 Welcome everyone to Modern Day Debates, we're a neutral platform welking everybody from all walks of life. Don't forget to describe for more juicy debates in the future and if you like what you're hearing tonight, both of our guest links are in the description and with that I'm going to hand it over to Aussie for his 10 minute opening statement. Well good day James, I'm Amy, thanks for hosting this debate and my apologies for being late, I did think it was originally planned for a couple of hours from now, so haven't really even bothered getting out of bed for this one. Good day Craig, hope you're well, sorta, I semi-prepared for this and so I'll just jump into this little spill I've written out and go from there space. Once again I find myself defending the most ridiculed of all schools I've taught, that which contends that the solid ground beneath our feet is actually not spinning and whirling at speeds unimaginable through a vacuum of space, that the nature of liquids in a fluid state do not form thousands of miles high rotund bulges between continents and that an atmosphere composed of pressurized gases cannot be contained by an ever-weakened, unpressurized container of everything through a vacuum. My spinning spaceball believing opponent will attempt to ridicule and shame me for adhering to everyday commonsense approaches to normal observable laws of physics as he attempts to describe a model based on an appeal to authority and popularity, despite the fact that it denies observable reality, actual experience and true laws of nature. We can expect him to appeal to all manner of occult teachings, maths and wizardry, conjecture and assumption to present his case for the ancient superstitious cult belief of the spinning pair shapes ferro adhering through space, but will he present any real evidence of standing bodies of curved water? Any reason to believe a vacuum contain gaseous atmosphere cling to a supersonic whirling organic spaceship remaining faithful to its empire of the sun as every known star and constellation moves ever so precisely in order to maintain the constant sky clock we witness day after day, night after night, year after year and millennia after millennia. Of course we may hear some fabricated tales about parallax change, but we will not see any evidence. My opponent is rather infamous for his lambasting of guests and intruders alike, so no doubt rather than appealing to common sense, logic and observable fact, he will instead find him desperately looking elsewhere for formulas or fakery, fisheye images or his infamous ability to misinterpret convergence, perspective and distance diminution. His appeal to imagery in this day and age of forgery and fakery is understandable since logical facts and deduction are not his forte, let us hope he will provide the unthinkable, such as an unedited video of a rocket taking a crew of actinots to the orbiting spaceship we know and love as the international fake station in a swimming pool, docking at ten times their aid of a speeding bullet, unloading the new crew and taking aboard the old or with their associated piles of fresh and dirty laundry to last six, nine or 24 months, whatever the case may be, and maybe just maybe watch as they do the unthinkable, turn the camera towards Earth and maybe zoom in on some live event, an airplane flying sideways or a 2,000 ton ship clinging to the underside of our infamous blue ball spinning spaceship. Of course, I won't hold my breath. Will he appeal to the ancient measures of shutters of sticks or his claim that they will maintain that one tiny mountain has greater gravitational influence than the entire spinning space will? Sorry, I've just read that one, has a claim that Craig once made previously that a tiny mountain has a greater gravitational influence than the entire spinning space will. Will he actually provide credible evidence for a change to support his ancient superstitious beliefs in a heliocentric manner? In a believable manner, pardon me, I look forward to finding out. In the meantime, I'll start talking about swans. For those unfamiliar with the concept, many inner-hemispherean global believers would adhere to a belief based reasonably enough on a known experience that all swans were white. However, here in the outer half of the hemisphere, the so-called southern reaches, we find that the vast flocks of black swans exist, thus the myth that all swans are white is easily debunked with the evidence of just one black swan. Likewise, the law take to debunk the ancient superstitious myth of living on a spinning space wall is just one piece of literal undeniable evidence, even though I might spend my entire ten minutes presenting one after another. Just one black swan will prove not all swans are white. So I won't around with one after another over the most absurd attributes of the heliocentric belief. I'll cut straight to the chase. But before I do, let's set a scene. Since we know the moon goes around the earth and the earth goes around the sun, when the sun goes around the Great Attractor, as we are taught, let us draw a more simple analogy for those incapable of understanding speech which translates as 2,280 miles per hour, 66,600 miles per hour, and 514,000 miles per hour, figures beyond the everyday limits of normal human comprehension. Let's go to something the average modern-day consumerist can comprehend, a large-mall car park. Let us similarly assume the unfortunate consumer of modern-day mods and cons has inadvertently locked the keys into his chosen mode of conveyance, and in his distress begins walking around and around his vehicle, seeking a way in to load up his collection of groceries before the ice cream melts, so he may jump in and speed away at the maximum legal speed of 25 miles per hour. Let's say he is a fast walker. He walks around and around at 5 miles per hour, and he knows the speeds nor accelerates to maintain this constant distance from his car. Meanwhile, his evil wife, oh, hang on, I shouldn't have written that, I meant to edit this. He has an affair with a genius hacker. Just as the poor unfortunate person limps around his car and finds time, the car leaps into action and rolls across the flat and level pavement at a massive whopping 5 miles per hour, the same speed he has been desperately limping around at all this time. Now, as this man limps around, he must start to accelerate in order to get in front of his crawlingly slow vehicle, decelerate to fall behind and continue a very regulated and defined pattern of acceleration and deceleration in order to maintain a constant distance from his locked vehicle, all while it's merely crawling through the car park at a simple, slow walking rate of 5 miles per hour. In the heliocentric tradition, if we were to compare this to the moon going around our spinning spaceball earth, we'd have to adjust our figures from 5 miles per hour to an incredible 2,280 miles per hour of the moon free falling just missing the earth, rolling through the car park at a mere 670,000 miles per hour, with all the appropriate accelerations and decelerations as required to keep the spinning spaceball fantasy alive. By now, I expect the cognitive dissonance of the spinning spaceball fanatics to have fully kicked in and they're already enrolling me into some read-a-book, go back to school or understand motion is relative type of response as they infamously appeal to. I can only imagine Quaggy already screaming at the MF4 change in his depends, but let's move on. This one is barely a shade of gray so far. So as our version of the moon is struggling to accelerate and decelerate with our version of the earth in this oversimplified, greatly slowed down model with the car now hovering around the vehicle with the trolley of unladen goods, let's say the troll who overtook his car, whoa, what have I written here? Car's operational mode decides to race out of the car park at a whopping 60 miles per hour. Can the poor man limp so fast to keep up? Let's give him a supercharged wheelchair now suddenly he's flying around his vehicle, he's speeding up and slowing down to maintain a constant distance as the moon does to the earth and so I can't even read my own writing here. I went a little bit off coursey but let's just assume, how much more have I written too much, let's just assume that this car suddenly takes off through into the air. Now how can something at free fall speed possibly keep up with going, keep a constant distance from this car, it's just impossible, I'll jump forward to the last of my, as I said it only takes one black swan to destroy a myth that all swans are white and only takes one gaping glaringly wrong belief in the heliocentric model to prove it wrong, the impossible ludicrous and downright stupid and childish. I applaud my opponent for finding inspiration to defend the ludicrous and because the truth, ah that's right the truth made his son cry, there's almost something noble behind that motivation. I feel kind of bad when my youngest daughter cried when I told a Santa Claus wasn't real but I felt much better about it for not perpetrating a lie and being honest to her, which when she was young and innocent enough to get over it without harboring a lifetime of hatred towards me, unlike the multitude of global believers who carried the childhood fantasy into adulthood and cling to them to this day almost as though you're attempting to take the teddy bear or blankie away from them. With that I present the world's most overgrown adult baby to present his opening statement. Over to you Craig. Thank you so very much Flat Earth Aussie and with that we're going to hand it over to fight the Flat Earth for his 10 minute opening statement. Thank you very much if you don't know me. I am Craig from the channel FTFB. I run the channel that bludgeon's willful stupidity with the hammer of science. I just want to agree with the super chat that's come in there from JDT Turbo WTF. I just want to start with a quick response to the the black swan argument that my esteemed opponent just brought up mainly because he doesn't understand what the black swan argument is. The idea of a black swan argument, a black swan disproving that all swans are white, doesn't disprove white swans. What it now means is that you have to explain both white swans and black swans and that's the interesting thing about the globe earth and evidence that can be presented is that the globe earth can explain everything. The globe earth can explain all the apparent black swans of people not understanding refraction and how to use the curve calculator. Yes, they would appear to disprove that the horizon is always a particular distance away but we can explain why on the heliocentric model because refraction is a part of our model and the explanations that we have. So no amount of black swans will ever disprove that a white swan exists. A black swan simply means that you now have to explain the existence of the black swans as well as the black swans. So using a black swan argument to try and disprove something is a little strawman of the entire premise of the black swan argument. But let's move to evidence which I think you'll notice that Ross didn't present any of. He presented some strawmans of science which we can get into and not understanding relative motion and physics which again we can get into but I'd like to actually talk about evidence of the earth being a particular shape or rotating and the thing is that evidence only exists on the globe side. Experiments, measurements, pictures and videos. Yes and I will absolutely use pictures and videos because you know those things exist and just claiming that all pictures and videos can be manipulated is dishonest on your side because you would have to demonstrate that all pictures and videos have been manipulated. I can present millions and millions and millions of pictures and videos from space and all it takes is for one of those to be correct and true and not manipulated in any way and it destroys the entire platter. So my first bit of evidence I'm going to actually talk about and present as evidence is the constant amount of images and videos from space and one that I like to bring up quite often is this particular one. Here we go. So this image from space is known as the Blue Marble from 1972. No, not the Blue Marble from 2012 where Robert Simmons said it has to be photoshopped. This is an image from space taken with a physical camera, a Hasselblad camera actually and developed on film in a dark room as it would be. The negatives, the cartridges are still on display in a museum. So this is an image that was taken from space and developed on a physical camera. There is no manipulation. You can't manipulate details on a negative, it simply doesn't work like that. So this is the only image that I ever need to present to back up my claim that the Earth is a globe because there it is. That was a picture taken with a physical camera by an actual person. It's not digital, it's not a composite. It's none of the things that you guys can claim as CGI or anything. It's a physical image from space taken with a physical camera where the negatives still exist that can be developed. It's there. Denying it is simply going na-ah and I don't care about your na-ahs. But how can we verify that that's correct? Well, it's simple. You can just look at measurements and is there measurements? Yes, there absolutely is. I like to go to one of my friend's websites, mctune.net, where he has collected a whole bunch of things that could be considered measurements. Now, here is mctune's website. If you go to mctune.net forward slash r, you have an entire list of radius of the Earth measurements. Now, it's not just one. It's not just one measurement. It's tons of them. One of my favorite ones is this one, the Transcontinental Triangulation of the American Ark of Parallel, published in 1900 and is an ocean-to-ocean survey across the United States. I'm not going to go into the specific methods behind geodesic surveying. That's a long conversation and it's been done before on this channel. Actually, you have a survey or a hundred talking to us at Whitside, I believe. But the basics of this is that they use triangles to make measurements to add them all together to see what happens. When they measure all the triangles at the areas that they're looking at, the triangles always add up to greater than 108 degrees, which would only ever be possible if the Earth was curved. But like I said, it's not just one. It's not just the one. All of these measurements done by different people, different teams at different times across the world, throughout different times in history, all come to the same conclusion that the Earth is curved, as we say it is, at the amount we say is. Then you can go to more recent measurements, like you could go to Jesse Kuzolski's page. I'll get that in a bit. So there's a survey called Jesse Kuzolski, who made recent measurements of the curvature of the Earth. Here we go. So this is Jesse Kuzolski's page and he has used his own equipment to actually do measurements of the Earth. And he came to the same conclusions that using geodexabase methods that the Earth was curved. The same conclusion and the same measurements that were got by the teams throughout history. And it's not just measurements of the curve of the Earth. It's also measurements of rotation. We can quite easily measure the rotation of the Earth using countless experiments from pendulums to super fluid phase experiments, to physical mechanical gyroscope experiments. There are countless experiments, which you can go back to the website I just showed you, mc2.net, forward slash spin. And you can go and look at all the experiments that show that the Earth is rotating. And you can also repeat these experiments yourself. It's not just me saying it, these are things that can be repeated. The measurements and the evidence suggest that the Earth is not flat. Flat repository Jesus waffled about nothing instead of showing that there's any measurements or anything to back up his claim of an imaginary flying pizza. The Earth is simply not flat. All of the measurements show that the Earth is curved. All of the measurements show that the Earth is rotating. There is zero evidence to suggest that the Earth is flat. What there is is flat refers using stroma tactics against basic physics, like not understanding Coriolis and claiming their misunderstanding is evidence. And then there's things like Ross doing basic physics, incredibly wrong, not understanding what relative motion is, and then taking that as evidence of the Earth is flat. Well, here's the thing, your ignorance is not evidence. