real forces such as people and trees growing.
    1
  583.  @quentinhawkins6368  You're correct, he is just asserting things. He doesn't realize the difference between just asserting things from a model and proving something scientifically.
    1
  584.  @gamenova7860  The apple only got in the air because the tree grew and lifted it up. Once the stem breaks there's nothing to hold the apple up. The cause of the apple falling is the stem broke. Unless you believe apples are just floating around in the air, before gravity attacks it. Lol.
    1
  585.  @Stazmanian  An apple is not at rest in the air. An apple on the ground is at rest and will remain there unless you or a tree growing picks it up. Once you or the tree let it go, it will go back to the ground where it was before being moved.
    1
  586.  @gamenova7860  You've never been to outerspace, a region that violates natural and gas laws. So the only evidence you have for gravity is your belief in the Heliocentrism model. But you can't even come up with an effect in nature that you can credit gravity for causing.
    1
  587.  @gamenova7860  So you are just going to assert that gravity is true because apples can't fly? Lol.
    1
  588.  @gamenova7860  What objects are falling? You have objects falling around you?
    1
  589.  @gamenova7860  Apples are not moving.
    1
  590.  @gamenova7860  Yeah then you are the force. You picked it up and dropped it. Lol.
    1
  591.  @gamenova7860  You're the only force Luke Skywalker. You caused the object to fall. It was at rest before you picked it up.
    1
  592.  @gamenova7860  I'm not sure why you assume objects should suddenly start flying after you pick them up. Lol.
    1
  593.  @gamenova7860  You applied the force Luke. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  594.  @gamenova7860  You applied the force by lifting it in the air.
    1
  595.  @gamenova7860  You don't have a natural observed phenomenon. We know the cause of something YOU pick up falling is YOU. No imaginary forces are needed.
    1
  596.  @gamenova7860  Nothing is Naturally falling down. Once again YOU are the cause. Lol.
    1
  597.  @thementaldetectorist756  Yes he picked it up and dropped it. Little kids can figure out that he was the cause.
    1
  598.  @gamenova7860  You mean you're not touching the object that you picked up. Did you pick it up with your mind? Lol.
    1
  599.  @thementaldetectorist756  He picked it up and was pulling against the force? Lol. I think at this point you have to admit gravity is just a concept. You're trying very hard to invent something that just is not there. The only real force acting on the object was the person that picked it up. No need for imaginary forces.
    1
  600.  @gamenova7860  So you lifted the object and dropped it. What caused the object to drop? The answer should be simple. I promise you it's not a trick question. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  601.  @gamenova7860  I don't know how to not ridicule a person that picks up something and drops it, then goes off searching for what caused the object to drop. Lol.
    1
  602.  @gamenova7860  The answer was You.
    1
  603.  @thementaldetectorist756  The answer was You.
    1
  604.  @gamenova7860  By lifting up an object and dropping it you caused the object to fall.
    1
  605.  @thementaldetectorist756  If you drop a brick on somebody's head and it kills them are you going to blame gravity? I'd like to see you tell a jury that you just let it go and gravity killed the person.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  606.  @gamenova7860  I gotta go guys. This has been fun. You're free to believe in magical imaginary forces. Just don't try to claim this is scientific.
    1
  607.  @gamenova7860  We're 85 comments in and you still can't understand how you are the cause of objects you pick up and drop dropping. Do you have an effect in nature that doesn't involve you doing something that you can credit gravity for?
    1
  608.  @andrew9183  Jumping is caused by me using my energy to lift myself up off the ground. I'm not superhuman so I don't have the energy to stay in the air for long. Lol. No outside force is exerted on me.
    1
  609.  @thementaldetectorist756  You are the person that made the object fall when you used force to pick it up. And you have not been to space, so stick to reality if you can.
    1
  610.  @gamenova7860  You have no evidence earth is a sphere with the moon orbiting it. So your only evidence of gravity is believing in your Heliocentrism model. In reality you can't come up with one effect to even assume gravity causes that doesn't involve you moving picking things up and being shocked that they don't fly. Lol.
    1
  611.  @gamenova7860  You need energy to move things. Lol. Movement requires energy. Lol.
    1
  612.  @thementaldetectorist756  I don't have to prove imaginary forces don't exist. People can't fly because we have matter and are solid. A helium balloon can fly and so can gas which expands in all directions.
    1
  613.  @andrew9183  If I jump I don't keep going like the Hulk. I use energy to get in the air but I don't just start floating now. Lol.
    1
  614.  @gamenova7860  Yes movement requires energy. That has nothing to do with gravity. Lol.
    1
  615.  @thementaldetectorist756  I know the earth is flat and stationary. And gravity is just a concept in the Heliocentrism model.
    1
  616.  @thementaldetectorist756  There is no space. That's a place in your model. You'll never ever go to space.
    1
  617.  @gamenova7860  We don't start floating because we don't have magical powers. People can't fly. Doesn't mean gravity is real. You have matter and are solid. You can't fly. Nothing's holding you down but your own matter.
    1
  618.  @andrew9183  Don't complicate things. You use energy to jump and it gets you in the air but not for long and you return back to the ground. Simple. Only force involved was you.
    1
  619.  @andrew9183  When you find yourself asking why when you jump you can't fly then you have overcomplicated things for yourself. Lol.
    1
  620.  @gamenova7860  You can believe in whatever model you want. Your model is not science or reality.
    1
  621.  @thementaldetectorist756  It's not about what I believe. It's about what can be validated. You are the cause of you jumping and falling. You are the cause of objects you pick up and drop falling. Simple.
    1
  622.  @thementaldetectorist756  It's also not about believing space doesn't exist. It violates natural and gas laws. The gas we breathe can't be next to a vacuum with no barrier. That defies entropy. Boyle's Law also states an inverse relationship between gas pressure and volume where if you increase volume you decrease gas pressure. Imagine what happens if you increase the volume to an ever expanding vacuum? Earth's gas pressure would be gone.
    1
  623.  @gamenova7860  Your model has never been validated. Just assumed. And yes when YOU jump you cause yourself to fall. No other force needed.
    1
  624.  @gamenova7860  I have not claimed a model. You have a model that has convinced you that there is a magical force that it doesn't even call a force anymore but rather the warping of space time. Lol.
    1
  625.  @gamenova7860  Gas expands in all directions and not being held down by concepts (space time warping). Lol. Gas pressure requires a container. Can you demostrate gas pressure without a container?
    1
  626.  @gamenova7860  I said demonstrate not tell me what your model says. You can't even weigh gas without a container.
    1
  627.  @gamenova7860  So at the top where your model has a vacuum what is the gas pressing upon?
    1
  628.  @gamenova7860  "Gases consist of tiny particles of matter that are in constant motion. Gas particles are constantly colliding with each other and the walls of a container. These collisions are elastic; that is, there is no net loss of energy from the collisions. Gas particles are separated by large distances."  https://opentextbc.ca › chapter › kin... Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gases – Introductory Chemistry – 1st Canadian Edition
    1
  629.  @gamenova7860  Weight of air? 😂😂😂😂😂. Go ahead and try to weigh air. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  630.  @gamenova7860  The point is gas is not sitting on top of each other in layers. Gas has no bonds and is free to move about freely expanding far apart. Gas is not a liquid or solid. Your model has an open system earth surrounded by an ever expanding vacuum. The gas would fill the available volume. Your model is not based in reality. You can't demonstrate any of what you claim.
    1
  631.  @gamenova7860  "Entropy. ... 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.Apr 27, 2019"  LibreTexts › chem 18.3: Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Chemistry LibreTexts
    1
  632.  @gamenova7860  You believe that Gravity is holding gas way out at the top next to your vacuum but it can't hold gas down that is close to the surface? If gravity were holding gas down then your tires would not expand. You are not making any sense.
    1
  633.  @gamenova7860  Did it dawn on you yet that your magical force can't be holding gas down if gas is expanding in all directions?
    1
  634.  @gamenova7860  Gas is free to move to an extent. Lol. Just out there next to your vacuum it stops huh? Lol. You're in such denial.
    1
  635.  @gamenova7860  Even though all observations of gas behavior without exception shows gas rapidly and spontaneously filling the available volume you believe it defies entropy and just sits still next to a vacuum. Lol.
    1
  636.  @gamenova7860  So what happens to the gas particles?
    1
  637.  @gamenova7860  And where do you believe your sky vaccum starts? Lol.
    1
  638.  @gamenova7860  Available volume is all around the earth in your model.
    1
  639.  @andrew9183  Technology is great. Has nothing to do with you inventing forces that can't be observed in nature.
    1
  640.  @gamenova7860  I can't argue with your magical belief. We simply don't observe gas being pulled down. Gas particles expand in all directions and gas pressure requires a container. Entropy and gas laws debunk your belief in outerspace.
    1
  641.  @gamenova7860  I've been waiting for you to tell me where we observe an effect of gravity in nature. So far you have said people doing something and in outerspace. We can't even get to what gravity is. You can't even give me an effect. Lol.
    1
  642.  @andrew9183  Jumping up and falling down is an effect caused by a man.
    1
  643.  @andrew9183  We're looking for an effect you can assume gravity causes.
    1
  644.  @andrew9183  Nothing is accelerating until you as a real force moves it or yourself in the air. It's not a natural observed effect if you as a man causes it.
    1
  645.  @gamenova7860  Well I guess this is where the argument ends. You believe a man lifting and dropping something or jumping in the air and coming back down is proof of an invisible magical force. I realize that it's just the man causing the effect.
    1
  646.  @andrew9183  Do you have any other examples or is man jumping all you have?
    1
  647.  @gamenova7860  You can't leave off the bit where you pick up the object before you let it go. The object can't fly so it will fall back to the ground.
    1
  648.  @gamenova7860  Your examples of things in outerspace and declaring things from your model that are never observed in nature is not you providing me with examples.
    1
  649.  @andrew9183  You literally just said you can predict that a person jumping up will come down and you can do that with incredible precision. I can predict that if I close my eyes I can't see, and I am right 100 percent of the time. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  650.  @gamenova7860  Because objects don't fly on their own. That would be magical. And the object was remaining still until you picked it up.
    1
  651.  @gamenova7860  Yes he is 100 percent right that if a man jumps he will come down. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. He must have a crystal ball or something. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  652.  @gamenova7860  It's a scientific law that objects float on their own? Lol. You know that for something to be a law it has to be observed to always happen without exception. When have you ever observed objects floating on their own?
    1
  653.  @gamenova7860  Please cite the law that says objects float on their own.
    1
  654.  @gamenova7860  I said cite the law. Do you know what a citation is?
    1
  655.  @gamenova7860  So you don't know how to cite something. No worries. Where have you ever observed an object stay in motion in nature?
    1
  656.  @unholyXromance  Finally someone that can provide an effect of something not done by a man. Let's pick one at a time. Which effect you want to go with?
    1
  657.  @gamenova7860  What things on a table stay in motion?
    1
  658.  @unholyXromance  Let's do water running downstream. You say water running down stream is caused by gravity? Okay how are you going to validate that? In an experiment you must manipulate or vary your independent variable.
    1
  659.  @gamenova7860  They stay at 0 velocity. You're supposed to be observing objects staying motion. 0 would be not moving. Lol.
    1
  660.  @gamenova7860  Subject change now. Lol. I gotta eat and get some rest. You are funny.
    1
  661.  @unholyXromance  Seasons are your claim. Can you prove earth is a sphere going around the sun causes seasons? That's just what your model says.
    1
  662.  @unholyXromance  You said water flowing down stream is your natural observed phenomenon (dependent variable). Your independent variable (assumed cause) is gravity right? How are you going to vary or manipulate gravity to validate that it causes water to to flow downstream?
    1
  663.  @unholyXromance  I could validate that having uneven ground is what causes water to flow downhill. Lol. But you can never validate an imaginary force. Lol.
    1
  664.  @gamenova7860  And we all know that an object at rest will remain at rest. You said an object in motion will stay in motion. Where have you ever observed that?
    1
  665.  @unholyXromance  And pressure decreases the higher up you go because gas expands and spreads far apart. If there were a sky vaccum our gas would disperse into the vacuum. The necessary antecedent for gas pressure is a container.
    1
  666.  @unholyXromance  So at the end of the day. Gravity is just assumed and can't be proven scientifically. It can't even be clearly defined. And it's not needed on our flat stationary plane. If you want to imagine a downward force acting on things it is okay. But that's not really much use for anything in reality. It only helps with imagining the heliocentric model. Lol.
    1
  667.  @thementaldetectorist756  You are back to assuming something in outerspace. You don't know what the lights in the sky are or how they function. You have never been to outerspace and let an apple go. Lol.
    1
  668.  @thementaldetectorist756  The ground is uneven and that causes the water to flow. I can validate that. I can't validate that there is a force acting on water. That's an assumption you can't prove.
    1
  669.  @thementaldetectorist756  You said there are more particles at the top which contradicts unholy Xromance's claim about there being less gas particles higher up. Lol. Which one of you is wrong?
    1
  670.  @gamenova7860  So if it has never been observed then his law of motion is not a law. It's pretty easy to take something that never happens and say it never happens because of magic fairies. Like this: We'd grow to be ,20 feet tall if magic fairies weren't putting spells on us. Law of height. Lol. Get it? He took something that never happens such as objects staying in motion and declared that if not for gravity it would stay in motion. Lol.
