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

  1.  oleyella85  Yes it's all moving the same direction. But as you acknowledged clockwise and counter clockwise rotation is dependent on your limited perspective.
    1
  2. @Quentin Styger What are you referring to? I don't believe volume was being discussed here. Here's the definition of volume however. "Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by a closed surface, for example, the space that a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains. Volume is often quantified numerically using the SI derived unit, the cubic metre."
    1
  3. @SniperBlaster51 So your scientific evidence is asking me for scientific evidence?
    1
  4. @SniperBlaster51 Do you see the horizon behind the second platform? Yes or no?
    1
  5. @SniperBlaster51 You claimed scientific evidence. I never did. You asked for some evidence. I provided you with a video debunking the globe. You said the video is distorted. Can you not see the horizon behind the second platform in the video?
    1
  6.  @wilecatrexy  "14¶And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth," Genesis 1: 14-18
    1
  7.  oleyella85  Try to not lose track of the arguments. You seem to jump in on other people's arguments and don't understand what is being argued. Argument by Fernando: Clockwise and counter clockwise rotation prove we are on a ball. Debunking: As you already conceded clockwise and counter clockwise rotation just depends on the perspective of the observer from the direction he/she is facing. Argument by me to SniperBlaster51: From the video I showed. If the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles (p), 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 is more than 9.41 miles away from an observer at 1 foot height (not q), therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p). Your rebuttal: The horizon distance is dependent on atmospheric conditions because on a different day the horizon is blocking the bottom of the platforms. The distance to the horizon is never consistent. My rebuttal and demolition of the globe: If the horizon we see is caused by atmospheric conditions (weather), then it's not geometric. Your model requires the horizon to be a physical edge where the earth is curving away based on the 3959 mile radius. Now that you concede that the horizon is not geometric, welcome to flat Earth!!!
    1
  8.  oleyella85  You write way too much. Argument: Sphere objects prove earth must also be sphere. Debunking: Can't tell if lights in sky are spherical. Even if they were, doesn't prove ground we live on is a sphere. The rest of what you said was just you backpedaling away from what you already conceded. And you threw in some straw man arguments and stereotype fallacies about flat Earthers.
    1
  9.  oleyella85  And you did say that the horizon changes because of atmospheric conditions. Now you are saying that an apparent line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground is an illusion. That's redundant. Of course the horizon is an illusion (the sky doesn't actually meet the ground). You globies are the ones claiming it's physical earth curve. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  10. Well regardless of what you believe we are on. Hopefully, God will bless you all. Peace.
    1
  11.  @Roop-n4z  Okay pay close attention. The stars, sun, and moon are lights in the sky that appear round. We don't know if they are spheres of if they are actually even round. They appear round from our perspective. The globehead argument is that because these lights in the sky appear to be round, the land we live on must be round. If the lights in the sky appeared to be Unicorns, would that mean we are on a giant Unicorn? Lol. The logic doesn't follow. Especially, since we have proven that the earth is not curving where it should in order to be a sphere with a 3959 mile radius. We also know that the Earth is not turning because it doesn't turn underneath drones, helicopters, or airplanes. I get that you have a model that says earth is a planet and in a solar system with other balls rotating around a giant fireball as it moves through a galaxy, which is one of many galaxies. But that's just a model. Models are not reality. In reality the earth is the land we live on. It's level as in flat, as in horizontal. There is an up and down. And the lights in the sky that appear round are there for time, seasons, and light for us here on Earth. You have no evidence that you are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun. Having water and gas pressure maintained proves we are not surrounded by a vacuum as both require containment. So showing photoshopped images of lights in the sky does not prove your model is true. Finally, look around you and recognize that everything has intelligent design. From how the sun causes plants and flowers to grow, to how the cycles that keep life going. How we have everything here to support life. From your DNA which is like a book with instructions. Are you too blind to see that the lights in the sky are here for us? Are you too blind to realize that God has created this world for us. I don't know what you believe, but I pray that you are able to come out of this sun worshipping Heliocentrism religion and serve the God that created you and all the lights you see up there. God bless you.
