 and I just find I find nobody who's skeptical I'm actually not very persuaded by the arguments even on in like a naturalist evolutionary perspective I'm actually I'm like I don't I don't know if the arguments are that compelling for what thinking that they're aliens but that's another story I don't mean to everybody today we're debating flat earth versus globe earth and we are starting right now with the global size real to have you here mark and David the floor is all yours in particular mark glad to have you back thank you so much James and it's pleasure to be here thank you for joining me and I'll just share my screen for James if you could be so kind I would appreciate it thank you so much so good morning or evening whatever the case may be I just I'm in the negative position of the earth being flat now I just have some questions and I'll skim through this so David's got some time to respond but I'm I really want to have some questions for the flat earth is on how these things work first on the first question is certain polar star trails now this is sort of northern hemisphere we can see that the star trails are going in one direction yep if my video would yeah so so certain polar stars are going in a anti-clockwise direction southern hemisphere they're going in the opposite direction now I've heard it said before by by flat earth is that they're all going north to west but the problem with this sorry east to west and the problem with this is that if if if the stars are circular and this is southern hemisphere they're going clockwise they are going east to west up here but not here they're going the opposite way and north south right so exactly how is this working that's north south east west how is that exactly working on a flat earth how does that work I would really like to know like how how are they they traveling in the same direction this is a comparison of all three perspectives north equator south and to keep this in mind that they do vary going in a straight line at the middle and they they rotate in different way this is a photo from Alaska notice how the central part is a lot higher the more towards the poles of the earth that you get this is from the south pole that is a LIGO laser notice it's almost vertically above the the subject that somebody pointing a camera straight up why does that happen on a flat earth if they can explain that that'd be great now this is the flat earth why is it that we see the circumpolar stars south from Australia south from South America and south from Africa and there's no lateral movement through here there's no lateral movement of the circumpolar stars how do they jump from this area to this area by night time how are they doing that that's a question for the flat earth is to answer hopefully they'll have a wonderful and and turn in answer this out works on a globe earth because basically what you're seeing is the circumpolar stars up here doing the rotation doing the rotation down here and somebody looking from the south somebody looking from the north and they will travel in opposite directions let's have a look at that James Howling up a bone going for fantastic okay so that's how it works on a globe now I would love to see them explain it on a flat earth and you can see straight at the equator one direction up the top and as you go further here he's muted sorry about that mark I accidentally muted you if you can hear me he's still muted let's see it I clicked asked to unmute so mark I think you'll have to once I like you'll have to oh yeah it appeared in a weird place sorry it appeared on my other screen and it knows it yeah so it noticed notice that they're vertical at the equator sorry they're horizontally equate up that as you go up towards the poles they become more and more vertical to let the poles they're straight above you exactly what we see in every single case of people observing this now I just want to go to lunar eclipses what I want to know from the other side is why lunar eclipses are all-waved curved no matter what position the Sun and the moon are in always curved if they could show me a picture of a lunar eclipse where the shadow is not curved where it's straight across the moon that would be great but why from any direction any orientation any configuration does the moon always have a curved shadow on it and why does no one ever ever observe the flat plane even when the Sun is directly behind the earth to make this shadow that would be great this is how it works on a globe earth very very simple the earth is in between the Sun and the moon the earth blocks the light and that is why there is a red eclipse on the moon sometimes very very easy why does the moon never change size why is it always when it's here it should seem a lot bigger than when it's over here but that never happens that never happens and why why is that why does the it never change size and I'll pass it over to David for taking too much time but I really would like those answers from the flat earths today cheers thank you all right amazing much of what you presented is is on a level higher than what I would have presented especially because I don't have the familiarity with presenting the technological diagrams on zoom yet so I'm going to add to Mark's question so you have for instance with the circumpolar star trails those trails the orientation and the direction it changes gradually based upon your latitude so magnetic or optical or any other distortions are postulated as a as a flatter root cause would have to be aligned with our position based upon our latitude and it has to somehow explain everything north of the equator even though the same effect occurs as you go south of the equator so there's no way to say well the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere has a distinction from the other because the effect is the same it's just that the orientation in the direction is flipped with the solar position relative to the stars you know we don't seem to get a clear explanation as to how you can have a so-called close sun and close moon even if the stars themselves are considered close and the effect is that when you're looking at this as if it's on a you know a dome your perspective like for instance I'm going to use a low tech virgin so you're seeing these words right as if you're facing them head on but then if you're looking at them from an angle you can clearly see that the words even though we know that they're the same they show up differently because your perspective is now change your line of sight has changed so the line of sight for people on one part of the earth is not going to match the line of sight of others when they're seeing the Sun the moon and the stars so either the positions of the Sun in the moon and the stars should vary or the shape of the Sun in the moon should vary in addition when you get close to I'm sorry when you get to speaking about optical distortions you have a problem because the stars themselves should be appearing distorted and that distortion should match whatever effect that you're saying so even though we can say stars are points of light from a flat earth perspective the distortion of those points of light should be apparent and they should match whatever flat earth explanation is used to you know explain what we're seeing for the other effects of you know circumpolar you know stars with two axes you know the Sun in the moon being the shape and the size they are from different points of view all over the world being essentially identical and so forth and then with the lunar eclipse why does the leading limb of the moon always face the Sun if the if the moon's light if the moon itself is not reflection of the Sun's light why does the moon just so happen to always illuminate as if it's in a position relative to the Sun about 300,000 miles or kilometers away from us with the Sun being on average about 93 million miles why does that calculation always work as far as positioning the moon as a sphere reflecting a portion of its surface from the Sun to us and the only variation you can see is a very slight variation from one side of the earth to the other and the fact that when you're seeing such a panoramic view the limb of the moon is slightly you know off I guess the the path of the leading edge of that moons sorry the leading edge of that 30 seconds lights the reflected light headed towards the Sun so it's kind of like this where it's like you know it's kind of going up in a way just a little bit but it's never like the moon is facing this way and the Sun is on the other side or you know it's not in the same direction so it's kind of like the whole process of explaining it on the flatter side creates more contradictions and magnetic this and that doesn't justify that you got it thank you very much for that opening from the globe side and we're gonna get over to the flat side but before we do that just a couple of quick housekeeping things in particular if it's your first time here at modern day debate we are a neutral debate channel hosting debates on science religion and politics we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from my name is James I'm your host and want to say if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button as we have many juicy debates coming up just like this one for example the bottom right of your screen are in raw and Stewart are going to collide next week on whether or not Christianity is reasonable you don't want to miss that huge debate so hit subscribe right now so you don't miss it with that we're going to kick it over to wits it and Nathan thanks so much for being with us the floor is all yours thank you very much for for having us all here i just wanted to start up by by saying that it's a really fun topic i think to talk about and to kind of relate to that whole um is Christianity rational how i kind of wanted to open this was uh with something that uh i think pretty much every person who is on the flatter side was at some point a globe subscriber we were taught the globe and i do want to emphasize personally that i i do think that for a book like the the bible to be even considered true the earth has to be flat if the bible is considered or even going to be attempted to be the perfect word of god it has to be accurate when tested scientifically and the bible does say that the earth is stationary um is fixed and immovable and that happens to be what we measure empirically with mechanical gyros and it is so much so the point empirically that uh relativity has to say that we cannot do anything from the earth to detect the earth moving uh so i i think that that is something that is for for the bible to be valid the earth has to match um cosmologically speaking and so i wanted to uh say that's one of the big questions with this please anyone flat globe be open-minded to if you if i can give you any suggestion uh to what both sides are saying we have to be rational it doesn't make any sense to perpetuate something that isn't true especially when we are dealing with for example people in the gov who are willing to run things like operation top hat um that's our uh government using a nerve agent on our own military without asking them so we are dealing with some people who are maybe a little bit nefarious so i wanted to emphasize that this is a has very serious ramifications uh either religious uh religion could be done away with or and and propel science uh or if if the bible is true that's really good because Jesus christ is our savior and he gave us a free gift of salvation set the example for us for how to uh live uh and and to treat one another with unconditional love uh which i think goes a long way for giving us mercy and grace um so that said uh with the earth itself i do think that we do have um uh we'll get to uh the questions they brought up in uh the next segment right yep yep okay um so uh just to is there a way uh i could share my screen yep we're ready for you if you want to drag your cursor over the zoom window usually it's at the top or the bottom where it'll have a green button that'll say share screen it'll have a little upward arrow pointing up okay and then uh i just click on screen yep whichever screen or window you want to share so there you go okay so this okay okay um so this here is what i wanted to um to show so this is basically uh first off with as far as scientifically talking about the earth which is what this debate is about we're talking about the earth matters of the sky are leaving the earth and going to the sky uh so that would be like um trying to say if you play baseball with a round ball and a round bat and you round the bases and hit for a rounded average that the field that you're playing on must also be rounded uh round uh which is a false comparison whatever the shape of the earth is that we measure on the ground we would have to have a sky geometry to match that but you can't accurately match the sky if the shape of the ground that you're on is incorrect um that said i personally i'll get into that but as far as the earth is concerned so mechanical dry rows um do not move but this here what you're looking at this is a picture of four lights that were set up over a frozen lake uh they are at five six seven and eight miles parts and according to the curvature how long have i been going you've got five minutes and 46 seconds left okay um awesome can i just finish this real quick and i'll let you okay um so this is five six seven eight miles according to the uh curvature of the the globe claims to know the size of the earth uh which means that we can do calculations to determine how much curvature there should be this is from an observer height of six inches and you can see all of these lights in a line planar geometry of the surface of water with depth this is a span of five six seven and eight miles away from the observer and this is in uh on a frozen lake um actually if you if i go to i think it's right here this is uh refraction the index of refraction and i can't highlight it through here but where my cursor is here you can see it talks about standard temperature is at 20 degrees celsius whatever you measure for your refractive index if you are in cold weather you subtract zero point zero zero zero four from your measured refractive index and if you're in warm weather or above 20 you add zero point zero zero four so this is essentially saying that you have light that bends in two different directions you're either going to subtract making it bend down less or add making it bend up uh but you know bend the other way because you're adding two different values you cannot go in two different directions and get to the same point you're going to go in opposite direction so we see too far uh in in cold weather and in hot weather um with that said i think i think that's about all i wanted to get for the the beginning um uh and here's the whole non-motion thing you can't tell relatively speaking uh from the earth are you moving are you not moving which train is moving this person sees this one this person would see this one all right um asin i'll pass it to you cool james what's left got three minutes and 48 seconds all right cool all right so basic misunderstandings of the star rotations doesn't prove a globe a fundamental thing everyone should understand is the entire globe model was engineered based on the sky but literally that's how we engineered the globe model was we looked at the sky looked at the stars at the sun look at the moon we came up with stories we engineered the globe earth as a theoretical model we then took the data from the flat earth or flat map different flat maps and put it on a globe that's what objectively happened so if you'd now in 2023 point to the sky and say look the sky matches my globe model that proves my globe model that's incredibly ignorant because that's how we made the globe model okay now you can show that the uh star trails work in many different ways actually walter bizlin and anti-flatter they're made an entire program showing how you could see it then just claimed it was impossible because light wouldn't behave that way in his opinion okay so you can actually watch it diagram out the entire southern star trails every single observation declination inclination everything about the stars fully mapped out on a plain earth you can also put a dome over top of concentric circles and get the exact site type of a rotation in the south basically what it comes down to is the globe earth is making a claim antithetical to empirical evidence right like when we do all engineering projects railways uh you know bridges fact long factories you know 100 square miles we use plain survey which treats earth is flat neglects any type of curvature and that's how we do all engineering projects in the real practical world and when we do anything technologically we assume the earth's not moving we build it over top of a plane so if all physical empirical measurements show that you have to make calculative assumptions based on optics and then look at the sky reify the model and reverse engineer and somehow claim that it's a prediction uh that isn't proof of anything so we need actual substantial empirical evidence void of fallacious reasoning and i've never actually seen that occur so hopefully tonight we won't have a bunch of like fallacies and begging the questions reification fallacy shift in the burden of proof fundamentally it said that oh well since you're challenging the popular belief you have the burden of proof but that's incorrect actually like you can say that but the empirical evidence shows one thing you're claiming the antithesis of that you have the burden of proof and flat's not a shape in case people don't know so anyway it's just a description of the surface i actually think that there's just land coming out of water but uh either way you guys have the burden of proof hopefully you'll substantiate that you won't though you'll just say i don't think this could happen on a flat earth we'll have to explain your misunderstandings and hopefully by the end of it we'll actually get to where you can substantiate uh physical demonstration and measurement of curvature and orbital motion and uh until then i guess we'll just sit here with all the empirical evidence thank you very much for that opening as well we're going to go into the open discussion but before we do want to do one other quick housekeeping type thing in particular my dear friends we are absolutely excited as modern day debate is a neutral platform hosting debates so that everybody has their fair shot to make their case and we want to expand across the internet we have a huge opportunity as you can see at the bottom right of your screen if we hit a thousand followers on tiktok we can live stream debates just like this one all the time on tiktok which is huge in terms of our neutral platform expanding across the web so if you have a tiktok want to encourage you hit that link at the top of the description box or i'll pin it at the top of the chat as well and follow our tiktok as that will help us unlock that live streaming feature there with that thank you very much gentlemen the floor is all yours for that open dialogue yeah there's a couple of things i'd like to address first just before going into it i'll address two things and one is interlinked to another so first off for the burden of proof um which it is actually making a positive claim he's making the claim that the earth is flat unfortunately he's stepped into a flat earth debate today so he's actually got a burden of proof to demonstrate that the earth is flat he doesn't shrug that burden just because he says hey i don't have a burden of proof your burden shifting no he's incorrect he's making a positive claim he has a burden um and that ties in with all the observational evidence he claims to say with nathan's thing of well mechanical gyros don't show rotation of the earth yes but the more accurate ring laser gyroscopes do thanks to you know bob who showed it working thanks bob um and the focal pendulum which actually shows the rotation of the earth it's these observational things that we we see that shows that earth is a globe and rotating so that whole thing about observation and sort of the assumption that hey because they calculate for simplicity on a flat plane and it's only for simplicity by the way it must be flat isn't it's a non sequitur it doesn't follow just because they're doing something for simplicity doesn't mean that is actually the case all right let's let me address this here because this this seems to be something that you guys frequently misunderstand so sure if i say the earth is flat that is a positive claim i have the burden of proof to substantiate a description of the surface being horizontal and that level is horizontal they don't do it for convenience purposes if i build a 10 mile bridge right that would be 70 feet difference on a level horizontal in a curved earth well we build it horizontal guess what mark it works every time and guess what mark yeah that i can't wait wait wait you can't do it if we don't assume whoa whoa whoa we can't do it if we don't assume it's horizontal let me explain the shift in the burden of proof commonly misunderstood shift in the burden of proof a special case of argument ad ignorantum is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true and less proven otherwise okay that's a definition of shifting the burden of proof you guys claim the earth is a ball that spins tilted wobbling revolving around the sun in a vacuum in an ever-expanding universe of nothingness that came from nothing that's your claim i claim a description of the surface i have physical empirical measurements millions of them plane survey data shows that sea level shows that okay so i have substantiated that we measure the surface of the earth to be flat you make calculative optical assumptions putting the plane surveys together and then you shift the burden of proof so you need to substantiate your burden of proof that the earth is as ball that's orbiting around the sun in a vacuum that if you say that we only need to talk about flatter there's a textbook shift in the burden of proof i am denying or questioning your assertion being made no you also have an assertion you're asserting that it's flat and that is your burden of proof sir you cannot shrug that just because you're saying hey what we observe because what we observe is tons of photos tons of observations there's all kinds of evidence for the globe earth and the whole idea that the universe came from nothing is a straw man like you usually do your fallacies wits it i mean if you would just learn fallacies that would be great but just because one person claims that the earth is flat doesn't mean that they just shrug their burden of proof automatically as far as your bridge thing the varanzo narrow bridge in new york even though when it was built its two suspension towers are 693 feet tall 4,260 feet apart each tower is is vertical and perpendicular to the water they are 42.28 millimeters further apart at the top than the bottom so you're wrong they do account for curvature of the earth when building that these things and you would know that if you knew anything about civil engineering okay so i'm just gonna address this again then we're gonna let i'm letting jump in because i'm on here all the time you don't again i didn't shrug it off you blatantly misrepresented me join it you don't you why are you being so impulsive calm down man so i don't know bro calm down man you climb the earth is flat you climb the earth is flat you trigger that as well and then the promise will come right back to mark yeah like you said i shrugged it off i specifically addressed my positive claim i dressed the evidence for it you then brought up something about a few millimeters with the bridge what about lake pontitrine which is the longest bridge in the world 24 miles let's talk about that let's talk about how i talked about 10 miles and 70 feet you talked about new york and a few millimeters okay we build a horizontal level bridge we have to treat it as horizontal using plain survey data which ignores the curvature of the earth we build the bridge level which means horizontal if we build it level ignoring curvature then that's what horizontal okay so we build the bridge is horizontal that's how it works now you're making a claim that the earth's not only curving but that it's tilted wobbling spinning revolving in a vacuum you have the burden of proof and we're denying our question i fulfill my burden of proof i would love for you to do the same hey mark if i should uh step in yeah yeah so um yeah what's it uh unfortunately for you you have just stated a falsehood so all of this talk that you make about a burden of proof and logical fallacies one thing that you ignore is false statements so let's address one of your false statements you speak about the fact that you know certain buildings that are built you know they're um horizontal okay that's great they're horizontal in that local space but all of the buildings throughout the earth are not parallel to each other vertically speaking and you can't you you have nothing to substantiate otherwise secondarily you did shrug it off um the for instance with the punch train bridge we can look at pictures of that thing all day uh you zoom in from a very far distance and you're seeing the curvature and you're seeing that curvature for the most part following a scale that is consistent with an earth that is 24 000 miles in circumference um and so all of this discussion about burdens of proof and logical fallacies it's kind of irrelevant when you have to look at consistency accuracy and reproductability of the basis that are objectively factual okay the bible does not address objective objective fact when it comes to what we observe it interprets what we observe for instance the hebrew's not having access to scientific instruments would use the word above to describe things that are beyond gish scalping did no no he's addressing this is the definition of gish scalping but you're no he's addressing your points with right and you're applying that 30 seconds improperly yeah you're addressing that um improperly because you actually did get scallop and you get scallop frequently as almost like an in like a buttoning up with your argument you'll go through four or five points without giving the other people time to respond that's the definition of gish scalloping so with my 10 seconds left i heal okay i got anything good so can address the bridge it's okay okay um so like with the poncha train bridge uh we do get sometimes these pictures that are taken where you do see what appears to be curved uh you can get bottom up disappearance as well uh some of these uh curvature pictures would actually make the earth really small especially compared to the given 24901 mile equatorial circumference um but then uh if you uh go back to the um if you go to this uh one second here um if you go to the uh that that four lights experiment that i showed um