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

  1. 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 video below shows the horizon farther than 10.10 miles from an observer at 8 feet height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  2. Sea Sparrow missles have line of sight targeting over 35 miles surface to surface. This is proof the earth is not curving into a ball. Watch video below. https://youtu.be/Q9QUBV-KQVs
    1
  3.  @ChrisMaxfieldActs  what is your best evidence?
    1
  4.  @ChrisMaxfieldActs  Are you searching for all that so called proof out there? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  5.  @Some_Thing_Nick  Lol. Sounds like excuses to me Nick. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  6.  @Some_Thing_Nick  Since you and Chris are too scared to put forth any evidence, I will disprove the globe. Watch the #1 Globe Killer below. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  7.  @Some_Thing_Nick  You said "if the globe doesn't exist then the earth doesn't exist." Lol. The earth is the ground you are walking on. It definitely exists. Your model is a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. That definitely doesn't exist.
    1
  8. No just globe earth propoganda. https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  9. RIP Globe!!! https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  10.  @Alan-nq5xg  Do you understand the argument? If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p) then the distance to the horizon can never be father than 1.225 times the square root of the observer height (q). The horizon is farther than 10 miles away from an observer between the height of 3 to 6 feet (not q), therefore earth is not a sphere (not p). RIP Globe!!! Now repeat the argument so I can see if you understand. Lol.
    1
  11. @QED If the horizon is refracted then it's not geometric. We only have one horizon and your model requires a geometric horizon. Now that you have admitted that the horizon we see is not geometric or physical, welcome to flat Earth!
    1
  12.  @Alan-nq5xg  The sun is a light that we don't know the distance of, size of, what it is, or how it functions. Your model claims it is a 93 million miles away rock but you have no evidence of this. The distance to the sun in your model is based on the earth having a 3959 radius which is debunked by the geometry failing.
    1
  13. @QED If using the words you say is contrary to your model, then that should tell you something. Thank you again for claiming that the horizon we see is refraction, because that means it is not geometric. If the horizon we see is not based upon the Geometry of your 3959 miles sphere radius, then we don't live on a sphere. All your maths using this radius value is wrong, including the distance to the sun, moon, stars. You also can't use your curve calculator which uses the radius value and/or terrestrial refraction. Given you admitted that the horizon is not geometric, all the past claims about boats going over a physical edge and buildings being obstructed by a physical edge are wrong. And sunsets and sunrises are also not going or coming up over a physical edge. Do you realize that you don't have the geometry to claim a sphere anymore and you can't trust in the radius value? It's been debunked.
    1
  14.  @Alan-nq5xg  I just explained to you that if you don't have an earth radius value, you can't get the claimed distance to the sun. And your claimed sphere radius has been debunked by the geometry as the distance to the horizon has been measured farther away than your model based on the 3959 miles radius allows. In other words that is a geometric impossibility. Now read below how the sun distance is calculated by using the Earth's now debunked radius: "Their initial calculations put the distance at 24,000 times the radius of the Earth. Not bad considering our modern measurement of 23,455 times the radius of the Earth." https://www.universetoday.com/14437/how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun/ And as you move away from all objects they drop their apparent position in the sky until leaving your field of view. It's just based on perspective, like the street lights down a street dropping their apparent position the farther away you move from them. In reality they are all the same size and height in the sky, but their apparent position changes with distance. For your other question, who cares how many days we put in a year. In the past it was 360 or 364. Men's way if tracking time is just a convention.
    1
  15.  @Alan-nq5xg  "The Enoch calendar is an ancient calendar described in the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch. It divided the year into four seasons of exactly 13 weeks each. ... The Book of Enoch gives the count of 2,912 days for 8 years, which divides out to exactly 364 days per year. This specifically excludes any periodic intercalations."  Wikipedia › wiki › Enoch_calendar Enoch calendar - Wikipedia
    1
  16.  @Alan-nq5xg  "25,200 days divided by 70 years equals a year of 360 days. (Herodotus, or perhaps Solon, then incorrectly calculates, by about an additional one day per year, the number of days when including the intercalation.) So this famed and learned ancient Greek calculated using a 360-day year."  360DayYear.com An Original 360-Day Year
    1
  17.  @Alan-nq5xg  You get the point? Days in a year are a man-made convention. Lol.
    1
  18.  @Alan-nq5xg  Obviously, you are not able to move past your model. I've posted 2 different citations about how days in a year are just a man-made convention. I also debunked your sun argument and explained apparent positions based on the observer's perspective and distance from the object. And I disproved the geometric horizon which your model must have to be a sphere. Your radius value is not valid because the geometry fails. What else is there to say? RIP Globe!!! See you later.
    1
  19.  @Alan-nq5xg  Appeal to concensus fallacy now. Lol where your evidence is based on what other people believe. And ad hominem fallacy where you attack me instead of my argument. Lol.
    1
  20. @QED So the horizon we see is not geometric. Lol. Then what were boats being claimed to be going over? Lol.
    1
  21. @QED Long distance flights are not great circle routes. Planes fly straight level paths to reach their destinations.
    1
  22. @QED Keep admitting that the horizon we see is not geometric. It's like music to my ears. Lol.
    1
  23. @QED I have not denied refraction. I welcome it because if the horizon is refracted then it's not geometric. Lol. You just gave up your physical edge. Lol.
    1
  24. @QED Lol. You can't have a physical horizon some days and others it's not physical. Lol. Your spherical earth model has constraints. It can't grow and shrink. Lol.
    1
  25. @QED And your modus tollens is not logically consistent. The horizon is not physical as you have already conceded. It's apparent. So why would the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground have to always rise to eye level for the earth to be flat?