    1
  12.  @Roop-n4z  You clearly didn't read my post to you. If the lights in the sky were a unicorn, would that mean the land we live on is a unicorn? Yes or no?
    1
  13.  @Roop-n4z  You didn't answer the question. If the lights in the sky appeared to be Unicorns, would that mean the land we live on is a unicorn? Lol. Just a simple yes or no will do. If your answer is no , then stop making this ridiculous argument that there are spheres up there, so earth must be a sphere. If your answer is yes, then seek help immediately. Lol. As far as the other galaxies or the guy in your video showing a blurry light and claiming that's another galaxy, it's just you and his imagination. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. God bless you anyway. Have a nice day.
    1
  14.  @Roop-n4z  calm down, I had already posted my response before yours came in. Now reading your response, it sounds like you are saying that the lights in the sky appearing to be a sphere does not prove the Earth is a sphere. But because of your religious belief in the solar system model earth must be the same as the other lights in the sky. Lol. Thanks for admitting that you just have faith in a model. Your argument is now debunked. Models are not reality. You are guilty of what is called model reifications fallacy.
    1
  15.  @Roop-n4z  And there are no hemispheres. That's a begging the question fallacy where the premises (hemispheres) of your argument assume the truth of your conclusion (sphere). All objects will drop closer to your horizon when you move away from them until eventually leaving your field of view as it goes below the horizon. It's called perspective. Look at street lights down a long street. Lol.
    1
  16.  @Roop-n4z  The horizon is the line where the sky APPEARS to meet the ground. As long as you have eyes and vision there will be a horizon. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  17.  @Roop-n4z  The horizon is not geometric, as in physical, as in earth curve.
    1
  18.  @Roop-n4z  The sphere is what doesn't exist.
    1
  19.  @Roop-n4z  Look at these street lights in the image posted here. Notice how the lines appear to converge with distance on the sides as well as the sky and ground. That's perspective. Because you globies don't understand how perspective works you have reified Earth curve for the horizon. https://images.app.goo.gl/TAtYyeyveMuPLtt98 So we put it to the test using 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). From 1 foot height the distance to the horizon is more than 9.41 miles away (not q) therefore the earth is not a sphere (not p).
    1
  20. Have you been under a rock? There's so much evidence that the globe is a lie and heliocentrism is just a religion. Here's the newest debunking of the globe. 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 cannot be farther than 1.225 times the square root of the observer's height (q). The horizon has been viewed on many occasions to be farther than 10 miles from observers at 1 foot to 6 feet height (not q), therefore earth is not a sphere. Watch the double speak from the globehead below. Lol. https://youtu.be/czU0xHiH8ac
    1
  21. The earth is flat because there's no curvature. Spheres must have curvature. Lol.
    1
  22. https://youtu.be/4sAoirPFOng
    1
  23. @QED You ask him. I'm not your messenger.
    1
  24. @QED Did you watch the video I posted. Mr. Sensible says your radius has been disproven. You realize how that destroys your whole model?
    1
  25. Easy. Perspective. Look down a street with street lights and notice how the lights farther from you get close to your horizon and apparent position drops as well as angular size shrinking. Eventually the lights won't be seen if you move farther away.
    1
  26. Heliocentrism is a religion. And being under the delusion that you are on a spinning ball whirling through a vacuum chasing the sun is mental illness.
    1
  27. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1
  28. Post a scientific hypothesis (independent and dependent variable) of any scientific Experiment that flat earthers reject. The apparent size of the sun appearing to not change as it changes its apparent position in the sky is not proof of anything. The Sun the moon and all the other lights in the sky never actually go down but their apparent position in the sky makes them appear to go down as they leave your field of view. The people pushing the heliocentrism model are the ones profiting from deception. Look into how much money NASA makes as well as SpaceX.
    1
  29. And last I checked it was people pushing heliocentrism claiming that science doesn't prove things. Lol.
    1
  30. @QED Do you know the actual size and actual distance and actual position of the sun in the sky? No , so in dealing with a light with everything about it being apparent (not actual), it's not logical to try to assume actual things like it's size never actually changing. You don't know that to be true.