so when a lot of these like bottom up disappearance and curvature claims this is something hiding behind curvature flat earth has been able to recreate bottom up disappearance on a flat surface using isolated variables um and this is done with like temperature variation uh this can hide things that are low to the ground so now something that's it that is something that we observe and then we set up a scaled experiment with isolated variables i think one thing about um like using the words like burden of proof science doesn't prove anything we form hypotheses and then we we test them we try to recreate them we have to isolate our controlled variables um our independent and dependent variables and when you are um so the flat earth for these curvature claims or bottom up disappearance we've been able to show how on a flat surface you can using things that we get in the atmosphere like temperature variation you can actually get this bottom up disappearance uh now you now what a globe would have to do because uh a global say this is this is curvature flat earth has to recreate on a flat surface and flat earth has done that what the globe needs to do is take that four lights experiment and they need to recreate on a curved surface because i'm skeptical that refraction can make linear spaced lights have exponential refractive value that scales everything to look and appear exactly planar so i would need to see a curved surface appearing exactly linear um and then uh as far as um i can just uh adjust one last point and then we'll kick it back over to the globe side oh um i was just going to kind of get at some of those openings that uh market had provided but uh i guess i think i can leave it at that for for now okay well i'm i'm so glad that wits had brought up lake ponsetrain i would like to share my screen to show everybody this um if you could be so kind um okay so that's the lake ponsetrain power lines just a snapshot of them the funny thing is with this one they also did multiple different angles showing the curvature of the earth as well so whoops sorry wits it you've got a bit of a problem there buddy um here's also the lake ponsetrain bridge oh oh no whoops whoops wits it that's crazy the earth is changing sizes bro no that's not so it's not changing size perspective yeah it's oh so perspective makes you look more so you're you're actually excuse me wits it i'm talking right now buddy cheers mate um so you're actually referencing something that directly shows that you're a hundred percent wrong which is just just incredible i mean the bravery of this man is just it's incredible um so so the whole is this like a is this like a four minute each time i've a debate or i don't want to i mean i you didn't like me interrupting before i don't want to hear this guy like maybe a couple of points at a time interesting wits it they're making like my points at a time we're not we're gonna act hold on gentlemen gentlemen uh if you guys would like hold on mark for crying it okay so if you guys would like we can change into like fewer points but for now i want to give like a few points each for each side but let me know i mean is that your guys's preference because that's what they're doing change right they're taking a couple personal jabs at me to start their point and then they're saying five or six points and they're never addressing like the actual points made from us so nothing's happening that's also what i want to do is what we'll do is i think remind me who got us started on the open discussion i started the discussion okay so we'll do is we'll give a mark a chance to finish up a speech that he's on which is about two minutes then we'll give you roughly the same amount of time uh wits it and then we'll kick it into like a one minute interval thing does that make sense okay yeah i mean we can do whatever i just i'm just being i'm just being honest and realistic and i know that none of the point you're being addressed right now oh it's whatever hey james uh the thing is he's not being honest so that's the part let me get this there's the 15th at home you guys are crossing we're addressing we're we're no he's talking what are you talking about um we're addressing the points that you're making but somehow we're making too many points but we're not addressing them this is this is i can't even believe you said that wits it i've made no personal attacks whatsoever all of all everything i've said has been about your arguments not about you personally nothing is about you personally so i don't know where you're getting that from it must be sort of a victim complex or something i don't know what you're there's another adham well wits it is okay you're going to get a few of them you're going to get a few of them he literally said i don't see any adhams adhams no but maybe you're perceiving it that way he's he's pointing out actually you are dishonesty and that's just the way it is yeah so so the thing is nate you want to if you want to show how everybody's wrong in science about the way that your experiment is working there what you would do is you would present your experiment for scientists to do under controlled conditions you would basically write it up in a report and publish it take it to people and say hey this is what i found about your science that is wrong and there's nothing stopping you from doing that i actually i so i have been talking um this is separate uh for what i'm in school for uh currently right now is nutrition uh heart disease by the way leading cause of death in our country is uh reversible and preventable with plant-based eating i have an angiogram proof of that and so getting like to to write a paper i was talking to my biology professor and uh she actually said that you have to become degrade you have to then work in the field um become like a research scientist it's not anyone that can just pose a paper and then have it get peer reviewed because we have made long range observations in various conditions with various things using lasers using mirrors using sources of light uh we have we've made these observations in in several areas several locations um from different altitude different observer heights especially that one that's uh under a foot and um and then you take into account refraction and having in various degrees which sends the light in other directions and if i could actually to um to go with uh can i share my screen for a second um so with with the gyro here i think is everyone seeing this um like military video so this is this is the um this was the military using a mechanical gyro um i think from in the fifties they're talking about how over time over six hours the wrote the orientation of the axis of the gyro would shift because it's following the earth uh and so then this is a six hour um sped up video of the gyro which doesn't do what our own military is saying that would happen with with a precise gyro and so this is actually a mechanical gyro and i say mechanical because mechanical has to do with its own properties its own what it what the constituent parts are are subject to forces physical forces only something like a ring laser gyro uh the uh flat earth would explain that using ether light is is what is affected by the ether and so using lights um like this even albert einstein in that quote um where he talks about um that we can't detect the motion of the earth but we know the earth goes around the sun he is saying that you can't use anything optical nothing with light can show because the you're all that is detected is the the rotation of the ether the 15 degrees per hour uh flat earth would especially because in science you would have to if bob was wrong about that what he was where he was initially at he can then reform his hypothesis and say okay the ether can cause it and that's what science is about it's about refining you can be wrong in science science is wrong often okay is it possible for someone else to step in now spend way more than two minutes it's been a it's been a lot of time and i i'm i'm usually like an agitator but i yeah internet intervals so if you want to wrap up this point nathan maybe in about 30 seconds and then we'll jump into those one minute intervals that austin requested um yeah and then the last the last thing i was going to do with with this video here uh is actually this was someone who had gone in and with the motion of the earth and using physical or mechanical things this was a gyro that that didn't move over four hours so much so that um they actually the this uh science center uh actually ended up taking this display down um i i think i have it on here somewhere um but they ended up taking this down because it it didn't move when you take the the motor out and everything these things don't always and sometimes they can go in other directions but these are things that are are not showing motion so all right okay all right um so first of all you've you've shown examples demonstrations that are not experienced set yep so you've shown uh examples and demonstrations that it show that the way that those examples were used were faulty there's no way to verify the quality of how that experiment was done so they are rejected um you have nothing to to follow up with those are those are what you guys call the black swan your black swan exceptions to a rule an exception to a rule especially when it's not substantiated by an experiment does not bolster your claim in addition when you're being so skeptical you should validate your skepticism with these facts and you're not doing that you're simply declaring things you're saying oh hey uh we did this we did this we did this we did that and here's an example which is not an experiment this is demonstration so that's not even close like i acknowledge mark's quality when he presented what he presented something that you know is you can reproduce that you know he showed the earth in various perspectives and you guys are showing photographs of failed demonstrations not even experiments uh so i think that uh demonstrations or experiments if you set something up like a gyro and you're you're examining its properties rigidity and space procession of the axis that is an experiment that is that isn't that is that is an observation uh so it's it's an observation that now when you make an observation of something in the natural world you have to account that in your worldview and our own military says that the the mechanical gyro because of its properties will rotate and change its orientation its rigidity and space will change over time and that is not shown that was one example of a mechanical gyro but it's been shown many many times it gets harder and harder that's why a platform like this is actually wonderful for the the flat earth because it's very difficult to get this type of stuff out there but there are lots of gyros out there that don't move at all well what's interesting is of the david if i could if i could um what's interesting is that you're using an old gyro back from who knows when ages ago it's not a very accurate gyro if you're looking for accuracy you will use a ring laser gyroscope it is way more accurate than what you're displaying there so basically you're saying well i'm gonna take the least accurate thing i can and and ignore the most accurate thing i can which it's a 15 degree per hour drift on every single ring laser gyroscope throughout the world without exception like it will happen and i want to know from you and this is a really important question what is ether what are the properties of ether what experimentation did you do to show that ether is a element that exists and has some kind of effect on the world how do you know that an ether exists um so i do agree ring laser gyros very sensitive very accurate and they do really well detect the rotation of the ether of this medium though the ether is a medium it's the field that uh light is allowed to propagate through um or or to um to you know travel through however you want to say it to get to get the picture there the ether is now can i i i'm not gonna you know beat around the bush with it i cannot provide a a handful of ether to give you it's not something that currently we have the time or the technology to do um and this i i don't know fallacies that well but like i you know what is dark matter dark energy can i have a a piece of space time fabric there are there are things that that we um we use to explain but i think that the ether um people like tesla and heavy side and and these people were using um the the ideas of the ether the predictions you're allowed to make and and they set up our our electricity um our the the way that we have our um like our our field theory and everything uh is based off of of the ether so um nathan it's strange how your alternative explanations just so happen to follow a 24 hour rotation of something that is the equivalent of 24 000 miles in circumference your explanation of why gyros work or why the the stars move the way to do why all these things happen they all seem to align with something that would just so happen to be a 24 000 mile spherical surface with a 24 hour rotation what a what a strange coincidence it's like awesome razor but in reverse can i so actually a rotating globe would show motion to a ring laser gyro and a mechanical gyro a flat earth can account for a non-rotating mechanical gyro and a rotating ring laser gyro which is what we observe uh i don't think you want to address that no that's not you're you're you're making that up so no it was it's observed no huh it what we're gonna say to bane observe can i say something now can i say something now is that okay okay so we're gonna go back to the beginning you guys wanted to run away didn't on purpose mark pretended that he won the why are you changing the subject no i'm going back to the first subject which was what you ran away from you showed a picture of penetrate and pretend it proved me wrong it didn't 24 feet that's over that's almost 400 feet of curvature you have to account for we know that that's not the actual curvature rate or the earth would have to be like half the size you claim it is secondly there's a hundred mile 104 mile uh bridge in china right and it would have thousands like 7 000 feet of curvature so you're showing a picture and saying haha you're stupid and then sprinting away from letting me rebut it is not somehow you annihilating me okay it's just about it and i'm going to and i'm going to address what you just said i'm gonna address what you just said which is actually we have a side deal rotation that is measured with the stars that's where we get the 24 hour days actually 24 hours and 23 to hours and 56 minutes that's literally where we got the construct of time for you to pretend that somehow what a coincidence it matches that's where we got this ideal rotation the sky moves you claim it looks like it moves with the earth moves it translates centrifugal force if you understood the theory of relativity you would understand that it actually says that on a stationary earth it would translate centrifugal force to the earth which of course we don't believe in relativity anyway so there you go you just have a fundamental misunderstanding and in all of quantum physics knows there's now an ether so you guys just have to crawl back over here anyway so yeah so one minute makes anything yeah none of this makes anything this is just this is just word salad from um witsett he's basically appealing now to relativity which he doesn't believe in um there's no 400 mile bridge in china which i said a hundred miles i thought you said a 400 you might want to slow down your rate of speed witsett you're talking too fast yeah so all of that is just oh so it's hand-waving so we provide photos we provide sort of demonstrations wow you just got crushed um witsett could you just stop like stroking your ego for two hand wave dismissed everyone hold on all right so we showed the pictures we showed all of the evidence we were basically talking about ether in a sort of you know rush out stage left witsett goes back to oh well actually my bridge thing even though it shows that he's wrong in plain you know sort of straight in front of your eyes he wants to go back to that and say well no actually don't believe your eyes actually all of this word salad for some reason it doesn't apply no it does apply there's there's nothing that witsett has said here that has any validation but i would like to go back to ether because we were discussing that and what proof would you have for this magical ether witsett what experiments have you done what what studies show that this stuff actually exists if you can't show it to me if you can't demonstrate it if you can't present anything about it why should anybody believe that this magical substance actually exists won't you apply the same criticism to your own belief system about your relativity but again actually if we just look at our eyes we just take our eyes and believe our eyes the earth will be flat right the horizon's horizontal and we see the stars move oh all of a sudden we do believe our eyes we look at lake pontetrain which changes curvature rate admittedly if that was the actual curvature rate it would make the earth way smaller you ignored that point secondly when they actually did the engineering blueprints for lake pontetrain they use plain survey data thanks for playing same thing in china plain survey data that seven thousand feet horizontal level and small increments that they would have to account for they didn't account for they built all the bridges like it was a plane you're throwing away the engineering and the physical building and the physical level level not accounting for curvature means horizontal you ignore that point and you said word salad i bet you couldn't even define word salad word salad something like wall seven chicken yesterday literally incoherent words that make no sense nothing i said was word salad and fifthly there's unified field theories being proposed to explain the unification of the forces theory of everything the grand unified theory all explaining a background medium which is required because we have the chasmier effect right which we have non-conductive plates that show energy fluctuations within a vacuum we have vacuum energy zero point energy quantum foam quantum energy all these different different claims they give to the fact that we know there's something outside of the vacuum in the vacuum is not just newtonian emptiness and this is well known i can cite many Nobel prize winning physicists within the top levels of quantum mechanics there is a hundred percent a background me yeah uh frank wilk is that two thousand and they said that there must be no you can recite the father head of quantum mechanics you can make your own the father of quantum mechanics called the rock said that i gotta get you to wrap up this point uh with it and then we'll kick it back over there the father of quantum mechanics paul derach said we are rather forced to have an ether because the velocity must have a be of a real physical thing frank wilk as ex said that we're entering a new golden age of physics there must in fact be an encompassing substance of everything that holds it together also known as an ether and i could go on and on and on robber high wrapping up whatever go ahead so you would i have to do this because this is how that now we're now we're maximizing softening that's why so i have to like speed through a minute still right i think you get that's what you get it's gone is he yeah okay so look so um what's it well actually both of you so you just did it again you're you're you're reciting you're doing what's called gish galloping and you're ready to speed of speech it's like a substitute for content for the quality of your content so we're back to a contradiction you said on one hand hey trust your senses but then on the other hand don't trust your senses and so one thing that you do would sit that is quite uh it used to be annoying but now i'm entertained i i look at my little imaginary watch here and wait to see when you do it it's your arbitrary you bring up points that have arbitrary relevance they're not directly related or they may be directly related but you think that like talking about relativity is going to determine how this argument turns out and the fact of the matter is it doesn't the poncho train bridge and also to you nathan the poncho train bridge may show some distortion on that rate of curvature but you got to keep in mind you're zooming in to see that bridge over a millimeter a millimeter of viewable angle on the horizon where there is so much distortion and you guys are trying to explain that you know all of this uh refraction the refractive indices on the horizon is somehow explainable on the earth and here's something you overlook nate when you have a refractive index that's caused by those temperature variations you would have a concave result on a flat plane that flat plane would appear to be concave as you're looking like a ball it would be it would be in every direction you zoom in you're seeing that land rise up and you've never no no no no you you have never demonstrated that and you can't demonstrate it because it doesn't happen and you know why it doesn't happen because the earth is curved um so with that poncho train bridge in in the images that were shown you can see that there is is some um like that the bridge is essentially it looks like it's floating and i don't think that bridge is actually floating so there are some optical things going on uh but we have shown uh on a flat surface we've shown things that that caused this type of of miraging uh i think it's called phantom organa or there are there are a few different types of optical things that we can see um over over water um but the flat earth has been able to recreate these using isolated variables not at the like temperature uh and i'm finished David yes so with um with uh what what i what i and what i had asked for uh with the with the um with the four lights experiment i would like to see a curved surface uh that appears to yield results that are exactly flat you mentioned a ball but if the earth is curved uh and we see exactly flat i want to see a curved surface appear exactly flat isolating a variable of refraction uh that is is to scale because linear space lights that are uh going over exponential curve seems like it would be pretty difficult for light to get that exactly flat and we we never see a ball shape it's it's always there's either a bottom up disappearance uh which has been shown on a flat surface uh there is also um or or it just appears flat which is uh nature would really be trying to do something by by make by just appearing flat any other time that it's not bottom up this appearance which is shown on a flat surface um and then uh as as far as as the ether um i it's it's it's a background um and and we don't it could just you could call it a frontier um but it is kind of similar to to spacetime fabric um which is like a four dimensional three dimensional they we can't even be shown four dimensional object we only get three dimensional recreations um but uh so i i mean i wrap it up that's uh kind of what i could i'll say for that and then um i would be happy to um mark if you'd like go over some of the things that you had talked about in your opener um whenever but uh just wherever wherever y'all yeah yeah go ahead i'd love to go over this one i'd like i'd like to address i want to let him yeah yeah i'd just like to address wits at skisgallup for a moment because i i did note all this down you're sort of saying that theory of relativity we've never done experiments of course we have we've done atomic clocks there's been testable predictions like venus and things like that uh sorry the procession mercury and things like that there has been testable predictions made there has been experiments done um so you're basically saying well you feel theory and going into quantum physics no quantum physicist is saying that because of quantum foam the earth is flat that is not what they say and they don't call it aether and they don't say the effect of quantum foam is somehow making all of these things that make it seem like the earth is a globe for some reason be flat so you are just misrepresenting people as usual um basically saying this one this this physicist has said there's quantum foam therefore earth flat aether exists that is not what they're saying in the slightest and you know it wits it that is absolutely reprehensible um the whole idea of um the golden uh uh age of physics you know there's going to be this new thing that we're suddenly going to find aether no no no nobody is saying that there's an aether which makes it look like the earth curves when when when it's it's quite all of a sudden nobody is saying that and to say so is a gross misrepresentation of people's work because you toss out all these names but they don't believe the earth is flat they think it's round the quantum foam doesn't cause this and i really would like you to address instead of just hand waving um circumpolar stars away to actually address what i've been saying rather than just sort of hand waving it away and saying we don't understand how it works we're actually going to address them before you straw man fallacy we're gonna i'm going to draw this straw man fallacy so i never said that because there's a quantum foam it means the earth is flat what a remedial straw man fallacy so you said you wanted evidence for the aether clinging on to a desperate attempt to get away from the fact that we engineer using horizontal survey and so i explained to you yeah there's tons of evidence that there's an aether tons of evidence i began to go into detail about the evidence for the aether you then grossly misrepresented and straw manned it as if i said these people think the earth's flat which is an all or nothing fallacy you don't have to believe everything that someone says or you can't invoke them that's also remedial you straw man me to claim that the aether somehow means that the earth is flat straw man fallacy nothing to do with that and it's a it's an equivocation fallacy it's a non sequitur it's a red herring fallacy everything you do is a fallacy and then we're going to go back to you just claimed relativity works perfectly which is hilarious you actually brought up the procession of mercury which is actually called perihelion it has a perihelion shift which is referred to in astronomy as the mercury anomaly so newtonian was off by 43 degrees einsteinian didn't work they had to use something called the schwarz child equation which assumes a massless path and actually utilizes imaginary numbers for equation seven and eight both in the same base so it has to assume a massless path even to get the math work and it still doesn't work it's still called mercury's anomaly and then it's actually been proposed many different like the curl metric etc saying oh it must be the sun's actually a black hole but it must be spinning faster