    1
  671.  @gamenova7860  If you pick an apple up and drop it then it will fall to the ground every time. You caused it to happen. The only law is apples can't fly just like you can't fly. No other force was involved other than what you applied.
    1
  672.  @friedchicken6642  Are you asking me to have empathy for those brainwashed by heliocentrism? I do have empathy and I can understand how they are confused. I've tried to point the way for them here. First step is to let go of the model. Outside of the model there is no need for imaginary forces or shapes or movement. Next step is to recognize the difference between science (observation and experimentation) and pseudoscience (observe and declare). Third is to understand natural laws (always observed without exception). 4th is to not mistake concensus belief as evidence.
    1
  673.  @gamenova7860  I get that you assume objects can fly without your imaginary force. Lol.
    1
  674.  @gamenova7860  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
    1
  675.  @neommashala  I provided quotes from your astrophysicists. You calling them dumb? Lol.
    1
  676.  @gamenova7860  You said "gravity isn't technically a force" but you have been arguing with me about a downward force. Now that's dumb. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  677.  @gamenova7860  So Newton was categorically wrong. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. So all this downward force garbage was you being dishonest? Lol. Now here's the devastating part. Space time is not physical/material or energy. Warping ideas can't keep objects on your imaginary spinning ball.
    1
  678.  @gamenova7860  Now that you finally came clean and admitted gravity is not a force please answer this question. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously? You wouldn't be able to breathe because the gas would disperse into the vacuum if there is no barrier. Please don't say a force is holding gas because you now know that is not the case. RIP Globe!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  679.  @gamenova7860  Curving ideas is not holding gas to the earth defying entropy. “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
  680.  @gamenova7860  ENTROPY: ” *GAS Expansion Into A VACUUM*, mixing of ideal gases or liquids, diffusion, effusion, colligative effects, and osmosis each fundamentally involves an  *INCREASE IN ENTROPY*  due to increased dispersion of energy (with no change in total energy in the case of ideal substances) due to a greater number of microstates for the particular system involved.”     http://entropysite.oxy.edu/entropy_is_simple/
    1
  681.  @gamenova7860  “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
  682.  @gamenova7860  Don't ask me about models. I'm destroying yours. Now take it like a man.
    1
  683.  @gamenova7860  You already admitted gravity is not a force, so no pull or push. Don't be a lying weasel. You can't go back to Gravity being a force now.
    1
  684.  @gamenova7860  ”How do you have Gas Pressure WITHOUT a Container ??” It's the necessary antecedent. Your model has an open system earth in a vacuum. Curving or warping ideas can't save you here buddy. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  685.  @gamenova7860  “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 Can you read? Gas is expanding in all directions to fill the available volume of the container. If the container is not sealed the gas will escape. Your model has no container at all.
    1
  686.  @gamenova7860  WHICH COMES FIRST … 1. “GAS PRESSURE”. (“X“) or 2. “GAS PRESSURE GRADIENTS”. (“Delta-X“) There CAN’T BE a “Delta-X“ before there’s an “X“.  So AGAIN !!! …  ”How do you have Gas Pressure WITHOUT a Container ??”
    1
  687.  @gamenova7860  The Consequent (Gas Pressure). Necessary Antecedent (Container). Gas Pressure “The “PRESSURE OF A GAS” is the force that the gas exerts on the *WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER“*.  http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html
    1
  688.  @gamenova7860  “Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle’s [GAS] Law … “Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the *WALLS OF THE CONTAINER “CAUSES” PRESSURE* (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE .” http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html
    1
  689.  @gamenova7860  Nowhere in there does it say gas pressure is caused by gravity. Which you now know is warping ideas. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Earth has gas pressure and gas pressure requires a container, not ideas being warped.
    1
  690.  @gamenova7860  I realize you have no argument left and like a religious zealot you can't admit that your religion is wrong. I think readers can see that you have been embarrassed. I'll leave it here. Good luck 👍. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  691.  @unholyXromance  You have proof of a rock falling from space hitting the earth? Meteors only seem to leave craters right? No sliding, just straight on impact of a ball that's also supposed to be moving.
    1
  692.  @unholyXromance  17 meteors hit the ground every day? Lol. Cool story. Got any proof?
    1
  693.  @unholyXromance  Here's Halley's Comet. Looks like another light in the sky. https://images.app.goo.gl/tgwvZCJJbiCvnqR28
    1
  694.  @unholyXromance  Not one of the lights in the sky are shown striking the ground in your video. And with all the cameras and technology we have now, surely there would be footage of a meteor striking the earth.
    1
  695.  @unholyXromance  So you tell me 17 meteors hit the ground every day but you have no evidence of this. Then you show me a video with lights moving through the sky that you have no idea what the light is. So you made an unsupported claim.
    1
  696.  @gamenova7860  The necessary antecedent for gas pressure is a container. If you see a chicken egg, then you know there was chicken. If you see a steak cooking then you know there was a cow. Now read below how gas pressure requires a container.  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- Gas Pressure   “The “PRESSURE OF A GAS” is the force that the gas exerts on the *WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER“*.  http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the *WALLS OF THE CONTAINER “CAUSES” PRESSURE* (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE .” http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html
    1
  697.  @gamenova7860  I don't have a model. I have reality. Models are not science or reality. We don't live on your spinning ball model so your model's explanations of seasons and night/day are wrong. Now you can figure out how day/night and seasons work in reality on your own.
    1
  698.  @gamenova7860  Your model doesn't work in reality. It defies gas laws and entropy laws. And emperical means verifiable by observation and experience. All experiences and observations prove gas pressure requires a container. Do words have meaning to you?
    1
  699.  @gamenova7860  You're the one arguing that seasons and day and night are caused by a spherical turning earth. So you must prove the Earth is a sphere and turning. Don't ask me to explain or disprove your claim that you have not proven.
    1
  700.  @gamenova7860  Obviously you and I can't go to the top of the sky. But all observations of gas pressure in nature prove it requires a container. Can you have tire pressure without the tire? And as far as you claiming it doesn't defy entropy. See if you can read what it says below: ENTROPY: ” *GAS Expansion Into A VACUUM*, mixing of ideal gases or liquids, diffusion, effusion, colligative effects, and osmosis each fundamentally involves an  *INCREASE IN ENTROPY*  due to increased dispersion of energy (with no change in total energy in the case of ideal substances) due to a greater number of microstates for the particular system involved.”     http://entropysite.oxy.edu/entropy_is_simple/ “If your theory is found to be AGAINST the *SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS*, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to  *COLLAPSE IN THE DEEPEST HUMILIATION*.”   Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74. “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
  701.  @gamenova7860  Now you want evidence the earth is flat. Well if it's not a sphere what is left? But no worries. Here's your evidence below: https://globeterminator.com/flight/ https://globeterminator.com/bolivian-salt-flats/ https://globeterminator.com/essm-block-i-sea-sparrow/
    1
  702.  @unholyXromance  Here's a quote from one of your astrophysicists telling you it's all guesswork and not science: 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.”
    1
  703.  @unholyXromance  Here's another astrophysicist not wanting to work on the really is level: 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
  704.  @unholyXromance  Don't misquote me either. I said nothing is falling down unless you or something else first picks it up and drops it. Then I said if you jump then your own energy lifted you in the air and your own matter brought you back down. That's all factually true. Your own astrophysicists tell you that gravity is not a force.
    1
  705.  @unholyXromance  And I've demonstrated that the necessary antecedent for gas pressure is a container. Earth has gas pressure sooooooo.
    1
  706.  @unholyXromance  Do you not know how water cycles work? Here's from your boys at NASA: "These occur simultaneously and, except for precipitation, continuously. Together, these five processes - condensation, precipitation, infiltration, runoff, and evapotranspiration- make up the Hydrologic Cycle. Water vapor condenses to form clouds, which result in precipitation when the conditions are suitable.Aug 10, 2003"  https://www.nasa.gov › features › O... Hydrologic Cycle - NASA
    1
  707.  @unholyXromance  An apple is picked up by the tree growing up. You thought apples just appeared in the air? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  708.  @gamenova7860  The ground we live on is an aspect not a shape. If it's not Curving (sphere) then it's flat. I never claimed a shape. I said earth is flat.
    1
  709.  @gamenova7860  You're claiming that planes are descending 2789 feet every minute to maintain altitude and nobody notices? 😂😂😂😂😂😂 And once again warping space time is not real so please stop talking about gravity.
    1
  710.  @gamenova7860  "How many miles of “VERTICAL DROP” (Geometric) MUST BE negotiated over a distance of 500 Miles on a Ball with a Circumference of 25,000 Miles? Answer: 31.7 miles How many Feet are in 31.7 Miles ?? Answer: 167,376 feet SOOOOO… 167,376 Feet of “VERTICAL DROP“ MUST BE Negotiated over 500 Miles on Earth. If you divide that by 60 minutes, you can see that an hour flight has to account for 2789.45 feet of drop per minute. That doesn't happen and it debunks your sphere. Got it?
    1
  711.  @unholyXromance  Yes if you raise something and drop it then we know you are the cause of it falling. Or the tree growing and lifting the apple up is what caused it to fall. Glad you and I were able to solve that mystery Sherlock. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  712.  @gamenova7860  You're just not going to address that airplanes would have 2789.45 feet of vertical drop per minute. Have you ever flown in an airplane for an hour? Did you experience 2789.45 feet of drop per minute? Of course not because the earth is flat and airplanes can just fly level and maintain altitude. That's the debunking of your sphere. I'm sure you'll dismiss this to tell me about apples growing on trees in the air as if that is relevant to anything. Lol.
    1
  713.  @gamenova7860  2789.45 feet of vertical drop per minute is not a change in motion to you? You are a religious zealot. You have denied all logic to follow the Heliocentrism religion. Well keep the faith. We have nothing left to discuss. Peace.
    1
  714.  @unholyXromance  Is the apple floating in mid air or is it on a tree? I promise this is not a trick question. Lol. Give it a rest buddy. Your own astrphysisists tell you that gravity is not a force. Unless you can prove space time is material or energy then there's no evidence of gravity.
    1
  715.  @gamenova7860  Technically means referring to the facts or the exact meaning of something. So the facts are gravity is not a force. That's the exact meaning. Lol. Words have meaning. You're left with space time being warped by mass. Is space time physical/material or energy? No it's a concept (abstract idea). Warping ideas can't cause anything to happen in nature. Warping peace, love, space, time, length can't cause effects in nature. Your model can't explain how gas, water, people, objects, etc. Are sticking to a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. Your model is a failure my friend. Lol.
    1
  716.  @unholyXromance  Gravity is not a force. It can't push or pull anything. You're not listening to your astrophysicists. Lol.
    1
  717.  @gamenova7860  I don't have a model. I have reality. What is your question?
    1
  718.  @gamenova7860  Day/night seasons simultaneously is your argument. What is your claim about it? I have not made any claims. So why are you asking me to explain your argument. You explain it and I will refute or disagree with it.
    1
  719.  @gamenova7860  The problem is all you know is your model, so you want me to have a model to compare to your model. Because your model has been debunked, and doesn't work. I don't have to provide you with a new model. You don't have a geometric sphere, so now figure out for yourself how day/night and seasons work. I don't make claims about things I can't prove like the lights in the sky. That's the pseudoscience that got us Heliocentrism. I would be a hypocrite if I equally started giving explanations for phenomena I can't validate. I'm not interested in proving a flat Earth model. Reality is that earth is flat and stationary. Sorry that's not enough for you.
    1
  720.  @gamenova7860  I never claimed a model. I have told you several times that I don't have a model. I debunked gravity, outerspace, and your geometric sphere. I don't need to now explain to you how everything in the world works because suddenly you don't have the stories from your model anymore. You want stories from me now to feel safe and secure in the world. Lol.
    1
  721.  @gamenova7860  Natural and gas laws debunked outerspace. Can't have gas pressure without a vacuum, the gas would escape. Your own astrophysicists debunked gravity being a force and tell you it's a concept (space time being warped). And black swans debunked the geometric horizon proving there's no geometric sphere. Flights also debunk the globe as they don't have to account for vertical drop (which would be roughly 2700 feet per minute). But I don't claim to know what causes seasons and won't provide you with a model that declared the distance and sizes of lights in the sky I can't get to. Therefore, you can deny all the evidence that debunks your fairytale model. Lol.
    1
  722.  @gamenova7860  And just for fun you said general relativity was a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that has been validated through experimentation. Please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) that involves space time. Lol. Was space time the effect? No, we can't observe space time. Was it the cause of something? No we don't have anything physical/material or energy to manipulate. So it's not a scientific theory.
    1
  723.  @gamenova7860  Gravity is an effect (bending of space time) caused by mass. Effects don't cause things in nature. You don't understand cause and effect. Maybe you should google these terms. Lol.