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you so very much. Fight the flat Earth. And with that, we are going to move into our open conversation. Guys, the floor is all yours. Hello. Not too bad for this cold winter's morning. You said imaginary flying pizza. Now, I think you're the only one. Well, you and most other globe people that we normally end with something that ends in the aards. The only ones who think of it as an imaginary flying pizza, the flat Earth is don't think of that at all. If anything, before we're going to use a description for the only physical plane in existence is we would say that it exists at the bottom of the known universe fixed in place. It's not an imaginary flying thing at all. So I don't know why you continue after all these years of me even schooling you on that matter, that that is not how flat Earth is think of the flat Earth. But you're still living in ignorance. You're trying to protect your own. Now, that just didn't interrupt me in the middle of me saying something. That's what you're famous for. We know that that you can at least let me finish what I'm saying. Let's go point by point. That's fine. That's fine. Let's just go point by point before you go on. Right, Ross, I say that to do exactly what just happened to trigger what? My entire group is there to trigger flat Earthers and it works. However, you are wrong because I'm talking now you're doing the introduction. So however, I have met several flat Earthers who believe that is a flying disc in space. The thing is that there is no flat Earth model. So it's impossible for me to straw man the flat Earth model because there is no flat Earther. There is no flat Earth model. I've told you that it is not a flying disc in space. We don't think it is a flying disc. If some do, that's not my problem. You know, like all flat Earthers are independent thinkers and of course we're all going to disagree with one another because we all think for ourselves as opposed to believing what we're told to believe, which is what all global believers do. They've all appealed to authority and they cannot think for themselves. Can I correct your straw man before you go on? Do not claim I have beliefs. That is not the case. I have evidence and logic to support my position. Do not enforce your religion onto me. Do not try and straw man my position because I'm just not going to let that fly. Ross, there are some flat Earthers who think that the Earth is a flying disc. So me saying that is an accurate description of what some flat Earthers say. I do not care about your no true Scotsman policy. Now, do you have any evidence the Earth is flat because you failed to present any in your opening? Well, of course I do. Water level speaks for itself. There's no mountains the thousands of miles high of bulging water in between continents. That's just not how. Another straw man. I'm not going to let you straw man my position. No, that's a straw man of my position because my position does not say that there is a mountain of water in between two points. My position says that my position says the water is level conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of Earth's surface, which is also the description given in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. And also, if you go to mc2.net four slash level, you'll find 45 citations that say the word level when referring to the shape of the Earth literally means a curve. In fact, a true level, according to surveyors, is the curve of the Earth. So you're right when you say the water is level, but that's because level is pointing towards the center of the Earth, thanks to gravity. Only in your imagination, Craig, in reality, when we use a spirit level, we find true level, which is perfectly leveled like a mirror surface. If it wasn't a mirror surface, you wouldn't be able to use a reflection. So do you always interrupt every single bloody time? I'm going to interrupt all your straw man to us. Let me get this clear to you right now. Every time you're in a straw man position, I am going to interrupt you, okay? Stop straw manning, stop straw manning, and I won't interrupt you. And guys, I heart both of you. We're going to drag you back to your corners and then flat out. This would have been a civil debate, but I can't get out a single bloody sentence without Craig over speaking me. I told you I'm not going to let you straw man. Because you're horrible. Yeah, again, I'm not going to let you straw man my position, Ross. We can have a backward and forward discussion, but that will involve you not straw manning my position. Now, saying that you're going to use a spirit level to determine the shape of the Earth is absolutely ridiculous because a spirit level works because of gravity, making that little bubble perpendicular to the center of Earth. Level does not mean flat, Ross. We have been through this. That is basic stuff. Again, do you have evidence the Earth is flat instead of you're missing? That is why we say flat and level because when you use two words together, they give greater definition to one another. We can have something that's flat but not level, we can have something that's level but not flat, but when you say flat and level, it means something, a greater meaning. Just like when you describe something as hot and blue, for example, it's not blue and cold, it's blue and hot. So you've used two different words, meaning two different things, to describe one thing. So when we describe the nature of water as flat and level, people know what we're talking about because we can see it, mirror surface finish perfectly level. It will reflect the image above it perfectly because it's not curved crack. Okay, there's a claim you just made. We're going to concentrate on the claim you just made. Ross, we're going to concentrate on the claim you just made, and I'm going to push you for evidence of this claim. So you just made the claim that water is not only level but also flat. So I'm going to now ask you to present me a measurement to back up that claim. You don't measure flat and level, you observe it. Yes, you do. You actually can measure it. You would be able to measure if there was any curvature or not. So you just made a claim that the water is flat and level. So let's talk about the oceans. Please present your evidence that water is flat. A measurement would be good. The mirror surface crack. How do you measure it? Zero is zero. Zero curve. You can measure that. You could measure if there was no curvature. So please present your measurements of there being no curvature. You can't measure that which doesn't exist. You would be able to measure if there was no curvature. You would be able to get a consistent measurement of zero. So do you have a measurement of water being flat, yes or no? The answer you know is perfectly acceptable. Because I have measurements of water being curved. Are you going to let me answer that? I was finishing what I was saying, but now you may answer. I'm giving you permission. Thank you sir. So kind of you. You're welcome. Another form of a water level that is used quite often in building isn't just the spirit level with the single bubble in it. You can take a long piece of hose and has clear ends on it and you carry one end to the farthest end and you fill it with water and when you've got the water level of one end to another one it can be 100 meters away. It can be 100 miles away. It will be the same level and it will be perfectly flat and level in between those two points. That it is observation and measurement of water. Please present one of those measurements to me. What? You want me to go out and get a hose now? I don't think so. Yeah I want you to present a measurement and explain how having an equal elevation above two different points with this proof curvature. Because again that's straw manning my position. My position says that the water in those pipes would be the same elevation above the surface of the earth at both points because that is the prediction of the heliocentric model gravity and water. So again you are trying to again you are trying to disprove something by not understanding something. I actually have measurements over water. In fact here is measurements over water done by Jesse Kosowski over a lake in fact we got to the one at the top here. On this page I can give the links to the page all you like but this page has many different measurements including a measurement over a lake that shows that there is a curve to the earth. So I actually have measurements of the water curving. I have demonstrations of measurements of water curving. Thanks to DMS. Let me finish. Let me finish. I know I think you don't understand how a water level works Ross. That is my claim but here we go that's the one right there. And guys I just want you to get more full sentences out. That's for sending love to both of you. We're going to let Fight the Flat Earth finish this point and then hand it over to Flat Earth Ozzy. So this this website here from Jesse Kosowski's WordPress actually has measurements over water and over short distances of the earth being curved. Actual measurements. So I can 100% here we go here's the one the lake observations made using the water surface of Cooper River Lake as the level reference. So over the surface of Cooper River Lake as the reference he measured a curve an actual measurement of curve over water showing that water is level but not flat. So I'm going to that Ozzy Jesus respond now but I would like him to respond with a measurement of water being flat because here's my measurement of water being curved. Well you didn't describe his method what he used whatsoever and as I was explaining to you when you use a hose over a long distance it doesn't matter about the altitude of the the land itself. Like if you took it up a mountain that water level is still going to remain level. So of course it doesn't prove anything about the earth. You know anything to do with earth is irrelevant to the shape of the earth as such because land as we know undulates it has different altitudes but it's all done above sea level. So when we do it with regards to a water level then it doesn't matter how long you make that hose if you've got a theodolite to measure the exact level between those two water levels you will find that it is indeed flat and level and so that is all the measurement you need. Excellent. Please present that measurement. Please present that measurement. I guarantee you that that does not exist because the ends of the hose will have the water at the same elevation from the from the surface of earth. There will be a drop over tangents if you have the other lights looking at them as is demonstrated in the website that I keep showing you. This is based on the elevation. You told me no it's not relevant to the matter because it's not relevant to the matter because having the same elevation is important because then you compare if those same elevations are at a tangent to each other and what you find out as I'm showing in this actual page of physical measurements that when you have two points that are above the same elevation they are not that tangent to each other. They diverge, plumbobs diverge as explained here. So if you would like to go over the website and peruse the method yourself and even go and talk to Jesse you can find him quite happily on Twitter talking about COVID and stuff but he has done the physical measurements. So again Ross I'm going to push this point. I have shown you that there are measurements that water is not flat. You claim the water is flat please present a measurement or admit you cannot. There's hundreds of measurements Craig. There's like a lake in Russia Lake Picard. It's over 400 miles long. It's one of the flattest places on earth when it's frozen. There is no curve. It is measurably flat the whole way. 400 miles. Do you know how much curve? Show me the measurement then. Show me the measurement. There's no measurement. There's no measurement. It will always be zero. Show me that measurement of zero then please. Do you have it or not? Look at those pictures. You know I don't screen share on my phone. I'm sorry but looking at a picture is not making a measurement. Do you have a measurement using actual methods that could measure something to say that that lake is 100 flat yes or no? Okay do you have a mirror? Do you have a mirror? Is your mirror curved? Does it give a true reflection if it is curved? No it doesn't a mirror works because it's perfectly flat and level and that's how water behaves. So according to the manufacturers of float glass mirrors actually that they design will have a curve that matches the arc of the curve of the earth. This comes from the people that actually make float glass mirrors and stuff because of the way that the mirrors are made by putting a liquid down and then putting the liquid glass on top of it and they actually specify on the website where they show about making float glass that there is a curvature which matches the arc of the curve of the earth. So mirrors that you can generally find actually do have a curve that matches the arc of the curve of the earth according to the way that we make them. We're determined that we can't agree what flat and level means because you've got some more sense of curvature exists in the in the definition of flat and level. So but let's go to something else that you said then since we can't agree on that. No I'm not ready to move on yet. I'm not ready. I'm not just getting away from this. No no no no no. We're not moving on. Okay hold on. I I want to make sure that Fight the Flat Earth gets his point across. So we'll go for like another minute or two but then we then let's go on to another point. He's been given so much time and he said nothing. I presented evidence of my case Ross. I presented evidence of my case Ross. I presented evidence that water is in fact curved due to measurements across the surface of a lake that should be curved You have made the claim multiple times the water is flat and now before you move on I just want a simple answer from you. Can you present a measurement of water being flat? Yes or no? No, you cannot present a measurement of zero therefore you lose that part of the argument. Let's move on No, zero is zero. Yes. Yeah You presented an image from 1972, which we've seen video footage of how they faked it through a round window in an altitude plane Yeah, that's really good. Okay, and yet you provided that as your only evidence of some spaceball Where's the terminator line? You know, what is the whole thing? On the top right there you can see the terminator line on the top right coming into shot Let me ask you a question Let me answer your question You can quite clearly see the terminator line coming into shot on the right there because if you look on the right compared to the left It is much more fuzzy and there's an area where the blackness is coming on You cannot see the terminator line going across the center of the earth because they were facing the side that was light They you are talking about the documentary Light little Stop It's in the midday sunlight. How can they entire day at once when we have 24 hours? It's one tiny fraction of earth if you applied that to a world map That's one of the other things. Yeah, because they were too close. They're too close to see Okay, stop stop stop stop You are talking about the documentary a funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah Yeah, that has been debunked 100 thoroughly Please go to gem pandas channel to see the excellent debunk of that nonsense I mean that was debunked by the bbc pundits that had it showing Again, this photo Has negatives that you can go and check and see The where it was taken from there is no high altitude plane that could get that high above Africa to take that image And so I actually want to have Flat earth Aussie I actually want to have you Say your final word to this and then if you want to take it in another direction Maybe you ask a question To flatter or fight the flatter Well, that was my question was to do with the The fakery of that image and but he's made this claim that there are millions and millions of images of earth from space And this is something That um, I hear all the time I do a lot of debating on you know, facebook and quora and youtube as well and One of the things I often see people claim is that the very same thing that there's all these pictures from space So then when I ask somebody to produce one that isn't faked that isn't cgi that is a true image They get all in a half and say, oh, yeah, it's not worth wasting my time on blah blah blah They've got nothing so when people are challenged before they claim Millions of images you've got nothing but cgi You claim it's cgi But that's a claim What evidence do you I mean to be fair ross you want to claim that tennis was cgi so you're not exactly a reliable source that I was watching was You've made the tennis was cgi So you are not a reliable source to claim what is and isn't cgi Um, so unless you can show me your credentials to Show me how you can just look at something and claim it's cgi. We're just going to ignore you saying It's okay that particular episode of the tennis that I filmed And was commenting on at the time most definitely appeared to be cgi to me. I look very much computer