than it really is and it has to be more charred and it really is to explain the mercury anomaly the fact you brought up the procession so you just read google actually it's known that general relativity doesn't explain the procession general relativity is just an idea it doesn't work on the quantum scale at all and whatever the true explanation is has to work on all scales because the quantum scale makes up all the big scales so please stop straw manning me and ad homing me and that would be great if you guys could just calm down with actually i started to predict it so you don't know anything einstein predicted it was observed 60 years before it was predicted not it was predicted you're wrong it was observed 60 years wrong you are a hundred percent wrong he predicted it it was observed 60 you're wrong i'm sorry when what you want to bet on it when was the when was the uh when was the we're not talking about the shape of the observe i was the period it's gone from the shape of the earth he's off on a tangent he's off somewhere in the bush saying you know sorry give me some no no we don't get some evidence i do want to kick it over we'll give it one minute for mark and we'll come back okay so notice he didn't actually touch the um the the stars with with a 10 foot barge pole he just didn't didn't go there didn't want to go there just wants to bring up something incidental and einstein did predict the you know possession of mercury but you know with it just wants to you know go anywhere but the earth he's off into the rest of the universe so you know and i mean he doesn't even believe that mercury is there anyway like let's face it he you know he's deep in the bible just believing that the bible is just you know it's just the earth and it's just right james is this one here all personal insult so what that's not a person is is your is your worldview i don't have to be here right like how about you pretend to be able to be the bible was brought up with it it was brought up as a point so don't go there because it was brought up as a point by nathan so let the audience decide they know you're doing nothing but attacking me mark i will um all with it um i do think that um the uh uh with the with the stars uh so you do have star trails uh asin was talking about the ether because that was something that you would ask but going to the stars for sure you're open i think is more leaving the earth than talking about the the shape of the earth or the motion of the ground or the shape of the ground or water um there actually was though as far as land goes someone did i think it was like 30 some kilometers uh 26 miles over land uh in canada and they could see the source of the laser which would be even less refraction because it's not over water um you can check uh i think taboo conspiracy has uh has it on his channel um and i i i think i have the the guys channel as well um which i i can share but as far as the star trails go so uh one of the big differences that i think people should really um think through is uh the flat earth does not claim to know the stars now the um if you uh if you burp on an exoplanet uh the globe is going to say we can we can detect what the gases are uh or that that are in the atmosphere and so you can tell what is going on in on another planet so there's a lot of extra claim to knowledge in a global but as far as how the stars go we we can't really we we don't have a model quite per se for the stars but if you do uh like if you were standing in a tunnel and you were in the middle with uh in between two ends and you're standing here if you look towards one end and you take like a laser pointer you can spin it right above you and go east to west and get um get straight lines like you had shown and then as you follow those lines the the tunnel is going to start to focus in so you're going to get narrower and narrower as you go towards one entrance or towards the other um and and you can always keep that east to west um i i'll be able to demonstrate it um mark can i jump in another time uh i just i i haven't gone to a tunnel tech to to do this but visually i i i know what it'll it'll show so nate can i it's been it's been a couple minutes okay so here's the thing i spoke about the con cavity the the uh the bowl the bowl effect so here's the thing i want you to think about this logically the earth is flat as far as you're concerned and a laser can be pointed from one part of the earth to the other right that will be a demonstration of a flat earth with no refraction no refractive index way out yonder because the laser would be doing what it should be doing over a flat earth right earth doesn't have no refraction though i'm i'm not saying that the earth has refraction talking about the air above the earth there's no refractive index that the refraction is caused by a fluid air is a fly i'll buy right air any transparent any oh i'm sorry also anything that's the solid and transparent that's right but in this discussion we're speaking of fluids like air and maybe water but the point is gas right but it's still a fluid the gas is also known as a fluid so in any event you're looking at something without a refractive index that will show you that laser from one part of the earth to the other can i ask some just for clarification you're you're i just want to know i'm following along with your example here so you're saying if you shine a laser on an earth i just want to clarify so you're saying if you shine a laser where there's no refraction you can see it far away on a flatter i'm i'm trying to verify with you that that would be the case on a flat earth you're on you're on a flatter and and you're pointing a laser along this flat plane of existence from the source to the observer and you say and you see it you see it 26 miles away a demonstration for you that the earth is indeed flat right yes okay now watch this there's uh it's not a vacuum just i i i don't care if there's a vacuum it doesn't matter you you can see the laser you're making you are making your own yes argument i'm just affirming your argument so there's a problem here what happens when you don't see those lasers of you know from those instances what would you explain that to be caused by a refractive effect of some sort yes uh yeah it would be it would be an atmosphere effect refraction right let's do use refraction but the the flat earth can recreate both sides of it it's not seeing and seeing i'm that's why i would like to see the the full lights can grow to one yeah you're kind of distracting we're distracting what i'm saying and i know my time is limited so no please please please explain because i want to make some problem i'm trying you've already followed two of the points here so the third should be easy if the laser is able to be seen on the flat earth along a great distance because of no refraction and the laser cannot be seen along that distance because there is refraction then you should see that bowl effect that i told you about when there is no laser oh oh just thank you let that marinate let that marinate why would there be a bowl refraction well if there's a greater refractive index the light from the source will be bent down and it won't reach the observer all of the light would be bent down not just the laser that means if i don't see the laser that means that the the background in front of me is also affected the light from the grass from the dirt from little hills nearby that's also going to be bent up because that light is being bent is is is curving downward so things that were down are also being bent up that's where you would have that bowl effect on a flat earth you would have that bowl effect but you don't have exactly flat when there's no refraction not exactly flat what's that did you just say it's not exactly flat no when when the earth is is flat when there's when there's not as much refraction you see the earth is as its true shape which is is planar but then when there is an increased amount of refraction that would cause light to bend down further because the the more refraction the more light is bent down that light that is originally coming from it the flat source over here is going to be bent down before it reaches this person when there's minimum refraction light is able to travel all the way across to propagate all the way across and reach the observer so that you can actually see the source right but you're but you're not understanding how how the dynamics of that work you're only thinking about the laser so the laser has a height the things below the laser has a height the thing above the laser has a height your line of sight is essentially it's almost like from the source everything is tilted like this so things that are below i'm gonna write it's called looming i think i think it's called looming there's looming and sinking so you're speaking of what's called sinking but the sinking effect isn't that everything sinks down it's that the is that the angle is angle of refraction the angle that the light sources occur are are are disordered they're they're they're they're all bending from from here downward so you have stuff that's oriented lower that's shifting and towards your line of sight it's not that everything goes down see it you don't understand it now and i'm trying to explain it to you and i'm in a matter of fact down the earth way instead of talking about sign you know sign of the the the change of sign to cosine over this distance and all the other stuff because it'll just sound like nonsense to you what i'm trying to know i i know what you're saying but it's it's right both both models will use refraction saying one one model will claim there's more refraction causing an observation but then normal conditions are when there's less and then the other one that's how about more less refraction that's the special condition versus more refraction which is normal condition then you're having a different conversation i'm speaking about the angle of the refraction you need to have a refraction that causes looming or refraction that causes sinking and in all of your arguments you're only spinky you're only able to speak about the sinking from the point of view of an observer not from the sense of everything from the from the from the source if you're going to have some sinking for instance you'll have boats floating in midair right that's over the water right but in some instances you'll have mountains and buildings that are higher all the way to the to the surface you know but because you're looking only at water see water has this effect of doing this mirroring effect and it literally looks like it's cutting off and that's where the floating is but the boat isn't the only thing that exists out yonder it's just that it's the only thing that you can see past a certain distance so if you take objects that are you know close to a mountain close to a city close to something then you should see the looming and sinking you're only speaking of one because you know that on the flat earth you can't explain the other well i do agree that that is is we do see sometimes just boats but we have also made observations where uh people will go to the other side of a large body of water and on the other side you can see the beach you can see the light source itself you can see the buildings you can see everything it's not just one but it's not consistent with your with your demonstration that's what i'm trying to get across though that would be the case if you don't see the laser you won't see it if you do see the laser you see what i'm saying or vice versa there it's not going to be that you see the laser and you and you see the effect on a flat earth that's the problem now the the dynamics of it gets so confusing because i'm trying to explain something from a perspective of someone of something that is at sir and i'm trying to make it sound consistent all i need to explain to you is that you got to have an explanation for one and the other and temperature creates um the gases expand so what ends it up happening is that the density of the gas is um decrease and that is what allows the refraction to occur so every morning you know you get you know hot air rising as as as the uh you know the lake you know and the fog and all the other stuff goes up goes on now i'm not saying that i know it all like from memory too well and i'm sure witsi would come in and make some corrections which is fine witsi you can correct me when i make mistakes but nate you can't explain what we're seeing we see the poncha train bridge it's always curving in the few times that it doesn't matches refractive index which allows ballooning to occur that means your laser would not be seen so do you sorry go ahead nice and sorry might go good um do you uh agree that so if uh say on a on a flat surface if we're if we're going to uh assume that the earth is that the ground is flat for this assumption that we're trying to make if you have two lights or if you have a light source and the observer on a flat earth if you have refraction uh that bends light down from this light source light is going to get bent down and you're not going to see it so that would be what a what a globe would say that's hidden behind the curvature no the explanation on a flat earth would be the the bent that that the light is being bent down so that is why we appear to not see it when there isn't enough refraction to bend the light down and we see the laser the flat earth because both models have to explain you have to if we observe something you have to have an explanation that doesn't contradict other explanations so the the flat earth explanation for this observation of the of seeing a light 26 miles away over overland by a railroad uh if we when we see it it's because it's traveling straight when we if we don't see it it's going to be because refraction is such given the conditions of the day that it bends down and prevents us from seeing it so well actually i'd like to just a second david david just give us a sec i'd like to add height into the equation as well because one a globe when you go up you actually see a lot further which doesn't make sense on a flat earth because there should be nothing obstructing that laser on a flat earth it should be perfectly across however we know that when you gain in height and i think a guy called jaren is improved it you know i mean flat earth has got a fine history of disproving the flat earth you know um when when he increased in height you could see the light he was shining kind of thing so we know that that if if it was just a flat straight plane like your desk right it was just absolutely perfectly flat we should be able to see that laser regardless but if you go up because because it's a right angle triangle the hypotenuse is going to be longer than the distance along the bottom right it's a longer distance if you increase the verticality but yet it comes into view rather than um being obscured being obscured so so the the thing is if what you're saying is true and it's being refracted down there's no reason on a flat plane why increasing the height should allow you to see it better because it's still being refracted down on a flat earth on both models make the claim that an increase in elevation is going to increase the amount of ground that you see and sky say because because you have you have a vanishing point where if you if you are looking straight you're gonna your ground say you look straight ahead and then you just took a picture and you you looked at that 2d picture the ground is going to appear to go towards the middle and the sky is going to appear to go towards the middle as well they're they're going to converge and so if you go up you're going to now push that vanishing line back you're going to get a little bit more ground information and already interrupt Nathan we're not talking about the ground we're talking about a laser right yes and that's linear not not exponential of the curve you literally said that when you go higher you can see further that's what you mean what i was addressing there yeah i know but mark said see further and then you explain why and then he said no we're not talking about it's like basically basically these the base need to be two globers versus one flat earth like i wasn't even here i guarantee you nathan just been schooling both of you the whole time it's your fault if you weren't here with it don't understand that you would see further as you go higher on a flat earth that's pretty bad and well that's i just like and like with david why i was asking you like i just want to clarify with you because i think what people really need to be it we're i think i assume we're all trying to be open minded and so i just as and for people watching you are but okay being um as as thorough as possible we just want to make sure we're getting our points understood we want both sides because we want to we all want to be reporting on correct information and what accurate claims are right okay we just want to make sure we're following along and trying to make sure things are as clear and understood as possible we all want uh why don't we go ahead and skip all that yeah so look look i'm gonna now it's your turn to monologue again about stuff you don't understand thank you thanks what's it so look i'm trying to say to you nate that the the thing is and and like i said because i'm trying to see it from your perspective i am being open minded but i still have a problem with understanding how you look at refractive indexes and if i have it reversed i still have a valid argument because it's got to happen either one way or the other either it happens with the refractive index causing the light to bend down and you see concavity or it happens when the light is bent up and you see concavity one way or another you got to have a lot of examples of concavity on your flat earth model when there is or when there is not a refractive index occurring you can't explain it you're trying to hold on the one side and i explain that right there what's happening on the other side and you're not able to explain that and then what's it comes in and helps you well okay which what's it do awesome do you mind if i take this so when there is refraction bends light down and so when there is not enough refraction in the air we make the flat earth confirming observation uh i shouldn't say confirming but for for my own purposes is we see we see what would bear uh validate a flat earth when there is not enough refraction to bend it down when we don't see it and it appears low below the horizon it's being bent down i'm not sure refractive indices can cause light to bend down and up okay so either you explain it for both or you don't have a good argument as a flat earth this is on a flat plane i'm not showing you a curved earth so when does when does this happen when does this happen oops sorry when does this happen right because you can spend an all our time talking about this when does that happen won't you tell us since you guys claim it's density no i'm not a flat earth or i refuse to tell you because that's not it doesn't work but you don't understand anything other than how to regurgitate anti flat earth scripts then then debunk me explain okay okay yeah yeah light light does all kinds of things in the atmosphere and it's not just based on density layers and that's what you guys claim is that it bends towards the more dense medium the fact you just drew a piece of paper with arrows going up debunks your terrestrial refraction claim that you don't understand so if i talk for 15 seconds you have to interrupt yeah so like that's the truth this is why like you guys are honestly you should not be communicated with well don't don't you don't have good faith so we'll just like an interrupts like keep going with it no you got it Nathan anything talking so you had given the example about the mountain right that it appeared a little bit higher so that that could be refraction being upwards you also have perspective as well an apparent size and distance factoring in but if you if you see something in the distance higher up that is that is an upward respect you keep misunderstanding my argument i try to explain it i'm saying the consistency of when it happens has to be consistent with when you see or don't see the laser that's the problem you of course we have instances where you see the mountains looming and sinking i get that but your your concept of the sinking and looming is not consistent with when you see or don't see the laser and that would be an experiment you guys the laser is seen or down that doesn't sound like a coherent response it's seen down what does that even mean bro so if you have if you see the laser source uh that you're going to see it that is the the conditions of the atmosphere are so that you it reaches your eye and if if you can't see it because you have to say you're so far back that you can't see it but then you move closer that that means that it was being bent down you see if you move closer now you're going to be able to see it so that's an example this laser example is light when you not see it you see it when you think that the refractive index is so hard that it's causing the laser should not be seen right certain conditions you won't be able to see you can see like uh at a lake with tides or uh at a lake you can see it at a bay with tides you can see sometimes like you can see the other side of the bay and then when there are tides different from fraction changes messed up because because for you from your flat earth perspective this happens all the time this would happen all the time they no it's it's not it's like 99.8 percent of the time it happens atmosphere i mean weather changes daily and so the amount of water vapor in the air will change it doesn't follow the it doesn't follow the pattern of the weather changes you would say then it should follow those weather patterns and it doesn't it doesn't not work better because you don't see the laser over those distances basically so as the weather really do you have the math and the data to show that you were terrestrial refraction with the conditions actually matches the other dude james what the seven seconds in dude i think it's true david you interrupt an awful lot he's cheering about it you promised like a apologize shut up for a second even while i'm talking you interrupt so just to be fair to austin you did you did promise david you told me that i could tell austin that you wouldn't interrupt so i do want to keep it is pretty lively tonight and i like i said i like it when you guys have passion but at the same time anything can be too much so go ahead austin okay so if they're claiming terrestrial refraction which is seven over six are which is the radius value which is an agreed upon average of 15 percent that's because we see it too far 15 percent of the time it's an average it's actually 15 percent further not 15 percent of the time on average it's 15 percent too far so it's just a number and then we try to account for the variables so you guys never provide the actual data to show oh we saw the laser on this day based on these conditions and that's why we didn't see the laser on that day based on those conditions you never do that nathan is specifically presenting to you warmer conditions colder conditions closer temperature differentials between the surface and the body of water or the ice and closer temperature differentials and you guys are just hand wave dismissing it and then repeating the script over and over he's showing you that we see the lasers too far in all the conditions and relative to your terrestrial fraction claim that doesn't work he did not there's been many experiments showed a demonstration yep there's been many experiments that have shown refraction over water with it and the refractive index that is applied to them it's not like scientists have just been twiddling their thumbs not doing these experiments of course they've been doing these experiments and they produce papers on them you know who doesn't produce papers flat earthers that's who doesn't use papers and and and just stop interrupting with it true come on right you just complained about being interrupted and then you interrupt me which is you've been talking for 90 percent of the debate let's kick it over to mark and what's to the door the door swings both ways so i i do let's go ahead mark and then we'll kick it back over to are you serious okay so so um so so witzett's whole thing is like what he basically said before was like does all kinds of things now this is the kind of accuracy we expect out of the flat earth side he's not going to mention what kinds of things he did they do he's not going to actually show that they do these things like any kind of scientific experimentation or anything like that no he's just going to say like does all kinds of things so that basically excuses any anomalous data that we see of course scientists are doing experiments they produce papers look them up witzett it's not that hard if you want to challenge them and great go for it if you want to challenge them produce your own papers you sound like a knowledgeable lad you can write a paper and do some experimentation on the refraction of light over uh lakes and and basically hand it off to one of the the physicists that you always boast about talking to to have them review it and see if it's got any merit but you won't and you don't and i think that's sort of blatantly obvious for everybody okay so i'm going to respond now so everything he said was gas lighting that's all he has is sophistry let me define sophistry for the room here is the use of fallacious arguments with the intention of deceiving that's all that he has for example you know who doesn't do experiments in right papers flat earthers poisoning the well he said that i just said light does all kinds of things straw man fallacy if you think that fallacies don't matter in debate you don't know what debate is that invalidates your argument that's why we have logical fallacies i actually talked to thomas young we emailed not me personally but a flat earther email thomas young which is the subject matter expert for terrestrial refraction from san diego state and we specifically talked to him about these specific things and he said exactly what i just said that you hand wave dismissed hand wave dismissals also a fallacy mark everything that you said is a fallacy your ad-homs your red herrings your poisoning the well fallacies that's all you got so let me repeat the point see if you can specifically rebut it for once okay if you want to show the actual data that robots nathan's claim which is that in all the conditions we see the laser too far you claim that it's based on humidity temperature differential and density layers which i'm sure you don't even know right and that's how you get terrestrial refraction you get an average of seven over six r which is 15 percent too far so if you want to explain why despite that are different temperature different temperature conditions