    1
  724.  @gamenova7860  "Space in our Universe is three dimensional, and when you combine it with time, you get a four dimensional quantity. When it comes to the notion of spacetime curvature, this is what General Relativity refers to. But under no circumstances should you conceive of space as though it's a material, physical thing; it isn't.Aug 11, 2018"  https://www.forbes.com › 2018/08/11 Ask Ethan: Is Spacetime Really A Fabric? - Forbes
    1
  725.  @gamenova7860  "The fabric of spacetime fabric is not made of energy, particles , photons or any other physical entities. The space is made of nothing and time mostly indicates change. Advocates of the fabric of spacetime also say that it behaves like solid 'structure,but no structure'."  https://www.quora.com › What-is-th... What is the fabric of spacetime made of? - Quora
    1
  726.  @gamenova7860  Do you need more citations or do you understand that space time is not physical in any way? It's all conceptual (abstract idea). An abstract idea that is not even claimed to be a cause in your model but rather an effect is not doing anything in nature.
    1
  727.  @gamenova7860  Yes you would be the cause of a ball you kicked hitting things. You're finally starting to get it sort of. Lol. The ball didn't move on it's own and hit things. You said you never claimed space time was matter, but it's related. What? If space time is not matter or energy then it's not physical or real. That's the debunking of gravity. You can't just say something like that and try to move on. You admitted gravity is not real. What relative is there of matter? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.
    1
  728.  @gamenova7860  If time and space are not energy or matter, then it's a concept (abstract idea). I was going to ask you if you believe gravity is supernatural, but to be supernatural, it would need to be a force. And it's not a force. So you have something you believe in that is not matter or energy and doesn't do anything. Lol.
    1
  729.  @gamenova7860  You can't even prove space time is real and already acknowledged that it is not physical/material or energy. So how are you claiming it causes anything in nature? And you're saying it's likely real because it causes things. You can't validate space time warping causing any natural phenomena, because you can't manipulate or vary something that is just conceptual to test if it causes anything.
    1
  730.  @tomasjallen  Movement of the sun, stars, moon. Easiest explanation is the sun, stars, moon are moving. Lol. And the easiest explanation for why things fall is what ever picked the things up.
    1
  731.  @Jacob-ry3lu  Thousands of scientists colluding with the government is your straw man. The guy in the video said governments are colluding. The Pseudoscientists pushing Heliocentrism are not doing science. They even admit that their so called theories can change over time. They observe the sky and just make assumptions. No experiments involved. Lol.
    1
  732.  @sentinelxcix2526  If the earth turns underneath a gyro then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  733.  @sentinelxcix2526  Your question about breathing at higher altitude is an example of entropy working. High pressure moving to lower pressure. Your conclusion that the sky is a vacuum is wrong. Because earth has gas pressure which requires a container, we know that the sky is not a vacuum.
    1
  734.  @sentinelxcix2526  The sun departs along with it's light leaving the sky dark. We can't see the whole sky. The horizon where the sky and ground APPEARS to converge is the limits of our vision due to perspective.
    1
  735.  @sentinelxcix2526  And your last paragraph about earth being in constant motion is a begging the question fallacy. You have to first prove the Earth is moving before talking about why we can't feel it moving. Lol.
    1
  736.  @SwordTune  Your assumption that you can have gas next to a vacuum can't be proven by your assumption of other gas balls next to a vacuum. That's circular reasoning buddy.
    1
  737.  @avishevin1976  And gravity has been known to not be a force since 1915. A concept that is not a force is not holding gas from escaping into a vacuum, defying entropy and gas laws.
    1
  738.  @avishevin1976  And finally, gas expands in all directions never losing kinetic energy. Gas is not being held down. And the atmo is air and air is gas. Just because you say atmosphere, doesn't mean we are suddenly talking about something different. Lol.
    1
  739.  @sentinelxcix2526  I already debunked the gyro. The argument that it proves earth turn is not logically consistent when we don't experience earth turn underneath anything else. Arguing about why we don't feel earth turn is begging the question that earth is turning. First prove that it is turning.
    1
  740.  @sentinelxcix2526  We have gas pressure, which requires a container. With no walls to press upon there can be no gas pressure. Pressure gradients come after gas pressure. Sky can't be a vacuum because the gas would disperse leaving us with no air to breathe.
    1
  741.  @sentinelxcix2526  I don't have a model. And again the sun never drops over any curve. The horizon is not geometric as proven by it being farther than the sphere radius allows. It's caused by perspective. Simple.
    1
  742.  @sentinelxcix2526  Gravity is not defined as a force and has not been since replaced by Einstein's concept in 1915. No force means no push or pull. Means gas that is expanding in all directions is not effected by gravity (a concept).
    1
  743.  @sentinelxcix2526  Now instead of arguing about what your magical concept can do, how about you demonstrate gas pressure without a container? And not just declare that the sky up there is a vacuum. Lol.
    1
  744.  @AtleticoTorres09  Yes they observe the sky and make assumptions. And if you don't know that Einstein replaced Newton in 1915, then you are really lost. Lol.
    1
  745.  @sentinelxcix2526  Asking me for an explanation for why the sun and moon turn is not you proving earth turns. Lol. I'll take that as you conceding you don't have proof. Lol.
    1
  746.  @sentinelxcix2526  Water is not the same as gas. Do you need to relearn the difference between solids, liquids, and gases? Lol.
    1
  747.  @sentinelxcix2526  Gas getting thinner (ie. Gas Pressure gradient) comes after gas pressure. Can you demostrate gas pressure without a container?
    1
  748.  @sentinelxcix2526  Things drop below the horizon not out other sky. The horizon is not earth curve but the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. Simple. Look at street lights down a long street. The lights farther away from you get closer to your horizon before eventually dropping below.
    1
  749.  @sentinelxcix2526  Gravity is currently defined as the warping of space time. Space time is a concept. Which weighs more, a box of space or a box of time? Lol.
    1
  750.  @avishevin1976  Gas is not held to the ground. Can you demonstrate gas being held to the ground? Lol.
    1
  751.  @SwordTune  Didn't say observation are assumptions. I said Pseudoscientists observe then make assumptions. Learn how to read. Lol.
    1
  752.  @avishevin1976  Do you want me to send you videos of the horizon being farther than geometrically possible? Have you not seen all the black swan videos? Lol.
    1
  753.  @AtleticoTorres09  Not my job to do your research. Go ahead and Google Einsteinian gravity. Lol.
    1
  754.  @sentinelxcix2526  That would be you making an assumption because you have not been to any celestial body or object or light in the sky. It's trying to prove your assumption with an assumption. Circular reasoning.
    1
  755.  @sentinelxcix2526  And until you can address how we can have gas pressure without a container there is no point in talking about gas pressure gradients which comes after gas pressure.
    1
  756.  @sentinelxcix2526  And gas is very different from liquid. Totally different state. Gas has no bonds and the particles are free to move in all directions to fill the available volume, not being pulled down.
    1
  757.  @avishevin1976  Saying the atmosphere is not demonstrating gas being held to the ground. Lol.
    1
  758.  @SwordTune  You made so many assumptions in your last post that you need others to accept in order to draw your conclusion. But I don't accept your assumptions. There are so many different sources of light and way too many gases in our own air for any logical person to conclude that astronomical spectroscopy is accurate in detecting what distant lights are made of. Also, local spectroscopy machines are very very sensitive and have to be completely closed off from outside light to work. Astronomical spectroscopy machines are completely exposed.
    1
  759.  @SwordTune  In your comment to @The Ants are My friends, you created a straw man argument by stating flat Earthers need to replace gravity with magnetism or density. First of all gravity is a concept as space time is not real. Flat Earthers don't need to replace a concept that has no effect on anything in our reality. And gas is not being held down by anything. Gas expands in all directions.
    1
  760.  @mrtambourineman6107  You're on the right track. Newton gravity is mass attracting mass. That's never observed in nature. It's assumed that falling is the earth's mass pulling objects with mass to it. But helium balloons go up as well as birds and butterflies being able to escape this pull. So they decided to say the pull of the earth is dependent on the mass of the object. Which is basically them conceding there is no force and heavy things fall and lighter things can actually go up. No force between objects has ever been able to be proven either. So Einstein came along in 1915 with the mass warping space time and gravity not being a force (push or pull). But it's all conceptual as space and time are not physical or material. That's gravity in a nutshell. So when it comes to earth having gas pressure their model has no answer to how gas can be next to a vacuum with no barrier and defy natural laws.
    1
  761.  @avishevin1976  Watch below as that globehead Geometry gets debunked. Lol. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  762.  @SwordTune  Time is a convention and concept. Saying a concept has an effect on a concept is hilarious. Lol. And gas particles do expand in all directions to fill the available volume. Can you demonstrate gas pressure without a container? Just repeating your religion is not a demonstration. Lol.
    1
  763.  @avishevin1976  Yes our air which is gas pressure is maintained. Now are you going to demonstrate gas pressure without a container and not just assume that the sky up there is a vacuum? Lol.
    1
  764.  @avishevin1976  So you don't see the horizon behind the second platform? Lol. And you said the horizon is always geometric. Lol. Now it's refraction. Lol.
    1
  765.  @AtleticoTorres09  If you know Einstein the accepted theory currently says gravity is not a force, why are you still holding on to Newton? Lol. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of your Heliocentrism religion you want to accept. Lol. No force means no push or pull. Regardless of which gravity you want to choose, you can't demonstrate gas pressure without a container.
    1
  766.  @avishevin1976  You said gas reaching the ground is proof gas is being held to the ground. Lol. If gas expands in all directions, that would include down. Lol.
    1
  767.  @SwordTune  Area of what? The container. Lol. You already said time is arbitrary. So why keep going on about it? Lol.
    1
  768.  @avishevin1976  Gas does not stay held down. Lol. Gas pressure gradients require a container also. No container, no gas pressure. Gas pressure is the pressure exerted in the walls of a container. Where your sky vacuum is there would be no wall or surface to press upon and the gas would disperse leaving earth with no gas pressure.
    1
  769.  @avishevin1976  Atmo means air. Air is gas. Lol.
    1
  770.  @avishevin1976  "atmo- a combining form meaning “air,” used in the formation of compound words: atmosphere."  Dictionary.com › browse › atmo- Atmo- | Definition of Atmo- at Dictionary.com
    1
  771.  @SwordTune  "The pressure of a gas is the force that the gas exerts on the walls of its container. When you blow air into a balloon, the balloon expands because the pressure of air molecules is greater on the inside of the balloon than the outside.Jun 5, 2019"  LibreTexts › chem Gas Pressure - Chemistry LibreTexts
    1
  772.  @SwordTune  "https://www.education.vic.gov.au › ... Web results Movement of particles - Department of Education Sep 10, 2018 · In gases the particles move rapidly in all directions, frequently colliding with each other and the side of the container."
    1
  773.  @AtleticoTorres09  Here's the gravity is not a force you asked for. https://youtu.be/CmljGgyy6vc
    1
  774.  @SwordTune  The point is gas particles are not held down by your concept. Lol. So your model is in trouble because it claims a sky vaccum is next to gas at pressure. Lol.
    1
  775.  @SwordTune  If gas particles fell to the ground then we wouldn't have gas pressure. Lol. So when you fill your tire up with gas it would not expand. Lol.
    1
  776.  @avishevin1976  You said gas is not held down but then said our air (gas) is held down. Lol. Talk about double speak.
    1
  777.  @avishevin1976  Again gas pressure gradient is proof of gas pressure which requires a container. Lol. And a vacuum is not a container to press upon. Lol.
    1
  778.  @avishevin1976  Models are reifications. The map is not the terrain. And gas surrounded by a vacuum not dispersing violates natural laws. The gas would fill the available volume. Your model is wrong. Sorry.
    1
  779.  @avishevin1976  Natural Laws like the entropy law which states that entropy always increases is how we can predict the gas would fill the available volume. Because that's what is always observed to happen without exception. Or Boyle's Law which states that there's an inverse relationship between gas pressure and volume where as if you increase the volume then you decrease gas pressure. Now imagine if the volume were an ever expanding vacuum how much gas pressure we would have on Earth. Lol. Your sphere model doesn't predict anything. Natural Laws are how predictions are made buddy. Because again laws are what is observed to always happen without exception. Space is not real because it violates natural laws.
    1
  780.  @avishevin1976  You said "gas does not stay held down." Then proceeded to say the atmosphere which is composed of gases does stay held down. Lol.
    1
  781.  @avishevin1976  The atmo is air and air is gas. Lol. Just because you add the word sphere doesn't change it from being gas. Lol.
    1
  782.  @avishevin1976  What is holding gas in place, that is expanding in all directions and doesn't stop moving? Gas has no bonds and can move about freely spreading far apart.
    1
  783.  @avishevin1976  You don't know what a gas pressure gradient is? Lol.
    1
  784. Your proof of gravity is assuming your model of a solar system and assuming people should be able to float. Lol.
    1
  785. Yeah it was good to see.
    1
  786. You have not been anywhere. Lol. There are no poles. You must have went to MSU (make shite up). Lol.
    1
  787. It's 2020 and it should be pretty easy for a plane to video tape a flight going straight over Antarctica and then coming back up over the claimed North Pole. But instead we get you talking about polar explorers in the 18th century. Lol.
    1
  788. There's just science. Either the scientific method was used or not. Post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for any experiment ever proving the Earth is a sphere or rotating.
    1
  789. “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
  790. 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
  791. The sun is moving. And day is when there is enough light. Night is when it's dark out.
    1
  792. To get brainwashed. Lol.
    1
  793. Newton was replaced in 1915 by Einstein. Neither of their concepts change reality.
    1
  794.  @spackle9999  Warping concepts doesn't explain reality. Which weighs more a box of space time or a box of time? Lol.