animator I've been Watching that episode that that match that were live there were they also cgi ross Here here is an image that was taken in the last 10 minutes Okay, this is literally a live image from space of your particular neck of the woods Yeah, yep, sure craig. Sure. Yeah, that's that's not a compilation of a whole deep different images collated This is a live image from space Uh-huh, this is a this is the live image of of the of the earth taken in the last 10 minutes and the Himawari age You stay from your satellite Kind of looks a bit like a stop saying that there isn't images from space when I can constantly show them to you I do not care if you think that they are cgi ross. You think tennis is cgi to you're not a reliable source of information I told you a particular episode of tennis. I saw at one time appeared cgi to me Exactly therefore you're not reliable source of information about cgi. It's got nothing to do with this current argument So stop living in the past move on. Oh, no, it absolutely does It does ross if you claim that tennis is cgi You're not a reliable source of information to claim that something is cgi You do not have the ability to look at something and say it's cgi Oh, yeah, I wanted evidence so far. What have you presented? That was something from years ago as I told you I can't present images on my phone and I've got no need to because I can just use logic because there isn't any clear All harm logic by looking at water and knowing that there's no way ever that it will be above The surrounding edges that contain it because water must be going at straw man Not going with straw man's Beyond your horizon where you can't see and you think that all that land is somehow Thousands of miles beneath the level of that water. That's just in your imagination. That's something out of sight Elevations I believe in it because you were told it by authority. You are no evidence. I don't believe it ross again Stop straw man. Please stop straw man. I have evidence of my claim. I have measurements Sorry Just gonna pull you guys back and um Once again flat earth. I'm gonna give the ball back to you. I want to be fair We'll keep on going Right. Yeah, um, well, that's pretty much all the notes. I wrote was about his millions of images is um The the fake flying pizza model, which we don't believe in we do have a model It's still one we don't work in progress And the best way that I can describe it for you if you're prepared to listen for more than you know 30 seconds if you'll allow me the opportunity is I like to think of it like Oh, I'm trying to Craig It's a bit like our if you can imagine a frozen lake You've got a fish under the water when he looks up through the ice He will see an apparition on the surface of the ice of what appears to be the sun So for all intents and purposes to this fish that is the sun. It's its source of light It's its source of heat and that light spreads out through the water in a form of what we would consider like dive Spread out daylight for a better word. So it's a similar sort of effect another fish 500 meters away in the same lake He will look through a completely different part of the ice and see an apparition of the sun In a completely different part of the ice and for all intents and purposes for him That is the sun So it's a bit like with us on this much much much bigger lake Which is airfield instead of waterfield when we've got a firmament above us when we look up through the firmament It's similar to a layer of ice and we will see our personal hot spot apparition of the sun in that particular place And somebody 500 miles away looking up through the firmament will see an entirely different hot spot apparition of the sun We all agree it's the one and only same sun But we're seeing two completely different suns in two completely different places or the same sun in two completely different places so if we then try and triangulate the distance to that by Knowing we're 500 miles apart on the surface and make it into a single triangle We could come up with some Ludicrous measurement of how far the sun Is as something similar to like 93 million miles But in fact, the water don't even be as much as 70 miles high where we personally see our apparition of it That's the way the model works is that you cannot see It's not everything is not as it appears everything is our own personal view of the world And it will change in different locations And we think we're seeing the same thing that we're actually looking at a completely different apparition in a completely different place Which is why a very simplistic model of one single spotlight sun doesn't make sense on the flat earth It's but when you apply some intelligence to how the actual model works that is how it starts to make sense What say you about that craig? um Yeah refraction exists and is included in the heliocentric model what you just said wasn't a model or anything that could be represented as a model And also, can you please provide me with the maths to back up anything that you just said or did you just make up a bunch of stuff? Um, it's not something i've made up. It's something i've contemplated over a long period of time There's plenty of evidence to suggest there is a firmament above us Some people say the shape goes i'm more of the opinion that it's actually flat as You would expect that the certain pressure with the gases rising above us due to density and buoyancy That these absolute highest gases where it gets the coldest is that they have frozen into a layer which becomes a firm layer Which actually matches all the descriptions from the bible which describe arachia as For people who didn't understand ice, you know if they were desert rollers if they said it's like molten glass It's beaten flat like metal that um and it stretched out like a tarpaulin That sounds like a layer of ice if you ask me and it makes perfect sense if we're looking through this layer of ice Then that's exactly where Light starts becoming visible to us and that is how The sun can be in so many different places at once lighting so much of the flat earth at a time at least 50% of it Simply because it's not as we think of it. It's not just a single light source. It is A vast sheet of light source with a single hot spot apparition which we think of as the sun Yeah, so um, there being an ice sheet above us. What did you say formed because the park calls a colder Uh, here's the thing the further the further that you go up the lower the pressure For instance the difference in pressure between the base and the summit of everis is about 10 psi There's actually more difference in pressure between the base and the summit of everis than there is the summit of everis Than what we call the edge of space Uh, so there is simply not enough particles up there to form ice You don't know that for you You've never seen it. If you do it's been measured It you stayed no one's been there, but there's been plenty of astronauts in space and also a good friend of mine Mr. Sensible literally sent a probe to space and there was no firmament Oh god, he didn't send it to space. He sent it to low earth orbit, which is the highest that anybody has ever gone Is low earth orbit? Nobody's ever really truly been to space at all. They cannot do it Now on radiation belt, but I tell you it's a firmament that we cannot crack. We cannot go through Okay, so uh, he sent it out and measured a pressure of 10 He measured a pressure of 10 to the negative two tour All right, that is practically a vacuum There is not enough particles up there to form ice And also there, um, isn't actually any water moisture up that far. So, um, no There certainly is not a firmament of ice And also when you go into lower orbit, wait, I haven't finished I haven't finished when you go into lower orbit You can actually see an area where there's blue and then there's blackness and then there's the sun Showing that there is nothing in between the atmosphere of earth and where the sun is because it's space I agree with you there, but that's because we have the noble gases Which are electrostimulated by whatever force comes from the sun that causes them to glow And that's what this was the blue sky and it also gives us the oranges and pinks and yellows that we see Twilight which you wouldn't have on the globe because the the the globe would instantly plung us into shadow of the earth If it was spinning away from the sun in such a way that we went to nighttime But we have long drawn out twilight because that's the nature of life is the noble gases glowing And you're quite right that above a certain density those gases no longer exist And so it's just darkness all the way to the sun So there is a big gap between the blue sky and the actual firmament much higher Where we see the apparition of the sun, but you will also notice that above that point you don't see stars You don't see the moon But you do see the sun. Why is that? So again, so what you actually see is a very specific point where the sun is off in the distance There is no layer of the sun flatter of all Jesus Like what you're saying just makes no sense There's no physics that exists that would back up your batshit crazy claims Like all you're doing is making stuff up And sorry, it's not it's not did you say it's not physical when you go up that high. Is that what you said? Well, that's right gas is what you would consider lack of physical that's gas Liquid is liquid physical solids is solid. So, you know, when I so when I explain something as ice You automatically assumed I meant frozen water. That's not the case. Yeah, that's what I see If highly if hydrogen and helium are so low dense gases that they rise up to that point and they get so cold and they freeze up there Then why couldn't the ice be made out of that particular gas as opposed to water that you assume? It's a very simple answer because uh that height There is not enough hydrogen or helium to condense into any kind of hydrogen or helium ice Oh, I do because it's been measured it's been measured again A personal friend of mine literally sends a probe to space and measured the pressure The pressure indicates that there is less than one particle per meter squared It is not possible to form ice as dispersed particles like that Physics disagrees with you unless you are claiming that space is magic I'm claiming that the the layers of different densities and the way buoyancy works like we know that ice for example It when it expands that's why it floats on water and so we could assume That the same in the same sense that there's the lightest of gases that rise to the highest of places if they freeze They expand enough to actually be buoyed up as a layer above uh infinite plane our earth that we live upon and maybe Way out beyond Antarctica where we have no ability to travel because it's way too cold Maybe that is where the edges of this big Lake exists there gaseous lake exists. I'm getting requests and chat guys Uh, if Aussie maybe you could try to turn yours a little bit up kind of equal levels Or flat You should be able to adjust our levels in zoom. Um But uh, Aussie wow So many things that you said wrong there. Well, let's just start with buoyancy buoyancy requires gravity the formula for buoyancy is Unless you are claiming that buoyancy is nothing other And well, no unless you are claiming that buoyancy is something other than it actually is the formula for buoyancy It's fb equals row g v that g stands for the downward acceleration due to gravity There is a downward acceleration that has to be there Avoid buoyancy doesn't work. What is the downward acceleration? It is a measurement of distance over time It is not a force. It's just a measurement. It's an observation F equal to m a Falling at free force beads through the medium of air. That's all it is. It's not incorrect Incorrect because No, no, here's why it's incorrect because the measurement here's here's why it's incorrect Aussie Here's why it's incorrect because that downward acceleration measurement is different at different points on earth Because of gravity there is a downward acceleration There is a Downward acceleration that is stronger at the poles than there is at the equator It's because of gravity It's a downward acceleration When air is colder, of course, it's going to be less dense than when it's warmer when it's full of more moisture Uh, and it's not even just if it's not even just with cold places You can actually measure a difference in acceleration. Um, you know along the same parallel on earth You can measure differences in acceleration along the equator Depending on the amount of mass underneath you In fact, there are satellites in orbit that another friend of mine works on that use gravity As you know a way to determine where there are minerals and oils under the earth And it is that downward acceleration is that downward acceleration that is recorded and measured that is because of gravity You cannot have buoyancy without the downward acceleration due to gravity, which is different at different points on earth Because of the different masses and then you don't get you to say no That is how it works. You cannot change physics because you don't understand physics I can explain to you that buoyancy is a resistant force that is not a A pull of gravity. It's the resistance of force due to the relative density of the medium Which is why you can ask for that balls a little And a rubber ball off the top of a high bridge They will both hit the water at exactly the same time because they're falling through the same density But when they hit the water one of them is going to float and the other one is going to keep sinking And that is because of relative density. You cannot deny because of buoyancy No, I can because it's because of buoyancy Relative density isn't a thing I've debunked relative density to to the cows come home because when you are talking about density Is simply shut up density is simply one of the variables in the buoyancy equation You cannot calculate the things that you were talking about just using density If you're claiming you are please describe to me the maps Tell me the formula of how you would calculate what you're saying There's no specific formula because every density is different. So it's relative So you That's how you applied the air it's got a different amount of resistance You apply it to oil it's got a different resistance. You can look at a density tower Okay, so variables are a thing in maths. So please provide me the formula to describe what you are saying What the fuck is wrong with you? Please present me the formula to describe what you are saying I don't talk in formulas. I'm not a wizard. You know, I talk in here Yeah, but you can describe everything that you're talking about with maths if you are talking about density density is described in maths as you It there's a difference. There's a thing that there's actually a formula to describe what density is So if you're saying density, there is a formula behind what that is If you're saying buoyancy, there is a formula behind what that is You're just saying it does this and it does this with no explanation or maps to back up what you are saying Means that you have no case because you cannot prove what you say because you have no maths Of course for all the Long before mankind came along and could count on his fingers and start measuring things and applying formulas to them You don't need a formula to observe reality. Yes, you do Uh, yeah, you need a formula to describe reality You you have so what what you're saying is that what you're saying is that mathematically you cannot describe the thing That you are claiming that happens. Is that right? Say that we can't do it I just said it's not necessary to explain It is necessary if you can't describe it mathematically, then it doesn't exist You can describe it mathematically I don't really Density of the medium will determine whether it sinks or floats. It's as simple as that This is the variable in the buoyancy equation. Yeah, relative density will not determine things without taking other things into account Density is not a force No, resistance is the force And resistance On the density of the medium That's how you calculate it. Please give me the formula for that, then Why should I give you a formula? I told you I'm not a mathematician. You know, I don't really care. I understand that So basically you can't you can't describe anything to say an engineer and they needed to know that's fine If they wanted to I can just tell you that the reason for it is relative to engineer use is gravity Well, actually engineers that use the formulas disagree of you because engineers use gravity Yeah, but what if they didn't measure seconds as you know, 60 seconds in a minute What if somehow they decided to count them as a hundred seconds from the whole formula would change wouldn't it? That'll be completely different formula. It's just done as an agreement Which have nothing to do with the nature of reality