and humidity conditions we still see the laser way too far and you would be rebutting his actual point he made all the way back in the opener not just vaguely claiming science saying flat earthers do nothing and gaslighting the opponent the whole time well i'd like to address that because a lot of claims are put against me right there a lot of you know empty hollow assertions about sort of straw man which i didn't do i read out exactly what you said i wrote it down um like does all kinds of things was exactly what you said that that was word for word so it's not a strong man of your position at all Thomas young being a sort of person involved in optics i'm not sure which one you're talking about but if they support that refractive index doesn't support a globe model that's fine but i think you're just name dropping and sort of saying hey this guy agrees with me when they don't at all which you're famous you're actually famous for doing i'm sorry which that's just the case um so no there there's no fallacies being made here it's just pointing out mistakes and and incorrect positions and fallacies that you're making so this is what's called an appeal to authority you're you're basically saying somebody's name and saying well they they agree with me and suggesting they agree with you which they don't and none of them do and and you know what okay so once again you just gaslight it again that's all you're doing is why are you interrupting so you're personally insulting with ad-homs please keep that to yourself about what i'm famous for doing and all this nonsense you brought up all the experts you appealed to them and said why don't you go talk to them i rebutted that by saying we actually did go talk to the specific subject filled expert who came up with the current terrestrial fraction calculation from san diego say i did not say because he says this this must be true that's what appeal to authority is nor did i say that he agreed with me that's a straw man fallacy and you poison the well for flatterers again and ad hum and straw man me everything that you're doing is fallacious and if you think that fallacies don't matter they do so do i have to keep repeating it again maybe nathan can just pick it up because i it just it's honestly such bad faith it doesn't make any sense to continue going on nathan said that despite the conditions if we have colder temperatures warmer temperatures right if you don't have certain temperature differentials we still see the laser too far in reality in lab settings when we test refractive indexes we see that it does different things in different conditions when we go down into the world in all those conditions we see the laser too far which directly refute your terrestrial refraction claim what you just say the word out loud and hand wave dismiss the observations and you rebut the point specifically without misrepresenting what i just said and constantly personally attacking me thank you okay can you point to the paper that supports your position from who what was his name thomas young of san diego state is what you said no no witsa san diego state um could you please provide a link to this authority that you seem to be drawing on because what i referenced was scientific consensus which isn't an appeal to authority it's actually a misapplication of a fallacy by saying that's an appeal to authority so again you don't know how fallacies work you've got no idea how they apply basically appealing to the process of science being the most accurate way we have of evaluating the world is not an appeal to authority but you know you don't seem to understand how fallacies apply like when you say something that's not a straw man it's just taking what you've said and you get to clarify that that's fine you know this whole idea that everybody everybody's always making fallacies about you maybe you should look up the fallacy fallacy and find out what that is but notice how witsa has yet deflected straight into this meta argument this this silly um back and forth oh you're you're just picking on me kind of thing um you know he just wants to derail the the argument i'd love if you actually actually answer some of our questions and like maybe maybe showed how um on flat earth how the circumpolar stars work the very first question i have because you still haven't addressed that you still haven't done anything all you've done is hand wave and go no it works on flat earth bye okay maybe you should actually go back and watch the debate and you'll see that the first thing i did was address the solar or the southern star trust the first thing i did in the debate mark okay secondly to correct you for the second consecutive time i didn't appeal to the authority of anyone ill to authority is saying this authority says this it must be true what i did was respond to your claim that no one that is the authority agrees and they study it all the time i said we talked to those people this is what they said about your claim this is what they said about your claim because i have to correct your claim because you're ignorant of your claim okay so and and and to and to your your being impulsive because i'm exposing you so the reason that you said the reason that it was a lie and it was a straw man when you said i said late light just does all kinds of things it's because you left out the context which is what i said yeah light does all kinds of things relative to conditions and nathan's showing that despite the conditions if you take your refraction claim and compare it to the conditions we still see the laser and all those conditions left all the context out and said all you're saying light does a bunch of crazy things that's all you're saying that's a straw man fallacy what i said was relative to conditions when we take your claim of refraction relative to those conditions and we go observe the conditions and the lasers we see them when we shouldn't relative to your refraction claim that invokes certain conditions if you can respond specifically that'd be great you cannot so i'll just probably hand it over to nathan after this because you will not respond specifically to what i just said that's three times in a row it's why is it where's the time mark no it's definitely you're no no no no no no no there's no way you came in and you basically hand-waved um the the circumpolar stars saying oh you just misunderstand how it works did not explain anything did not explain how it works on on a flat earth does not explain why when you look south from australia africa south america you see the same circumpolar stars with no lateral movement to move them around to south of another continent you didn't explain that you just hand-waved and said oh they just misunderstand then explain it you didn't address it at all and this whole idea oh i didn't i didn't use an appeal to authority to anyone you've been sitting here saying oh i talked to thomas young and thomas young said that i'm right does thomas young think that the earth is flat i will bet you they don't and none of the people that you bring up think the earth is flat none of them and you're just name dropping to try and use this appeal to authority to say hey i talked to this person and they said this who's this person where do they go uh for some reason it's uh san diego state but you won't give us any kind of link to see who they are you won't give us any kind of link to any paper they've said that backs you up all you're doing is just basically saying hey they agree with me flat earth flat earth no it's it's it's the most worst grotesque appeal to authority i've ever seen and quite frankly i'm sick of you using your fallacies incorrectly so when you have actually something to talk about instead of just saying hey you misunderstand how these things work the whole point is you said light does some things in change of conditions but you won't explain what conditions causes which which parts of the light to bend and not bend you won't do that all you do is say oh well light does some things and that's it and that's not a straw man that's what you actually said okay nathan let me respond one more time one more time no no no man you no yeah david david i walked away for 12 minutes but no you had all right that's not anybody's mark mark i'm gonna respond one second one second all right all right gentlemen one second one second what i'm gonna do is get over to nathan we've been going back and chance to respond and then we'll kick it back over to let's see who haven't we heard for a while are you waiting for this there's just gonna go on a monologue like insulting me and i like wait oh wait i was i was handing over to him so hold on shut up for you both of you is that this is i was supposed to hand it over to nathan why why are you upset with me nathan or uh witsett did you not just hear everything he said so it's like the reason that i have to keep responding is because it's blatant lies and misrepresentation so that have to be corrected so basically the way the debate is is they want to end it with the misrepresentation and then it's just subjects okay whatever whatever dude whatever bro i don't even care this is the first time i've ever and now people acting like i'm like acting like a baby because i actually have logic and know how to debate we give me a second so i can chew out david david you're like this is the first time i've ever been tempted to boot someone because i'm just like for crying out loud like while i'm talking you purposely unmute yourself to try to speak over me to to get it like a quip at witsett like like you're a grown adult you have to exercise some self-control a self-regulation like how do you not get like speeding tickets every eight seconds if you can't just keep yourself on mute and not interrupt even while i'm talking i just can't fathom like i'm the only one here the agent of order the only one that's trying to keep this so that it's not going fully off the rails and you still even me you interrupt okay so i want to give nathan a chance to respond is witsett we'll come back to you so we can even come back on this very same topic but the reason i'm deferring to nathan is because all three of you david mark and austin we're all wanting time and i do want to give uh nathan a chance because we haven't heard from him for a bit so then well like i said we can go over to mark and david and then we can go over to you austin but i do want to just get a chance from nathan for a quick rebuttal go ahead nathan uh so i uh as far as like with with science appealing to authority is something that we we can't really do or it say you did appeal to an authority you can always check them if they have a hypothesis you can set up an experiment to you know confirm or or falsify what the hypothesis is i also think it's the same with consensus uh in science you uh used to have a bunch of doctors who thought that dipping their gloves in uh in a pool of water would help clean their gloves and this caused a lot of loss of life unfortunately uh until forance nightingale uh came along and she proposed that you wash your hands with running water uh for for better hygiene and this actually ended up saving a lot of life so consensus can be wrong a fully authority but the the one thing about science we can always check these things we can always uh confirm or or disprove or try to isolate variables um and i do think austin did say some things about the star trails i think even in some star programs people have put in an atmosphere over a like a flat surface with a single rotating sky and um and then they they put in the atmosphere and it does create this this sort of effect that we see um personally i don't claim to know anything about how the sky works it could be you know hyper dimensional there could be portals i you know who that it's it's a frontier we can't get there we can't uh i can't build a ladder to the sky and start measuring it um but the ground we can empirically determine um just like with the um the mechanical gyro the the military even had said that the gyro should move and uh i can ensure a bit to ramp up yeah uh okay um so it just it shows that there's no motion and i really would like to see uh if anyone in the in the globe community uh if you can take that four light experiment grow to one g ro uta on e uh if you can take his experiment on this light it's it's four lights six inches observer height five six seven eight miles if you can scale that one foot highlights scale that uh on a curved surface and get the results to show a flat earth because flat earth does explain bottom up disappearance and things on a flat surface isolating variables so just please show your claim your isolated variable claim to show the results we observe in nature thank you we'll kick it over to david or mark let me go ahead yeah i sorry go ahead mark no i'm gonna share my screen and we're gonna address the silliness about the laser and then i want to go back to um an argument that was never addressed so just a moment see if we can get the sharing to work um just a moment sorry it's very slow all of a sudden usually it's the um i'll try to explain it as i'm um i'm sorry who's speaking oh and that's another thing moderators sometimes i don't hear you it's like when i jumped in i jumped in while what's it was talking and maybe there was a delay and it seemed like i was trying to cut you off but i wasn't trying to oh yeah that actually to be fair that actually does happen something happens to me all and in particular there have been there was a guy named kevin once who's on and he i thought he was interrupting me constantly and it was just because his his zoom was like on a delay but so i i do believe that that does happen sometimes but in terms of finding the share button there's uh usually it's green so if you wave your cursor at the top or the bottom of the middle of the screen it'll it'll just have that kind of upward arrow on the little box mm-hmm depending on i'm clicking it when when when i when i see that there's no speaking or when i when i see that wits it is monologuing because here's the other thing when i look at the amount of back and forth that goes it's like there's two or three back and forth between wits it and whomever and he's going over the same so then i jump in it's not like no problem water under the bridge seriously i've talked less than five percent of the total time talked by those i've had way more i've had way more uh and takenistic interchanges with gas before it's totally cool no no hard feelings but in terms of your uh screen sharing if you do want to share i just want to see are you able to see that button no i can only share as a whiteboard i can't share my actual like screen which is unusual here are you using the browser or is it the zoom app i'm using the zoom app okay then it definitely i'm just yeah that's never as soon as before it's not to the left of the whiteboard on the top row there's nothing there it's just whiteboard under basic and under advanced it's computer audio and content from second camera there's usually supposed to be a port oh wait portion of screen okay there you go this works now so are you seeing my whole screen or just the portion okay now it is delayed so it is great we've laid taking a little bit to kick in you've been going on those websites i told you not to go on david yeah i know right playing around i'm asking for that's two strikes for me it's still loading just to give you a warning i don't know if you're able to see it it's still just a brown like a gray screen that it's all right hey mark maybe you can help me out and then i can talk less anyway yeah can you can you go to um do laser tests prove the earth is flat if you keyword search that what i was trying to explain to nathan um i couldn't seem to get it across to him and i'm going to make it clear to him with this and essentially what it is is that it's if the light is bending downward then objects that are higher than the laser should show so a slightly higher space center dot nz is that where you're going to um it should be uh space yeah yeah space center that nz yeah yeah and and i was looking at this after i made my argument because i was like okay this isn't making sense so there we go now it's showing yeah that's when i'm sharing oh okay sorry okay so so nathan like on the flat earth you would see the laser but on any surface when the light bends down the content the um the um the um i guess the i'm trying to think of the word objects like mountains and cities will also um bend downward but it's bending downward from a higher angle so you're going to see things that are higher than the laser you see what i mean so going off of this diagram here it what it what it looks like is uh at least to me is that on the left side you have the laser and the camera showing that that's what it would look like on a flat earth and would be the explanation and then because we see the laser in the camera you're now seeing that the curve the curve the globe is saying that the light does bend down but i think you were also mentioning something about light bending up and this is an example of downward bending light no what i'm trying to get across to you is that is that your feel your line of sight is is is from far away what you're saying from far away on your line of sight has now been distorted okay everything is distorted to where if the light is bending downward then you cannot see the laser the laser is going to appear below you but if there's a mountain or some other object down you say where i know i'm i'm i'm trying to follow okay so so that being the case i was trying to get across to you that in one situation or another you should see the land itself show as higher in elevation you should see it in one situation or the other either if the light is bending upward that means everything that's below the light you should see so that would be like if this were flat the second image were flat and you don't see the light you should therefore see the land as a bowl like you know there should be mountains all around the flat land should appear as you know 300 foot mountains in every direction and the other thing that i was trying to get across is that the temperature variations the the the higher temperatures that create the lower densities do not correspond to the effect that you claim it just doesn't the the paper that i showed in the beginning i actually got that when i was in chemistry uh in my my organic chemistry class they had talked about that that was our refractive index lab and that was the paper saying that if you're not in standard conditions the uh or i mean if you're in standard that standard temperature if you go above that 21 or higher you're going to add to your refractive index uh value of what you measure right that will cause the light to bend down or up i'm going to let you answer i think it may cause the light to bend down but maybe we're going to say it's going to cause the light to bend up so you're saying if the light bends down then why isn't the the light being bounced off the ground being bent down as well and looks like there's a bowl right well it's it's like everything that you're seeing is sorry everything that you should see it ahead of you is now below you so things that should be above you should be further down and then i i i realized that i was thinking of it from the glow perspective and i was kind of getting things distorted so i said i thought about i said wait a minute either way it goes there should be instances where they can pit they can say well no the light will bend up or the light will bend down i say well in one of those situations you should see you should see a bold shape earth around you should see mountains all the time and and what i'm not understanding is how they have no explanation for that because when when uh jarenism he had to stand up to see the light i've gotta rush it wasn't he had to stand up to see the light which meant the light was bent up you can have some of my time to explain it except i i just when jarenism did is an experiment when when he did his experiment you would see that laser on the flat earth and that laser light was bending upward right because he had to he told hey he said in rica no i'm sorry the light was bending down he said in rica stand up and then in rica i guess stood up and then and then he saw the light right which meant that the laser had to go higher to be seen right um i think that might have had something to do as well with um setting the angle from your perspective rather than kind of tilting the camera to to look through the hole for its own tube vision because the lens has its own field of view separate from what we have um but one thing with with the thing about jaren and that that night um at that experiment and i wasn't there but what i've heard is that who was there was there were people that were flat earthers globe earthers and they all left that night saying that it was inconclusive neither side could say yes it showed this or that um and apparently maybe it was clipped out of out of that was like from the middle of the night or not like the final end he said interesting and then everybody left it was apparently that was from the the middle um that that is that's what i what i i spent so much time go ahead i well i i i ain't a good boy no problem i wouldn't mind um jumping in and sort of addressing uh can we finish with this screen is that okay yeah okay fantastic um yeah nathan so i i kind of i found the the whole idea that a mechanical gyroscope um doesn't pick this up and that that that was kind of interesting to me so i looked up and even though there is a 15 degree per hour drift it's very weak apparently it's a very very weak drift so non um inertial forces like um the the mechanisms that you're using and the the fluid dynamics can can um basically obscure this 15 degree hour per drift and and that gets me back to my point of well why would you use a mechanical one which is less accurate than a ring laser gyroscope or and and plus that that focal pendulum that was shown that hey it didn't work um you need a very long um string on it to work because the the force even though it is there it's very weak it's a very weak drift because the earth is not spinning fast it's spinning 360 degrees over 24 hours which is not a fast rotation at all um and and that focal pendulum if the line is not at least like five meters long it just won't work so what you were showing was a focal pendulum that didn't work because it's it wasn't long enough to detect the drift because if it's too short it won't detect it this drift is a very very weak force so um so with the the um i'll go with the pendulum first that's okay so sure sure imagine that this um facility the science facility and i i don't have the the name of it um that was on um michael from australia's channel uh i believe was where he he was the one that had went to this place um and he i i can't imagine that this science facility would put that pendulum up if it didn't regularly work but there are also um people who have talked to like people who install these pendulums in a museum and they they say that there are our motors or drives and so there is some level of programming um that that they install in these in the in the museum ones as well but i i think that this um facility wouldn't put up a pendulum if it wasn't regularly showing um you know the the 15 degrees i do think also the um alias effect kind of would lend more inclination towards the sky being influential um for whatever reason that the uh ether i mean the alias effect is is during an eclipse the the pendulum changes its swing and nasa has even done had a has documents on this um but but that would indicate that there's something to the sky about it as far as the the gyro goes so i i think it was for called himself who had said that he had a gyro back then that was mechanical that could determine the the that could show that the earth moved underneath it um and then our own military here in the u.s had um your osmax and i think is saying you're not from the u.s but here our military is saying that um that a mechanical gyro would be able to show that especially nowadays with our our high precision machine gyros that these mechanical gyros themselves would be subject and sensitive enough to to determine this why you would use a mechanical versus a ring laser is because a ring laser a flat earth uh cosmology can explain a way by saying it's it's ether so you use something physical that would only be determined and influenced by the the physical earth turning um because uh the ether claiming claiming the ether covers light motion would be shown in this ring laser gyro which is is what a ring laser gyro picks up and and those are also calibrated and and um like kind of one thing that i've not really understood is why like if you hop on a plane with a mechanical gyro or anything like why wouldn't you the whole point of a gyro is to determine your orientation in three-dimensional space so to have a plane calibrate out one of the axis of rotation the uh yeah i think it is um why wouldn't you want a plane to show once you've flown to the other side of a globe that it's upside down because you're losing information about your your true orientation so i i think that uh the the mechanical gyro should and is even claimed militarily to be sensitive enough to show and it does not um but then again all of a flat earth has to explain why do you get this rotation ether is what light travels through and if that light is going through the ring laser gyro it's going to pick up some of that rotation it's going to pick up that rotation very accurately hey mark can i ask a quick question i don't want to take any hardly time one um and actually mark is for you a gyro when it drifts the drift is consistent with our latitude right like if it was near the north pole there would be very little so then nathan's argument doesn't make sense then because there's another coincidence that he says oh hey there's all this ether going on well the ether just happens to cause the gyros and not only drift as if we're on 24 000 miles 15 degrees but it's 15 degrees that's 15 degrees if you're like 100 miles from the north pole 100 miles from the south pole 1000 miles so all of this going on somehow causes these light gyros to do this and as far as the airplanes go there is no airplane except for maybe the the the latest bomber that goes all the way around the earth they didn't and at that time they didn't have air air uh flights that went all the way around the earth so that doesn't even make any sense so but that was the context of what i wanted to say mark you know if you're going to respond that i just wanted to throw that in there yeah i just i just sort of for me nathan are just appealing to an aether which is sort of undocumented you can't tell me anything about it um you've likened it to quantum foam and physicists don't sort of support this idea of an aether or quantum phone being aether like sort of i could say hey it's just um a magical field