The earth is a flat, non spinning realm, not a planet in an infinite universe

[augustaky1]

I'm still waiting for a physicist to tell me what gravity IS.

Here is a demonstrable way for you to understand gravity.

This is simple, but very important.

You really only need two things

• A 16 lb bowling ball
• An open mind

1. Hold the bowling ball high over your head
2. Close your eyes
3. Wish really hard that someone can prove to you what gravity is
4. Let go of the bowling ball.

You will understand very quickly what gravity is.

Oh by the way. You keep putting everything under fish eye lens.
I gave the example of RF wave propagation and the limitations of line of sight that VHF has, but the HF spectrum does not. You said many, many pages ago that you would "look into it."
Go ahead and say Fish Eye Lens and get it over with.

Then we can get back to the "myth" of gyros and navigation...... I am really waiting on your response to Schuler Oscillations and Schuler Tuning.

 

[Catatonic75]

If Brushy is a troll... Bravo, good sir! Seriously.

But this JRE podcast was posted a few pages ago and I just listened tonight. Brushy is every lunatic Mick West describes to a T. I recommend everyone listen to at least the first 30 mins.

I'll continue to read and post regardless because I like talking about space and science, and I've actually learned a thing or two, but we're never going to convince Brushy otherwise. His belief in a flat earth is confirmation bias based in religious fervor. For him to accept a round earth would mean for him to denounce his idea of God. And good luck doing that.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Here is a demonstrable way for you to understand gravity.

This is simple, but very important.

You really only need two things

• A 16 lb bowling ball
• An open mind

1. Hold the bowling ball high over your head
2. Close your eyes
3. Wish really hard that someone can prove to you what gravity is
4. Let go of the bowling ball.

You will understand very quickly what gravity is.

Oh by the way. You keep putting everything under fish eye lens.
I gave the example of RF wave propagation and the limitations of line of sight that VHF has, but the HF spectrum does not. You said many, many pages ago that you would "look into it."
Go ahead and say Fish Eye Lens and get it over with.

Then we can get back to the "myth" of gyros and navigation...... I am really waiting on your response to Schuler Oscillations and Schuler Tuning.

I don't care what you are waiting for anymore asshole.

 

[IdaCat]

What's your education Brushy?

 

[Brushy Bill]

What's your education Brushy?

The perfect amount.

 

[augustaky1]

I don't care what you are waiting for anymore asshole.

Made my day.

Edit to add: I am only an a#% hole when viewed through a fish eye lens.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Made my day.

Edit to add: I am only an a#% hole when viewed through a fish eye lens.

 

[IdaCat]

The perfect amount.

Yeah, I didn't expect you to be open an honest about it. Gotta stay in troll character.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Yeah, I didn't expect you to be open an honest about it.

It is irrelevant to the discussion, and you don't care what it is anyway, I know what game your trying to play here.

 

[Catatonic75]

Because this guy is freaking me out, and he's using science to do it. If you watch his other videos you can see the physical toll that his conclusions, that we are not on a spinning ball and the earth is probably flat, takes on his body and mind. What's going on here. I'll take anything, proof the earth is a sphere, proof the earth is spinning, proof the earth is moving through space because I've been at this for a few weeks and I can't find anything definitive.

Going back and revisiting your first post and you asked for "...proof the earth is a sphere, proof the earth is spinning, proof the earth is moving through space because I've been at this for a few weeks and I can't find anything definitive" and after 53 pages now you have shrugged off every bit of facts we have presented--if not straight up ignored.

So, I ask you, what would constitute concrete evidence worthy of enough your approval? Just what specifically would you consider definitive proof?

 

[Brushy Bill]

And I'm still waiting.

 

[TheLexingtonian]

And I'm still waiting.

Asked and answered.

 

[IdaCat]

It is irrelevant to the discussion, and you don't care what it is anyway, I know what game your trying to play here.

It certainly is relevant to the discussion. And I'm not playing games. Just trying to learn something REAL about you.

 

[Catatonic75]

And I'm still waiting.

No, you tell us what you want as proof. And very specifically. You asked so you set the criteria for what you find as acceptable evidence.

Because the real answer is nothing. You accept nothing. You want to argue your side and your side alone.