itself They're just man-made conventions. So because we like to be able to No, they are description. You can describe everything with maths Ross. If you can't do it, then you use So right, okay, you you've lost the picture thing You you've you've lost the evidence of measurements thing and now you've lost the part where you can't describe anything that you're saying mathematically So, um, I guess we can move on to the next Thing that you're going on about It absolutely is 100 necessary requirements I think floats because it's not as dense as another thing, you know, the lead ball The rubber ball floats because of buoyancy Says the lead ball because of buoyancy. Yes because of buoyancy because of buoyancy which has gravity in the formula So They then the air has the same resistance to both but that didn't affect them in the air, did it? Because that's a variable in the buoyancy equation Density in the book density is a variable in the buoyancy equation It's as simple as that you cannot calculate anything just with density It does not work. There is no way to describe what you are saying You are misunderstanding physics and again ross as I said Ignorance your ignorance is not ever great. It's a relative density. That's the variable. I did it Relative density you did you did No, not relative density density is a variable in the buoyancy equation. Well, you cannot just have density and describe what is going on Just because you don't understand what the word relative means if it's a variable I said it is relative That's not how variable it is ross. The change is though one's relative and A density It is a variable Okay, you need to listen you need you need to listen ross because you're not getting this density Is a variable in the buoyancy equation Density itself cannot do anything. So stop talking nonsense unless you can describe it mathematically You can't therefore you lose Density is a variable, but it cannot do anything No master of volume can't do anything. That's what you just said. You just said It varies, but it doesn't do anything Obviously it will do something because it varies It's a variable Density itself is not a force and cannot cause an acceleration Density is a variable in the buoyancy equation The buoyancy force fb is described as rho the density of the object times g the downward acceleration due to gravity times v the volume displaced That is how you describe buoyancy. That is how you describe a helium balloon rising in the air That is how you describe the difference between a steel ball and a football sinking in water Is using the buoyancy equation and the variables therein if you are just saying density that does not describe anything Well, that's why I said relative density, which is saying the exact same thing you're saying because relative to the ball It's not saying the same thing It's more dense than the rubber ball and so it floats, but it's less dense than the steel ball So it sinks so relative density is exactly the same thing that you're basically saying But you're just saying that there's a downward force as opposed to I say there's a a resistant Is what stops things from falling. Otherwise, it will continue falling Generally something that has enough resistance like a solid or a dense enough liquid to stop it falling The resistant force is all that keeps everything in its position. There's no invisible pulling force You keep saying resistive force You keep saying resistive force mathematically describe that resistive force for me, please You just did it for me. You gave me your lovely little formula for it because you say no, no My formula is buoyancy, which includes gravity. You're saying it's just relative density and the resistive force So please please give me the formula Please give me the formula To describe the things that you are saying relative density and resistive force Please give me the formula about how those interact with each other I told you that because there isn't a formula because it doesn't exist because it can't exist It's simple everything that floats and seems to be described due to the buoyancy equation Which includes a downward acceleration caused by gravity buoyancy means gravity the buoyancy you agree to gravity Don't care if you say no, that is the fact And guys we are coming up on the 40 minute mark I want to let you guys get your final points out before we go into the q and a section It was some fun back and forth having a good time But flat earth ozzy it sounds like you were in the middle of a thought and then I'll let you guys go to your natural End of your conversation or your points and then we'll kick it into the q and a Thank you. Yes. I was about to say that when every time you apply your gravity to your formula All you're doing is saying a measurement of distance over time in the medium of air You're not actually applying a force. You're just applying an observation. So you're not Bringing in gravity as you like to think of it You're just doing the observation of things in the particular medium due to its lack of resistance Which is air and it's a measurable thing which we call 9.8 per meters per second squared. It's not a force. It's just an observation And that's all that physics really is is observation of things and you can apply these measurements These man-made measurements, but things were falling and things were being resisted long before mankind invented numerals and began measuring stuff, you know our agreements to measure them do not Defo one iota from what they will actually do regardless of our formulas that we apply to them So you think your formulas are reality. No, they're just an observation They are meaningless without the observation in the first place Uh-huh, and that's how you describe things mathematically. So everything you just said they were completely wrong The downward acceleration due to gravity can actually be derived Not just measured you can actually derive it using all the other equations that we have around gravity So it's not just a thing the fact that it changes based on where you are in the world And how much mass is underneath you and taken into account the centrifugal acceleration of the rotation of earth And how that would be more at the equator rather than is at the poles the downward acceleration is due to gravity buoyancy is due to gravity. It's simply because If you have a balloon That is less dense and has less mass than the air around it because the air around the balloon has more mass and more density it is pulled down with a greater force which creates a opposing force in the opposite direction to gravity which we call buoyancy which can be described mathematically Exactly every time using the equation fb Equals rho gv buoyancy is because of gravity that is an inescapable fact of physics again Ross your ignorance of physics is not an argument against it It's as simple as that you present no evidence you present no measurements you present no physics you present no mass All you have is you not understanding things and that's all you've ever had Yeah, okay, so you're you're very good at um waffling on a paper crap and you know, you got the verbal diarrhea thing happening You're very good at that Moderator was going now. We both had our flight Greater in certain places and yet the centrifugal force Whether where the land is higher the centrifugal force should equally be greater because it would be spinning even faster on the space ball So this would be pushing me away And yet you're claiming that all those Gravitational pool. So which is it? You can actually calculate both You can actually calculate both you can calculate exactly what your centrifugal acceleration should be and compare it to the amount of mass under you For instance at the equator the centrifugal acceleration pushing you away We're talking at sea level here, for instance at the equator at sea level the centrifugal acceleration pushing you away from the earth Is about 0.001 percent of the downward acceleration of gravity Which means that there's a tiny tiny tiny difference in downward acceleration that you can measure Which would also mean that you weigh less at the equator at sea level than you do at the poles However, you can calculate if you are going up a massive mountain, for instance What your centrifugal acceleration should be based on your elevation and what the downward acceleration should be based on the mass But because the mass has a much greater amount than the centrifugal acceleration because we're only rotating at 15 degrees per hour The mass is a much larger number compared to the centrifugal acceleration. So it's as simple as that Your ignorance your ignorance of physics and maps is not an argument against it now How about we let the moderator have the time back and do the q and a's because that's what the moderators ask Great out enough of your verbal diarrhea. That's probably a really good idea But I love both of our debaters and thank you very much to both air locketers and that's right We're going to be moving into our q and a section So if you'd like to hear your questions read and chat you can send them to at modern day debate And we are starting off with the super chats Super chat from JDT turbo for five dollars He says in all caps WTF What the frog Okay, with uh, we have another one From JDT turbo for another five dollars Yes, they can measure for flatness How do you think they build foundations for buildings? Yeah If we follow the curve that all Buildings should get bigger the higher up they go, you know, like the the top of a skyscraper should be slightly wider than the base But that's not how buildings work. They're all plum and level all surfaces all all sides wait, wait, wait, hold on The top of buildings should be wider than the bottom and that's against I don't think you know what the word plum means Ozzy I know what the word plum means very well I mean you have something wider at the top than at the bottom and it would still be plum Well, exactly because it's always you know, every plumb line is pointing towards the center of your spinning ball Then of course As you claim with all those uh suspension bridges you say claim the tops of suspension bridges are wider at the top So I'm not claiming the tops bridges are wider I'm saying the difference that the distance between the support beams would be wide more at the top than it is at the bottom because plum lines by verge, which is the case with the Bencer and narrows bridge in new york where the top of the plum support towers are one and five eight inches Further apart than the bottom because you know, they're leaning up away from each other at a rate of one degree every six My miles Detectable even though much less in a very very large tall skyscraper building didn't get the same thing And it should also be what? Compared to another building, of course. Oh my god. Yes, it is And okay moving right along from Karen bees Oh, no, um, is that yes Karen bees unkempt bush. That is their name from five dollars Uh Flat earth Aussie, why is it getting cold in australia? It's hotter Than your make-believe hell in southern United states Please explain why Yeah, it's also Bloody boiling right now in scotland when i'm at like 400 miles from the Arctic Circle. Why is that? Come on my question was asked to me and quite simple in our model is because the sun Throughout the year as it spirals higher above us. It um creates an apparently smaller circle Which as it comes through the Firmament makes it appear to go in a smaller circle while still maintaining the same speed and that direct light Is most concentrated on the inner side of our flat stationary earth Even though the sun itself is always going around the equator And then as the sun gets lower and lower towards the firmament That appears to be on a much bigger circle, which gives the opposite season on the other side of the equator Exactly as you would expect in our model if you take the time to stop and research it rather than just ridicule it And think you know it all Because of a tilted wobbling spinning baseball where the sun is actually three million miles further away in your summer Makes no sense. Yeah No, it absolutely makes 100 sense Because the distance away from the sun really doesn't make that much difference It's the angle of the tilt that makes the difference in the seasons For instance at the equator you have a much more direct amount of light hitting the The globe right but if like you're at scotland where I am up here That means the the same amount of light hitting that point has to spread over a greater distance Meaning that it's going to be colder because you receive less energy per square meter It's the tilt of the earth that causes the seasons Which is why at the moment you are cold in australia and I am fucking boiling in scotland The sun in its magic orbit around the the flat earth, which by the way, how the fuck does that happen Does not explain the things that happen with the seasons in reality And then so that earth Aussie it was a question for you So we're going to let you finish and then we're going to move on to the next question Well, it explains it exactly the same way you call it the tilt of the earth I just call it the angle of view of the sun reaching through the atmosphere So the more atmosphere it goes through the more atmosphere absorbs the light And so it doesn't get as hot and that creates opposite seasons You know both models work, but ours has the less ridiculous assumption of being a tilted wobbling ball spinning through space And all right moving forward and we're going to be moving into regular questions But if you have a super chat that gets your question moves right up to the front So feel free to send those in But from re Effersha chairs I'm probably butchering that fight the flat earth Yeah, nasa hasn't created the model for flat earth Because it has the incentive to lie to you for your tax dollars Okay nasa doesn't lie to you nasa is a government agency that just do as they are told They don't even get a say as to what they do with their with the money that they get it's you know They get told what to do by the government nasa don't lie to us There's never been any evidence nasa have lied to us And also nasa are nothing to do with the heliocentric model Nothing at all the heliocentric model is very separate to nasa And also nasa don't care what flatterers think and prove you are going to prove absolutely nothing to you Because they're busy trying to go back to the moon Yeah, that's the whole bunch of nonsense A question from or comment from tiktalic James, I love what you did with your hair. Thank you so very much You're much better looking today James. I don't know what you've done But I mean you you're a vision today compared to how you normally look James. So good job Started moisturizing. That's the key That's what it is excellent Who was warren von brawn Who was warren von brawn he was That came came from uh, germany. Sorry. Who was that too? Sorry. Was that me or i think that's uh at fight the flat earth Yep, let's see. So warren von brawn was a rocket scientist that happened to come from germany. Um That's an operation paper clue Which was the found one of the founding fathers of nasa who has As quote from the bible, which is a particular sam's quote, which says that the government show us the heliwork of god So why would the founding fathers of nasa a rocket scientist have a beautiful hope on his grave like he's sending a message from done the grave Um, well, he was a religious person um, so there's that and He thinks that you know space and everything the expanse is a representation of god's handiwork Uh, he went the firmament that he's referring to does not mean a magical dome Because if you actually look at the actual translation of what firmament means in the bible It means expanse and not dome. So he was literally referring to He was literally referring to the expanse of space and how that shows god's handiwork Which is a nice way to think about it. I don't think there's a god But if there is a god, then that's a pretty amazing thing. He's done by making this wonderful vast expanse in universe Yeah, yeah, a nazi propaganda agent the founding father of nasa Which also means to deceive and yeah, they've never lied to us. Yeah, right You've got any evidence that you lied or you're just making claims again It's all propaganda. The whole moon mission was propagated. So you say Claims without evidence will be dismissed without evidence and fight gets the last word. It's his question. Yeah, way goes Uh, one of um, brome did not think the earth was flat He was referring to the expanse of space in that uh thing that he said on his gravestone Um, also, he wasn't a nazi. He just worked for the nazi party because that's what he was told to do And five dollar super chat from johnny mar Why can't I see Is that the Magnelelic it looks like A bunch of words Magnelelic cloud yeah, yeah clouds from scotland if earth is flat Well, you can't see the eiffel tower from scotland either. I