you know i could appeal to something but that's just a post-hot rationalization for an a phenomenon that we see um i think in some way you have to demonstrate that aether is causing this and and then make some predictions about how it's causing it and explain it rather than just sort of using it as an appeal um because when they when they talk about um sort of quantum effects they they will actually you know put substance to those effects not just sort of say well 15 degrees per hour it looks like it's it's a rotational drift but aether that just doesn't explain anything to me i think it would be if we look at the stars and they are lights we can say okay this is a light that is turning so this must have some sort of influence on on light and then we we get that here and uh you get the the 15 degree turning of of the sky is the same it's it's 15 degrees no matter where we are on the ground so no matter where you are close to the pole close to the equator you're going to get that that same 15 degrees um and uh i do think it is kind of uh you could say it's kind of post-hoc to go aether but i think you can correlate it with with light up above and say okay this is a light determining thing um but then it's also i mean on the globe model it is sort of the same when they added up the mass of the observable universe it was like 125th of what's required for um for like the expansion of the of the universe and so they had to say okay there's dark matter dark energy that is propelling it away which we also are not able to uh and there's nothing like to to pose an idea is one thing and and saying you can't measure it or anything because i don't think i could be handed space time fabric or dark matter um so i i think it that kind of thing goes um on both sides but i think we can infer that if we see light up above and it's rotating that there's something that is that light is rotating with or and traveling through um has to have a medium or as far as our understanding of science that light has to have a medium um and so i i think it kind of goes the same way but i mean and i i won't like dark energy like where does that come from other than to to balance mathematics but um i i i just i i get what you're saying but i think we can correlate it by by seeing light in the stars that is is is moving we can say okay light must move through this and that's why we've got to go into the i just want to say something real quick that like you know the 15 degree per hour drift exact matches the circumpolar star rotation so somehow you've got to explain how aether causes both a ring laser gyroscope to drift a focal pendulum to drift even though that's not light that's a physical medium as well as the stars to match up exactly with the rotation and why that would exactly match the day night cycle of the earth look i don't know why you don't understand the basic aspect of this bro like it's just insane like we have side deal rotation we have side deal rotation you guys claim that it's the earth rotate okay just to correct you earlier like i said you're wrong actually on sign didn't predict mercury's perihelion it's still called a mercury's anomaly and it's still not explained yet to use a massless path for schwarzschild equation but anyway the anomalous rate of procession of the perihelion and mercury's orbit was first recognized in 1859 just like i said like 60 years before on sign even proposed the theory of relativity so it didn't predict anything it tried to explain it with math and it couldn't it had to use the schwarzschild equation which used a massless path when it comes to the aether i just told you and i can show it in a second it's just unfortunate because i only have i guess a few minutes here but i could read seven different top level physicists of the day saying there isn't back in the aether and we were wrong it was improperly discarded i can read einstein himself saying that there was an aether when he said there wasn't aether he misspoke in that space without aether's unthinkable when it comes to the drift we have 15 degrees which is not perfectly 15 degrees and that side deal rotation and it's the sky moving you guys claim to see earth moving so we detect that motion with ring laser gyros we're trying to figure out what it is just like einstein said either it could be the sky moving or it could be the earth moving he was right about a couple things and that's one of them okay and so that's what nathan's explaining to you you keep on saying it just happens to match perfect no the globe model and all of the predictions of axial rotation came from this ideal rotation observation and then you actually attributed that to axial rotation claiming that the stars were in a fixed position so it's a pretty simple thing and i don't know why this is not understood hey mark do you do you know about like how gyro works with the x y and z um quarters i'm not i'm not that familiar well call him after the debate no i don't want to call i want to call i want to ask him now by what's it so so my understanding is that there's an x y and z um yes all three several times my point just gets right so you what's it you had your time to talk and i being a good boy did not interrupt crazy right yeah so so in any event that's which it just wants to change the topic oh no no you two want to talk to each other in a debate yes we do we thank you so well what i'm trying to do is i do it doesn't make sense so we want to like if you're addressing austin's arguments go ahead and address him i mean unless you're ignore me refer to mark to respond to austin and go ahead but yeah okay so i'll respond to witsit then sort of so sort of calling on saying these scientists acknowledge aether witsit still can't show any paper that says that aether is a thing or much less that it has any kind of effect on light in the way that they're sort of kind of claim it does this is a crutch this is basically just we can't explain this oh aether i could just i could make the same argument for magic and say that physicists have now found magic you know in in uh quantum physics and then they're just using this you know i'm just giving it a different name but they're not saying that that the physicists aren't saying that aether is what's causing these these things to occur they're they're sort of saying is someone like sharing their screen over the top of me okay that's weird they're not saying that they're saying that this is caused by the earth rotation they're not saying aether is causing it so if witsit can show me a paper that says that aether is um causing it um that would be great okay and i do want to in the future i do want to ask if you guys can wait to share as well as one thing that i'm starting to get to especially because you've just triggered me so much tonight david i'm not as fond of the as the other guys talking holding up flash cards that say a message that you wanted to say to audience i get it i get the modern day debate sometimes we want to be like the xfl as a fun alternative to the nfl but the xfl also crashed and burned and so being a little bit more formal and not having the flash cards while someone's talking or while not pulling up a screen while someone is talking that's something i do want to move toward in the future but go ahead awesome looks like you have uh something you want to respond with in in regards to mark's question sorry i didn't think it would like affect the stream so it did my bad no problem um so today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium a general theory of the vacuum is that's a theory of everything a universal theory it would be appropriate to call the vacuum aether once again s sonners and hr brown the philosophy of a vacuum uh this is the father of quantum mechanics arguably we have now the velocity at all points of spacetime playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics it is natural to regard at regard it as a velocity of some real physical thing thus we thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether paul to rock here we go with investigations point towards a compelling idea that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single super force that's a living vacuum the aether holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature that's paul davie super force a search for a grand unified theory here is a brain quokazectic i i mentioned earlier who we want to know about prize there are good reasons to think that the universe a multi layered multi-color multi-colored superconductor that all four known forces can be brought together in unified theory as seemingly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all embracing stuff i anticipate that the next few years will be a new golden age of fundamental physics actually wrote this book right here on my desk it's actually called the lightness of being mass the aether and the unification of forces here you have robert laughlin from stanford saying the word aether has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with the opposition's relativity this is unfortunate because tripped with these connotations it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum here he is again describing that there's a vacuum so i don't want to just read a bunch of quotes but when you say that no physicists do it you're just clearly ignorant of the subject that's why i brought up the casimir effect i brought up vacuum energy quantum foam we know that the vacuum is not newtonian emptiness we know that einstein did not properly define exactly what is beyond the material world he himself said that space without aether is unthinkable okay so you should research it instead of just saying it's not true you should apply for the audience you should apply the same critique or skepticism to spacetime if it's like oh well you need to scientifically prove it you need an experiment you need proof and you need to apply the same criticism to the space the fabric of spacetime which doesn't work on the quantum or cosmological scale and has been debunked a thousand different ways okay this is actually the only viable way quantum mechanics has shown it experimentally so there you go okay so i'd love to respond to that because basically what witsit is doing is dishonestly conflating the idea of aether before general relativity with the idea of they're using aether to reference that as a nice way of describing it so what he's doing is he's saying hey this aether is responsible for all these things that now we know is the theory of relativity and now he's associating that because one of those quotes was the theory of everything which does not exist we have not got a theory of everything because there there is a not a grand unified theory out there um but witsit doesn't know enough to actually know this for instance um when when they're talking about this sort of quantum foam and vacuum what i asked was how does that aether actually cause these things to happen he hasn't referenced that all he said is hey some people are calling the new phenomenon of things existing like quantum effects and quantum fields existing where formerly they thought was thought to be a vacuum they're calling it aether therefore it's the same aether as was referenced in the past which is a conflation and a very dishonest one at that because it is not the same thing that that theory of aether that was debunked ages ago because of those negative connotations and rightly so has completely been debunked and thrown out but that's what he doesn't want you to know what he wants you to think is that the modern version of quantum physics is referencing the same aether that aether that predated um um um theory of relativity which it's not and he knows that so why would you do that why would you try and conflate this idea of quantum physics with the aether that existed before the theory of relativity yeah such a layup thank you for the alley we're going to go to q and a2 this is all i want to have the last response so he said quantum foam and all this stuff is explained perfectly by relativity literally it's not explained by relative yet you did maybe you should watch the debate back it's embarrassing for you so it isn't explained by relativity that's the whole point you need something additional to space and time there which is what relativity claims again i myself said that the space without ethers unthinkable and i misspoke when i said there is no ether i should have said there is no ether drift my point is not that it's the same because these people assume that the michelson morally interpretation is correct but actually what you claim disproved it was michelson morally not showing a friendship which with the earth stationary then it's perfectly explained with an ether so the reason that physics is at a standstill and i know you said i don't understand that there's no unified there i know way more about than you right they actually unified the weak force in the electric force called the electric weak force and it was proposed in the 60s it was disregarded for decades and now it's integrated into the standard particle physics theory and it was integrated by stanford where they now acknowledge the weak nuclear force is actually electric there's actually another one for the strong force they're acknowledging the ether that it was improperly discarded all around higher levels of academia right now trying to unify the four fundamental forces okay so that's the actual truth of the situation the reason that they're at a standstill is because if they claim that there's a substantive background medium that actually sustains electromagnetic energy then you have to go back and re-explain michelson morally which they can't explain because if there's an earth orbiting around the sun through a substantive background that's going to cause a drift it's going to cause a drift in the light which will give you an interference pattern or a friend shift and that's not what was observed the stationary paper on that you can perfectly explain it i can give you millions of papers i get not that literally hundreds of papers literally hundreds of papers just causing unified field theories and quantum field theories that integrate background not proposing demonstrating demonstrating that aether this idea that there is a substance in the background of quantum fields is causing the 15 degree per hour drift of earth you're gonna send me a paper saying that are you did i say that or did i no no no you know no wait to send me a paper saying that yes or no will you i didn't say that you said no will you or won't you send me a paper that says that the aether is responsible for the 15 degree per hour drift are you gonna send me a paper or won't you i just said no i didn't say that no you're not going to are you no that's a big fat no from witsa no you can't demonstrate any of the audience can say well there was a yes and no question witsa i don't really know you think you control things behind the keyboard i get it we've got to go to the q&a what are you talking about i'm not even using my keyboard what is going with you quick housekeeping type thing folks our guests are linked in the description that includes different listening via the podcast i've got to say it has been a lively lawn it's been a slobber knocker we're going to go through these questions as fast as humanly possible because this is like my like i know it can't be seventh maybe my sixth hour of streaming that we're coming out on today i'm i'm pretty pooped but let's finish it strong so as mentioned our guests are linked in the description and thanks so much for your questions jumping into it k-044 says question for witsa where does the sun go when it sets if it's moving away as it sets can it be brought back into the view using for example a telescope if that's the case can you turn night in today by zooming in ding that's what they said that was that's crazy if you don't know why the sun disappears on the flat earth yet of course you of course you think the earth is bald but like nah it just reaches a limited perspective and that position changes sometimes we don't see the sun from as far away as we do on other days according to the globe it's behind a physical curve so it should go behind a physical curve but in reality which i've done this thousand people have done it when you go see the sun it actually can be seen from greater distances on different days meaning it can be seen longer it can be seen with greater artifacts or this artifacts greater distances around it right so it just reaches that vanishing point once it reaches it there is no bringing it back it's beyond the perspective limit combined with the atmospheric conditions it's like i showed the video two debates ago on here where the sun actually disappears into the horizon not behind a physical one so no it reaches the limit of perspective based on optics which is actual curved visual space and not euclidean and atmospheric conditions you've got to thank you very much for this question i i do we got to move through these so i do want to ask for at least until we get like at a good pace where we're caught up let's only have a single response in particular the person who's addressed for this one says witsit kengal for four again says for a truth or you seem to be happy with a lot of ad hoc explanations as long as they fit your bias i think it's called selective skepticism no not really like i admit what i have to speculate about and uh other people like our opponents they just regurgitate what they were told so the difference is the true earthers they like just want to figure out what's going on they look into it for themselves they think for themselves the other side doesn't really do that so i'm not into ad hoc explanations being misrepresented as definitive reality science is a process of learning and figuring things out and attempt to gain knowledge which is the etymology of science to know we're just trying to know things and we cannot fully understand things but we can propose the only logically viable experimentally viable invalidated theory of the time to move forward actually the globe earth helicentric model has tons of ad hoc explanations that go in the face of the evidence right like that there's linked contraction but you can't see it etc so no i don't i don't i'm cool with speculation as long as it's denoted as that and as long as it's intellectually efficient meaning it's backed up by the evidence that is kind of the process of science is trying to theorize and figure it out differences at the helicentric model doesn't actually back up with evidence they they pretend it's definitive so i you know there you go this one from coconut cream pie no question i think they just wanted to hear me read their name this one from kango 4 4 says ash akashi kaikyo bridge plants burge califa shanghai tower taipei 101 petronas towers in malaysia i think that is one world trade center kingdom center the shard all of these buildings take the curvature of the earth into account witsit you're wrong uh you can see further when you go higher on a flat earth nathan already explained that and if you think there's a ball there's no reason to misrepresent basic things like that that that's kind of sketchy so you can see further sorry that's what he's talking about is like the burge califa you can see the sunset when you're higher when you're higher you can see no you were saying that we're built taking the curvature of the earth into account vertical buildings don't account for the curvature of the earth when they're parallel with each other but to be fair i like they didn't give a citation so i like it is just their word against austin's level z or level with z says two versus two is too many people debating please do one versus one thanks for that feedback run boston bear says austin knows his stuff on this topic that's why he can talk to professionals in all fields without drama we have been lied to it's time to come together in truth science will also benefit well i'll give you a chance to mark and uh david i would guess you'd disagree yeah there's there's no reason why why you'd be lied to and the evidence is absolutely overwhelming like you have to come up with these sort of ad hoc rationalizations like aether and magic and all this kind of stuff in order to explain all of this away the i mean i also note that witsa didn't explain why the um circumfo the rotation happens there's no explanatory power to what he's saying well there is for the the earth and there's no reason why um i do want to keep it a good day to people yeah yeah sure there's no reason why why would be lied to about this is absolutely zero reasons this one from jack hardgrave says to both sides why is it when i look at the stars in australia i see the southern cross and other constellations but when i look up in the u.s where i live now i see completely different ones we'll start with the flat side uh depending on where you're standing on the ground you're gonna have such a sky available to you uh so if you're in the north you're going to see and you're at 45 degrees you're going to see polaris at 45 degrees as you move south the sky that is your zenith the star that's directly above you is going to start to move so as that moves with you that zenith is your center point of your sky available everything is going to shift with you i believe that's the same on both models but that's different stars are available because it's where you're standing on the ground just like if you look up and you have like popcorn on your ceiling the popcorn piece that's above you if you move to another location in your room you're gonna have another piece of popcorn above you the globe side what are your thoughts david look ready go ahead david yeah there's a problem with that because those other stars are rotating and apparently the the don't i the only trick is i don't get me wrong but technically they want they answer from the globe side well how you would explain why they see the different constellations i don't want to get into the rebuttals of questions just because we have so many we've got to get through so maybe once we got through like a good chunk of them and make good time but in the but in the meanwhile i want you if you can respond to their question directly i mean it's because you're seeing you're seeing it from a spherical uh a spherical body you're you're standing on a spherical earth and it it fits you should you know mark showed the animated diagram i mean it's it's just too clear it's too it's it's ockham's razor i don't know what else to say you've got it iron horse says dear globes says how do you how do weather systems rotate on the spot and move the rotation of the earth 200 mile per hour winds are destructive yet still air is a thousand miles per hour yeah so as i've told iron horse again and again and again there's inertial reference frame so anything in motion will remain in motion um anything still will remain still until another force is acted upon it so the the idea that that oh well the earth is spinning but the the air should stay where it is the air is sort of moving with the earth um if he's asking why winds form its convection basically so i don't know what he's talking about with that one and it's been moving for millions of years so it's not like it started yesterday and there's this big shift of a thousand miles there's no acceleration of a thousand miles that we have to take into account in answer his question that was a direct answer this one coming from upside down guy says my hamster ham de grass tyson believes his hamster wheel proves earth as a sphere even though it looks flat how high does ham de grass tyson need to go from his cage to see earth curve how high do you have to go to see earth curve is is there actually like a standard answer from each side on this like how many feet or miles i think so i mean basically uh neil grass tyson famously said you can't see earth's curvature for a certain distance up but what he was talking about is just observation with the naked eye if you actually do some precise measurements you can actually see it like if you um basically squeeze the frame for instance and you can you can see the curvature so we can observe the curvature from from a sort of a fair way up it's been observed from weather balloons high altitude weather balloons and things like that using flat lenses um but i mean a hamster wheel is tiny i'm not sure what that's got to do anything sorry david how many feet david you know no no i i don't need to say anything here you guys good yeah all right and then austin and uh nathan is there uh well i suppose you guys would say you'd never see the curvature because it's flat this one coming in from chris wagner says bangerang witsit this one from kango four four such is like one of my favorite phrases by the way says with your in-depth knowledge of quantum mechanics can you please explain a sunset bangerang yeah i just explained a sunset okay if you can't understand uh the sun on a plane i don't know what to do for you it reaches a limited perspective moving away from you on a plane and actually i don't even claim a physical actual position we've actually mapped it out it seems to be like a magnet magnetic toroidal position but either one works once it's beyond your vanishing point it's vanished no it's not how vanishing points work sorry i don't know that's not how they work i okay i'm sure it'll come up in another question i hate doing this but i just want to keep moving because we're there although i otherwise a lot of people will be unhappy so this one coconut cream pie strikes again says her witsit for major scientific claims you need a model that can make testable falsifiable and correct predictions otherwise the claim is worthless i can't i ask can the flat earth model predict weather yeah of course like you can map it out as a method projection but what's so funny bro is like models aren't like this all-encompassing thing there isn't a globe model that explains everything right like you have a globe model to try to explain this for example you have the geomagnetic field that's the dynamo model it's called the geodynamo model that's a specific model to try to explain a specific phenomena which is convection currents coming from a molten iron core with nickel and iron spinning and causing magnetic field which is completely off you have the south Atlantic anomalies 25 percent weaker when it should be symmetry in the north and the south and like with the other problems my point is that you have different models for different phenomena we can explain all kinds of phenomena with the flat earth right we have models for all kinds of stuff like the magnetic field where it's better there the data matches so you guys should stop saying the model thing it doesn't make any sense it's like oh well if we can't explain one thing on the flat earth the flat earth model is debunked but if we can't explain 500 things on the globe earth well that's just the part of the model that science is working on like try to try to