    1
  795. He was wrong. Einstein replaced his model in 1915.
    1
  796.  @joshpickard1829  You're in denial. They are 2 different gravity concepts. But both are just concepts. Neither can be scientifically validated.
    1
  797.  @joshpickard1829  We don't ever observe mass attracting mass in nature. Newton's concept was and is categorically wrong. Einstein realized no force existed and moved the concept into the realm of pseudo reimeinnian four space (purely conceptual). Both are wrong and don't match reality.
    1
  798. I walked "around" my house today. Is my house a sphere? Lol. Globehead logic is hilarious.
    1
  799. Since 1915 gravity has not been defined as a force. Einstein replaced Newtonian gravity. Gravity is currently the warping of concepts. Lol.
    1
  800. Yeah earth is noticeably and observably flat and stationary.
    1
  801.  @marvinmartinsYT  You see curvature and experience the earth moving? Lol.
    1
  802.  @adamcoates6127  Ad hominem fallacy does not prove we live on a spinning ball. How about presenting one of those physics arguments you are claiming to know so much about?
    1
  803.  @adamcoates6127  And I didn't say anything about Einstein. But since you brought him up. Can you tell me how he validated the curvature of space time as causing anything? Space time is just a concept. Which weighs more a box of time or a box of space? Lol.
    1
  804.  @marvinmartinsYT  You are delusional. Your high priest Neil Degrasse Tyson says you can't even see earth curvature from 128,000 feet up. Lol.
    1
  805.  @marvinmartinsYT  And all you globeheads admit you don't feel movement. Hence all the excuses why you don't feel movement. Lol.
    1
  806.  @marvinmartinsYT  That's the point. Lol. We don't feel earth turning. So we can't just assume it is.
    1
  807. Yeah it must have been hard not to laugh at the old man. Lol.
    1
  808. We don't experience or observe earth rotation so what is the evidence we are rotating? Coming up with excuses why we don't feel movement doesn't prove we are moving. And using Occam's Razor as the so called scientist suggested, the simpler explanation that we are not moving is most likely the correct one.
    1
  809.  @HeyMurshid  I never claimed an edge. In your model does the universe have an edge? That's also a red herring fallacy as assuming an edge has nothing to do with proving earth rotation.
    1
  810.  @HeyMurshid  But using your logic we don't see an edge, so what would be the evidence that there is an edge? If I started making excuses for why we can't see edges, that would not prove there is an edge. Again I don't claim an edge. I claim the earth is flat and stationary.
    1
  811.  @HeyMurshid  See definitions below of flat and edge. You might realize they are 2 different things. Lol. "Dictionary.com › browse › flat Flat | Definition of Flat at Dictionary.com Flat definition, horizontally level" "edge /ej/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: noun 1. the outside limit of an object, area, or surface; a place or part farthest away from the center of something."
    1
  812.  @HeyMurshid  You don't see that the ground you walk on is flat? Lol.
    1
  813.  @HeyMurshid  Does the ground not look horizontal and level?
    1
  814.  @HeyMurshid  😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. You're funny.
    1
  815.  @user-lv1nn6qb4r  What basic physics disproves the Earth being flat?
    1
  816.  @user-lv1nn6qb4r  People don't think the earth is a sphere because there's no evidence for it. Why believe something that can't be observed or proven? Inertia doesn't prove the Earth is a moving. Saying the earth is really big doesn't prove it is a sphere.
    1
  817.  @HeyMurshid  That's what we observe. Can you prove that what we observe is wrong?
    1
  818.  @HeyMurshid  Just for you troll. https://globeterminator.com/the-black-swan/
    1
  819.  @HeyMurshid  I'll take that as you conceding you don't have a rebuttal to the destruction of your model. Lol.
    1
  820.  @HeyMurshid  I can't misrepresent you because you have not made any arguments. When someone refuses to put forth an argument or rebuttal, then that indicates to me that you don't have one.
    1
  821.  @HeyMurshid  Yeah. Who proved it just one time? What was the experiment that proved it? If it's been done a thousand times then surely you can name one proof. 😂😂😂
    1
  822.  @AMellowSkater  Assumed shapes of lights in the sky and ASSUMED causes of their movement doesn't prove we live on a sphere. The solar system is just a model. Models are not reality. Occam's Razor doesn't make absolute assertions nor does it say a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun is the simplest explanation for anything. That's a ridiculous model for explaining anything. Lol. Magellan did not go in a geographic heading. That's a begging the question fallacy where "heading" refers to true north or true south, which assumes a spherical earth on an axis. True north is not magnetic north as it states below in the dictionary definition. So saying heading is fallacious because it begs the question of a sphere. Magellan travelled westernly using a compass. If you stay west using a compass you will just make a circle over a flat plane or flat water. "true north noun north according to the earth's axis, not magnetic north. "compass readings vary from 7.9° to 6.7° west of true north"
    1
  823.  @AMellowSkater  You clearly don't know how a compass works. Lol. Staying west using a compass will have you making a circle. The north is the center of a compass. South is away from north. East and west will continue to change as it corresponds with north. So staying west will have you making a circle. If you just stayed straight your compass would eventually say you are traveling south. And images of lights in the sky from NASA are not what is seen in reality through a telescope. And there is no science that proves earth is a sphere or rotating. All just assumptions. Did you go to MSU (Make $hit Up)? Lol.
    1
  824. The globe model must have a physical edge (earth curve). Unfortunately it doesn't. Our level plane doesn't need to have an edge just like the Universe doesn't need to have an edge in your model.
    1
  825.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You said you asked someone what causes objects to fall. What objects are falling?
    1
  826.  @tyrodriguez8400  The cause of a tennis ball and basketball falling is the person that picked them up and dropped or threw them. Glad I could clear that confusion up for you.
    1
  827.  @tyrodriguez8400  Yeah Sherlock if you pick something up and throw it or drop it then you are the cause of the object falling. No imaginary force involved. Lol.
    1
  828.  @tyrodriguez8400 “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 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
  829.  @tyrodriguez8400  Can you read what it says about gravity? It's not a force. So you throwing things in the air is the only force present. You have the force Luke Skywalker. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  830.  @tyrodriguez8400  So words don't mean anything to you. You're going to keep declaring Gravity is a force even though your own Pseudoscientists tell you it's not. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  831.  @tyrodriguez8400  So now that you know gravity is not a force, I need you to tell me which weighs more a box of space or a box of time?
    1
  832.  @tyrodriguez8400  Also please tell me how your concepts (space time) which are not physical/material or energy can cause any effects in nature. Then after that maybe you can explain how water is sticking to a ball or anything thing else when there is no force. Warping ideas ain't gonna work buddy. So you can keep your pseudo reimeinnian geometry because your model falls apart with the admission from you that gravity is not a force. I mean it was already a failure anyway. Lol.
    1
  833.  @rtruth7002  They are going to be mad about that observation. Great find. Brace yourself for the ad hominem attacks from the brainwashed globies. Lol.
    1
  834.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You have to calculate the path of a ball you throw? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  835. “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
  836. @FakeX says Yeah it's all guess work as Michio says. No science at all.
    1
  837. @FakeX says Yes it is definitely pseudoscience. Unfortunately most people don't know the difference. That's why most people believe there is science proving we live on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. Lol.
    1
  838. @FakeX says Thanks. Keep spreading the truth brother.
    1
  839. A globehead hero you must be. Lol.
    1
  840. If there is no evidence we are in motion then why would you assume we are?
    1
  841. What does that have to do with earth which is stationary? And you can communicate with flies? Lol.
    1
  842. Pity that all you can point out in favor of the pseudoscientist, is that he barely drank his beer. Lol.
    1
  843. Cause that's all BS. You just said a concept predicts a concept. And then said your concept is responsible for the motion of satellites which are claimed to be in a region that violates natural laws. Lol. The pseudoscientist did the only thing he could do argue philosophy (Occam's Razor) and ask why people lie. Lol.
    1
  844.  @ayie583  Why didn't the so called scientist provide any science. He came to a debate arguing why would they lie. Lol. He even said Richard Feyman was my friend. Lol. I expected more from a scientist.
    1
  845.  @ayie583  He could have just talked about any experiment ever proving the Earth is a sphere or rotating. I would have loved to hear him talk about experiments.
    1
  846.  @ayie583  All that basic stuff you mentioned needs to be proven. For a guy that claims to be a scientist he needs to bring the science. It looks like he doesn't have any experiments if he agrees to a debate then shows up talking about philosophy.
    1
  847.  @ayie583  For example how do you know earth rotates on an axis? You've said this is the cause of seasons. What experiment can validate that?
    1
  848.  @vaolin1703  I don't have any model. I have not made any claims about seasons. The other commenter did. I simply asked what experiment validates what he claimed.
    1
  849.  @DrFreakishfreak  He could just provide the science.
    1
  850.  @vaolin1703  It's his claim. I already know that there is no way to validate that earth rotation on an axis causes seasons. You can't manipulate or vary earth rotation to validate it as a cause for anything.
    1
  851.  @DrFreakishfreak  How was earth proven to be a sphere?
    1
  852.  @vaolin1703  So without images from a region that doesn't exist you don't have any proof?
    1
  853.  @vaolin1703  Why do you believe I need to have a model to compare to your model? Models are not reality or science.
    1
  854.  @vaolin1703  So the only proof is pictures from space. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. All this talk about science and it being proven time after time boils down to I was shown images. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  855.  @DrFreakishfreak  Yes you can Google many images of a globe. Thanks for all that proof. Lol.
    1
  856.  @vaolin1703  So if all you can provide for proof is images from outerspace then there is no science. And that's okay if you believe in space. I don't think it's necessary to have a scientist debate a flat Earther and not provide any science. It should have been people that Google globe images versus flat earther. Because essentially that is the only proof for the globe.
    1
  857.  @vaolin1703  Do you understand that gas pressure next to a vacuum defies entropy? The gas would fill the available volume. Gas pressure requires a container to press upon otherwise gas will disperse. Your model has a vacuum surrounding an open system earth. That's not possible. So the pictures you say are taken from a region that doesn't exist are automatically debunked.
    1
  858.  @steelvader1852  I'm asking for the science that proves the model. It's okay if you say there is none. I'm perfectly okay if you all admit it's just images you have been shown.
    1
  859.  @steelvader1852  A bullet being shot out of a gun with force is not proof of gravity. The energy used to propel that bullet runs out.
    1
  860.  @steelvader1852  Can you demonstrate that there would be no seasons if the earth didn't orbit around the sun? I know your theories, but it's not a scientific theory unless you can manipulate or vary the assumed cause.
    1
  861.  @ayie583  I have not made any claims of an ice barricade or the cause of seasons. I could assume things but it wouldn't be science to just make assumptions that can't be validated.
    1
  862.  @ayie583  I'm not sure why you believe it should be day everywhere or winter everywhere. I have not made any claims about the lights in the sky.
    1
  863.  @vaolin1703  Natural Laws and gas laws are not pseudoscience or science. A law is an observation that is always observed to happen without exception. For example entropy. "Entropy. ... 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.Apr 27, 2019"  LibreTexts › chem 18.3: Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Chemistry LibreTexts
    1
  864.  @steelvader1852  Even in your own model gravity is defined as not being a force (push or pull), but rather mass warping space-time. "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
  865.  @vaolin1703  Can you demonstrate gas pressure without a container? Gas expands in all directions to fill the available volume. In your model there is nothing there at the top for gas to press on. Where do you think the gas will go? It would disperse into the vacuum of space. Your model has gas defying entropy. So is a natural law wrong or your model?
    1
  866.  @vaolin1703  And space time is a concept. It's not physical or material or energy. Warping concepts (abstract ideas) doesn't contain gas or anything for that matter. Gas pressure requires a container. "Pressure is a force exerted by the substance per unit area on another substance. The pressure of a gas is the force that the gas exerts on the walls of its container. When you blow air into a balloon, the balloon expands because the pressure of air molecules is greater on the inside of the balloon than the outside.Jun 5, 2019"  LibreTexts › chem Gas Pressure - Chemistry LibreTexts
    1
  867.  @steelvader1852  Or the sun moves? Or there are other reasons for temperature changes? How can you validate your assumption?
    1
  868.  @steelvader1852  Your model says it's not a force. Should we believe you or your do called scientists?
    1
  869.  @vaolin1703  Gravity is not a natural law as it is never observed. Define gravity and tell me where it is observed in nature.
    1
  870.  @vaolin1703  I said in nature. Outerspace is not in nature. Now what is falling around you? I'm sitting in my room looking out the window and nothing is falling. Do you have things falling around you?
    1
  871.  @steelvader1852  Doesn't say anywhere below that gravity causes gas pressure. You must've learned that at MSU (Make Shite Up). "Pressure is caused by the collisions between the atoms of gas and walls of the container as those atoms travel in the confined space. ... More molecules mean more collisions. Like blowing more air into a balloon, the walls of the balloon get tighter. Decrease the volume.May 26, 2014"  Socratic › Chemistry › Gas Pressure What causes gas pressure? | Socratic
    1
  872.  @vaolin1703  I said natural world. "Definition of the natural world. : all of the animals, plants, and other things existing in nature and not made or caused by people."  Merriam-Webster › dictionary › the ... The Natural World | Definition of The Natural World by Merriam ...