 

[Brushy Bill]

It certainly is relevant to the discussion. And I'm not playing games. Just trying to learn something REAL about you.

I stay anonymous for a reason. Go ask Spears about that.

 

[Catatonic75]

And I'm still waiting.

Further, had the OP been "The earth is flat, debate me!" that would be one thing. But you asked for proof and accept none. So you have to establish what you find worthy proof. Otherwise, the gig is up.

 

[IdaCat]

I stay anonymous for a reason. Go ask Spears about that.

There are millions of high school dropouts so staying anonymous isn't something to worry about. Millions of college grads as well.

 

[Brushy Bill]

You haven't given my any valid proof dipstick. Every piece that has been offered by your side has an alternative FE explanation or is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Brushy Bill]

There are millions of high school dropouts so staying anonymous isn't something to worry about. Millions of college grads as well.

OK then, more than "some college" and less than a doctorate.

 

[IdaCat]

OK then, more than "some college" and less than a doctorate.

Major?

 

[Brushy Bill]

Major?

Irrelevant

 

[IdaCat]

Irrelevant

No it's not. The video you posted in your OP has basic math flaws. If you're an Art major it could help explain your ignorance if you slept through high school math.

 

[Catatonic75]

MR. BRUSHY BILL. You deleted your post outlining the terms in which you were willing to concede. I saw it! Do you want to tell everyone what you said or shall I? #SHAME!

 

[Brushy Bill]

MR. BRUSHY BILL. You deleted your post outlining the terms in which you were willing to concede. I saw it! Do you want to tell everyone what you said or shall I? #SHAME!

IDGAF

 

[Brushy Bill]

No it's not. The video you posted in your OP has basic math flaws. If you're an Art major it could help explain your ignorance if you slept through high school math.

No it did not.

 

[Catatonic75]

IDGAF

He said (and I'm paraphrasing) if someone presented non-photographic scientific data he would concede.

 

[Brushy Bill]

He said (and I'm paraphrasing) if someone presented non-photographic scientific data he would concede.

still waiting

 

[Catatonic75]

still waiting

Why did you delete the post then?

 

[Catatonic75]

still waiting

And I guess it's safe to assume you don't accept the predictability of a low-earth orbiting satellite as proof, correct? Predictable down to the second even.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Why did you delete the post then?

I was going to try and rephrase it to be more specific, but whatever.

 

[Catatonic75]

I was going to try and rephrase it to be more specific, but whatever.

LIAR! Why not use the edit function then?

 

[Brushy Bill]

And I guess it's safe to assume you don't accept the predictability of a low-earth orbiting satellite as proof, correct? Predictable down to the second even.

There are no LEO's on the flat earth.

 

[Brushy Bill]

LIAR! Why not use the edit function then?

I didn't feel like it.

 

[IdaCat]

No it did not.

I pointed out the flaws in that video pages ago, but you ignored it. Now you argue like a 3 year old. That's what I get trying to reason with a troll...or an idiot.

 

[Catatonic75]

There is no LEO on the flat earth.

EXACTLY. So why can we all walk out of our homes and look up into the night sky and see an object exactly when and where it's supposed to be? This is not limited to the ISS but many, MANY, satellites. Exactly when and where. It's not magic I tell you that. And absolutely not possible in a flat earth scenario.

 

[Catatonic75]

There are no LEO's on the flat earth.

Here, I'll start with this. https://www.metabunk.org/space-station-photos-disprove-the-flat-earth-theory.t7621/

 

[Brushy Bill]

I pointed out the flaws in that video pages ago, but you ignored it. Now you argue like a 3 year old. That's what I get trying to reason with a troll...or an idiot.

Bye, bye then.

 

[Brushy Bill]

 

[Catatonic75]

Please explain what you are trying to prove with this and what dimensions this model represents.

 

[Catatonic75]

Shall I expand? Because in your deleted post you said you wanted non-photographic evidence. But here you present a photo that seems would represent a globed earth that the curvature would be visible at sea level. No one here has ever said the curvature was visible at sea level.

The earth is much much much much much larger than this. The reason you think the earth this flat is that it is so big you cannot see the curve at sea level. So, in the picture you posted you purport the Earth is much smaller than anything we've discussed before. In your own words what is the area of your flat earth?