mean That's the level is only about three miles and that's the same applies to the stars as well The more you travel the different stars you'll see you'll see different mountains. You'll see different cities You'll see different landscapes. You'll see different everything the stars do the same thing That's just the beauty of traveling if you want to see different things you travel You can't say it all from sitting at home Yeah, the magnelelic cloud is you know, literally a galaxy and you know, when you're looking at the sky It would appear stars and stuff So you would be able to see it from wherever you are on the flat earth just quickly if I could just show this um I made this model based on reality Uh, this would assume that the earth is flat and the sun is 5000 miles above us And as you can see as you go through it, there is zero points at all ever where the sun would go out of your view Meaning that no matter how far away the sun was on a flat earth um It would always be in view and that means that the stars which are further away than that That means that the stars which are further away than the sun would also always be in view Perspective yes, well does not lie and this is perspective Also, notice how the sun gets smaller as it goes away You if I told you though craig which you have to explain to you We have this experiment and it's only about 60 or 70 miles high above us And that is where the sun and the stars create their personal apparitions to us So, of course, you what I'm not going to say them across the entire final word on that I gotta Yeah, I did I did the model about 100 miles So I didn't quite hear the last thing that uh that you said flat earth Ozzy say the last thing that you said I'm saying if the firmament is where the light itself is first appears as our personal apparition Of things that are much higher above us, then that is why you'll see them locally and that I'm getting a Yeah, I can't think with an echo happening. Are you getting the echo? No No, okay. Must be just me. Um, yeah, we're seeing things locally. So When you look at your simplistic model. Yes, if something is 5 000 miles away, it should be visible everywhere on earth, but Regardless of it being 5 000 miles away the apparition of it is much much much closer It's only like 70 miles away. So you can't see it for Whatever they're trying to claim which is a very specific understanding of the model Yeah, you don't have a model when I just use actual perspective and maths. So, um, it's simple alpha equals two times our tan of g over two r Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah as I said if there's a firmament there, then that is acting as a lens locally We see our personal apparitions of things. So You know, if you're looking at something through this lens of the firmament, it could be 5 000 miles high But it's still only appearing to us at 70 miles. And so that's what Creates your problem is that you're assuming this 70 mile thing Should be able to, um Cover 5 000 miles. That's never gonna happen There we go. $5 super chat from jtd turbo So What gives the sun the extra energy it needs to go from a smaller rotation in a center To a bigger rotation on their outer sides Yeah, so as I explained it doesn't it takes the same size circuit the entire time which matches the equator That's why we have the two equinoxes of the two middle points as we see in the sun and a lemma But as the sun gets higher Above the firmament it appears to be in a smaller circle and that's what's mapped in the anilema You can see the top half of the anilema is a much smaller appearing part of an infinite figure eight system Simply because it is higher, but the apparition itself still appears in the firmament Hence the angular size of the thumb always appears the same So it doesn't need to speed up or slow down or gain extra energy or do any of these things It's just simply on a spiral upwards to june 22nd downwards to december 22nd Two equinoxes at the mid crossover points of the anilema as we see so it makes perfect sense on the station Ross his question was what's making that change so you're saying that his spiral was up and down So what would be the force that causes that spiral up and down because that's an acceleration So where's that force coming from? Up Who knows what causes it? Yeah, oh right. We only know how much we can observe what happens But we don't know why it happens Well, you don't know why we stay locked in place around the sun when if we just miss it We should be flying off into space every time you just in gravity But then you also need to in dark matter to stop us from colliding into it Um gravity doesn't work that way. So just miss something you go flying off Excuse me gravity doesn't work that way the fuck you know about gravity You cannot say gravity works that way because you have Sorry, Ross. No, no, no, no, you cannot you cannot say No, stop stop stop stop stop stop you cannot say gravity doesn't work that way because you don't know anything about gravity Your straw man does not Guys guys guys No, you don't you don't you don't understand it ross you don't understand it your straw man is not an No, I'm talking I'm talking right now. I'm talking right now. I'm talking right now. I'm talking right okay We're gonna pull If I could finish what I'm saying That'll be the order. We're gonna let fight the flat earth finish this statement Then we'll hurt the flat earth ozzy and then flat earth ozzy might have a new rival in the next question So it's exciting. All right. Hey floor is yours Yeah, so uh, no, you do not understand orbits as you just demonstrated by not understanding gravity the model we have of gravity Perfectly explains orbits your ignorance of how orbits work is not evidence against them Do not say that that's not how gravity works because here is the fact the fuck you know about gravity zero So flat earth ozzy you're gonna have your statement And that's going to be the final statement that we move on to the next question Just because I disagree with gravity does not mean for one second. I don't understand it I grew up with all the same information as you I believed in all the same stuff It's my turn craig. You can sit there quietly now and listen Understand all these things and I explained in my opening statement how one body Is moving and one body is going around that then the one body is moving like the earth Is 7 000 miles per hour Then the other body is going around it must be slowing down as I get in front to Fall back around behind and then accelerate to get back in front again That is exactly how it should be working And then if you say that's in free-form motion and it just constantly misses Then the first time is is it should just keep flying off in a straight direction Just as what happens if say for example, we have like a hammer throw you swing it around and around and around And it will stay in orbit around you while it's on its tether But the minute you let it go it goes flying off in a straight direction There is no logical explanation for why a thing would keep going around perpetually once it's off its tether That's gonna be the last point. I love you both. All right Craig you're gonna you're gonna be able to channel that energy 10 dollars From From lunar node Why is So ignorant that falling is the relationship between two things In item and the medium it exists in Saying just relative density. You're changing it to one thing and that's a straw man No, um a change in density is still density Relative density it literally isn't a thing and it's it's not a force I'm talking about an acceleration that is measurable. Um, you're obviously a uh, you know student of the nathan jokely sleeping moron school of thought Disequilibrium is not a force Everything that you are talking about is just variables in the buoyancy equation the medium That's part of the buoyancy equation the volume displaced that's part of the buoyancy equation the downward acceleration That's part of the buoyancy equation You cannot describe math math these things that you are talking about by saying relative density and me saying that density And you claim and that's a straw man is absolutely ridiculous because density is density mass over volume is a thing changing the density only Affects the variable of the buoyancy equation as density is not a force changing the density is also not a force all right, and Tim prior for five dollars What's more logical that you're smarter than billions and all of science or are or are that maybe you're a dumber uh, oh, they're the Two rivals And what more likely is that most people only are as intelligent as the things that they were taught And if they were taught something wrong in the first place And they continue to believe that and they continue to teach that down throughout the ages then of course Your intelligence level is going to be reasonably low every now and then of course we say Certain genius comes on and he changes the school of thought so there's no reason why in this day and age We can't still have new people come along with new ideas to change the way we thought of things Throughout the centuries and realize that hey, we were wrong It's okay to admit we were wrong about certain things And the idea of being on this spinning space while I was just jumped from one ludicrous lie to another to the point Where now it's not even heliocentric anymore used to be geocentric when we first believed it was a globe Then it became heliocentric to say we're going around the sun But now we say that it's you know some other center the greater tractor or whatever that everything Hurls and whirls around but really if we just look out logically and say hey Nothing's moving at all. What we see is what we get. You don't have to imagine all these fantastic speeds. We were wrong Let's move on. Let's accept a yeah water is level. Yeah, all land is above water level We don't have to keep believing in lies just because we inherited them from people who we thought were smart in the past Two dollars from toby amy, please tell fight the flat earth toby says hi Cheers. Hi. Hi toby. Um, thank you Five dollars Five dollars from kang o two four Ozzy with your extensive knowledge on gravity. Please explain the results from the LIGO experiments LIGO I'm the go lie experiments. Um, I'm not totally clued in on what the the LIGO thing is all about so You're asking the wrong person. Um, sorry Would you like me to briefly explain it to you? Well explain it to the person who asked the question. I don't really care the LIGO experiment Uh, the LIGO installations as many of them around the world. They uh, they're basically massive Interferometers, uh, and they use um the speed of light to measure gravitational waves that were put out by, you know Things that create large gravitational accelerations, uh neutron stars colliding and things like that. Um, and they they're so sensitive that they can actually detect a warping of spacetime Which is how we are able to detect a gravitational wave because the warping of spacetime changes the The the time that the light takes to travel from one end and interferometer to the other So the LIGO installations, uh as well as you know confirming a lot of einstein's predictions around gravity are also excellent Evidence that the earth isn't flat because they are you know, three kilometers long completely flat things that have to be flat For the lasers to fire along uh with one end higher above the ground than the other showing that they are flat But not level so yeah, that's what they are Completely flat but not level but yeah And all right We're gonna that looks like we're coming into some normal chats And we'll blast through those but if you have any more super chats For our two interlocketers feel free to send them in Let's see Fight the flat earth has ross brought anything for flat earth other than water looks flat yeet Sorry, well, I cut out for a second. I did i miss something It looks like he's asking if he hat well has ross brought anything Uh for flat earth other than water looks flat yeet, which I think is sliding for tossing Yeah, you know, he didn't bring any evidence. This is what flat earth does they'd never bring evidence They only bring their own misunderstanding of physics like ross constantly claiming He understands gravity and then describing how he doesn't understand gravity. That's just how it goes Well, I think water level speaks for itself. I don't really need to describe anything other than A universal measurement of level that's how we do it. It doesn't measure curve You claim you've measured curve over water, but um, I think you just miss applying how convergence actually works like On the um, the space ball model that you're believing Technically what you're saying when we observe the horizon visibly rise with us. It's almost as a you're saying we all live Gulf ball dimple So we're all living in a gulf ball dimple world The horizon always rises to eye level around us because that is how the horizon is defined is by eye level And I've proven that I have a video on my channel Which with the word convergence in the title if you'd care to look at it and it shows 100 how the horizontal line of sight is always horizontal as you move In change in height if you look down a brick wall one line of sight is horizontal And that's the one at eye level and everything converges upwards beneath it and everything above it converges downwards That is how our vision works. So the horizon must always be at eye level So as we rise in our personal gulf ball dimple Then the dimple expands with us and gets bigger and bigger and then as we go lower It shrinks with us. This is the belief of the heliosanthus who thinks we live all this way No straw man. I love to straw man You don't get to tell me what my belief is by straw manning me And no the horizon does not rise to eye level because what I'm what I'm showing you right now I'm trying to get somebody to even tell it The horizon does not rise to eye level as I am showing you right now This is eye level and their moon and the horizon are both below eye level Also, here is another shot of eye level with the horizon below eye level The horizon 100% does not rise to eye level unless you are claiming that the moon Is below the horizon and you can see through it debunked Huh? Yeah, we can't see through the horizon because the horizon is eye level. That's how Right, so the horizon's invisible here then Everything is telling me in the right in this picture. I'm showing you right now ross. Where's the horizon? Because eye level is the center there the moon is below eye level The moon is below your yes, it is eye level is the middle there shows you what I let No Look at the angles. Look at the angles at the side. It is completely level It's showing you that this is completely level and again here It's using the water level that you are talking about to show that the horizon Is below the eye level you are wrong I am showing you evidence right now that the horizon does not rise to eye level Please do not straw man me by saying that I live in a dimple world because that is your Nonsense straw man. You are wrong horizon does not rise to eye level Here is the evidence right now unless you're going to say that this is fake you lose that Okay, so yes, we can use instruments to prove altitude Altitude is a different level from eye level the visual phenomenon of what occurs The one on the right there is determining eye level. Uh, this is actually an eye level On my phone to be honest, you know, they're tiny little images to me But I can take you on your word for it. And yes, that's what instruments are useful for to overcome the limitations of our Human eyesight because human eye doesn't cause eye level to converge Horizontally to the eye level. That's where the term comes from and if you use the horizon doesn't place the eye level Your actual altitude that will make it appear as though It will show you your true height above the horizon But if you had your eyes at water level, then of course Then your horizon would be truly an eye level, but we know we're above the horizon We know that for a fact, but why is it the water even appearing to rise up at all in the first place? It doesn't rise up It doesn't rise up Ross Ross Ross your claim was the your claim was the horizon rises to eye level This is showing that your claim is wrong. Can you be honest and admit that you were wrong? At all it's not appearing to rise up. It's falling at the predicted rate It's falling at the predicted rate. Yes, it is It's falling at the horizon falls at the predicted rate No, the horizon falls at the predicted rate The horizon falls Ross Ross listen listen through the words ross ross listen to the words the horizon falls at the predicted rate I am showing you evidence right now that the horizon does not rise I am showing you evidence right now that the horizon does not rise to eye level. Can you be honest and Can you be honest and admit that you were wrong? Can you be honest? Guys