    1
  873.  @vaolin1703  And if I am sitting still then I can't be accelerating. "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"
    1
  874.  @vaolin1703  Entropy is a natural law.
    1
  875.  @vaolin1703  Outerspace is not in our nature. It's in a place that defies natural law and gas laws. Your model says it's a vacuum. Boyle's Law states that there is an inverse relationship between gas pressure and volume. Increase the volume and decrease gas pressure. What would happen if you increased the volume to an ever expanding vacuum?
    1
  876.  @vaolin1703  Maybe next time a scientist is in a debate he can answer these questions and not talk about philosophy. And you all give him praise for sitting there smiling like an idiot with no science.
    1
  877. So gravity can't be proven, earth curvature can't be proven, and earth rotation can't be proven. You all just have images that you can Google which are claimed to be taken in a region defying natural and gas laws.
    1
  878.  @vaolin1703  Appeal to concensus fallacy and stereotype fallacy. What majority of people believe doesn't prove your model. And everyone doesn't believe in your model. Gotta do better than that.
    1
  879.  @vaolin1703  Politics and History are red herring fallacies and have nothing to do with you proving your model.
    1
  880.  @vaolin1703  We don't have any evidence of anything outside of earth. Earth is our nature. Maybe Narnia is out there. I believe heaven is above but none of that is in nature. You been to another galaxy, inside a black hole? It's not in our nature.
    1
  881.  @vaolin1703  We discussed gravity. It's not real. Can't be observed in nature.
    1
  882.  @vaolin1703  The moon is in our nature. It provides light at night. It's not falling down. You said gravity is things falling down.
    1
  883.  @vaolin1703  That's your models claim. But that means we have to assume earth is a sphere and the moon is orbiting it. You are supposed to be proving the earth is a sphere not assuming it.
    1
  884.  @vaolin1703  Again you can believe what you want but you can't prove it.
    1
  885.  @vaolin1703  Wish you the best buddy. Lol.
    1
  886. @UCED9fMg2Q_ZKu8MNJQSGtRQ Don't be mad. I used to believe in the globe also. Then I asked questions and did research.
    1
  887.  @tylenolx  Ad hominem fallacy. Attack me personally because you can't address my arguments.
    1
  888.  @tylenolx  "Ad hominem Language Download PDF Watch Edit "Personal attack" redirects here. For the policy on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim a, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument a is wrong."
    1
  889.  @anakinlumluk2136  I'm going to bed but I'll address this tomorrow.
    1
  890.  @anakinlumluk2136  Foucault's Pendulum was not an experiment. First, it didn't have a natural observed phenomenon. It's a man-made device. The cause of man-made devices doing whatever it does is the man that made it. Secondly in experiments you have to manipulate or vary your assumed cause to validate that the assumed cause is in fact causing the effect. You don't just get to assume earth turn but you are not manipulating or varying earth turn. I could stop there but I'll further destroy your argument. If earth turns underneath a pendulum then it will turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  891.  @anakinlumluk2136  As for the rest of your argument you are presupposing a sphere by saying equator and hemispheres. That's called a begging the question fallacy because your arguments premises must be accepted for you to draw your desired conclusion. You have to prove the earth is a sphere not assume hemispheres and equators which are things on a sphere.
    1
  892.  @ayie583  1. Reversal of proof burden fallacy. You claimed to have proof the earth is a sphere and now that you don't you want to reverse the burden of proof on me to prove it is not something you claimed it was. 2. The Logic of Science › the-gen... The genetic fallacy: When is it okay to criticize a source? | The Logic of Science Jan 18, 2016 · What is the genetic fallacy? As it's name suggests, the genetic fallacy results from attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself. 3. Gravity can't be proven. Because people can't fly, does not prove mass is attracting mass or mass is warping space time. If you pick up a ball and throw it, then you are the cause of the ball moving across the air and falling. No outside force is there. You are the force Luke Skywalker. The moon can't be proven to be orbiting us because you can't prove earth is a sphere to be orbited. Assuming things about lights in the sky is not proof. And obviously I don't care about insults. I'm simply pointing out that insults are a distraction away from the argument.
    1
  893.  @anakinlumluk2136  For your request that I provide you with a model. I'm sorry but I have reality. Models are not science or reality. Models are reifications. The map is not the terrain.
    1
  894.  @anakinlumluk2136  I'm not following what you are saying is rotating counter clockwise and clockwise. I'm assuming you are talking about the man-made device (pendulum). Correct? Or are you saying earth rotated Clockwise and counter clockwise underneath the pendulum?
    1
  895.  @anakinlumluk2136  Well I'll take your word that the pendulum does something. But if the earth turns underneath a pendulum it would also turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane but it doesn't. It's not logically consistent that the earth only turns underneath a pendulum.
    1
  896.  @anakinlumluk2136  I didn't claim that you can't use a man-made object to measure effects in nature. Your man made device can't be the effect. There's a difference. For example a ruler can measure how far an object has moved. It's measuring a real objects effects. But you are saying the pendulum is measuring earth turn, but we can't observe earth turning in any other way. So how can we conclude that the man-made device is accurate? If I told you my device measures flowers to be taller than trees you would conclude my device is wrong because it doesn't match with reality. Your pendulum device doesn't match with reality.
    1
  897.  @anakinlumluk2136  The earth is noticeably and observably flat and stationary. You claim to have proof otherwise but so far all you have provided is a man-made device which you claim measures earth turn, but the earth doesn't turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. Not too convincing to me.
    1
  898.  @connorlindhorst3063  You're trying to prove earth is moving. Providing reasons for why we don't feel something that is moving is not proof earth is moving.
    1
  899.  @connorlindhorst3063  Your comment is a red herring fallacy as we're trying to establish if a man made device is measuring earth turn which we can't observe in any other way.
    1
  900.  @anakinlumluk2136  Sure. If an instrument is not measuring something physical or material or energy, then we can't validate if the instrument is measuring anything. So if I say my instrument measures unicorn energy and demonstrate that my instrument does something then I don't get to say I proved unicorns exist.
    1
  901.  @anakinlumluk2136  ISS is claimed to be in a region that defies natural and gas laws. Any pictures from outerspace are automatically debunked. Can't have gas pressure without a container. We know that the sky is not a vacuum.
    1
  902.  @anakinlumluk2136  You agreed that earth is noticeably flat, but you claim to have proof otherwise. So it's on you to produce the proof. Otherwise I will go with what is noticeably true and observable.
    1
  903.  @anakinlumluk2136  I don't claim to have scientific evidence that the earth is flat. I claim it is noticeably flat and you agreed.
    1
  904.  @anakinlumluk2136  ISS is claimed to be in outerspace which is a vacuum. Gas pressure next to a vacuum defies entropy. "Entropy. ... 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.Apr 27, 2019"  LibreTexts › chem 18.3: Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Chemistry LibreTexts
    1
  905.  @anakinlumluk2136  Boyle's Law also states that there is an inverse relationship between gas pressure and volume in which if you increase volume you decrease gas t. If you increase volume to an ever expanding vacuum, guess what happens to Earth's gas pressure? It's gone. But we have gas pressure, so we know the sky is not a vacuum. Therefore the ISS is not in outerspace taking photos of the earth.
    1
  906.  @anakinlumluk2136  You made the claim so you needed to provide the proof. Your proof got debunked.
    1
  907. Well gotta go guys. Thanks for trying to prove your model. You did better than the poor scientist in the video. But when you get down into it there's just images from outerspace (which is a region that doesn't exist). There is no science to prove Heliocentrism. Good day.
    1
  908.  @ponianadain4641  You said there is calculations that prove the earth is a sphere? Well let's see if the geometry works. We'll use modus tollens. If p then q, not q therefore not p. If the 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 height (q); the distance to the horizon is farther than 10 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height (not q) therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  909.  acktually aintaddingup  I don't think you understand the argument. Do you see the horizon behind the second platform?
    1
  910.  @vaolin1703  The distance to the horizon is farther than 10 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height. If the earth were a sphere the distance to the horizon would be 1.2 miles away. This is proof that the earth is not a sphere. The geometry doesn't work.
    1
  911.  @vaolin1703  I also never claimed that the whole world has conspired. That's a straw man fallacy. My claim is that if the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles the distance to the horizon can be no more than 1.23 times the square root of the observer height. Do you agree with that statement?
    1
  912.  @vaolin1703  Your claim is that the whole world conspired. So you can argue that. I asked you if you agree with the modus tollens argument. If the 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 height (q). Yes or no?
    1
  913.  @vaolin1703  So you don't see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no?
    1
  914.  @vaolin1703  I'm not interested in arguing about who lied to you and why they lie. Now the proof I presented you agree with the math. Now do you see the horizon behind the second platform? Simple yes or no?
    1
  915.  @vaolin1703  The argument is not about the geometry of the cranes. It's about the Geometry of your claimed sphere. Seeing the horizon be farther than 10 miles away proves that the horizon is not geometric (based on the geometry of your sphere). Your model must have a geometric horizon but it's been disproven. You have admitted to seeing a geometric impossibility. So next time you say boats going over the horizon proves a sphere, you're just being dishonest. You no longer get to say the math proves a sphere. It doesn't by your own admission.
    1
  916.  @itzazkii6343  That was a stereotype fallacy. Lol. I've asked for experiments. I've only been told numerous times to look it up myself. And then told to Google images. Do you have any experiments to prove the Earth is a sphere or rotating?
    1
  917.  @vaolin1703  I'm not interested in talking about NASA, unless you can provide evidence they have presented other than images which I have already debunked.
    1
  918.  @vaolin1703  Asking about cranes is a red herring fallacy as the argument is about the geometry of the earth. It's been proven to not match with the 3959 mile radius. You don't have a sphere anymore. I was asked for proof and I provided it. You can continue to believe what you want but your model doesn't match with the math. I'm sure you can find someone else to debate with about conspiracies. I'm only interested in the facts that can be proven. Good day.
    1
  919.  @anakinlumluk2136  If the logic is accurate and the earth has been proven to not have a 3959 mile radius, then that is your whole model debunked. Everything in your model works off of this radius value. From your claimed distance to the sun, other planets, force of gravity. So you're saying at best I just debunked your radius that your whole model is based on. Lol. And once again the geometry is not based on cranes but your spherical earth. You all can clearly see the horizon behind the second platform. Therefore you don't have a geometric horizon. Bye bye globe!!!
    1
  920.  @matthewbibby8921  Sounds like you are saying you are not qualified to use your brain but will just trust what you are told because we'll there's technology. Lol. Warp is actually right on his comment to you. Don't put everyone in your category of not being able to use logic and reason.
    1
  921.  @vaolin1703  I gave you a thumbs up for your comment to Matthew Bibby.
    1
  922. Well this has been fun fellas. Like I said before, at least you gentlemen try to bring forth arguments. Unlike the claimed scientist in the video. Hope you all have a good day regardless of what you choose to believe. Peace.
    1
  923.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Foccault Pendulum was not an experiment. What effect in nature was observed? There's no dependent variable. Can't have an experiment without a dependent variable. A man-made device can't be your dependent variable. The cause of a man-made device doing something is the man that made it. The next part of an experiment if you had a dependent variable (don't worry you don't) would be to formulate a viable hypothesis in which you will be stating what you assume is the cause for the effect you observed. The assumed cause is your independent variable. In this case you are saying earth turn is the cause. Now in the experiment you have to manipulate or vary your independent variable. How you going to manipulate or vary earth turn to validate that it causes the observed natural effect? See why saying this is science is a lie? But let's say you believe that the pendulum is somehow measuring earth turn. If earth turns underneath the pendulum then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because earth doesn't turn. So it's not logically consistent to conclude that your man-made device is measuring something that we don't observe or experience in any other way. I've answered this already. Just didn't want you to think I was dodging your question.
    1
  924.  @anakinlumluk2136  A Science experiment requires a dependent variable and independent variable. A scientific hypothesis is an if and then statement that you will test in an experiment. Your if (earth turn) can't be tested because you can't manipulate earth turn. All you have is the observation of a man made device which you assume is showing earth turn. That's easily debunked because other observations in reality don't show earth turn. You can believe a device is showing something but it's just faith. Science is observation and experimentation Observing and declaring things you have not validated is called pseudoscience.
    1
  925.  @anakinlumluk2136  "Well, more specifically, a scientific experiment is an organized and detailed series of steps to validate or reject a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an explanation about a phenomenon in the natural world. The scientific experiment is the third step in the scientific method.Sep 29, 2015"  Study.com › academy › scientific-e... Scientific Experiment: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
    1
  926.  @anakinlumluk2136  If (cause) then ( natural observed effect). Then you test cause by manipulating or varying it and see how if you get effect. It's not if (observation) then (assume whatever). Lol.
    1
  927.  @anakinlumluk2136  And don't straw man argument. I said Foccault Pendulum is not an experiment. I never said "there are no other experiments." I said Foccault Pendulum was an observation of a man made device which you assume is measuring earth turn but that is easily debunked by real world observations showing earth not turning. Observations and experiments are not the same thing. But if you want to believe a man-made device is measuring earth turn then you are welcome to. It's not logically consistent however and requires a lot of faith. You can never prove that your device is measuring earth turn.