be consistent this from from displace gamer says is there a firmament is it the same distance from the ground to the top of all points why do you not see refraction as light moves past the firmament in the upward direction that a globe or can anyone answer or i think assuming you believe like austin or nathan might believe in the front i think they're saying assuming a ferment is it the same distance from the ground to the top of all points to the firmament i assume yes and then they say why do you not see refraction as light moves past the firmament in the upward direction um you got so uh so like we as far as the firmament does it come down uh you know a thousand miles into the anartica track or does it come down way further out we don't really know like the the shape of it as far as like the the dome is to it or like how how much curvature to the dome that there is of the sky and and what exactly it's made out of um i would say these things are have some uh on some not quite understood uh frontiers but we we on either model where you see that star is i mean that's you know the star right above you if i look at polaris it's there and it has to be explained why it's there and been there for a very long time on on both models some claim that it's the same height like as in flat some claim it's like a dome that it would be different heights so like we don't have to make claims we can't verify alternate kek says fact if the world was flat then if you obtained a high enough altitude you could use a telescope to view any country on the earth demonstrate proof i don't know if they mean proof that he's wrong or proof of the flat earth but we'll give you a chance to respond nathan and austin one book you should read is this right here which is geometries of visual space by mark wagner and he explains that the way that we perceive visual space is actually non euclidean and curved which is why railroads although intangible reality are parallel they appear to converge we actually view visual space in in curved visual space that's how we view it so of course you wouldn't see it it would converge down through a singular point and that's how the eyes work hence them being curved um and so we reach the limit of perspective also you have something called the attenuation of light so you have a perspective limit and attenuation of light you would not see forever and it's incredibly ignorant ignorant position you can see so far and things shrink oh sorry you're right uh so yeah things as things get further away they shrink and then if you are going to try to look at something say uh on the other side of the ocean uh you're going to uh run into things like um debris in the atmosphere like dust you're also going to get water vapor magnification when you zoom in on something you're crowding out everything around it to make that thing you're looking at appear bigger so that magnification is going to wash out everything as well so it'd be like trying to look across uh the ocean but i'm going to hold like an inch of dust in front of your lens as well and this one solid opaque dust so this one from tango four four says witsit this sounds a lot like a last quite or a question from a few questions ago it's not it's slightly different they say given your in-depth knowledge of instead of quantum physics relativity and special relativity can you explain the sunset reach a limit of perspective man you're like seven years behind bro alternate kek says you can use the world of warcraft to simulate a flat earth and it clearly demonstrates a flat earth model which looks nothing like the sphere reality wow all right i think i what you say to that uh so like if i have a flat surface here like as far as like models going everything this could be a flat surface and if i say that this is the uh the pole uh you can you know i can walk in a circle and model how you can circumnavigate on on a flat surface so uh it depends on if you have like um a square and just top down left right or if you put the the center attracting attractive point in the center and then you can can go around it so yeah i don't know it's a they they use a flat model because it's our intuitive senses things are flat all video games and everything use flat earths and except for like no man's sky and all that stuff but the flat is intuitive easy to model off of and build off of um but models are like that right there with that example was a model so models there are flat models spherical models and stuff so you got it this one from zarax zara zaren says florist why do you say einstein approves of the earth the ether when all quotes of him disprove the ether please give quotes okay i'll easily give you a quote right now so it would have been more correct if i had limited myself in my earlier publications to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether where i can see that with the word ether we say nothing else in that space has to be viewed as a carry of physical properties albert einstein in a letter to hendrick lorenz in 1919 he also said it would have been more corrected by the limit of myself to start that the word ether has changed its meaning many times in development of science at the moment it no longer stands for a medium built up of particles its story by no means finished is continued by the theory of relativity albert einstein the evolution of physics 1938 thanks for playing this one from hate stairs says florist gas equally fills the volume of a container why isn't air pressure evenly distributed vertically and why is there a pressure gradient so uh gas is considered a fluid just like a liquid they're two separate phases of matter but they are both considered fluid and fluids do separate out by density so denser particles will settle at the bottom this atmosphere down here at most or at mo is is denser than as you go up um and but you do have to have a container for this medium to form if you look at density towers of like different fluids um like water honey corn maple syrup and all that stuff it has to be in a container gases as well they will sort out into density tower essentially and uh and and you get the least pressure at the top you got it dave hinkle says globers please provide direct measure of earth's curvature over a body of water clearly showing the 66 foot drop in elevation yeah that that isn't how earth curvature is actually calculated so you can you can calculate earth curvature very easily um but it's not just a matter of distance equals drop because they're also is the height of the observer to take into account there's refractive index take into account there's a lot of things take into account look geodetic survey does that all the time like it they they do take the curvature of um um the earth when they're doing geodetic survey so these measurements are made all the time just because you don't you know see the surveyors actually do large enough areas to take the the curvature into account doesn't mean they're not doing geodetic surveys this one coming in from do appreciate your question nick a piercing scathing criticism for you david says for david are you aware that the way you act and your inability to describe your examples and defend your model actually in all caps does a disservice to the globe model and pushes people to the flatter side let's see so he spoke of a vanishing point and how I hope I guess because the word vanishing is in there they have presumed that objects can go so far away that you you'll never be able to see them not even telescope well those stars that are on your dome are apparently further away than that and we see them and what a vanishing point is supposed to explain and I guess you guys have misunderstood is that it means that objects that are a particular distance apart as you get farther and further away they are so close together that you cannot discern them they're you know essentially a point and that is why they call it a vanishing point it's not because objects can never be seen beyond a certain distance and your flat earth stars prove it this one coming in from do appreciate it christopher custom says flat earthers did did you understand mark explanation for looking farther if you did you would be able to see the edge or past the ice wall globe w perfect time to like address what david's saying and answer the question okay so we actually see we have curved retinas so we see a euclidean plane geometry earth and non euclidean hyperbolic curved visual space that we have curved retinas this again is why we have tangible reality parallel railroads they converge so whenever he's saying oh well no that when you look at the sky is different well I explain it's also combined with atmosphere conditions that acts as like an additional lens right so that additional lens on top of what we're seeing is exaggerating that curved visual space effect which creates a convergence into a limit of perspective well documented easily provable you got it essentially you to have you have the ground going up and the sky going down and then once you get to that point that the sky would keep going if the ground wasn't there going down in your vision and the ground would keep going up but they they cancel each other out so if you try to see anything beyond on the ground that sky is going to essentially create that blockage and it's going to it's going to take priority and cut off anything beyond that point and the stars don't have a thick atmosphere when you look up they have it ends out as you go up right you got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question Zara Zarin says flurfs the globes quote unquote showed scientific papers I think they mean by globes oh yeah they say you showed hand drawn pictures which is more accurate none of them showed scientific papers he showed CGI animations and like uh what the stars right beside the globe as if it's like an accurate depiction uh there's tons of listen man everyone is under the assumption that the earth is a ball in a heliocentric model right so all the scientists are trying to explain within that paradigm like they're like oh magnetic field let me explain it within the globe earth and it's not working but they assume the globe so that doesn't prove it and if we invoke them as hostile witnesses because we have to correct misunderstandings of the globe like no actually the magnetic field doesn't work here's all the discrepancies that doesn't mean that we have to claim that they think the earth is flat isn't we have to believe everything that they believe that's a fundamental like elementary fallacy okay so we we can't invoke a ton of papers as it wouldn't even be accepted I know physicists that have proposed geocentric papers that are flawless and irrefutable and they're not published okay so there's actually a philosophical bias in science you can't propose something that goes against mainstream cosmological model and this is a fact and we have proof that they accepted the geocentric paper saw that the math was perfect found out he was a geocentrist and turned down his future papers it's provable it's on record this one right I can actually attest to that with my my biology teacher saying that I can't propose a paper that gets submitted for peer review I have to become a degreed practicing scientist in the field doing research and then go through all of these steps science is not an open thing it is essentially a barrier when the experiments and results themselves should be able to shut down anyone just trying to pitch some wool nice this one from squid super hunk says a lively Saturday night debate always especially enjoy enjoy getting to hear mark do his thing you got a fan out there mark upside down guy says here you go again my hamster kytham Jenner is transgendered and identifies as a fish kytham Jenner wants to swim the mississippi river how is it possible that long rivers are able to flow one direction over the curve mark you want me to try this easy one yeah go ahead yeah go ahead yeah yeah okay so uh the the force of gravity is not is not linear it's there's a point there's a center point and so as you're moving along the surface of the earth what's pulling at you is tangent to your to where you're standing to the center of the earth at that moment so it's not that you started over here and grab is going there and then the curve is curving down and then it's still it's still this way it's there's a point down here and wherever you are from that center point on earth is was pulling directly down from that spot where you stand you got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question anthony chicante says god bless you james for being brave enough to host latter debates thanks for your kind words says it's a controversial subject and all sorts of hate can come your way for even considering a debatable topic god bless you bro thanks so much for your kind words we don't get too much hate although there are some people are like why are we having flat earth again but anyways ours are in thanks to your super jack questions as nathan please explain the motion of stars in northern and southern hemisphere scientific uh so the stars that they they move east to west and so actually i can hop in so mark had had said in the beginning he had said if you are standing uh at the bottom of uh say the big differ and you see it going this way but then this person over here is seeing it go this way um that's all depending on on where you're standing that person uh is going to always see going east east to west uh for the stars and it also does go uh so then if you are standing at the equator that the stars are going to go straight east and then head straight west so you get those straight lines and then if you're looking south it flips because now the equator is is behind you this way so everything is still going east to west but the the the direction that it appears to us is is flipped you got it thank you equator sorry can i just can i just point out that's not what i was saying that it looks different to a different observer what i'm saying or what i was saying is that the circumpolar rotation if your flat earth paradigm is true it's like half of it is not going east to west it's going west to east because the only reason we say it's going east to west is because under that circumpolar rotation we're looking past the south pole and saying oh well the stars going in the other direction is reversed but that paradigm doesn't exist on a flat earth because you're not looking past the south pole if you look in the opposite direction of a six in a nine or so and they flip and of course we can show with the container over top of the constituent circles on a plane you actually get that same exact effect in the south where you have convergence and again walter bizlin shows it mapped out every single square inch of the earth is mapped out exactly how the stars work i answered this at the beginning of the debate that that doesn't explain it at all there you go just without that south pole rotation it doesn't explain i do like it's called a azimuthal grid of vision azimuthal grid of vision and it causes a personal perception of convergence look it up why is the equate why would the equator gotta be relevant we do have to keep moving we just have so many questions we're making good time so like we we may get to that point this one from tons says david has only a basic understanding of anything he talks about even if austin is wrong which he isn't david wouldn't understand him anyways go ahead david now's your chance oh my god i hope i don't make a fool of myself here um so um the guy the guy rolls the motion the x y motion of the guy was because it's not just the z motion that shows the drift but there's the x and y motion and those x and y motions correspond to your position along the earth you know like on the surface you know relative to to that that's where the drift comes from so there's a problem the the rate of the drift on the x and y coordinates is consistent from the north pole if you're on the flatter just imagine on the flatter it's consistent from the north pole to the equator but then it it's like it's less of a drift when you account for how much distance you have to go around that flatter on the southern hemisphere it's like for every mile of x this this loss and and why this loss is you're going around the the flat curve of a of a particular uh uh longitude i'm sorry latitude you're losing like dozens of miles by the time you get to like the southern parts of australia okay so there's one thing the other thing is that um the stars that are closer i'm sorry the stars that are shown on the horizon are still further away than these flatter arguments about the vanishing point i can still see stars on the horizon and those stars are much further than any point on a flatter model and last thing is you guys speak about how the eye has some kind of dynamics that causes you to see things curve downward well that's an that's only an optical effect that's not a physical effect it's not a magnetic effect it's an optical effect so i should be able to turn upside down right stand on my head and i should see all that sky go up and see all that land go up as well you don't understand it there's no explanation that you can give that is coherence i'm unpacking your incoherent explanations and yes sometimes it can sound if sir yes go ahead do your eye do your act it's fine this one we must i can't respond to whatever i've got to move forward i hate to do it but this one from displace gamer says can all speakers explain the difference between magic and science then give a short explanation on how the earth was formed just curious yeah i mean i can grab that so difference in magic and science is that science is a process that is followed a methodology for finding out in a reliable robust rigorous way what the physical properties of the reality actually are it's not a perfect methodology i don't think there is a perfect methodology but it is the best methodology we have so far to demonstrate what is actually true and what is not under a scientific explanation the formation of the earth was basically elements a nutrition disc of elements heavy elements coming together making the core of the earth by the light elements under the effect of gravity made the earth what it is the moon we believe is when they another planetoid hit the surface lot dislodging a chunk so all of this has got a lot of science behind it and that methodology is sort of the inductive process that we go through so so fairy tale i said it was inductive process all right let's just magic is the fairy tale that's the fairy tale keeping it on the question oh yeah this is a fairy tale that the earth on the question we have to keep it on the question otherwise they're going to go on forever and that's what i'm saying they're saying that the earth is formed out of the dust particles from the sun and they replaced genesis with a new creation story and that's the current consensus i never said sun we have to keep moving gentlemen okay so i thought i thought you said keep it on the question good everybody gets a chance for answering this question directly like in other words the person is asking difference between magic and science oh i think that uh science is something that it's an empirical process where you you make an observation you form a hypothesis you can set up an experiment with given observational definitions you are able to carry out procedures get a result and then you draw your conclusions you should be able to hand someone those procedures that you did and then they can recreate the experiment with the same conditions you should get the same result and then you are able to kind of confirm things especially with isolated variables you can do controls and variables as far as magic i think that's something that people do to maybe for entertainment at a party or something but i'd like to calm people but magic i think there's other types of magic as well but i don't know if we want to get into like some darker stuff like Crowley magic and all that so let's just i'll go there if anyone wants to but anybody else that's good i must have missed the question the difference in science and magic like yeah science is empirical testable it's outside of philosophical bias personal opinions you just go figure out what it is you know then you accept it what it is and try to understand it uh philosophical bias of the Copernica principle that the earth has no special place or let me come up with how i think everything came from nothing and all this stuff that's not science uh that's basically invoking magic uh theoretical magic right so that's what i would claim it as long as i can even tie the two together specifically so anything else on anybody want to add anything on how the earth was formed that wasn't already said by your teammate cool it was intelligently designed but yeah i i believe i believe that a creator i i believe jesus put this earth here so by magic james you asked how it was created right roughly speaking and in the super abbreviated way right and so not who created it but how it was created so i could say god created the earth through the natural processes that has been agreed upon by conventional science no one agrees on that who made it we just asked how it was made no one agrees on how the earth was made it doesn't matter they asked us a question i'm answering it this one coming in from nick says mark what makes the focalt pendulum different from large crane cables and why aren't those moving all around when not in use um so what makes it different than large crane cables well the focal pendulum depends on a specific weight that is attached to it and it shows the drift um there's a lot of things which um affect cranes like for instance the wind will affect cranes all kinds of things will affect cranes what you've got to remember is that um the focal pendulum if you put that out in the open with wind around and things like that or other variables affecting it it probably won't work um so we put it inside in a place where we eliminate these things i'm affecting it and cranes are designed to try to not be affected by external forces but you know crane operators will tell you when they go up in the crane it moves a lot in comparison to say wind and and environmental factors the the 15 degree hour per drift even though it is there as i said time and time again it's a very weak force right it's not like wind blowing at the crane and it's shattering all over the place it's a very weak force um that is impacted on the crane you got it this one coming in from by the way you guys all recently heard about the us shooting down that UFO right yeah but wait was it mark earlier i think you heard the one that said okay that's right so we've talked about this already yeah no no my whole point my whole point was you're talking about the balloon right like like um oh i think there was something different because they there was a balloon and then there's a second UFO yeah that was well it's unidentified so but it was you know identify it first and then then come at me james are unidentified as in definitely aliens this is okay whatever it is just we don't have to attack one another right all people if the government has made a people were all people if we just choose to not hurt one another there would be no hurting this one from i'm on bulb at that absolutely yeah and i want to hurt anybody all right and i love your take on science like beautiful perfect definition of science too so it was there yeah i think that was just a moment that was nice and photon bread says mad props to nathan and mark for coming prepared to have a good faith debate david and witsett just came to banter and ruins any real debate i'm gonna be honest from my perspective man like i was trying to keep it on point at the beginning of the debate like we were like specific to the subjects and i feel like people were just talking with like seven different subjects past each other and so i was trying to bring it down and point out the fallacies which is the only way to have a logically coherent debate so um that that's honestly what my motivation was unfortunately witsett i saw that coming from you quite a bit yeah i think i think um from my perspective witsett kind of derailed the conversation a lot we're trying to talk about things it's going into these fallacies which weren't actually true and sort of just just i'll give you a chance to going back to meta arguments and stuff it just give you a chance to defend yourself austin and then we got to move the next one notice how i i'll just say you notice how i accounted for my behavior and i tried to explain where i was coming from and they both just took it as an opportunity to talk about me so i thought soak it in tons said would you allow austin to speak we've tried to allow him to speak let's see the other one is we had another one timothy p southwick says a drone programmed to y'alls believed curvature calculations is physical evidence i don't know who that's for though i think that's the flat earth i mean i'm aware that i program drones to go higher and they see sort of curvature and stuff and bring objects back into focus see curvature in stuff well i mean they they basically observe curvature by they have a a point um the drone flies higher the point the the object comes back into frame then it goes lower it can't see it is that what they're talking about they're probably talking about it's okay it's okay but you know how to figure out what the question is like right right in your model you don't see curvature from the height that if you want to if you want to go on about it like if you know what the question is about tell us okay i said that to you a couple times earlier what's it just just go ahead and say it i'm literally trying to uh in your model of course the curvature the curvature can't be observed from the height of a drone uh he's probably trying to say the same very rudimentary point which is since we go higher we see further which proves the globe but again on a flat earth if you go higher you see further this one coming in from tons says not trying to be rude to nathan but i'm here to listen to austin smoke these guys would you allow austin to do that please he's barely said anything i think nathan did great this place you did good nathan you're really good brother it needed to be you know you could take both of them on by yourself so that's kind of how this conversation with your hands tied behind your back we're all trying to get an understanding of our natural world right we're all being scientists right now we're trying to have discussion um bring reasons and and determine what we observe i think everyone here is trying to be as scientific as possible which it could probably talk more if he didn't you know leave the debate and wander off or just you know submit that no consideration you guys kept running over me so i stepped away yeah this one coming in from do appreciate it i do want to say hopefully hope you know folks whether you're