you're talking at the same time I know he won't he won't answer the question I'm gonna I'm gonna like Ross. I'm gonna ask you once Ross stop stop stop stop stop Stop take a deep breath Why can't I create I'm going I'm going to ask I'm trying to ask you a specific question And you are just rambling on without listening to the Ross Take a deep breath and listen I am showing you evidence I am showing you evidence right now that the horizon does not Categorically rise to eye level. Can you be honest and admit that you were wrong? Is my turn there? Can you be honest and admit that you were wrong? And so flat earth Aussie It doesn't matter what you say if you can agree disagree But your response will be the last thing and then we're moving on to another question Okay, I will agree that I'm not wrong at all because there was no reason for any of that water whatsoever To appear to rise up any amount whatsoever All you were doing is using an instrument to show altitude. You are not showing eye level eye level is Your horizontal view It's a natural factor of convergence and perspective that you cannot deny So you were wrong by assuming that showing altitude is showing eye level You're using an instrument to overcome the limitations of human vision And you think you're making a point that proved me wrong Which there's no reason why any of that water should appear to rise up whatsoever at all It should be curving away immediately. We know that the water is beneath us for a fact But when you look at it visually it appears to rise up to the middle of your field of vision and that's called convergence that's an inescapable law of vision and Globe heads have just claimed that one as evidence of curvature yet All you need to do is get up higher to realize there was never any curvature there in the first place $5 super chat from tim prior. I think this is a response to his last super chat For ozzy got it. So you think you're smarter than billions and all science Even people that have spent their life studying the planet up fighting words Well, you know, I'm I'm just as entitled as anybody else to study the planet too and to devote my life to it Which I do in my spare time. I find the flatter thing absolutely fascinating from a young age I'd climb these are not learning a large headland at ocean and with the most beautiful views and I could see so far It wasn't literally mind-blowing and you know, I believe I lived on a spinning ball back in those days So I've just got I'm just as entitled all these people over the centuries to study the exact same things that they've studied but also live in the modern age where I'm privy to So much more information. We've got the internet at our fingertips. We can search other people's information we can argue backwards and forwards and You know, we've got so much more knowledge available to us instantly now that any of those people throughout the previous century ever had And they were basically going off guesswork and previous studies and maybe No five dollars from Rodent no last name More fine words for uh for you Ozzy Are your toenails as long as your beard? Have you left your chair in the last 30 years? No, I trim my toenails they that um Punch holes through the my still cat boots. Otherwise I trim my fingernails as well I just like letting my beard play because it's um I think it's one of those things a bit like a cat having whiskers and a bit like some of the psychics of the Past they pick up greater knowledge by having this sensitivity of being able to pick up on things that I'm blind to say little boys who can't grow facial hair I mean, it is an epic beard. I mean, I guess I'm just to evolved to be able to do that But it is an epic beard Five dollars from tim prior. He's really coming after you Ozzy. He says also also If gravity is fake Then why do millions of people have jobs depending on its existence? Well, I don't really think anybody has a job dependent on his existence. I mean, we all live on the earth are all more dense than the air and um Relative density, I think Works perfectly fine with or without gravity You don't have to have an invisible pulling force to make things find their place according to the relative density It just does it naturally and gravity is really just as I say, it's a measurement of distance It's not A pulling force due to the virtue of mass if such was the case the whole universe should collapse on itself hence dark matter Do you do you think acceleration is distance over time? Do you think that acceleration is distance over time? Well, no, that's what gravity is used as in formula. No, no, no, no, no No, no, no, no, it's not it's not g is an acceleration Do you think that acceleration is distance over time? I've just picked up No, no, no, what's the formula for acceleration ross The formula for acceleration Yeah, it's getting faster Yeah, you you've claimed several times the Things get faster that thought acceleration um Yeah, you've said several times the acceleration is distance over time and I've just picked up on that No, no gravity gravity your g in your formula, which is an acceleration. So again, it's g is an acceleration So do you think that acceleration is distance over time? Well, yeah You can't accelerate without going over distance and the time can be measured according to human convention if you're so so wish to That's velocity not acceleration. That's it velocity not acceleration acceleration is the change in velocity over the change in time It's not it's not distance over time I've just been listening to everything that you I've just Wow, isn't by lack of acceleration. Okay No, it's really not but again ross you I'm sorry. I've just clicked on this but you've been claiming during this whole thing I've I've just picked up on this but you've been claiming during this whole thing that acceleration is distance over time Ross, do you realize how monumentally done that is? You're the one telling the story mate. You're the one No, it's not not a story You you are the one that's been claiming that gravity is distance over time because an acceleration Acceleration is not distance over time. It's change in velocity over change in time And so please at least try and get some of the basics, right? You're gonna respond and then we're gonna move on if you wish and then we're gonna move on to the next question I think it's we can just move on Sounds good always want to give the person who had the question the chance moving along to Roy Lou for five dollars Flatters, why are the stars turning counterclockwise in the north and clockwise in the south? All the stars rotate the same direction around Polaris And so if you go move away far enough from Polaris, you can't see it then obviously you've got your back to it So if you're looking the other direction, then of course it will appear the stars are going in the other direction I don't see them going around a um center point here in the south that's claimed they do But when I see the southern cross which I see every night of the year all year round We should be impossible if we're on the other side of the sun looking the other direction at night time We should be seeing 100 completely different stars every six months Then I see the southern cross every night of the year And when I look in the morning as it's starting to get bright the southern crosses drifted far off to the west By which stage the sun becomes bright enough and it vanishes from view and that's exactly as we'd imagine At just as the sun is the hour hand of a 24 hour clock going around above us the stars are Similar but they're doing four minutes faster than the sun Hence the sidereal day and so that is why people in other southern continents also see the same stars at their local night time That's why we have time zones wherever the sun is overhead is midday and obviously the opposite side is midnight And so all the sun stars are moving around above us and it makes perfect sense to me um Now we see them the way we see them Five dollars from damien guy Ozzy why does fecult's pendulum have a 24 hour Uh possession I've seen one of them in person. Have you? Yeah, when I was an exchange student in the uas when I was 16 I was one of the youngest of the exchange students. I spent a year over there. We went to this san francisco Um science museum and I saw a fecult's pendulum and I thought it was quite fascinating. Um, but apparently they need to be reset every day Most of them are mechanical. They're not even operating. They're via natural forces as it's claimed and And so yeah, I think appealing to a pendulum which is a parlor trick to prove Emotion of the earth is okay. That's a bit of a A child's game really and I don't fall for one second Five dollars from fred farkel Fight the flat earth. Can we see mike the kitten on power phrasing the last bit? He says he is the most entertaining person here I think you mean dave the kitten. Um, and I'm pretty sure he's asleep with my wife at the moment, but um Oh my god, I I do love I'll show you I'll show you a picture of dave the kitten instead because uh, dave the kitten is My new favorite member of the mcneil household. Look at this gorgeous thing He's uh, I think he's just turned about 10 weeks. Um, this was a photo of him when he's about seven weeks Look at look at that little beardy scar. Isn't that gorgeous little like, um, soul patch. I fucking love this kitten Um Sorry, I love I love cats and I love my cats. I love them to bits and this dude is so cool That's okay. I would say we we're always pro kitten unless there's a debate topic on that in which place we're a neutral platform Doesn't keep the same sort of every night back when I had my pet store um One of my favorite stories actually is telling the story about my daughter Um, when she was only about four or so she uh, she popped up in the middle of the night I had this one particular kitten that was like climbing the curtains climbing everything I'm staying up late at night climbing up my leg all night I finally got so sick of it because it was annoying the heck out of me I went and locked it in this little carry cage for a little while just to calm it down Hopefully you go to sleep and it started meowing a little bit and out comes my little daughter You know three or four years old opens it up lets it out Goes back to bed and then in the morning. I said, did you remember doing that? She did had no recollection of it whatsoever. It's just a natural evening for her to hear this Four little kitten in distress to come and let it free. I thought that was so cool I think we can all agree Ross that kittens are awesome, right? Yeah, yeah, that's a gentleman. We have found agreement tonight. We are pro kitten JDT turbo for two dollars says what's two plus four plus two times zero equal We're really coming to the big answers tonight but sending love and also wrote it no last name for five dollars fight the flat earth what works on a flat earth that doesn't work on a globe earth Nothing nothing works on the flat earth that flat earth has zero explanations for things Flat earth can't explain perspective flat earth can't explain measurements flat earth Can't explain why the sun moves or orbits flat earth can't explain why the sun sets Flat earth can't explain why there's a horizon flat earth can't explain the seasons flat earth Can't make any predictions. There is nothing that works on a flat earth and the simple reason Flat is because the earth isn't flat everything that works on the globe earth works equally well on the flat earth in fact it works in correct simple without extrapolating huge assumptions and all the rest you have to assume gravity to make the globe earth work we don't have to assume anything we just make observations of reality as it is and they all work perfectly fine all measurements work all perspective works the sun sets show me a measurement you liar thank you pardon show me a measurement you can do not say there's measurements because that's a lie but you want me to pull out a ruler and then fight uh have the last comment and then yeah everything that is assumed to to only work because of a globe actually works just as well if not better on the stationary planar earth at the bottom of the known universe including the lack of parallax in any stars ever seen over thousands of years so uh parallax has been measured go to mc2.net forward slash polaris and you can actually see the measurements of stars moving over years uh just because you say it isn't there doesn't mean it's true when the measurements measurements have measurements of it and the zodiacs have changed because of the change in positions of stars that's why they call the face of 12 into sun god isn't it because they don't change they are faithful they are constant they are constellations constant constellations it's they've never changed yeah they have and there we go and now but a question for ozzie for five dollars from pivot cryroy can you explain how relative density applies a directional movement vector to an object yeah basically the more dense something is the more resistance that gives something and say because a thing of mass obviously has weight which is where the word gravity even comes from it's from the latin word gravus or g r a v i s which literally means weight and so a heavier weight will displace a lesser worm unless it's of sufficient resistance to stop it and that direction just happens to be down like there's no real particular rhyme or reason except that's just how it is so first of all in the first rule of science is you make your observation what is happening naturally naturally things go down why do they go down well because the thing beneath it is insufficient to give it enough resistance to stop it if the thing is sufficiently dense enough to resist it it stops it lay down with that the way down why not that's where it goes that's why the ground is beneath us here is above it because relative density why relative density why why do things not go up when uh why do things not go up when it's less dense above us than it is below uh there's less than so why don't think that's why if i why if i why if i drop this class right now would it not go up why why do i drop this class right now guys guys let's let so fight the flat earth get your question out and then flat earth your question your answer will be the last thing and we'll move on so this glass is more dense than the air around it agreed however the air above the glass is less dense than the air below it so why when i let it go would it go down and not up why that direction specifically because craig less dense air does not offer more resistance none of the air offers resistance the ground offers resistance so it goes to the place of resistance through the path of least resistance now yes you say it's less resistant above but it's not resistant enough to give it buoyancy so why does it go down though why does it go down though what need to go down what's beneath it doesn't resist it and that is where no no no no no why did it go no i'm not talking about what stopped it going down why did it go down in the first place well as i said the first rule of science is to make the observation if it does go down we don't have to exist to say why we just say that actually you do because then that's the next step science requires then a hypothesis and a prediction you are stopping an observation means that you are practicing pseudoscience no i'm saying it does go down why does it stop is the question and it stops no why does it go down i didn't ask why to give it buoyancy five dollars above it either so why does it go down and not up you can't answer you lose five dollars from tim prior i this is the same guy who's been asking about consensus of scientists well he's saying so no answer then just blah blah blah um i guess yeah eric for 499 the flat earth guy once the gases reach freezing height the density would increase exponentially why doesn't it then fall that's a great question and i think that would be due to the actual air pressure itself actually acts as a cushion so it's sort of like floats above it so um and obviously if it expands right across the whole expanse then the very edges where the highest mountains existed Antarctica would support it much like the edges of a lake they become the basic the the supports of the ice above the water you know like um that it's obviously we're in a some sort of depression filled with air and gases and that creates the cushion which keeps the firmament floating atop us that'd be my guess uh tim prior five dollars but no question attached so thank you so very much tim here's tim five back to me oh yeah well remember i send you to hold on hold on osi remember when i sent you 20 dollars because uh you were complaining about having the money and being ill and i thought even though i disagree with what you say i'm going to try and be nice and help you out and i sent you 20 dollars to the word the thing that you asked me to and then you started laughing at me because it's got