Comments by "T Brown" (@tbrown3356) on "Johnny Harris" channel.

  1.  @tartaglia420  "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"  Forbes › sites › 2018/08/11 › as... Ask Ethan: Is Spacetime Really A Fabric? - Forbes
    1
  2.  @zAggEr1907  Gravity is not a force, it's the curvature of space time in your religion. And gas pressure differentials still require a container. Your religion says we have no container but a sky vacuum. This is a violation of the second law and gas laws. Entropy always increases and the gas would fill the available volume. Boyle's Law states an inverse relationship between gas pressure and volume, where if you increase the volume you decrease gas pressure. Now how is earth maintaining gas pressure with an ever expanding vacuum surrounding it? Don't say gravity again as bending concepts (space time) can't do anything.
    1
  3.  @northstarmn  Here's proof. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  4.  @zAggEr1907  If you know gravity is not a force, then stop saying it is a force acting on gas. Lol. That's using double speak. Gas is expanding in all directions and not being pulled down.
    1
  5.  @justadude7752  You said earth drift was proven by a gyro. Well if earth turns underneath a gyro then it will turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone and helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. Flights from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  6.  @justadude7752  And talking about trains that are moving is not relevant because earth is not moving.
    1
  7.  @boudewijndalhuisen6169  You can see there is no container? Lol. Now that is a dumb comment. Your religion tells you we have a sky vacuum but having gas pressure debunks that lie. The necessary antecedent for gas pressure is a container. Outerspace is fake.
    1
  8.  @zAggEr1907  Are you too dumb to realize that you are using an equation with F (force) and describing an attractive Force you believe is happening? But at the same time saying you never claimed gravity is a force. Lol.
    1
  9.  @zAggEr1907  I just debunked the gyro claim by another confused globehead. Lol.
    1
  10.  @zAggEr1907  You can't see outerspace either. Lol.
    1
  11.  @zAggEr1907  Well if earth turns underneath a gyro then it will turn underneath a drone helicopter or airplane. A drone and helicopter could hover and have destinations come to it. Flights from Charlotte NC to Los Angeles would take an hour and a half. That doesn't happen because the earth is not turning.
    1
  12.  @zAggEr1907  Why are you talking about conservation of momentum? Earth has no momentum. Lol. And the gas at pressure on Earth has no bonds, as in not attached to earth, as in you are full of it. So if the earth is not turning underneath a plane drone and helicopter, it is not turning underneath a gyro. Can't have it both ways. Earth doesn't just decide when to turn and what it wants to turn underneath. Lol.
    1
  13.  @zAggEr1907  Now watch below as one of your high priests Neil Degrasse Tyson explains that earth can turn underneath a football, but you claim the air and earth are attached and rotate together. Lol. https://youtu.be/n_I73eh6GkY
    1
  14.  @zAggEr1907  So you have a contradiction to figure out. Your high priest Neil Degrasse Tyson says earth turns underneath a football but you say it can't turn underneath a drone helicopter and airplane. Lol. What a flawed model you globies have. You also claim gravity is not a force but then claim it's a force acting on all objects with mass. Lol. Double speak at it's finest. Lol.
    1
  15.  @justadude7752  So only the gyro works? So with nothing else can earth rotation be detected? That's not logically consistent. Sounds like maybe your gyro apparatus is not detecting what you thought. Maybe whatever it does is caused by the people that made it and not earth rotation. Lol.
    1
  16.  @justadude7752  That's a red herring. We're talking about something a gyro does being declared to prove earth rotation but with a helicopter, drone, and airplane there is no Earth rotation.
    1
  17.  @justadude7752  Not sure why you are talking about all these other things. Your argument: The gyro proves earth rotation. Debunking: Earth doesn't rotate under a plane, helicopter, or drone. Earth can't rotate under just a drone. Now do you have any other evidence that earth is rotating other than a man-made device that tells us something is happening that we never experience in reality?
    1
  18.  @boudewijndalhuisen6169  Because we see the night sky following the same orbit as the sun you conclude the earth spins. Lol. Well I can conclude that the lights in the sky are spinning and earth is stationary. You should think before you write dumb comments. Lol.
    1
  19.  @jimmynobody8344  Address the fact that you don't have a physical geometric horizon. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  20. Objects shrink with distance. Europe from the East coast would be too small to see with a telescope. Telescopes can only magnify things it can see. Lol.