    1
  928.  @anakinlumluk2136  And you used an appeal to concensus fallacy even after saying that you would not. Arguing that the pendulum is an experiment because men have agreed it is , is an appeal to concensus. What you did is like someone saying "no offense" right before saying something really offensive. Lol. I don't think you have any thing new to add to this conversation. I respect your right to believe what you want. You can follow whatever religion/model you want. Peace.
    1
  929.  @anakinlumluk2136  So moving a pendulum to a different location causes it to do something. Great, thanks for that. Lol. What a waste of time that was. Lol.
    1
  930.  @anakinlumluk2136  And you just said the earth turning is not in your argument. Lol. That's what the guy brought up Foccault Pendulum for. You hijacked his argument to now claim it's not even about earth turning. Lol. You want to talk about favorite colors next? Lol.
    1
  931.  @anakinlumluk2136  Like I told you before. The cause of your man-made device doing something is the man that made it. If you want to argue changing location causes it to do something then fine. I really don't care. It's according to you not even being claimed that earth turn is the cause of it doing whatever it does. So who cares about what it does. You're supposed to be providing evidence that the earth is rotating or a sphere. Anyway I have to go now. I've listened and entertained all your arguments. You even made me laugh some. Take it easy.
    1
  932.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Science is a method. If you don't observe something real happening in nature then you don't have any effect to assume a cause for. In order to do an experiment you have to have a viable hypothesis. You have to know what you are trying to validate. That's the point of the dependent and independent variable. You want to be sure by the end of your experiment you validated that your assumed cause, causes the effect. It can be demonstrated that compasses point to magnetic fields. It can be demonstrated that a microphone is picking up sound. It can't be demonstrated the pendulum is measuring earth turn. Would you use a calculator that kept telling you 1+1=3? Your man made device has to comply with reality. Earth is not turning so it's ridiculous to assume a pendulum is measuring something that is not happening. If earth were turning then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. It doesn't.
    1
  933.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Science is a method. You're not applying the method. So it's not science. Earth is not proven to be turning because a man made device you declare proves it. It doesn't make sense that earth rotates 15 degrees per hour under a pendulum attached to the ground but not a drone, helicopter, or airplane. So unless you can actually demonstrate that the earth is turning your assumption about something a man-made device does proving the earth is rotating is wrong.
    1
  934.  @theodiscusgaming3909  The fact that there is no Earth based coriolis effect also debunks earth rotation. On objects that are rotating like a merry go round, if you throw a ball in the air, from observer's on the merry go round the ball will appear to deviate but not actually. This effect happens because you have two separate reference frames (inertial and non inertial). Because the non inertial spinning reference frame observer is spinning it causes objects (a ball thrown in the air) to appear to deviate. You must have two separate reference frames for the coriolis effect to occur. But we can't observe this effect on Earth because the earth is not turning. Furthermore we know the earth doesn't turn underneath anything because if it did then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. This proves earth is not turning underneath a gyro or pendulum or anything else you try to claim. I also read your statement to paraphrase: that the reason for the pendulum's precession is not earth turning. Lol. Then you have no argument. I don't care about your favorite color or television show. You said your device proved earth turn, but now it's caused by something else. Lol.
    1
  935.  @theodiscusgaming3909  " CC.12 The Coriolis Effect : When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to                                                                     ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line APPEAR to travel in a curved path on the Earth.” Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders — CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html
    1
  936.  @theodiscusgaming3909  The Coriolis effect is an apparent deviation (not ACTUAL) of objects in the inertial reference frame, when observed by someone in the non inertial spinning reference frame. The effect doesn't cause anything. The cause of the effect is having two separate reference frames (inertial) and (non inertial). The air and objects in the air would be the inertial reference frame. The claimed to be turning earth would be the (non inertial spinning reference frame). That means the ground is turning independent of the air and objects in the air. Therefore, a drone helicopter or airplane would have earth turning underneath. But that doesn't happen. This is a real world observation that anyone can observe and it debunks earth turning. Compare that to the assumption that a man-made device doing something must mean earth turns. Lol.
    1
  937.  @theodiscusgaming3909  The coriolis effect causes are 2 different reference frames and that does mean earth would have to turn underneath a helicopter. Who cares if you are too dumb to know that? Coriolis effect is real and happens on merry go rounds. There just isn't any earth based Coriolis because the earth is not turning. I don't have a flat Earth model and I am not a map maker. The map is not the terrain. Models are reifications. All the maps used for navigation work fine and they don't account for any curvature. I never made any claims about the sun's size or distance (straw man) and there are no celestial poles (begging the question fallacy about lights in the sky). Counter and Clockwise rotation appearance is just based on direction observer is facing. Try turning around. No celestial poles, because you can't prove geographical poles. You're just making erroneous assumptions about lights in the sky and probably looking at YouTube star trails videos. Lol. Hemispheres also begs the question of a sphere that you have not proven.
    1
  938.  @vaolin1703  Earth's not a sphere, so no map has to account for it curving. Your question about are all governments lying is not a simple yes or no. Governments consist of many people. There is no way to know who knows what, who is intentionally lying, or ignorantly misleading people. Same as I can't know if you are lying and know we don't live on a spinning ball, or just ignorant. I'm not a mind reader. I can only provide you with the truth. Truth is we don't live on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun.
    1
  939.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You said gravity is pulling a helicopter with the earth. First gravity in your own model has not been considered a force since 1915. Check out the citations below: "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 So gravity (as an effect and NOT a force) is not pulling a helicopter with the earth. Second, to claim that it is would mean there are not two differing reference frames, which are required for the coriolis effect to be possible. You can't justify why there is no coriolis effect on Earth. The causes of the coriolis effect are not there. Earth doesn't turn underneath anything. It's stationary. So you can keep pretending an effect is magically pulling helicopters, drones, and airplanes in the air but that's not reality. Lol.
    1
  940.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You disagree that maps work fine, but sailors and travelers use maps and get to where they need to be. Just because you believe you are on a sphere, you declare the maps of a flat plane are wrong. What would be the point of a non working map?
    1
  941.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Eratostenes assumed a spherical earth in orbit and also a 93million mile away sun with light traveling parallel. Earth is not a sphere, so declaring a circumference and radius is an error. Secondly, the 93 million miles away sun was assumed by the assumption of a spherical earth in orbit. His entire observation relies on having to assume many things he can't validate. I don't claim to know how far away or how big the sun is. Globies make unprovable claims. But flat Earthers claiming to know the size and distance of the sun are also making unsupported claims. I also watched the deceptive video you posted and here's the comment I left for the dummy that created the video: "What does heading mean? This is where you are being deliberately deceitful or just ignorant. Notice how in the definition for heading it says "true north?" Then see true north definition which uses north to be based on earth's axis and not magnetic north. So when you say heading you are giving fictitious directions that are based on a sphere on an axis. If you have the true directions of the compass then the sun light would work just fine as it does on our flat plane. " "Heading is typically based on compass directions, so 0° (or 360°) indicates a direction toward true North, 90° indicates a direction toward true East, 180° is true South, and 270° is true West." Wikipedia › wiki › Heading_(navig... Heading (navigation) - Wikipedia "true north noun north according to the earth's axis, not magnetic north. "compass readings vary from 7.9° to 6.7° west of true north"
    1
  942.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You said there is a clear Clockwise rotation of stars most of the day. One, stars are out at night dumbo, not day. Secondly, the appearance of clockwise and counter clockwise rotation is just dependent on which direction the observer is facing. From the observers limited perspective of the sky the stars can appear to be rotating Clockwise or counter clockwise from places farther north and farther south on our plane. And saying this only happens at the equator is a begging the question fallacy where you are using a term for spheres to draw your conclusion that earth is a sphere. From Russia you can have clockwise and counter clockwise rotation. Just turn around moron. Lol.
    1
  943.  @theodiscusgaming3909  It says it in the definition below, that a celestial pole is the point above geographical poles. So unless you can prove geographical poles, you don't have any celestial poles. So starting off with the assumption of a celestial pole is just another begging the question fallacy where your erroneous premise is what you are using to conclude a sphere. Logical fallacies are not proof. "ce·les·tial pole noun ASTRONOMY the point on the celestial sphere directly above either of the earth's geographic poles, around which the stars and planets appear to rotate during the course of the night. The north celestial pole is currently within one degree of the star Polaris."
    1
  944.  @theodiscusgaming3909  The erroneous assumption is that the lights in the sky prove earth is a sphere.
    1
  945.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Putting a stick in the ground was a failure by Eratostenes and it still doesn't prove we live on a sphere. As I clearly articulated in my other post Eratostenes assumed a spherical earth to assume a distant sun to assume sticks in shadows were from sun light travelling parallel. He then did spherical geometry because well he already assumed the earth was a sphere. Lol. That's not an experiment, that's circular reasoning on steroids. You're also an idiot that just assumes his model is correct and tries to prove his model by using his model's assumptions. It's called circular reasoning (Definition below). "Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."  Wikipedia › wiki › Circular_reasoni... Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
    1
  946.  @vaolin1703  Again Warp, a government consists of many different people. I'm not a mind reader Warp. I can't tell you who is lying in every government or who is just ignorant. Do you believe the earth is a sphere because I am not a mind reader Warp? 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  947.  @vaolin1703  To explain why we can't mind read Warp? Lol. What is political reality? Are you claiming every government official knows the same information Warp? What does any of this have to do with earth being a sphere Warp? This is a sad argument for the globe Warp. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  948.  @vaolin1703  I can't prove who knows what and who is lying or who is just ignorant. I can prove and have proven that we don't live on a spinning ball. I know you want to turn this into a conspiracy theory, but it's reality that earth is not a sphere and not moving. Are people conspiring to push this Heliocentrism model and know it's not correct? Possible, or possibly they are just ignorant.
    1
  949.  @vaolin1703  It's your claim that governments are conspiring Warp. Not saying I disagree, but can you prove it? You also are now claiming missiles in a region defying natural and gas laws now Warp? Earth has gas pressure Warp, which requires a container. Our sky can't be a vacuum next to an open system earth Warp. The gas would fill the available volume (ever expanding vacuum). Lol. So no missiles or anything else are in outerspace Warp. The people claiming this are either lying or just ignorantly being mislead. You're excluding natural and gas laws Warp. Lol. I'm not excluding any science. You have not provided any science.
    1
  950.  @vaolin1703  So your proof of space, even though it defies natural and gas laws are some US and Russia officials claiming to have missiles in space? Lol. Again, I don't need to prove who lied or was just ignorant. The place where the missiles were claimed to be is not possible. I think you might have exposed what is so scary for you. You've been given a model all your life and if that model doesn't exist then your whole world is a lie. Lol. Trust me, nothing changes other than you maybe look into things more. You could become paranoid of everything. But the truth is nobody is really lying to anyone beyond childhood. Even then, teachers think they are telling kids the truth. After a certain point people are doing all the reifying of the Heliocentrism model on their own. So I get why you keep wanting me to claim someone is lying. Unfortunately, it's not that simple to say. Now there are obviously some people that have figured out there is no outerspace or spherical earth. But are they responsible for making you stop reifying a model? A model that makes people feel safe and that there are answers to what those mysterious lights in the sky are. Lol.
    1
  951.  @vaolin1703  Sure, there are US officials today claiming to have a space force. And back then officials were making threats and using propoganda. Who cares what government officials threaten or claim? Natural Laws and gas laws debunk outerspace. You're using an appeal to authority fallacy, where you are trying to prove your argument by saying government officials believe it. A government official is not an expert on the matter, and may very well believe they can send weapons or people to space. Doesn't make it true. "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. ... Examples of Appeal to Authority: 1."  Softschools.com › fallacies › appeal... Appeal to Authority Examples - SoftSchools
    1
  952.  @vaolin1703  So here is what you have provided as proof for your model: Many people believe it; people in authority believe it; a lot of money is spent on space, so it must be real. All of these arguments are logical fallacies and not science. Here's what I have provided: Earth not turning because there is no coriolis effect and the conditions required for coriolis effect is not there, because earth doesn't turn underneath anything (drone, helicopter, airplane). Earth not a sphere: Modus tollens (if 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). Observations show the horizon distance farther than possible (not q), therefore (not p). Flights also which would have to account for 2789.6 feet of vertical drop per minute not having to be accounted for. Outerspace not real: Entropy and gas laws. Laws which are always true without exception. Necessary antecedent for gas pressure is a container. The gas would fill the available volume. Increase volume, decrease pressure. Your model says outerspace is an ever expanding vacuum surrounding an earth with no barrier. Not possible. I'm providing evidence. You are just using fallacies.
    1
  953.  @joeshmoe7967  You need me to explain your arguments for you? That's not how it works. You present your argument and if it's a good one, then I will be glad to debunk it. So why do you believe equatorial mounts prove earth is a rotating sphere? I could care less about explaining views of the moon from places I don't live in or taking a picture of all of Canada and Australia in the same shot. Maybe you can explain the purpose of any of this. I also never claimed to have superior knowledge of all things science. I am very knowledgeable on the scientific method.
    1
  954.  @TheShapingSickness  Don't be mad that the old guy froze up. Lol. He couldn't produce any of that science and he is called a scientist. All globies can do is complain about tone of voice. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  955.  @TheShapingSickness  All you can say is okay. You played yourself. Lol.