    1
  26. @QED We only have one horizon. As you so beautifully stated the horizon we see is not the calculated (geometric) horizon. Lol. That only exists in your religion/model. Lol.
    1
  27. @QED You have already argued that the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is not physical and can move based on how light bends. So it's not consistently logical to now say that line must always be at eye level. In reality that line does follow the observer all the way up. And it does appear to be at eye level. On a sphere the horizon would be rapidly falling away as the observer went up because the earth would be curving away. I've only heard globies trying to use the slight drop caused by looking through a window to say the horizon is not at eye level. It gets to be very knit picking. Lol. What you must look at is if there is an apparent line that you see all the way up. That can't happen on a sphere.
    1
  28. @QED Why are you deleting your comments. Where's your modus tollens argument? Lol.
    1
  29.  @Alan-nq5xg  See how your globehead buddies delete their comments when they are losing. It must have dawned on QED that he was admitting that there is no geometric horizon. Lol.
    1
  30.  @Alan-nq5xg  Lol. QED deleted his comments and ran off in true globehead fashion. Lol. The balloon footage is not showing earth curve. And your video from Narnia, I mean outerspace is debunked by the region where it's claimed to be from not existing. Can't have gas pressure or gas pressure gradients without a container, so a sky vaccum called outerspace is fake. So your video is automatically debunked.
    1
  31.  @Alan-nq5xg  Do you see the horizon behind the platforms in this video below? Yes or no? https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  32.  @Alan-nq5xg  Gas pressure is gas pressing on the walls of a container. Up there at the top what is the gas pressing on? Lol.
    1
  33.  @Alan-nq5xg  So if there is nothing for the gas to press on at the top, why doesn't it disperse off into your sky vacuum? Lol.
    1
  34.  @Alan-nq5xg  "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
  35.  @Alan-nq5xg  No need for all the insults. Your current gravity rhetoric is mass warping space-time, and gravity not being a force. Lol. Gas is not being pulled down but expanding in all directions. That's why you can't even weigh gas without putting it in a container. Your model is wrong.
    1
  36.  @Alan-nq5xg  "The important thing to remember is that gravity is neither a push nor a pull; what we interpret as a “force” or the acceleration due to gravity is actually the curvature of space and time — the path itself stoops downward.Jan 3, 2018"  Science ABC › Eye Openers Does Gravity Push or Pull? - Science ABC
    1
  37.  @Alan-nq5xg  And the photo of the flat plane we live on is in the video I posted debunking your model. Here it is below: https://youtu.be/RAgbocvJYCA
    1
  38.  @Alan-nq5xg  How can something that is not a force be pulling gas down? So those particles at the top of your atmosphere have nothing to press upon and thus will escape. Then the next particles after will escape, and so on and so on. But that doesn't happen because we don't have a sky vaccum and entropy and gas laws are not being defied in reality. Now read below how your imaginary gravity is not even a force in your own model since 1915. Lol. "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
  39. What was the scientific hypothesis (independent variable and dependent variable) in the science experiment that proved the globe? You said science so now provide it. Science is not just arguing that you can't see how Russia and America can both be lying to the public. Lol.
    1
  40. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  41. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  42.  @ghz24  Amateur radio is given frequencies they can use by the government. You are not moon bouncing anything by moving your little antenna around and changing to government approved frequencies. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  43.  @ghz24  Doesn't sound like people out there bouncing signals off the moon to get over Earth curve. Sounds very government controlled. Read below: "Amateur radio frequency allocation is done by national telecommunication authorities. Globally, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) oversees how much radio spectrum is set aside for amateur radio transmissions. Individual amateur stations are free to use any frequency within authorized frequency ranges; authorized bands may vary by the class of the station license. Radio amateurs use a variety of transmission modes, including Morse code, radioteletype, data, and voice. Specific frequency allocations vary from country to country and between ITU regions as specified in the current ITU HF frequency allocations for amateur radio.[1] The list of frequency ranges is called a band allocation, which may be set by international agreements, and national regulations. The modes and types of allocations within each frequency band is called a bandplan; it may be determined by regulation, but most typically is set by agreements between amateur radio operators. National authorities regulate amateur usage of radio bands. Some bands may not be available or may have restrictions on usage in certain countries or regions. International agreements assign amateur radio bands which differ by region."[2][3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_frequency_allocations
    1
  44.  @ghz24  You're using the government approved frequencies. I sent you the citation. Stop being in denial. 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  45.  @ghz24  So keep sitting outside playing with your little radio trying to aim your antenna at the moon. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  46. @Joejoe Joe What is impossible. Having night and day? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  47.  @ghz24  Did it ever occur to you that radio and TV signals have other buildings, mountains, trees, etc. that obstruct signals? Of course not, you only believe it's earth curve. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  48.  @SETIFilm  And for the gyro debunking: 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. Flights 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.
    1
  49.  @SETIFilm  You just acknowledged that water is level as in flat as in horizontal. And you have no understanding of perspective. Look at street lights down a long street. You'll notice that the farther away from you they are the more the top of the lights drop. Click the image below and see how perspective works. Lol. https://images.app.goo.gl/552HqoUyxqpgEHcE8
    1
  50.  @ghz24  Sounds like radio waves lose intensity over distance. Perhaps this is the reason for signals not traveling that far. But you'll read this and still say earth curve. Lol. "As radio waves travel outward from their source - a transmitter - they lose intensity, and fast. The intensity of radio waves over distance obeys the inverse-square law, which states that intensity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance from a source.Dec 15, 2014"  https://www.rfvenue.com › blog › w... When it Comes to RF, Distance Plays Tricks with the Mind - RF ...
    1