a flat earth or globe earth or all of the terms of endearment that they call each other globes and flurfs we hope you feel welcome we really are glad that you're here folks and want to say this one coming in from displace gamer says flat earthers why do you weigh less quote unquote inside an airplane in the air then compare to quote unquote inside a house on the ground this is a why question to be clear in other words like why what's the reason for that additional forces reasonable well what's the answer then what's the answer so so for one if you're claiming altitude for one if i don't want to interrupt mark he's about to explain so if you're claiming altitude well we have a question what's it can i answer yeah please let me know about how gravity gets the weaker away from the center of mass oh yeah you got it i know your religion simple but my point is actually you have additional forces coming from the sky you have a centrifugal translation of motion you guys assumed i was talking about the plan that was your mishap and of course you also have electric gradient going up 100 volts per meter increasing as you go up and that's why we actually have a difference and the gravitational anomalies show that the the measurements from the distance to the radius actually don't match that yeah weight distribution so that's a that's a globe problem this one coming in from do appreciate it tons says oh we got that one timmy vp southwake strikes again says a drone programmed we got that one this one from polarity says nathan what are your dependent and independent variables for testing and concluding the ethers existence yeah like again i'm sorry good uh so dependent and independent dependent independent variables for determining the ether um i would say that you can set up light and send it through a splitter and then it'll return back to a detector and show maybe a slight drift slight interference pattern which might have something to do with linear light going against a vortex curve ether so that might give you that that slight variance um you can also take like a vacuum chamber right and like it would take everything out of the vacuum and we see like electromagnetic fluctuations and energy pop into the vacuum so the independent variable would be the vacuum itself for manipulating the vacuum itself and it shows that there's not just nothing there right so the dependent variable you know is is the observable phenomena of there being electromagnetic fluctuations within a vacuum of the chasmer effect with non-conductive plates and you're having the independent variable of the vacuum you manipulated that environment to remove the air and you still have a disproportionate amount of electromagnetic energy which is why we know there's something other than space and time even according to mainstream academic the ether has to permeate that vacuum environment and it allows those things to be in that environment exactly this one coming in from do you appreciate your question coconut cream pie says so because somebody says ether exists therefore it exists that's an appeal to authority beyond quotes are there peer-reviewed articles on ether i had a said that because this person says the ether exists the ether exists that would be an appeal to authority because this guy's an authority he says that it must be true that isn't what happened in context at all he said and i quote no one no scientists quote unquote say that there's neither so i corrected him by showing him very top tier physicist specifically saying there is an ether the evidence for the ether is a logical antecedent of the fact that the vacuum has been proven to not be newtonian emptiness there's energy there that isn't predicted by particle physics with the amount of air there and there must be something else sustaining that electromagnetic energy that's the evidence and to to throw it back i could also say that i'm skeptical of spacetime and i i would like a piece of fabric because i can't you know i can't hold on to that that fabric i'd like to have a piece in my hand if i are suit to make well i mean i mean i was brought up so i should get to respond to that the question wasn't actually that they asked a peer-reviewed papers which i asked for as well which you didn't actually provide so i assume the answer is no there is no peer-reviewed papers on your aether there is literally hundreds of them can you can you can you reference three here i'll stop my yeah yeah the quantum the quantum fluid quantum field theory has about 20 in the chat in the chat yeah yeah sure absolutely also polarity sorry i missed part of your question they were the one that asked you nathan about independent and dependent variables and they also then had a follow-up question so in regards to the ether they said and regarding the ether like what effect does it have on anything so the ether would have something to do or it has an interaction with with light and potentially some magnet there seems to be like an electromagnetism connection so it could have something to do with magnetism as well but the the main interaction with the ether would be lights and then however the like with the alias effect with the full called pendulum affecting the swing and getting it to rotate at different speeds even going backwards that could have something to do with an alignment of the the moon and sun which are both their own independent lights charged i believe again the sky is a very frontier area so it's a lot of hypothesis and conjecture but i i do believe that these two interacting forces cause some sort of other effect within the ether but it's very frontier you got it and this question coming in just to mention sorry james just quickly i just looked at the paper that you sent in it appears that the word ether does not exist yeah there we go yeah it's i know if i said it i was going to be called a liar where's ether there's no mention of i bet if you guys don't respond you'll book you've never read the paper you just search the word ether and you think you've proven me wrong yeah the author explained specifically it's a modern version of an ether which is acts like a fluid like acro medium you can also read the next two papers one from harvard which specifically says ether you can actually you can read this second paper as well as specifically says either's and i'm about to drop about 15 more so thanks for playing no no wait wait there hang on a second you said that this mentioned the ether it doesn't mention ether at all just because you're equating a phenomenon to ether doesn't mean that that's what they're talking about the author of the paper said that earlier the author of the paper said it's a kid you said you'd provide a paper with it it doesn't have there's two right there there's one from harvard right there in the chat yeah well click on the one from harvard why are you going to do that uh the ether the ether what what is being discussed nowadays as an ether has nothing to do like mark said nothing to do with how it was described in plan my understanding is that they are they are in a sense um what is it when you kind of go out and be wrong the scientists are colloquially using the word almost tongue-in-cheek now to describe virtual particles that's my understanding of how well you're wrong now for usual but there is nothing about the ether being used as a way to describe okay let me read this the ether invented by isaac newton make a 15 degree for our dream the ether invented by isaac newton which by the way most globers don't know that isaac newton said gravity cannot exist without a medium and that would have to be an act of god that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard and no man with competent faculty of thinking would ever think that any proposed an ether theory i guess they've got to teach you that in physics class anyway the ether invented by isaac newton reinvent the ether invented by isaac newton reinvented by james clerk maxwell this is the stuff that fills up the empty space of the universe discredited and discarded by einstein the ether is now making reinvented me why are you interrupting it it's just a couple because you just said reinvented you know what that means yeah you're distracting again um what's it you're just wasting your time all right i'm gonna try i used to interrupt i'm sorry but it is oh you're interrupting because you know i'm interrupting by saying you're wasting time because then both sides will start to do that where they're like well you're just wasting time you're beveling i'm gonna interrupt you like don't pull a t-jump so we're gonna go let's go to rich p says watching what you see they get then they get away with this shutting it to the audience you just hear them be wrong i'm gonna read it i'm gonna read it so this is the end of this i'm gonna read it so this discredited and discarded by einstein the ether is now making a nixonian comeback it's really the vacuum but burdened by theoretical ghostly particles leon letterman god particle as the universe is the answer what is the question 2006 says the ether's making a nixonian car come back even though istein tried to get rid of it thanks for playing james if i did that would you have kicked me out of this place by now if you would have done what what he just did finished what i was interrupted saying no you had plenty you had already shown the links you had already made your point and you're sitting up here wasting our time because as you're just wasting time right now no he said let's move on and you're like no let me go over it again and because it's not fair to let you guys interrupt me and then just move past the point that happened 50 times in this debate so we have to i i do want to get to people's questions rather than so this is rich p says watching witsett debate is worth every penny amazing i wish i had half of his skill you have a fan on there as well witsett this one from ja ja manico i didn't see a question attached let me know in the live chat if you want to ask a question in the normal chat and we can read it as a super chat because it's in the super chat list question the answer says just some paper for you james thanks for your support appreciate that and this one from coconut cream pie says did we read this one they say so because somebody says ether exists therefore it exists that's an appeal to authority okay thanks yeah and that was a straw man i'll see then this one coming in for let's see tim prior good to see you again says so let me get this straight you claim you can bring boats back into view after going over the horizon with zooming but not the sun that makes no sense this is why we laugh so the uh boats going over the horizon uh back in ancient greek times when they would say oh we see this boat disappearing a bottom up good eyes by the way to be able to see that you see a boat disappearing bottom up and then you say okay it's disappeared behind curvature and once flat art kind of started taking off people were zooming in on these boats and bringing them back but the the boat is not disappeared behind a vanishing point the sun has three miles of ground uh and and thousands of miles of sky and then once they converge once anything goes past that convergence point you can't bring it back no matter what no matter what zoom you're gonna you're gonna apply you're only gonna zoom in what is in front of like looking at it this way what is in front of this cross section you're only you can only magnify anything in front of that anything behind that is gone you would have to move forward to then push this back um and that's or or go up an elevation to push it back and how many miles away do you have to be for that effect to occur just throw out a number for the sun to disappear or you just for what you're stating to occur how many miles away does an object have to be on the ground or in sky give a range choose both either one uh don't they say we can say see three miles uh at the or well you can see further if you zoom in with your eye that's my question that wasn't my question mark do you want to jump in i feel like i'm going to get myself in more trouble i just have a funny feeling as when i when i get them like they're they're they're in a contradiction i tend to somehow slip into a trouble so i i was checking out these papers by wits it was from 1950 there's no you're not here 1976 like it's just a joke the once from 1999 and once from harvard harvard i just now proposed that there's no okay the biometric ether theory the vacuum ether theory loop quantum gravity fuzzy space time theory are all modern ether theories and they don't call it aether that's the funny they literally do it's called biometric ether theory i just posed a leader i just posed the paper yeah okay well i'll check out that one it has a lot more in between you and the sun versus the boat but once they do go beyond that that vanishing point where that where everything is is um the angular resolution is so small that that nothing can can bring it back right that things should be able to bring it back because when something passes on the vanishing point when we zoom into it it comes back into our site that's how telescopes that's how focus like that's how zoom works um and when we when we do think see things vanishing into the vanishing point my for instance if you got you know in australia here you got really long roads that are perfectly flat kind of thing when you see something vanishing into that vanish point it does not vanish from the bottom up there is no um there is no force or no no um something that makes makes that car vanish from the tires going up it just it just gets smaller and smaller and shrinks with perspectives right but it doesn't or it doesn't impact me the right but it doesn't overwater you can give a fractive effects that that causes them up disappearance and temperature variation water has a high heat specificity versus land so there's a greater temperature difference between the water and the land so this can cause the temperature variation which can give you bottom up disappearance but if you're over land where temperature is a lot more consistent uh you're not going to get that variation in temperature which will cause you give you more opportunity to see things shrink with perspective rather than but yet bottom up but yet over land you'll see stuff bottom up disappear as if over a curvature it can it can happen yeah all the way up there's a temperature can vary 2018 cornell university vacuum solutions in the einstein ether theory 2018 cornell university what page what paragraph it's the old paper that's the title of the paper oh this is a new link that you put up yeah yeah cornell university a new link that you put up okay emerging no yeah the other one was paul de rock you don't know that is but emerging emerging gravity theory spacetime foam theory not just list a few of them off so the audience can look them up emergent gravity theory spacetime foam theory causal dynamical tram triangulation theories non-communicative geometry theory relational block world theory quantum graphidity theory and that's again biometric either theory vacuum ether theory luke and quantum gravity yeah why would you not mention two or three and leave it at that what was the point if you could you said there's none so we'll just name seven no i said that your your first links didn't suit now you're showing a list and that list doesn't lead us to be right within that article that you no no i'm already there there's nothing in that article that will justify your position that the ether explains why the earth appears to rotate when it doesn't david is it possible that maybe there were some things about modern ether theories you didn't know and you could research and learn them and maybe you didn't know about them is that yeah and it's possible that there are things about ether theory that do not agree with what you're saying did you ever consider that that's possible yeah sure there are many different possibilities all right yeah there you go so now we go back to the original thing was just that you postulate claims and then mark was doing even more of an effort to find it than i was and he still couldn't find it now you throw up a fourth link that's just a list and you're trying to rely on that list to be sufficient to say that it describes in a such a manner to prove your point that the earth is flat or that the earth is not rotate the link is not a list uh just so you know i can't drop links in the chat but it's just put it all right brah all right wait a time now get out of what we have to do is um i forgot what i was gonna say but let's go to the next question large mouth bear says thank you ballers for making a few more flat earthers today david you are objectively lame you should give this be nice not not there's okay that's not true they say mark nathan you're really nice right now don't worry mark they're gonna be you you're gonna see that they're it's gonna plan this is unconquerable they say they've got words for you as well mark but i'm gonna skip i'm gonna skip that because they say wait sit wait you want to hear the insult to mark david is that it oh he insulted me hey i want to hear the insults to mark come on okay as long as you're up for it much better at this and i am you guys have got tough skin so you're you know they say mark where is it where my eyes lost it mark your dome is the only globe here hey they love your bald head very sexy like stone cold i wear it like it is all right it's it's just more confirmation that's a two r squared bro large mouth bear they also said wits it and nathan crushed it tim prier says we think we got this one let's let me get you claim uh bring boats yep we got that one tim prier strikes again he says no you just regurgitate what you're told you always claim flat earth with no measurements measurements means numbers which none of you have i think they're saying none of you as a new flat earthers all plain survey data ignores any notion of the curvature of the earth and you literally makes up to 100 square mile measurements using plain survey horizontal level points and that's how we do basic engineering for all trades you also have the full light experiment that's four points of distance that are measured out and then you can observe all of those lights over water which is 70 percent or so of the surface or however much uh is it's it's they're all planar horizontal linear flat uh over water um and those are four data points at at you know five six seven eight miles out grow to one rebuttals are not permitted to change we have to proceed right it just refracts everywhere perfectly we get it your your position is not original are we allowed i'm sorry james are we allowed to rebutter no your answer is refraction we get it okay let me think about that i i would like to say i'm skeptical of a refraction claim being able to make that four light experiment any glober that wants to recreate that four light experiment you to scale and isolate the variable of refraction to show linear spaced lights that are exponentially refracted to all just appear even magically no just right to appear even and linear and horizontal please do show that to me because i think that does show the planarity of the surface characteristic surface of water is planar all right all right so um what's really where the service oh i'm sorry really pithy short and sweet i need to have more questions 90 degree angles are used on surveys to ascertain distances and that's what required the earth to have curvature as the angles would not meet if the earth was flat 90 degree angles require curvature what are you talking about in order for the order for the points to meet my friend in order for the points to get an exact curvature of the oh just ignore plain survey and then yeah i addressed that in my opener if you had a listen that is calculative assumption of geodetic optics observations high-depping optical observations yeah this was my word solid slow it down we can do yours yeah yeah so geodetic survey is taken to the count the curvature of the earth and they make accurate measurements of the earth all the time and geodetic engineering takes in the curvature of the earth in order to do engineering projects all the time name one just because witless is in ignorant of this doesn't mean that it is actually name one they've been mentioned before somebody sent a post in with all of them and you're like no they don't do that i'm going for buildings when they actually do name one the royal academy of surveyors that's not an engineering project i'm not gonna entertain your you don't know you just man can i explain this so fast give me 17 seconds no no no no no 13 seconds 12 seconds okay geodetic surveying assumes the sphere it's a calculated assumption of sphericity based on optical observations and it doesn't always match the globe in fact if you get within 85 percent it's considered a success and a weighted mean where you throw out the observations that don't match because the radius would be too big mark he debunked himself but he thinks you didn't see it he said based upon optical observations isn't that how we uh whoops answer yeah slip this one right there buddy we got to move forward this one coming in from coconut cream pie says read my chats it's just my name thank you for that polarity says wits it you're too smart to believe in what you say you know the sun doesn't shrink to a point the ceiling six becomes a nine but it doesn't change rotation yeah like okay it's an optical effect based on the azimuthal grid of vision we have an arc of vision with hyperbolic geometry of visual space i get that these are some terms that aren't familiar to people it doesn't make it word salad you see how i i was going to say i was literally going to say i was going to say what mark was going to say i know that these terms aren't normal to people right hyperbolic visual space it doesn't mean it's word salad you all have google let's go look it up man i had to read yeah and i in the thing about it is it learn new things in life it's okay wits it it's not dependent on your your like how you're standing you could stand upside down you can stand in any orientation if what you were saying is true see why are you rolling your eyes though that doesn't make sense the eyes are a circle dude they'd be the same upside and down up and down but no no no down is relative to where no down is relative to to where you're looking so you're looking you're looking straight ahead down is relative like looking down to your feet and to your legs if you're standing upside down you're standing upside down then that same angle will point upward towards the sky if that were true this is me once again trying to unpack your nonsense and you're recognizing the contradiction and i have to explain it in a way that is consistent but it has to be dumbed down to your level so you're using and you're memorizing memorizing concepts and then you go into the concepts but you're trying to shoehorn your flatter interpretation into them hyperbolic visual geometry can be proven and i'm not not not not in that way i have to go to the next one there are just so many questions we have to keep going this one from Tim Pryor says flatter there should not be allowed to say the word science no scientist or any field of science backs up their beliefs if you mentioned science then you're using globe knowledge come up with your own stuff the sorrow cycle which science does talk a lot about predictions the sorrow cycle was derived using a flat earth culture the chaldeans that they were a flat culture so a lot of this stuff does actually start with the flat earth assumptions from our past and then we build off of it and then there's reverse engineering that goes on to try to ascribe things to a globe but the the flat earth is able to make predictions and be scientific we can use density and electromagnetism and these types of forces thermodynamics these are all in in junction with a flat earth and and work cohesively with flat on a flat earth yeah i know many physicists and engineers that are true earthers just a lot jay says with it and nathan why don't you guys reproduce the mage to experiment by mr sensible and send a camera attached to a balloon to see the curve we're actually currently sending up a balloon much higher than that so like 33 34 kilometers and our 33 34 miles actually like so like just over 30 miles with an infrared camera and a specific camera to see the stars that apparently nasa can never see when they go to space will be making long distance infrared observations from over 30 miles up and yeah you guys will just even with infrared you'll say it's a fraction so for sure you'll say it's a fraction but we we literally are we literally are doing a better version of that experiment our observation this one i mean flat earth has got a fine history of debunking themselves we'll wait for your you know this one i was creative it this one coming in and thanks from coconut mockumentary hit piece but just say phrases like robots coconut cream pie says what model do meteorologists use flat or globe oh wait we get meteorologists use ag that's so funny you asked that thank you for asking they actually use weather balloon data which actually is over a flat surface that's why when they took the weather balloon data to put it onto the globe earth the blue marble they had to stitch the flat map data together to wrap it around a ball we actually that's why when you watch the news it's on a flat map projection for a local area we actually get 99 percent of our weather data way more efficiently even from mainstream academia claims that we don't get them from satellites we get them from weather data on a flat surface so that's that kind of backfired i think nasa military also nasa the number one user of helium consumer of helium for all the balloons that they have you have the the tower ground towers that they use that's all just like i was i didn't get to show it here but i like underground sea cables use a flat water diagram in their cross sections and showing that stuff but it's all uh using flat towers flat maps if you were going to drive across the united states you'd use a flat map and whether that they show on the tv is on a flat map until they scale back and try to show you canada in the us of mexico all at once and then sky sky scion says and we can't take any more questions folks sorry we're gonna just read the rest and then we've got to let these guys go because it's getting late sky scion says david and mark do you concede relativity says you cannot prove the orbit of the earth from the earth and that everything on earth occurs as if the earth is at reset okay so we can we can prove the orbit of the earth through the uh parallax motions of the stars like that's not something that is hard to prove um we we can also prove it by the way that the um the the stars are obscured by the sun at certain points there's there's no problem proving the orbit of the earth i don't understand why you would make that claim