    1
  956.  @bric3688  He forgot his science. Lol. Maybe it was the beer. This was a huge opportunity for a scientist to show the world why science has proven the globe, but he choked.
    1
  957.  @1984socrates  Well we had a claimed scientist in and he didn't give any evidence that the earth is a sphere. Wonder why? Hmmm.
    1
  958.  @DresdenShuffle  Why are you attacking me? Disappointed in the old guys performance. He let you down so you need to let off some steam. Wait for it...............................😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  959.  @1984socrates  I didn't ask for proof. This video popped up in my feed. It said scientist versus flat Earther. I tuned in to be wowed by some science and the old guy choked. I can't recall anything scientific he said, can you?
    1
  960. Because the earth is flat.
    1
  961. We never went. And never will. Cool story though. Did you buy some moon rocks? Lol.
    1
  962. “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
  963.  @aidenrobb-craig5690  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
  964.  @msryuyumimoon8458  “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
  965.  @sabin97  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
  966.  @cgme7076  “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 "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
  967.  @cgme7076  Gravity is not a force as Newton thought. The current BS is that it's an effect (space time warping) caused by uneven distribution of mass. Effects are not causes. "ef·fect /əˈfekt/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: noun 1. a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause."
    1
  968.  @cgme7076  So how does space time warping (conceptual effect) cause anything in nature? Remember it's not a force (no push or pull).
    1
  969.  @cgme7076  The existence of a concept. That's all it is. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  970.  @cgme7076  A pull would be a force, so no that's not gravity. If you jump or throw something in the air you are the force moron. Peace.
    1
  971.  @cgme7076  Do words have meaning to you? Lol. I never said gravity is anything more than a concept (abstract idea) in your model. The only force in something you throw or you jumping is you. And as we already discussed, Gravity is not even defined as a force in your model.
    1
  972.  @albertweedsteinthethuggeni7797  “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 "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
  973. CC.12 The Coriolis Effect : When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to                     ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line APPEAR to travel in a curved path on the Earth.” Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders — CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html We now know that earth is stationary and there is no earth-based coriolis. If the earth turned then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  974. People in 2010 saw how bad the footage was. Lol.
    1
  975. I thought the old guy was pretty quiet.
    1
  976. Gravity has not been defined as a force since 1915 when Einstein replaced Newton.
    1
  977.  @senmark2705  Gravity is not a force in your own heliocentrism religion. Lol.
    1
  978. Hemispheres is a begging the question fallacy. Gravity is just a concept and has never been scientifically proven. The horizon as in horizontal is not curving. That apparent line is not earth curve. Lol. Everything else you mentioned is not proof of anything. Just comes with more assumptions. Lol.
    1
  979.  @beelzzebub  There's no Earth based coriolis effect. That disproves earth turning.
    1
  980.  @beelzzebub  Are you claiming that the earth is turning underneath a missle but not a helicopter drone or airplane? That's not logically consistent.
    1
  981.  @beelzzebub  And missle launches and navigation works with precision because the earth is not turning. By the way there are no satellites in outerspace. Outerspace doesn't exist. You can't have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously. That defies the laws of entropy.
    1
  982.  @beelzzebub  If the earth rotated: "Earth would continue to     ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates. We don't have Helicopters or drones hovering and destinations coming to them. We also don't have flights from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California taking an hour and a half. You can't handwave dismiss this debunking of Earth turn. Lol.
    1
  983.  @beelzzebub  Last chance so you don't look like a coward. Can Helicopters hover and have destinations come to them?
    1
  984.  @beelzzebub  You can't have the coriolis effect if you don't have Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial). And again "When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to      *ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY*" Do you know what rotates independently means?
    1
  985.  @beelzzebub  If something is moving freely, that means it's not tethered to the earth.
    1
  986.  @beelzzebub  And here's what you missed in your reading about entropy. "ENTROPY: ” *GAS Expansion Into A VACUUM*, mixing of ideal gases or liquids, diffusion, effusion, colligative effects, and osmosis each fundamentally involves an  *INCREASE IN ENTROPY*  due to increased dispersion of energy (with no change in total energy in the case of ideal substances) due to a greater number of microstates for the particular system involved.”     http://entropysite.oxy.edu/entropy_is_simple/
    1
  987.  @beelzzebub  "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
  988.  @beelzzebub  More anger now. Thought you were done?
    1
  989.  @beelzzebub  Maybe you are going to get to acceptance. You have to sit with the sadness though. Allow yourself to feel the hurt of your model being gone. I promise you nothing changes after you accept the truth that we don't live on your model.
    1
  990.  @beelzzebub  You just see the world more clearly. You don't have to keep making reality conform to your model. It's freeing.
    1
  991.  @7c233  You said I didn't do a good job destroying poor Lymer. Lol. When the person debating you gives up and says well you should publish a paper, then that is the person conceding they have no arguments left. Lol. I'm not suddenly required to go out and win a nobel prize or publish your model's debunking someplace. Lol.
    1
  992.  @7c233  You said I "couldn't justify my position outside of communication." Lol. That's what a debate is you dummy. It's articulating your argument clearly and concisely. See definition below my slow friend. 😂😂😂😂😂 "de·bate /dəˈbāt/ Learn to pronounce noun a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."
    1
  993.  @7c233  Hurricanes are actually rotating. The coriolis effect is an apparent (not actual) deflection caused by earth turning. Hurricanes have nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect. Now do you believe the air (gas) is tethered to the earth?
    1
  994.  @7c233  Dumbo, you think air only moves freely when set in motion? Lol. It's saying the earth when set in motion the air moving freely will continue in straight paths while the ground rotates underneath. I can't believe you are this stupid. You think air can only move freely during a storm or hurricane. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  995.  @7c233  Hey dumbo, check out how air (gas) moves in citation below. "gas vibrate and move freely at high speeds. liquid vibrate, move about, and slide past each other. solid vibrate (jiggle) but generally do not move from place to place."  Purdue University › chem › character Gases, Liquids, and Solids
    1
  996.  @7c233  So you do believe air (gas) is at rest. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Did you read my last citation dummy? What does move freely at high speeds mean to you? "gas vibrate and move freely at high speeds. liquid vibrate, move about, and slide past each other. solid vibrate (jiggle) but generally do not move from place to place."  Purdue University › chem › character Gases, Liquids, and Solids
    1
  997.  @7c233  Here's another citation my dumb friend. "Gas particles are in constant rapid motion in random directions. Collisions between gas particles and between particles and the container walls are elastic collisions. There are no forces of attraction or repulsion between gas particles."  https://courses.lumenlearning.com › ... Kinetic-Molecular Theory | Chemistry for Non-Majors
    1
  998.  @7c233  Maybe now is a good time for you to change the subject and start demanding that I get a million dollars for my findings. Findings that your pseudoscientist high priests already know. They just count on dumb dumbs like you not recognizing the flaws in the model they gave you. 😂😂😂😂😂.
    1
  999.  @7c233  A nice "quiet" (learn to spell dummy) day doesn't mean air (gas) has stopped moving. Lol. Gas expands in all directions and particles are able to spread far apart unlike solids or liquids which have bonds. How does it feel to be having your @$$ handed to you?
    1
  1000.  @7c233  I got better things to do than humiliate simple minded people like you and Lymer. Have a good day buddy. Make sure you wear your helmet when walking in public. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1001.  @pm1660  Science is a method Patricia, not a community. Please post the scientific hypothesis for any experiment proving earth is a sphere or rotating. Thanks in advance! Lol. PS. Predictions are not made by earth being a sphere. Natural Laws (observations that always occur without exception) is how predictions are made.
    1
  1002.  @pm1660  Patricia gravity is not a force. Here's the citations to prove it: "“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 "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
  1003.  @pm1660  Patricia, mass attracting mass was replaced in 1915 by pseudo reimeinnian four space, which says gravity is an effect (space time warped) of the unequal distribution of mass. You're arguing an out of date model of gravity.
    1
  1004.  @pm1660  Patricia, if the scientific method is not used then it's not emperical. The scientific method requires observation and experimentation. You don't get to just make $hit up. Lol. “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/AppendixE.html
    1
  1005.  @theodiscusgaming3909  I'm glad you admitted you have no clue what space time is. Now where in nature do we experience a 9.8 m/s acceleration? This is just more BS from your flawed model.
    1
  1006.  @theodiscusgaming3909  A helium balloon and a bowling ball don't fall at the same rate. Neither does a feather and a hammer. A book and a piece of paper don't either. Also none of these things are falling in nature in the first place. You're still making $hit up. By the way "free fall" begs the question of gravity as it means objects under the force of gravity only. That's circular reasoning. You have not proved gravity, you're using premises that automatically assumes it's real.
    1
  1007.  @theodiscusgaming3909  "In Newtonian physics, free fall is defined as the motion of an object where gravity is the only force acting upon it. By this definition then, a skydiver is never in true free fall, even before they deploy their parachute. ... For this reason it doesn't match the strict definition of a free fall.Dec 26, 2019"  https://www.toppr.com › question What do you mean by free fall ? toppr.com So when objects don't fall at the same rate and they often don't you just claim it's because other forces were acting on it. Lol. So no matter what you are just going to declare your force is there. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1008.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Yeah dumbo if you pick something up and drop it you are the cause. You need Newton or Einstein to tell you that? They took a normal thing such as picking up objects and dropping them and told you it was mass attracting mass then later mass warping space time. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1009.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You studied physics and the best you can come up with is that if you pick something up and drop it it falls to the ground. Get your money back from whatever school you went to. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1010.  @theodiscusgaming3909  AyyMD VEGA 2020 "things tend to fall when dropped." Me: Duh. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.
    1
  1011.  @theodiscusgaming3909  So you have no argument. Just that things you pick up and drop fall. Thanks for that. You should publish that. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1012.  @nischal711  It's fun debunking globies' arguments and spreading the truth. Do you have any arguments or would you like to talk about favorite colors? Lol.
    1
  1013.  @nischal711  I don't believe I called anything a conspiracy. Most people are just ignorant and have not looked into this topic enough to understand that Heliocentrism is not reality. It's a model that has been put out and people on their own have reified this model. They will argue BS and make up things to try to hold on to this model. You said I don't have an open mind. Even the pseudoscientist in the video said you don't want to have too open of a mind that everything falls out. Lol.
    1
  1014.  @crazyreptilian8102  Explaining something to a pseudoscientist you mean. Here's a quote from one of the pseudoscientists telling you he doesn't use science. "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.”
    1
  1015.  @crazyreptilian8102  Now see the definition of a pseudoscience below: "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
  1016.  @rake1087  We don't have any vacuums in nature. Nature abhors a vacuum. "UsingEnglish.com › ... › Idioms › N What does 'Nature abhors a vacuum' mean? - Idiom Definition - UsingEnglish.com This idiom is used to express the idea that empty or unfilled spaces are unnatural as they go against the laws of nature and physics." So in nature nothing is accelerating at 9.8 m/s. We don't have vacuums in nature as they go against the laws of nature and laws of physics. You have an effect you are claiming happens, but it's never observed in nature. Read what nature means below. "na·ture /ˈnāCHər/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." So to sum it up: You don't have a natural phenomenon, but you still believe a conceptual effect (space time being warped) is proven by creating an unnatural environment where a feather and coin accelerate down at the same rate when a person picks them up and drops them? Well you just described an unnatural effect and have not validated how that effect has anything to do with the other conceptual effect (space time warping). And the acceleration rate doesn't happen in nature, so why should we care? A lot of problems and effects happen in a vacuum (space void of matter). Thank God we are not living in a vacuum like your Heliocentrism model says we are. Lol.
    1
  1017.  @crazyreptilian8102  At least you know you are not that smart. You said it. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1018.  @crazyreptilian8102  😂😂😂😂
    1
  1019. To be brainwashed like the old guy, unable to move away from a model.
    1
  1020.  @negatorxx  He got you there buddy. Antarctica is where your imaginary celestial pole is. That's where it should be spinning in a circle. But it's not. Now YouTube spiral star trails video. What shape do you think it makes the earth? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1021.  @negatorxx  Here you go negtorxx. Spiral star trails. Bet this will blow your mind. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 https://youtu.be/_XiIRozt8iU
    1
  1022.  @negatorxx  Give it a rest buddy. Out Of Time beat you. Lol. You can't understand reality because you are stuck on models. The sky is big and you can only see part of it at a time, so it looks much different than if you could see the whole sky. So yes from your limited perspective as an observer the stars may appear to be going straight, clockwise, counter clockwise. It's just a slice of the gigantic sky. In reality all stars rotate east to west. At this point I'm throwing in the towel for you. I don't want to see you keep taking this beating. He's going to kill you. 😂😂😂😂
    1
  1023.  @rectilprojectil1069  Do you believe the horizon (the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground) is earth curve? Yes or no?
    1
  1024.  @rectilprojectil1069  So when you see a boat go over the horizon, you are not concluding that the boat went over Earth curve right?
    1
  1025.  @rectilprojectil1069  I'm just trying to understand your argument. You posted a video about a light house being claimed to have earth curve blocking it. We would call that line where the sky and ground APPEAR to meet hiding objects the horizon. Are you saying that it's earth curve? Lol.
    1
  1026.  @rectilprojectil1069  You can't see the curve, but the curve is obstructing objects?
    1
  1027.  @rectilprojectil1069  Lol.