me to send that money to your fake girlfriend um when i was trying to help you uh so i should yeah your fake you're absolutely fake it does not exist at all fiance yeah you got me to send her money instead of it sending it to you which i was trying to do to help you out so there's that i would never accept it so even though i'm trying to be nice i saw that another human being was in need and i thought you know what even though i think the guy is a douchebag and an idiot i'm going to try and help him out and send this money but you instead said no i'm not taking that money uh and gave it away to somebody else when i was trying to help you and be nice that just shows what kind of love or support is required and so it just saved um transfer fees didn't it by sending it directly to her he did me a favor you were lying about you needing the money then you were lying about and okay guys daryl jackson 10 dollars question for ozzy if there is a dome around the earth then are there meteors that you can occasionally see inside the dome if not then how do they enter earth's atmosphere if the dome is blocking it that's a great question too and the one thing i'd as i've already said i don't actually appeal to a dome myself i think it's a flat firmament and i believe there could be all manner of different things creating those appearances where they could be on the other side of the firmament they could be this side they could be ejected out of a volcano i have really no explanation for them but if ever somebody finds a true meteorite and proves it to be a bit of rock falling from space i would be quite interested to um investigate that myself probably just fell off the moon or something who knows five dollars from alicem can you explain why i have to account for earth being a globe when i want to calculate accurate distances from my flight plans not sure who's that can you explain why i have to account for earth being a globe oh okay i think that is when i want to calculate distances from my flight plans because if you were trying to calculate for a globe not only do you have to calculate for the fact that the equator is spinning over a thousand miles per hour which is about 1.35 times the speed of sound you also have to account for the fact that it's orbiting the sun and that's going at 67 000 miles per hour which means the earth itself in the 24 hour period has moved 1.6 million miles in just one day so how anything could take off the surface of earth and keep up with it if it was a globe according to the heliocentric model like you can't calculate that it's impossible to do what you do is you calculate the fact that the earth isn't moving it isn't spinning we take off from one spot we fly a to b across it and if our charts were originally created according to ever larger circles getting bigger and bigger around the north pole as they were then you might have to account for the fact that you know your north is always going to be adjusting as you go east or west and you'll be calculating that but if you just went in a straight line from point a to point b as most pilots are smart enough to do to save on the fuel it will take different wind speeds then you don't account for being a globe at all so no pilot ever takes in the fact of the curvature the spin or the orbital rate none of those things are ever calculated for because it doesn't exist so pilots absolutely do take the curvature into account the formula that they use to calculate their roots is called the haversine formula which is literally designed to only work on a globe all flight planning is designed on a globe this is confirmed by pilots you literally cannot do your long distance flight planning without accounting for the fact that the earth is a globe with regards to the orbiting and stuff you need to research the term um conservation of momentum uh right so sorry let me carry on let me carry on let me carry on you research that let me carry on i you don't want me to question your conservation of momentum okay oh no no you don't understand it so it's fine oh i don't have a response for earth i don't yeah if i jumped off a speeding train conservation of momentum should say i'll keep going the speed of the train plus the extra bit of speed i took when i jumped off it but that's not the case at all as soon as you jump off you lose that momentum that you jumped off with it and you only because you have the air as the train speeds away yes but it's the same thing for an airplane isn't it the airplane no it's not not at all not at all because the uh the airplane is using the air which rotates with the earth you are talking about someone jumping off of a train and then hitting the air which is still moving with the earth um and you do lose loose speed and stuff on earth because friction and things exist but you know again planes use the atmosphere and take off with that conservation of momentum coriolis is all due to conservation and then changes direction does that mean it's taken off with the direction of the earth at a thousand miles per hour changes direction that's flying at five hundred miles per hour does that mean it's still going backwards five hundred miles per hour in order to be going forwards so awesome you asked a question so flat earth is going to answer it but then it's actually his question so he gets to have the final response uh so you literally just described relative motion yes a plane would be going with the rotation of the earth whilst it was still going the other way so if you were at the equator with a linear velocity of a thousand miles an hour but a plane was going against the rotation of five hundred miles an hour that would technically mean it still has a linear velocity to the east of five hundred miles an hour whilst going the other way that is relative motion final comment Aussie and then we're we moving on okay so in other words you're saying that you take off at fifteen hundred miles per hour and you turn around to go forwards five hundred miles per hour you're still going backwards a thousand miles per hour because you took off with that momentum that's really i know that was a question but i'm gonna two dollars from johnnie marr why is there a circular shadow on the moon um if you have a ball on the ground and you take a flat sheet of cardboard and drag it across to create a shadow on the ball it creates a spherical shadow so um well i don't believe for one second that the earth is what causes that shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse that doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth one way or another oh yeah there's no flyer of explanation for eclipse at all but you know there is not we know there's other um celestial bodies out there magic invisible things right i see called magic good good answer no worries yeah there's a dark moon called lila that's been well known in western cosmology there's an invisible dark moon called lila wonderful they call it rahu you don't see a new moon for the same very same reason that you don't see a new moon because it's magic invisible second body i see magic it's always too close to the sun to be seen i'm like you know i've seen this movie i've definitely seen this movie have you ever seen the new moon no you haven't yeah dollars from rodent no last name how does the earth sustain the dome and where does the dome connect to the earth well again that's not a great question for me because as i've said multiple times i'm not a big believer in a actual dome but i do believe if it was connected to the earth it would be across these highest mountains that uh beyond or a part of Antarctica um you know the whole thing might be completely separate from the earth for all i know but we don't know enough about what's beyond Antarctica it's sort of we can't go there so it's a good question but those who would would like to try and go beyond Antarctica i'm good luck to you like the greatest military in the world in operation deep freeze and operation high jump they actually retreated with the tail between the legs and convinced the rest of the world to sign a treaty to make the place for a bit of a go to so okay so there's thousands of exhibitions across Antarctica all the time and i actually follow a guy on tiktok who lives uh you know at the south pole um and you know spends always time in Antarctica so no and well you can go did you did you say did you say the the did you say that the firmament is resting on massive mountains potentially i don't know you've got an amazing imagination tim said that he wasn't sure what is the why his last message didn't get through but it's coming through now and he's saying if anybody could find a true meteorite you know there's people that hunt them and make millions right research it and explain how they are wrong yeah i have heard about it um and it's an interesting phenomenon and then yeah that's one thing that i can't explain i can't if meteorites come from space that's cool like maybe space isn't the oh there you go you don't know the occasionally maybe it melts through and creates a shooting star twenty dollars from tim prior ozzie if i'm spinning at what you consider a thousand miles per hour on a rotating chair did i travel a thousand miles in one hour or would i be in the same spot this is why we do not measure rotations in miles per hour oh i've gone through that with him before look that's crazy yeah that one is crazy like people like to say we measure it in rpms and so that's fine if you want to measure in rpms because it sounds feasible to your tiny little brains to think of it as zero point zero zero six nine four rpms is the same speed as a thousand miles per hour of surface here but if you've got the hour hand rotating at that speed and you make it the length of the radius of earth four thousand miles long then yes that chair at the end of that long rope spinning at zero zero point zero point zero zero zero six nine four rpms he's moving at a thousand miles per hour which makes him an invisible blur a third of the length down that rope is where it's breaking the sound barrier creating a sonic boomers wake halfway down it's going the speed of a cruising aeroplane of 500 miles per hour the floor to the way down it's going the speed of a formula one racing car zooming through and when you get it to six inches from the center that's when it's moving the speed of the hour hand of a clock so anybody who makes that comparison to the earth it's always you have no idea what they're talking about do not i'm doing let me ask you a quick question ross assuming that the earth is a globe rotating at 15 degrees per hour and at the equator that means there's a linear velocity of a thousand miles an hour what would be the linear velocity at the poles technically it'd be zero i wouldn't it right so you do understand the difference between linear velocity and rotational velocity so you understand it's completely incorrect to say that the earth is spinning at a thousand miles per hour right absolutely because it's not moving at all no no no even if it is rotating at 15 degrees per hour you understand that it is completely wrong to say the earth is spinning at a thousand miles per hour you understand why that's wrong yeah i guess you could say that but you would say that a particular place on the surface at the equator is allegedly spinning at a thousand and forty miles no no no it's not spinning it has a linear velocity of a thousand and forty miles per hour because you cannot spin in miles per hour you can spin in revolutions per minute or you know in radians or you know in degrees per hour you cannot spin in miles per hour your engine does not spin in miles per hour your engine spins at an RPM. So every time a flatterer says that the earth is rotating at a thousand miles per hour, it shows how ignorant flatterers are about everything they ever talk about. And so what if we turn around and talk about the orbital rate then at 67,000 miles per hour? That's also a linear rate. That's more than 1,000 miles per hour. So your slow little rotation is nothing compared to this massive 67,000 mile per hour in a linear speed as well. Everything about our belief is insane. Do you know what the rotational velocity of the earth around the sun is? Rotational velocity as I said 67,000 or 66,000 miles per hour? No, that's a linear speed. That's a linear speed. What is the rotational velocity of the earth around the sun? Not the linear speed, the rotation? It's zero. I know it's zero. In the heliocentric model, in the heliocentric model, what is the rotational velocity of the earth around the sun? 67,000 miles per hour. No, that's a linear velocity. What is the rotational velocity? Zero. It is one degree per day and slightly less than a degree. Approximately one degree per day. So talking in degrees is also just another way of obviously skating the truth, you know? If you want to start talking in any sort of different way, we just went through, Ross, we just went through how, Ross, we just went through how you cannot talk about, Ross, we just went through and you agreed with me how the earth has a different linear velocity at different points and that the rotational velocity is always going to be 15 degrees per hour. Therefore, the rotational velocity is one degree per day and that perfectly describes the rotational speed of the earth around the sun. You have a response, flatter authority and then we're going to move on. It says nothing because one degree on earth is 69 miles. If we describe the conference of the earth into 360 degrees because we believe it's a circle, one degree 69 miles. If you say the earth has only gone one degree per day, you're trying to say we've only gone 69 miles. That's what one degree when you put it into that conference. No, no, no, no, no, Ross, on earth, the conference of 25,000 miles, but you just stormanned me. You just stormanned me. Let me explain why you're wrong. Let me explain why you're wrong. 69 miles, 69 miles. Hold on, you're both talking now, no one can hear. Okay, hold on. Let me explain. Stop interrupting me. You stopped me from your point. Okay, because you both have points, we're going to go flat earth Aussie, fight the flat earth and then flat earth Aussie again because it was his question. So flat earth Aussie. Thank you. Shut that arrogant prick up. I can finish my point. When you're saying one degree, you've agreed that one degree is only 69 miles on earth, but now you're saying that this one degree is also 1.6 million miles in a linear direction going around the sun. Now I understand what you are trying to do by obfuscating things into just degrees because it's only one degree around the sun. It's meaningless unless you apply an actual figure to what that degree means and 1.6 million miles in a 24 hour period is massive. That's huge. That's a massive amount of motion. So just referring it to one degree is meaningless, but everything about your description when you try and obfuscate. Can you stop now? Can you stop now? Right, so what you just said is completely and utterly wrong, right? I heart you both. Were you done flat earth? Yeah, I'm definitely done now. So everything that you said there is everything that you said there is completely and utterly wrong. It's only one degree to 69 miles because the circumference of earth is 25,000 miles. So one degree compared to that circumference is 69 miles, but one degree compared to the orbital distance of the earth around the sun is much, much more. So saying, oh, because one degree, so saying that one degree, one degree on earth being 69 miles means that one degree for the earth traveling around the sun has to be 69 miles shows that you are the most top left done in Kruger person that has ever existed. You do not understand the difference between rotational and linear velocity. You do not understand what a fucking degree is. What you just said is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. And so Ozzy, you can have your response. My only thing is don't ask a question because that'll give it over to him, but the statement is yours. Yeah, well, that's why I say it's ridiculous to try and describe things in terms of degrees because neither two things mean the same. They mean something completely different. One is 69 miles. One means 1,600,000 miles. And you was trying to describe them as being the same way to describe a motion of something that is nothing even in your own ridiculous belief of the globe. So hopefully you've got another question coming up. Five dollars from pivot cry Roy for Ozzy. Do you measure the rotational speed of your power tools in miles an hour instead of rounds per minute 15 degrees per hour? Thanks, Bob. Bob, no, I don't measure the rotational speed of, say, a drill or something in miles per hour because it's obviously it's a tiny little drill. Now, but when we're talking about something the size of a globe of a 25,000 miles per conference spinning once per day, then it makes sense to measure a particular point and where it goes from this