    1
  21. The argument is that if the plane never dipped it's nose then how would it end up antipodal when you get to the other side of the imaginary globe. Lol. The answer is earth is flat.
    1
  22.  @rhinovirus2225  Einstein gravity replaced Newton in 1915 and since then gravity has not been a force. Lol. Just the warping of concepts.
    1
  23.  @rhinovirus2225  "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
  24.  @rhinovirus2225  It says not a force. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  25.  @rhinovirus2225  Here's another citation from a different source. "Einstein's idea (discussed further on our relativity page) was that there is no such thing as a "force" of gravity which pulls things to the Earth; rather, the curved paths that falling objects appear to take are an illusion brought on by our inability to perceive the underlying curvature of the space we live in.Jun 27, 2015"  curious.astro.cornell.edu › physics If gravity is a "curvature of space" rather than a force, why do a ball ...
    1
  26. People travel over a flat plane not around a sphere. And if we are able to keep our oceans and air here, there's obviously a container. Interestingly, how are you not able to ask the same question about how people on the bottom of a ball don't fall off as well as everything else? Lol. With your model you can suspend all disbelief. Lol.
    1
  27.  @muzz3564  If you are using a compass to travel east you're just going in a circle. You can't go in a straight line and circumnavigate anything. Lol.
    1
  28.  @muzz3564  And warping concepts doesn't hold people on a spinning ball.
    1
  29. People know the earth is flat.
    1
  30. To fly around the world the plane would have to dip it's nose to reorientate itself to the curving ground below if the earth were a sphere. That's not necessary however because the earth is flat.
    1
  31. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  32. Have you seen the curvature of the Earth?
    1
  33. You can descend without nosing down but in order to follow the claimed earth curvature the place must nose down to reorientate it's position in relation to the ground. Now turn in your pilots license. Lol.
    1
  34.  @devosious7085  What was the Naturally observed phenomenon in Cavendish? I don't believe we have tortion bars in nature. Lol.
    1
  35. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  36. No because of perspective and vanishing points. It's all about how our eyes and light works. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanishing%20point
    1
  37.  @GerardMenvussa  You can't see Mt. Everest from everywhere because objects shrink in angular size with distance. And there is no Earth based coriolis. Coriolis effect happens with things that actually turn.
    1
  38.  @GerardMenvussa  You don't believe objects shrink with distance? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😄😄😄😄😂😄
    1
  39.  @boterlettersukkel  So then there is no geometric horizon. Thanks for confirming that the horizon is apparent. So all of your mathematics don't work. If the horizon is not physical or geometric then you don't have a sphere.
    1
  40.  @boterlettersukkel  So you want to use a calculator that has radius value in the maths even though there is no geometric horizon when we use that radius value. Lol. The curve calculator is not applicable given there is no physical geometric horizon. There's just one horizon and it's been proven to be apparent. It can't be physical some days and others not physical. Lol. That's nonsensical.
    1
  41.  @trailbossdan1  I'm not focusing on the platforms, as the argument is about where the horizon is. It cannot be farther than 1.2 miles given the geometry based on the claimed globe radius of 3959 miles. It's not where it is supposed to be. Lol.
    1
  42.  @trailbossdan1  You said you do see the horizon behind the second platform. Well then that's a geometric impossibility and can only mean the earth is not a sphere. A sphere must have a geometric edge. The horizon can't loom the horizon over the horizon. That's not how looming works. Lol. Objects are loomed above the horizon in the definition. Lol. Welcome to flat Earth.
    1
  43.  Dylan sky  People assumed the earth were a globe. Unfortunately, those people are not here. Was your appeal to consensus your only evidence? Lol. Well logical fallacies don't prove the globe. "Argumentum ad populum. ... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") 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 › wiki › Argumentum_a... Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
    1
  44. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  45. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  46. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  47. Why shouldn't there be an apparent line caused by perspective on our flat plane?
    1
  48. You can tell if lights in the sky are spherical? Lol. I think you mean they appear round. And lights appearing round doesn't cause the earth to also be round. Balls on a pool table are round. Does that mean the table is round. Lol.
    1
  49.  @4thGloryMonday  I have. It explains a lot.
    1
  50.  @4thGloryMonday  Yeah they love their Helios and solar system. Lol. Happy days to you as well brother.
    1