    1
  1028. 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
    1
  1029. “Strictly speaking, gravity IS NOT A FORCE" "general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. " http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
    1
  1030. Science is a method which validates cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world through systematic experimentation. Since the motion of the earth can't be manipulated or varied, it's not possible to validate it as causing anything. It also can't be your dependent variable because it can't be observed. So science doesn't prove the Earth is in motion. Lol.
    1
  1031. You said he is mislead. What is your biggest proof that the earth is a sphere or rotating?
    1
  1032.  @JemstoneGames  Day and night and months and seasons are not caused by the Earth being a sphere. Those are just your assumptions.
    1
  1033.  @JemstoneGames  you can't see the Earth curving from 128000 feet. What makes you think you're seeing curvature down by the sea?
    1
  1034.  @JemstoneGames  outer space is in the region that defies natural and gas laws. Earth has gas pressure which requires a container. We don't have a sky vacuum where people are going into and taking pictures.
    1
  1035.  @JemstoneGames  If you assume the Earth is a sphere then you can assume a circumference.that does not mean that the math proves the Earth is a sphere.
    1
  1036.  @JemstoneGames  a ball is round but the Earth is not.
    1
  1037.  @JemstoneGames  Well said. You don't have proof unless a person is willing to accept your unsupported premises.
    1
  1038.  @alejandrogranadosgonzalez3182  Experiments? Please post the dependent variable and independent variable for any experiment ever proving the Earth is a sphere or rotating.
    1
  1039.  @alejandrogranadosgonzalez3182  Sticks in the ground is easily debunked by you not knowing how far away the sun is and sun rays not coming in parallel. Your model assumed a distant sun with parallel rays.
    1
  1040.  @alejandrogranadosgonzalez3182  You don't even know what an experiment is. Lol. An experiment is manipulating or varying something to determine if you get an effect that you observed in nature. The thing you manipulate or vary is what you are validating caused an effect. Did you manipulate or vary the shape of the earth or Earth turn to validate that it causes different shadow angles? No you put sticks in the ground and ASSUMED that different shadow angles are because the earth is a sphere, because you also assume that the sun is 93 million miles away sending light in parallel, and you get that distance because you assume that the earth is a sphere in orbit around the sun. The earth was assumed to be a sphere in orbit because it was assumed that Earth's shadow was on the moon. None of your model has been validated. Just one assumption after another. Again, the debunking of your sticks in the ground argument is you can't prove the distance to the sun. And if we observe the sun we can see that light rays are not parallel. We also know that light can bend in different mediums such as our atmo. Look at the video below and tell me if the light rays are coming in parallel. https://youtu.be/cABtxi7QYZY Now if you have any other arguments I can debunk those for you as well.
    1
  1041.  @JemstoneGames  "Description: When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable. Logical Form: X is possible."  Logically Fallacious › logicalfallacies Appeal to Possibility - Logically Fallacious
    1
  1042. Yeah the old guy gives BS and then smiles.
    1
  1043. I thought you were talking about the guy with the white hair giving BS and smiling. Lol.
    1
  1044.  @AdamJHMusic  Because flat Earth is reality and not a theory.
    1
  1045.  @FrostSpike  The Cavendish observation was not an effect observed in nature. He built something and claimed he was measuring gravity. Can't measure something that you can't prove exists in nature.
    1
  1046.  @FrostSpike  Define gravity and tell me where it is observed in nature.
    1
  1047.  @theodiscusgaming3909  If I pick an object up out of equalibrium and drop it then I caused it to fall.
    1
  1048.  @theodiscusgaming3909  The other stuff you talked about is begging the question fallacy where your premises must be accepted for you to draw your desired conclusion. You have not proven the moon orbits earth. And you have not been to the other lights in the sky to validate what they are or how they function. You're just making assumptions. I have not made any claims about the lights in the sky. Asking me questions about things I don't claim is a straw man fallacy.
    1
  1049.  @FrostSpike  Sure: "na·ture /ˈnāCHər/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." "the breathtaking beauty of nature"
    1
  1050.  @FrostSpike  You have to have something real to measure. You have not proven gravity is material or energy. You're talking about an aparatus doing something that you are saying is gravity which you can't manipulate or vary. Twisting tortion bars is not manipulating gravity.
    1
  1051.  @FrostSpike  So we can't observe gravity in nature and we can't manipulate it because it's not physical (material) or energy. It's just a concept that you can't prove. Furthermore it's not needed to explain anything because the earth is flat and stationary. It's only needed if you believe in the heliocentrism model with a solar system. But models are not reality.
    1
  1052.  @FrostSpike  Looking at a mountain is not a natural phenomenon. What is the mountain doing?
    1
  1053.  @FrostSpike  You need to manipulate something to validate it as the cause. Effects of real objects in nature can be observed. But Gravity is not something you can observe. And you can't claim it as a cause because you can't manipulate or vary it.
    1
  1054.  @FrostSpike  Good luck to you as well.
    1
  1055.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You can't prove the cause of the movement of lights in the sky. And Cavendish was not an experiment. He didn't observe gravity in nature and he didn't manipulate gravity to cause any effects in the aparatus he built. Gravity is not energy or material so it can't be observed or manipulated. It's a concept (abstract idea) that can't be proven. Again it's not needed to explain anything on our level stationary plane.
    1
  1056.  @FrostSpike  Where do we in nature observe objects accelerating towards each other?
    1
  1057.  @theodiscusgaming3909  He created an aparatus that did something. We don't have masses moving towards each other in nature.
    1
  1058.  @FrostSpike  If you pick something up and drop it then you caused that to happen. You used your energy to pick up the object out of equalibrium and let it go. You're the only force involved.
    1
  1059.  @FrostSpike  The Scheihallan was not an experiment. It's observing a man-made device do something and claiming it measured something that we don't observe ever in nature. Your natural observed phenomenon can't be a man-made device.
    1
  1060.  @FrostSpike  take care
    1
  1061.  @theodiscusgaming3909  So we don't experience mass attracting mass in nature. Only the aparatus. So what good is an aparatus if it doesn't measure anything in reality?
    1
  1062.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Assuming gravity is not proving gravity. Again there is no need for assuming gravity on our flat stationary plane. Only in your model is it needed to justify objects being held to a ball. In reality we don't have objects being held to a ball.
    1
  1063.  @nr197  If you throw something then you are the force Luke Skywalker. Lol. No objects you throw can't suddenly start flying. Are you Superman? Lol.
    1
  1064. Well I'm tired of this debate. It seems that Gravity only exists in your Heliocentrism model. We don't live on your model however. Good day fellas.
    1
  1065.  @theodiscusgaming3909  Objects are not falling down. Can you tell me what objects are falling down around you?
    1
  1066.  @theodiscusgaming3909  And yes an object will remain at rest until you or a real force like the wind moves the object out of equalibrium. And yes if you drop an object it will continue to go down to it's equalibrium position before you picked it up until the ground or a solid surface stops it. So again you picking something up is the cause of it falling. We don't need to invent any magical forces here. We know the cause. Lol.
    1
  1067.  @nr197  Sorry I missed your question. It you use your energy to toss something up it will not continue to go up because you are not superhuman. This does not prove mass attracting mass or space time being warped. Gravity is imagined.
    1
  1068.  @nr197  Where was it before you picked it up and tossed it in the air?
    1
  1069.  @nr197  Did your ball just appear in the air and was suddenly pulled down? Lol.
    1
  1070.  @nr197  Why are you trying so hard to come up with something that can justify there being a force? It should not be that hard if gravity was real. We'd have plenty of effects that we could use. Unfortunately, it's just an abstract idea to explain a reified model. Neither are real.
    1
  1071.  @nr197  I'm not getting your logic. You can't throw something and it keep going forever. Your energy was what propelled it into the air. That energy is finite.
    1
  1072.  @nr197  How did the ball get up the hill? And there are no infinite ramps.
    1
  1073.  @nr197  and again the ball would be at rest until you push it down the hill. once again you are the cause of that ball falling down the hill until it reaches its equilibrium when the hill ends.
    1
  1074.  @nr197  there are no infinite ramps. And an object on a ramp is not at equilibrium. It's the same as you tossing something in the air and expecting it to remain in the air. It doesn't have enough energy to stay on a ramp or in the air. It will go back to the ground before you moved it. In all of this, the only outside force seems to be you moving the object. Lol.
    1
  1075.  @nr197  And yes it does matter how something got in the air. I know you want to imagine a force pulling things down but in reality things only fall when real forces move them into the air first out of equalibrium.
    1
  1076.  @nr197  Equalibrium just means a state of balance. And only in your model is there no up or down. In reality down is towards the ground and up towards the sky.
    1
  1077.  @nr197  Now balance requires gravity. Lol.
    1
  1078.  @nr197  I know what your model says about weight and balance and gravity. Just reading definitions that insert the word gravity doesn't prove it is real. Objects that are heavy remain on the ground unless moved by real forces (you). Objects that are not heavy or lighter than the air can fly or require little energy to get in the air and stay in the air like a helium balloon. That's reality. Again on our stationary flat plane this is easy to understand. Only if you believe you are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun is a magical force suddenly needed.
    1
  1079.  @nr197  I don't care what you believe. It doesn't change reality. You're welcome to continue believing in an imaginary force holding your model together. You can't prove gravity or your model.
    1
  1080.  @nr197  That is called a begging the question fallacy where I must first accept your premises that there is a force pulling things down so you can draw your desired conclusion that there is a force holding your model together. You're supposed to be proving there is a force not assuming it. So far you just keep telling me that you are tossing and pushing things which makes you the only force.
    1
  1081.  @nr197  You could say the exact same thing to me such as you don't care what I believe and I can't prove my model or gravity exists? Well I don't have a model and I am not trying to prove gravity exists.
    1
  1082.  @nr197  You are a solid object with a lot of matter. That's what keeps you down. You're free to use energy to move about and jump but you don't have enough energy to jump and stay in the air.
    1
  1083.  @theodiscusgaming3909  You said YOU picked up an object and dropped it. YOU would therefore be the force that caused the object to accelerate.
    1
  1084.  @theodiscusgaming3909  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
  1085. How does warping concepts predict anything in reality? Lol.
    1
  1086.  @2strokesimulation68  Space time is a concept. Warping concepts doesn't cause anything. Simple. Come back to reality. Lol.
    1
  1087. CC.12 The Coriolis Effect : When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [ Atmosphere ] and WATER masses [ Clouds/Water Vapor ], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to                     ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line APPEAR to travel in a curved path on the Earth.” Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders — CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html We now know that earth is stationary and there is no earth-based coriolis. If the earth turned then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  1088.  @carpetclimber4027  The earth is not turning underneath anything. If it were then it would turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A helicopter or drone could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because earth is stationary.
    1
  1089.  @charlienorth2258  You've confused magnetic poles with geographic poles. Why does a magnetic compass point to the Geographic North Pole? Category: Earth Science Published: November 15, 2013 "A magnetic compass does not point to the geographic north pole. A magnetic compass points to the earth's magnetic poles, which are not the same as earth's geographic poles."
    1
  1090.  @charlienorth2258  And maybe you didn't understand my post about Coriolis effect. There is no Earth based Coriolis effect. The coriolis effect is an apparent deviation (not actual) of objects in the inertial reference frame caused because the observer is in the non inertial spinning reference frame. Weather patterns and jet streams are ACTUALLY deviating. Now if you believe earth is turning underneath the air and water masses then it would also turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone or helicopter could hover and have destinations come to them. A flight from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles California would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because earth is not turning.
    1
  1091.  @charlienorth2258  I'm not sure why you believe that stars visible further out south on our plane would not be possible without a magnetic south. Lol. I think this is again your confusion about magnetic poles and geographic poles. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1092.  @charlienorth2258  Also not to get too much off topic but you brought up the molten iron core. You realize that men have not been more than 8 miles into the earth right? Nobody has ever seen this molten iron core that your model/religion assumes is there.
    1
  1093.  @charlienorth2258  There is no science to validate that there is a molten iron core. It can't be observed and there are not experiments (manipulating an independent variable to see if you get the dependent variable). Read below why they believe they know what is in the interior of the earth. "Except in the crust, the interior of the Earth cannot be studied by drilling holes to take samples. Instead, scientists map the interior by watching how seismic waves from earthquakes are bent, reflected, sped up, or delayed by the various layers."  National Geographic › earths-interior Earth's Interior | National Geographic
    1
  1094.  @charlienorth2258  Let that anger out buddy. Next maybe you'll have some bargaining, then sadness before accepting that your model is gone. Lol.
    1
  1095.  @charlienorth2258  Eratostenes assumed the Earth's circumference by assuming that sunlight came in parallel. Debunked because we know sun rays are not parallel and light also bends in our atmosphere.
    1
  1096.  @charlienorth2258  Here's some evidence for you proving the earth is not a sphere: https://globeterminator.com/flight/ https://globeterminator.com/bolivian-salt-flats/ https://globeterminator.com/essm-block-i-sea-sparrow/ RIP Globe!!!
    1
  1097.  @charlienorth2258  All you have as proof of a sphere is an appeal to concensus fallacy where you'll argue about what majority of people believed or believe. That's not evidence.
    1
  1098.  @charlienorth2258  Now here's a quote from one of your Pseudoscientists you believe in, telling you it's just guesswork: 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.”
    1