    1
  31. @QED Jets, birds, balloons have actual sizes and their distances and location in the sky can be known. So with these things you can make determinations about them shrinking with distance. The sun, moon, and other lights in the sky have nothing that you actually know about them. So again, how are you going to declare what something apparent in every way should actually do? Not logical. What is your evidence of the distance to the sun? It wouldn't happen to be based on the Earth's radius would it? Lol. Because you know that the Geometry for the radius fails right? Lol.
    1
  32.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Do the math . Lol. What numbers should I plug in? We don't know what the actual size, actual distance, actual position in the sky, or what the light actually is. Lol. Not sure how we can make any conclusions or do any mathematics on something we don't have any actual information on. Lol.
    1
  33.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  And you have no idea how far the sun or moon is?
    1
  34.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Thanks for acknowledging that you don't know how far the sun or moon is. And you can measure the apparent size of something but you can't say what the apparent size should actually do when you don't know the actual size, and actual distance, actual position in the sky, or what the lights actually are.
    1
  35.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  Pay close attention. You CAN measure apparent size but you CAN'T declare what something not actual should do if you know nothing but the NOT ACTUAL size of it.
    1
  36.  @FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh  The argument: The NOT ACTUAL size of the sun should change when it is in a NOT ACTUAL position in the sky based on it's NOT ACTUAL distance from the observer of light that may or may not be physical. Lol. That's your silly argument.
    1
  37. There's evidence of intelligent design (maybe not with you). There's no evidence of a spherical earth in orbit.
    1
  38.  @johnunderwood-hp8rj  You can't see the earth in orbit. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  39.  @johnunderwood-hp8rj  Keep looking at lights in the sky. They don't prove earth is in orbit. All the lights in the sky rotate above us from east to west. You have never been to these lights so you can't reify spherical orbits around the sun from seeing lights rotate above your head buddy. Lol.
    1
  40.  @jormungandr9251  Compasses work fine on a flat Earth. Declination refers to using true north which begs the question of Earth on an axis so you can draw your erroneous conclusion of a spherical earth.
    1
  41.  @jormungandr9251  Equator begs the question of a sphere also. So you keep imagining being on a sphere using declination and equator. That's the problem.
    1
  42.  @jormungandr9251  Words matter. And I will not allow you to have premises that automatically put us on your reified sphere. "e·qua·tor /ēˈkwādər/ Learn to pronounce noun an imaginary line drawn around the earth equally distant from both poles, dividing the earth into northern and southern hemispheres and constituting the parallel of latitude 0°."
    1
  43.  @jormungandr9251  So if earth doesn't have an equator, poles, and not on any axis you have no argument.
    1
  44.  @jormungandr9251  Declination assumes earth is on an axis. Uses true north. Your argument is based on a begging the question fallacy. Lol. "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
  45.  @jormungandr9251  I got just a little into your video and stopped it because you are making declarations about the distances of the lights in the sky. You don't have any evidence of this. Not worth watching a video full of unproven claims.
    1
  46.  @jormungandr9251  Also more spherical language such as longitude and latitude. Do you have any evidence that doesn't use begging the question fallacy?
    1
  47.  @jormungandr9251  You've already been debunked. I don't know what you are still rambling on about. Lol. If you are talking about where you see Polaris in the sky then perspective applies as it always applies with optics.
    1
  48.  @jormungandr9251  You don't get to declare what we should see. You used an observation and I debunked it. We don't see linear. There's perspective effects when it comes to vision. Nice try but your trick has been exposed. The Crux of your argument is to get people to believe that we see linear like in orthographic view, but we don't. You can use this trick along with saying equator, latitude, longitude, and declination to convince people that you are traveling down a sphere. You have been debunked.
    1
  49.  @jormungandr9251  Your argument: We see linear. So Polaris should not be dropping and it must be because our latitude is changing as we go down a ball. Lol. Debunking: Perspective applies with all optics. You are not traveling down a ball. You've just replaced perspective with earth curve. Lol.
    1
  50.  @jormungandr9251  Here's the total demolition of your religion and argument. You don't have a physical geometric horizon. Watch the video below. https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
    1