point all the way around back to this point in terms of how many miles per hour it might take to return back to that point. So it's there's no comparison. You know, if you want to buy scale to reality, then miles per hour is actually quite an effective way to determine actual linear speed of the rotation to go around a single rotation. All right, five dollars from Tim Pryor and we'll go. Well, there are about three more super questions left. I'll do a few of the questions from the normal and then we're going to hand it over to our interlocutors to do their closing statements and to tell you where you can find them. But all right, five dollars from Tim Pryor. We can't go to Antarctica question mark even though you can book a trip there anytime you want. Yeah, okay. Well, yeah, you can go on an organized tour to Antarctica. You might even not even know if you didn't go to Antarctica, you just went to watch some deep southern island. You would never know because you're not going to get out and travel that far. All you have to do is observe a few penguins, watch some whales, some vorices and all that sort of stuff in the ice, but you're not actually going to go deep into the heart of Antarctica on an organized tourist trip. So, yeah, it's going to cost you thousands of dollars, assuming you got that to spend. You're not going to stay up for 24 hours or 48 hours to see if there really is a 24 hour sun in Antarctica. And even if there was, you're seeing light existing for a 24 hour period, which sort of comports with the Flat Earth model as far as a coffee caustic effect is earned anyway, but a trip to Antarctica as a tourist is going to prove nothing. It's freezing cold down there even in the middle of summer. You're lucky if it gets above zero. So, I don't know why anybody in their right mind would want to go there and it proves nothing one way or the next. $10 from DJ Moose. So, Globe Denier, would you make, I think that's a test with minimum 10 of peoples you trust. Everyone must be separated at least 200 kilometers apart and measure sunshadow using example, one meat, is it just one M, one millimeter stick and show all resumes? I'm going to repeat that again. So, Globe Denier, would you make test with minimum 10 of peoples you trust? Everyone must be separated at least 10 kilometers apart and measure sunshadow using example, one M stick and show all results? Well, look, that'll be fine. I've got no problem with that, but it's equivalent to the Eratosthenes experiment in the first place where if I took a row of batteries, I stood up as a standing row of batteries, five or six batteries across my desk and I'm showing a lamp on them, they're all going to measure a different length of shadow and different angle of shadow. Now, if I then took all those measurements, I could apply a formula to tell you exactly how spherical my perfectly flatten level desk is. So, using mathematics to describe something without an understanding of what you're looking at in the first place is really, you can find anything you want using maths. You can lie and lie and lie, but if you observe the table is actually flatten level in the first place and measuring all those different angles of shadows, it's going to prove nothing. What you're really doing in a test, so that is proving that we live on a flat earth with a nearby local sun. Five dollars from Tim Pryor. So, the simple answer is no, I did not travel a thousand miles in one hour. I'm still in the same spot, blah, blah, blah. Well, the spot move with you, yeah. The spot move with you, assuming you traveled at all, I would just tend to think that you didn't move because you didn't travel because the earth isn't moving. That's the simple answer. I'm spinning the same speed as earth right now. Apparently, yeah, zero. No, in my chair, I'm spinning the same speed as earth is right now. Yeah, I know, zero. In fact, I'm going to slow down a bit and I'm going to spin the same speed as the earth around the orbit of the sun. Hold on, it's got to slow down. There you go. I'm going about one degree a day now. Dramatic change, right? From zero to zero in zero seconds. No, no, I went from 15 degrees per hour to one degree per day. That's like a 12,000% decrease. Yeah, well, that's an interesting thing, isn't it, really, when you think about it, if you're actually orbiting around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour and you're spinning at 1,000 miles per hour, and technically, when you're spinning with the directional speed of the orbit, you're going about Mach 2 faster than you are when the earth is going backwards relative to that forward speed. So we're actually going to Mach 4. You do realize that the speed of sound and things is relative to a medium, right? Of course, Craig. Yeah, I'm just using that as a speed that we can all relate to. We all know the speed of sound is very, very fast. I'm not saying it is sound. Oh, the speed of sound is fast. What's the speed of sound in a vacuum? I don't even know if sound exists in a vacuum, does it? So sound would have what speed in the vacuum? I don't know that sound exists. So sound would have zero speed in the vacuum. So sounds really fast. The wouldn't exist. So it's not even a speed. Even zero is, you know, not a speed. It's non-existent. Sound is about 767 miles per hour at sea level. That's the average speed of it. So if we talk about Mach 1, 767 miles per hour, and then we say Mach 2, we know that's double that. So about 1500 miles per hour, we can understand. It's just a really, really big speed. So if I say that we're going on a difference of Mach 4 every day, it's got nothing to do with the speed of sound itself apart from that. It does. It's just a really, really good speed. It's just a really big speed. Yeah, please learn what you're talking about, because nothing you say makes sense. It makes sense. You just, um... No, it doesn't. It really doesn't. Nothing you say ever. Giant stock of Grand Canyon at the moon 10 is the speed. It's the last word, because it is his question. And then I'm going to hand it back to him, because he has another question. Hey, it's irrelevant to the medium itself. We know that the sound itself requires a medium, but when we describe it as Mach 1, we just know it's a very, very fast speed. Whether or not it is sound in a bloody medium, it's not relevant to the fact that it's a vast speed. So when we talk about a certain number of Mach speeds, we just know it's bloody, bloody fast. It's got nothing to do with sound itself. I hope that's clear for you, just to simplify things for you. So $5 from Rodent No Last Name. He's saying Flat Earth, Aussie, I'm sending you a bill for the amount I have to drink listening to your... And we've... You can fill in the blanks there. Sending love from Rotland. Do you want to respond? Yeah, mate. You better buy me one too then, if that's the case. Cheers. There you go. $10, Tim Pryor. I'm gonna say it again. Maybe this time it will sink in if I could spend at what he would consider a thousand... Oh, spin. I see the next super chat. If I could spin and what he would consider a thousand miles an hour on a rotating chair, did I travel a thousand miles Exactly. Oh, you want me to read that one more again? Because I'm gonna say it again. Maybe this time it will sink in. But if just the chair spun, you've only gone to the circumference of the chair, I guess. Many, many times if you go a thousand miles per hour, you get a little bit dizzy, I imagine. If not exploded. Tim Pryor for $5. I got you for spin. Rodent Last Name. Another $5. Flat Earth Ozzie Jr., you're closer to most. What criteria would you make to prove the ice wall? How much Kickstarter funds would you need for an Antarctic expedition? Did need quite a bit because apparently that's what was done back in the 40s, I believe it was. Admiral Byrd had the expedition operating high jump, operation deep freeze. It was he in an interview before he went on, he said it's a reconnaissance mission and all we really have is rumors about it. We don't know exactly what happened, but the rumor goes that the reconnaissance was to retrieve an ice drilling machine, which was stuck in the wall, which is said to be this type of blue ice, which when it melts, that leaves no trace of moisture behind, which indicates it's some kind of frozen gas, and that it's self-repairing. And so this drilling machine trying to go through the wall had got stuck in it, the ice had regrown back over it. And basically at the end of this mission of the world's greatest funded military in human history, as far as we know, with all the technology, all their planes, all their drilling machines, all their ships and everything, they retreated and convinced the rest of the world to agree to an Antarctic treaty that can only be used for scientific purposes and exploration. And basically, I think we got our asses whipped by a higher intelligence who said, keep out of here or we're just going to trash your world. You're part of our little experiment, you're our little game, you're our little slaves or whatever it is we might be here in this part of the world, that we are not permitted to go beyond them, one way or another. Five dollar super chat from Riddle. I've been to the actual South Pole. Please explain that, Ozzy. No, you haven't. You've been to a celebratory or ceremony. Surrounded by a bunch of international flags and stuff. It's a ceremonial pole. It's a photo opportunity for rich tourists to go to to say, I've been to the South Pole, but nobody's been to the South Pole. There is no South Pole. It's like the outer rim of a wagon wheel. You've got the inner wheel, the axle, which is the North Pole. And then every direction away from that is south, outwards. And so there's no such thing as a South Pole, much like there's no on a ring magnet. You've got your North Pole is the center, but the entire rim is technically a South Pole. So there's, there's no South Pole as such. All right. Looks like the last super chat. And I think we're gonna wrap it up soon because we're coming. It's been a fantastic few hours. I have had fun, but five dollars from Tim Pryor. So by his argument, when I went to San Francisco, I probably didn't know if I did or didn't mm. Depends what you were smoking, I guess. What, what, what does he mean? Have you got anybody? I didn't know if I did or didn't go to San Francisco. I'll read his other, his past super chat. His very last one was, I'm going to say it again. Maybe this time I'll sink in. I could spend what I, if I could spend at what he would can suspend. Like I said it again, if I could spin at what he would consider a thousand miles an hour on a rotating chair, did I travel a thousand miles? And so he followed that up with, so by his argument, when I went to San Francisco, I probably didn't know if I did or didn't. I see what he's saying. Well, I guess if he spun on his chair at a thousand miles per hour, he probably didn't go to San Francisco. But if he traveled to San Francisco, then I'd say he traveled to San Francisco. And all right guys, we could probably keep on going back and forth forever. I feel, I feel the heat. I would like to thank both of our interlocutors, and I would actually like to hands it over to fight the flat earth for his closing statement and then to tell us where he can find you or where you could find him. Thank you very much, Amy. Yeah, I always have fun debating the flat earth. There is no debate. You're not flat. I do this for fun. As always, the flat earther brought no evidence, brought no measurements, brought no understanding of science or physics, only brought his own misunderstanding, ignorance, and constant strawmands of my position to try and provide a case for his position. The fact is that no flat earther will ever bring evidence because there simply is no evidence that the earth is flat. The flat earthers are the kind of people that will literally believe whatever they're told without ever checking it. And they claim that we're the ones that do that. It's amazing that, you know, flat earthers literally just believe whatever crap they hear on the internet or read in the ancient book and then go about saying that that's facts about ever actually researching or understanding or studying the thing that they try to talk about. Flat earthers say things like tennis is CGI. The sun is an interdimensional portal. Pendulums are controlled by demons. The moon was dug out of the Grand Canyon by giants, melted into corpse filled with helium and put in the sky to mock us for worshiping the sun. And for some reason, people think that these are the people that can debunk all of science and physics as we know it. The earth isn't flat. There is no giant wall surrounding us that would be like 120,000 miles long, which would acquire the world's largest military and the, you know, the most amount of people ever to look after this military and all these boats and everything to defend people, you know, away from the massive ice wall. All the measurements, all the evidence, everything suggests that the earth is a rotating globe. There simply is no argument against this ever just because flat earthers don't understand physics does not mean that they know what they are talking about. In fact, it's completely opposite. I am Craig from the channel FTFE. You can find me at youtube.com forward slash FTFE one. A new video of mine will be released tomorrow at midday UK time. And if you would like to come for an after show after this debate, head over to my channel because it's already going now being run by the wonderful Brady beaver. Flatter Fuzzy Jesus, you are also welcome to come over to my channel and talk to some actual intelligent people like my good friend PhD Tony. Well, thank you, Craig. That was a lovely little outgoing and I haven't prepared anything. I don't have an auto cue I can read from. I've just got a simple phone in my hand, which is running out of charge. I keep trying to plug the thing back in. It keeps popping out because it's great. Yeah, I love technology. Everything you said, you know, it's a bunch of assumptions. I understand physics quite well. And none of the laws of physics, observable physics actually have to change just because we understand we're not on a spinning spaceball. You know, physics themselves are quite straightforward. We understand them very well. Things that go up come down. That's very, very simple things that go up to not just automatically orbit, they're not just miss the earth as it's flying around us and somehow magically catch back up around us to keep orbiting us forever and ever in perpetual motion. We know perpetual motion is a bit of a myth. And yet you just assume it as a reality for everything in space. We just observe reality as it is. We don't need to make any sort of assumptions. We don't need to invoke any invisible forces. What we see is what we get. We know that water level is contained by higher edges. So therefore, all of Solida is above the water level. We don't have to invoke any sort of magic or spinning through a vacuum, which is insanity. We just look at it as it is. And we take the good of the history of or take the good of all the science of our past, and we take the bad and throw it in the trash and where it belongs. So we're not science deniers. We're not physics deniers. We take everything factually and we make more sense of it with realistic interpretations of the things that we view. Yes, I are. Well, thank you, Craig. You're great at living a child there, making little notes and stuff. I'm just going to leave it at that. Flat Earth is a realist where truth is we don't need to invent fiction to have our beliefs of what we believe in. It's just observable reality. And if we find a better explanation for something, then we will move forward with it, as the scientific method suggests. We're science lovers. We are modern day scientists. We have technology that was never available to the primitive man who decided that measuring shadows as sticks and looking down wells means we live on a spinning spaceball, even though they believed it was geocentric back then and it wasn't spinning. So whatever it is you believe from thousands of years in history, you got to admit you were wrong. We've moved forward. The Earth is flat and stationary. Thank you. It is like you're muted. Zombies, sometimes you need to do the double taps. Thank you all of us out there on the inner tubes for joining us on modern day debate. We are a neutral platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life. If you're looking for more juicy debates in the future, don't forget to like and subscribe. And if you like what you heard in this debate, both of our guest links are in the description. I want to thank both Fight the Flat Earth and Flat Earth Ozzie for joining us. And with that, I hope you all have an awesome night. Thanks Saib Sami. Thank you very much guys. Always a pleasure. Yeah. All right. See you Craig. Ozzie, I've sent you a link if you want to come over to my channel.