because i'm saying but when i was here with it thanks mate cheers just yeah settle down um and as far as sort of saying everything appears to be flat yeah uh our eyes are imperfect and what appears to be the case i might appear to see a mirage but we know that's not really water when we see it and observational data we can gather um upon doing further investigation shows that it's not water so this whole idea of what you see is what you get from optical illusions and stuff that is an incredibly poor argument because we know that the eyes can be tricked by multiple different optical effects that's not an argument they asked you if you agree that relativity says everything occurs on the earth as if the earth is at rest sorry that was the question and then eyesight said but when i was a student i saw that experiments of this kind had already been made in particular by our compatriot michelson he proved that one does not notice anything on earth that it moves but that everything takes place on earth as if the earth is in a state of rest yes what what is it because of the inertial frames of reference we've been okay because everything appears stationary well i mean if you're just gonna hand wave away after asking a question which is why bother answering the question so if everything is in the same inertial frame of reference everything is moving with the earth on the earth then we yes we can consider it stationary but in fact it is not stationary and from the parallax motions of the stars we know that it's not stationary i just talked to a professional astronomer three days ago he said parallax doesn't prove the world you know what your appeals to us already mean absolutely nothing which is somehow a question a rare question it was you know this is a thing which it has to have the last word every year are you guys got it you guys got it you don't understand relativity it's okay we must go wrong there it is good job was it this one from bush bush doh key says today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through the equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality quote nicola tesla who was that addressed to you guys uh probably are you gonna not interrupt this time with it when hold my breath yeah mark i'm not even gonna try to address the question so i'm just i'm just gonna listen oh okay um yeah so um mathematical models can be incredibly useful and yeah i mean it doesn't doesn't really uh substitute for um experiments but in some way we've got to make models that can then formulate experiments of what we're trying to do and what we're trying to prove without mathematics it's almost impossible there are models that that rely on math sure but um you know this whole idea of well because we are trending or we're using maths to describe these things then we've just thrown science out the window is just completely incorrect and i don't think nicola tesla was correct about that i really don't um there there has to be some mathematical modeling of your um your um what i'm doing queries yeah still yeah it has to has to be there in order to make um to to well it's not just that but you've got to yeah go sorry i want to let you finish up i just want to shortly we have to move on no no you've got to quantify things in order to carry out those experiments you have to mark this one i hate to do it but we do have to keep moving we've got just so many so um michael lion says yeah we have this because if you lived on a ball the horizon would dip down the higher you go why is it on a plane at 35 000 feet the horizon is at eye level it's observably level it's not it's not let me let me do this one it is not the thing is your your concept of eye level and level you're confusing that with your sense of balance and i and i've brought this up many times anything that you look at your direct line of sight that is your eye level at that moment okay so i can look at the horizon from 35 000 feet and i'm looking at it and it's at eye level but as i stand and i would have to zoom in because from such a far distance the elevation from let's say uh 10 stories from far off in the distance that 10 story elevation is like a teeny tiny you know two millimeter distance from the ground on the horizon so the eye level that's parallel to that location is still going to appear to be essentially where the horizon is anyway i know that you guys understood me witson and nathan so nathan don't even act like i mean witson don't even act like you didn't this one coming in from do appreciate your question michael lion says if we got that one isle of hager says for both most roads always go downward that's clear empiricism sorry no flatness the sun doesn't fly away at evening either it just goes down amazing if you look at a road if you were driving down the or through the desert and you were looking forward at a road and you're on like the highway watch out for highway hypnosis by the way um but if you're going down the highway you're going to see that road it's going to go up to your horizon that's not like roads going down like that that's a visual of a road going upward um i mean if you're on a hill that's going down and you're going down the hill it's going to go down but roads can also appear to go up that's not how the curvature works though when you're observing it the curvature is observed the curvature is not observed you can't see what's beyond the curvature you know i'm saying that it's like it doesn't even make sense what you're saying unless there's like refraction or increased elevation or something right right but even still there's more curvature beyond that so yeah and curved from where you are on a ball everything would be curving away from you curving down right yeah so you're standing from a height no no no you're standing from a height six feet eight feet or whatever it is in the car not in the car even though that height may seem minuscule compared to the you know the vastness of the earth there's still enough of that distance that that point from where you're standing to the horizon is why it's appearing to go up it's going up because you're standing this tall and you're looking at a at a road that is still level to the ground like where your feet is you you're saying that the the the visual the curvature is outpacing the curve of the earth up to that horizon up to the up to that horizon it is what's the glow oh yeah yeah okay how did you miss that this one yeah you missed that i feel like you just oh no i i agree that would be the explanation because you can't have something go up if the earth is curving around you would have to say that your your vision is is dominating over it's it's taking precedence over the the actual physical curve no your perspective is giving you that and your height yeah your height is only your height only right because if you were to put your eyes down to the ground you wouldn't see any of that road going up all right moving on me either that says we sit railroad analogy fails if you go high enough you can see the parts of the rails that disappear at ground level just like earth but even if you go high enough there's then you extend how many it's much of the railroad you see and at the limit they still converge so that literally just supports my point and it supports that you see it over flat you know euclidean plane geometry with hyperbolic non-euclidean visual space and just to clarify tesla didn't say that math is no good if you ever read tesla he put he supported everything ever did with math he said they substitute experiments for math and then in the end they wander off through equations so much they have no relation to reality he didn't say no math but uh yeah anyway yeah the the railroad still converge as you go higher that supports my point this one coming in from do appreciate your question don't math for that aether affecting vision there with ever said that cool straw man to rotate this one coming in do appreciate your question from coconut cream pie says with it stop spamming fallacies show predictions we have all kinds of predictions like for example on the flat earth on a plain earth the earth is actually the inertial plane or the block domain wall through the magnetic field right which all magnetic fields have and therefore the magnetic field is going to get slightly weaker as you go further out south well that's exactly what we observe on the earth the stuff uh magnetic field in the south shows that it's significantly weaker than in the north up to 30 percent weaker and on the globe it actually predicts symmetry with the dynamo model of a magnetic field just google it right you'll see that it's supposed to be symmetrical but it's not it's weaker in the south which works perfect so that works with the math flat earth prediction there's thousands of things like that that you guys are pretty cool the uh magnetic declination in the south right oh yeah it's just all over the place the south doesn't work on the globe but all this one from this place an atlantic anomaly uh this place gamer says one day prompt should be quote a positive claim for flat earth i don't know what that means this one from zarrzarin says witzit einstein dis approved and dis acknowledged the ether in 1906 fact is there any fact you can give from this century without gish galloping yeah first of all einstein later said he misspoke when he disregarded the ether we already read that you should have listened and he also said its story by no means finishes continued by the relativity theory in that space without ether is unthinkable and i just dropped the core now university uh ether postulation in theory from 2018 i actually listed about 10 of them from this century just a few minutes ago in the debate so you got it i don't ever refer to the way the earth moves though or the shape of the earth he was he was disagreeing and challenging that an ether is even considered to be possible in mainstream science and he's objectively wrong and ignorant on the subject who who mark no he didn't he said no scientists think there's an ether it was disproven no no mark mark no i'm saying you're conflating the the ether from back when einstein disapproved of it with what they're calling ether now and a lot of your papers say we visualize this as ether not that it is the same thing but we we're using this word and a lot of them are saying that but you don't want people to know that you want the difference exactly the same what's the difference but what the question is is how now is that ether if you could just not interrupt me for a second just lie so much it's so hard um well i mean you lie as well you're you're an just absolute trash liar so even what all right come on we gotta keep on wow wits it you are terrible um the the the whole point is that they're using that word because it's familiar but you don't want people to know that you want it to be seen as exactly the same thing but what you won't answer is how the ether is actually doing anything anywhere you're just using it as a crutch like magic to explain all the things that are inconvenient for you but never actually explain what this ether is doing and how it is doing it i can't explain it all but the problem is when i do it you will say it's word salad and you'll say i'm just making stuff up and you'll dismiss it and then call media interruption a media interruption you need to have for it let's get lost in a chance don't make me trigger so i i can say it's actually a background medium right and so just like sagnac said who invented or discovered the sagnac effect which is what gyroscopes are used and calibrated and engineered with he said it was a vortexual pattern within the ether that we're detecting the drift of and that's what the sagnac effect is and that's what we engineer ring laser gyroscopes with which detect that directly in connection with the 15 degree per hour sidereal rotation which isn't perfectly 15 degrees actually i can go even more into it as i said it's actually viscous continuous beyond comprehension and that throwing the infinitesimal prodigious worlds of velocity and manifests as matter electrostatics is the ether under strain i can do it again is the ether in motion do you say i can't describe it i can describe it and you're going to say no but what you're describing is not indicated in the papers that you cited this coming in from alternate right access to globe and flat side nothing you said are in those papers with it right so in those papers it's like it's like because you're a liar you're again you're just a liar you you claim that these papers support you and when they don't you just basically refer to the ether that was a while ago and then conflate it with the sort of quantum mechanics that they're using today it's a lie you're a liar no that's a straw man i never said that i it's not please stop i never said that these papers support what i just said i said specifically bring them up as evidence oh that's great i want to give them a chance to respond hold on oh they don't support me but i'm gonna present them anyway you gotta give them a chance to respond specifically i said there are many competing theories of an ether and i said i have my own understanding you said i can't make any claims about how it works and i specifically claim i i can i think that tesla was very correct except that light does not permeate the ether it's an excitation or perturbation or disturbance within the ether itself and it is illumination that is conflated into light that is actually modality the ether and everything is in fact that everything is unified under electromagnetic theory within a vortex and a torpedo pattern around that and that's how everything works so yeah i have my own theory there are competing theories you said that science doesn't talk about an ether i showed it it describes exactly what the old ether is and it says the word ether it says we can't unify it with relativity though because we can't explain it thanks for playing but that had nothing to do with it it doesn't describe it as a we got that's a lie alternate kek says to globe and flats do we have the ability to measure the distance to planets using arm amateur telescopes can we measure between continents as well i think you would need to assume size and distance and what you're looking at speed of light there's also parallax there's also um parallax is explained on a stationary oh i gave a chance thank you but it wasn't yeah it wasn't about gosh see you just did it so could you repeat the question all right stop names all right uh ozzie and talk said all those articles presume the earth is a sphere none believe that the earth is flat this is just a red herring yeah which is not to you guys right yeah so i the good thing that if you understood basic logic you would know that you can invoke evidence or a paper without believing every single thing that the paper says or that the person believes if you think that you have to believe every single thing that someone says and whatever whatever uh richard dockins thinks you must believe mark that your new belief whatever that's not how it works okay that's called an all or nothing fallacy it's like sub third grade you can invoke what someone says you can invoke paper you can invoke an experiment you can invoke evidence without invoking everything that the person believes outside of the specific thing you're invoking and you can evoke hostile witnesses never said that but what you're doing is basically taking the paper responding to the superchase excuse me i do want to excuse me you do bring up my name directly to me so you're taking out what you want you're cherry picking dumping the conclusions which is what you love to do and then just cherry pick exactly what you want out of it and say it supports you it's very very known tactic no cherry picking is whenever if i if i left it in context it would contradict what i say meaning if i say Einstein said the earth appears to be a rest but actually he told the truth for the first time see so this is uh you you have to censor me because you know i'm just gonna all right David come on it's getting bad again really fast so cherry picking is if i said look Einstein said that the earth always appears if it is rest but if you went and read it in context it would say but it doesn't always appear like it's a rest it has to contradict what you're saying i'm saying Einstein said it always appears as if it's a rest not that he thought it was a rest not that he thought it was flat so when you say Einstein didn't think the earth was stationary he didn't think the earth was flat your own sources contradicts you that's a red herring fallacy and a strawman fallacy okay it's very simple this one coming in from pick out what you want from a paper bands banna says why does the wait actually i want to give before we go to that one alternate kek i feel like i accidentally set short sighted them they said to the globe earth and flat earth side do we have the ability to measure the distance of planets using amateur telescopes is can we get a yes or a no or an i don't know from everybody yeah make a bunch of assumptions like at the same time though let's go from left to right austin yes no or i don't know uh no now without a bunch of assumptions what about nathan i'd say no as well i mean you're just looking at at something you maybe have to have like a measuring device i don't think you can you don't have to measure other things and have other things detectors and everything but no i'm gonna say no how about mark yeah not accurately but yeah there are other methods of defending distance to planets and then how about david yes with other tools that are are using conjunction with them and then can we measure between continents as well if you feel like your answer didn't already imply the answer to this feel free to give an answer to this on whether or not we can can we measure between continents as well it's very difficult to measure distances in water especially in the southern hemisphere quote unquote anybody else you could maybe i mean like if you really wanted to like nitpick it you could look at a landmark on land and then measure okay that's so far away and then you go to that landmark and then look out at another landmark and say it's that far away you know scoot your way across a continent something like that but i don't think that's what he was asking himself well i mean with with the power of telescopes we should be able to see from one continent like south america too um uh asia but we can't and that's because the earth is well and there's an infinitely through an atmosphere opacity any others yeah okay this one from banna says why does the globe side really i think they mean rely so heavily on presupposed theories isn't there a question that doesn't involve the earth already assumed as a globe well what other shapes could possibly be like coherent let's say it's a cube if it was a cube then you would get to a certain distance and then you'd see a 90 degree drop off so it can't be that same thing with a triangle or any other shape that has a sharp uh change in the um the perimeter so you're left with shapes that are you know spiritual or something like that right you know so the curve that we see all along our vast earth is consistent we don't see certain areas that have a more striking slope than others you got it you know that's it you got it and might as well tell you a couple of quick housekeeping things folks in particular all of our guests are linked in the description box below and that includes at the podcast if you didn't know we don't just call modern day debate a podcast in the sense that it's like a podcast but on youtube but we actually have our own podcast so it's all of these debates that are on youtube we put them on the podcast it's a hundred percent ad free so if you're like hey uh you know i don't like youtube's ads or whatever it is and it has all the intro music cutouts if you don't like that it you know it's a very good experience it's been popular a lot of people have enjoyed it so if you can find us on like spotify apple podcast all of these podcast apps and the reason i bring that up is because you can also find witsits and nathan's and marx and david's links in the description box there as well or at least if they have a link at the moment because some of the guests links uh some of the guests don't currently have a link if you are watching live right now and you're like wait the guests don't have a link in the description box you just have to refresh the page because i put them in after the debate started so pardon my delay on that but want to say thanks for all of your questions folks it's been a true pleasure we appreciate our guests so i want to say one last thank you witsit nathan marx and david it's been a true true pleasure uh thank you james and thank you everyone for participating i'm just a quick question james are they doing a discord after show and i know if they're they're gonna do that or not i have no idea man i'm sorry i uh we do have a modern day debate discord as well so guys if you folks out there if you didn't know that that is true highly encourage you to check it out and also last but not least as i mentioned earlier modern day debate does have a tiktok account and i have pinned our tiktok i think it's at the top of the chat right now it's certainly at the top of the description box and i highly encourage you if you have not yet followed our tiktok and you have a tiktok account what are you waiting for and the reason i say that is because once we had a thousand followers we will be able to put these streams with these gentlemen for example out on tiktok so more people will hear them make their case and so that our neutral platform can expand as we try to give everybody their fair shot to make their case on a level playing field so one last thank you to our guests though it's been a true pleasure to have you guys can we just guys can we get like a closing word like just a minute to just i can give you 60 seconds each okay excuse me um so i thank you everybody for following along honest open mind inquiring science is wonderful thank you james for for hosting this and everyone for for being here having this discussion um james is going to have his next podcast about uh is christian christianity rational and i just really y'all if if the earth is flat the the 666 tilt 666 curvature to the earth 666 falling around the sun continuous orbit bottom pit around fire all that stuff the the people that are in power y'all the the the washington monument the bar cause there's a lot of sixes and stuff in places and these people are willing to use leaf of course to determine policy instead of words i think this is a lot about the human condition we're either special center of creation over animals and animals do all sorts of things including take one another down i think there's a lot of importance to this topic so um thank you james thank you everyone for uh for this discussion and then people as well following along so my pleasure anybody else otherwise thank you i think he crushed it it's been a true pleasure so i want to say thanks thanks folks for watching we appreciate all your questions and want to let you know as always we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from flat earth globe earth banana shaped earth you name it we're glad that you're here i'll be back in just a moment with a post credit scene letting you know about upcoming debates it's gonna be a short and sweet one because i'm super tired but i want to say thank you to our guests you guys have so much energy i i've pulled away so thank you guys we'll be right back folks stick around amazing my dear friends want to say thanks so much for being here let me load zoom back up and then i'm going to take five minutes and then i if that i'm going to say uh want to say folks we're thrilled to have you here thanks for all of your support if you haven't yet hit that like button seriously that really does help it's a small thing for you to hit that like button so you're probably like meh what's the difference but it does mean a lot to us at modern a debate as we really do want to expand this neutral platform it is a goal of ours we are unashamed about the fact that we're like yeah we want to grow because we think we are providing value on youtube we think that we're providing something that's you could say not only value but values based in the sense that our values are quite clear we want liberty we want freedom we believe that our debaters were free from their first breath and we want to keep it that way we want to give everybody a fair shot to make their case on a level playing field that's our goal on modern day debate we want things to be equal that's why we at modern day debate have neutral moderation where everybody gets their fair shot as well as that leads into our second value because a lot of people say oh james it's but it's so dangerous you you know if you let this position on or this person on it's irresponsible i'm one of the d platforming crew and james you're so bad you're so bad and it's true i'm a very bad man but nonetheless i've got to tell you there's a reason for it in it you could say corresponds or grows from is a downstream consequence from the fact that we as our second value value competition we think there's a value two competition in particular we believe that if you let a thousand flowers bloom there will be a natural selection of ideas in particular the best ideas will win out and the worst ideas will fall by the wayside the cream will rise to the top and this competition will be a good thing because there will be refining in particular if there are dangerous views or dangerous individuals it's good that we host them on modern day debate because on a neutral platform they'll be exposed by the other debater that they're going against and that's a good thing believe me if some people are like oh well james like you should like jump in and also expose them and it's like well but that doesn't really make it look like they've lost the debate in a like a genuine way because it's like well if you lose because the moderator also jumps in or if the channel is like oh we take a hard stance against this position we think it's inappropriate even though we platform and it's like well it doesn't seem as if for example frank exposes the dangerous view as if it's like a legitimate win anymore because it's kind of like oh well it's a platform that like openly admits that they're biased against the view that just got crushed and so you know it's almost like if the refs were fixed in a football game you'd be like well it doesn't seem like a genuine win you'd want an asterisk next to their name if they won with biased refs in their pocket so in the same way like this channel has to be genuinely neutral for a debate to be a genuine win so in other words like yeah we're like hey we're fully neutral we don't we're not like hey we take the flat earth position or hey we take the the globe earth position or hey we're you know we take it's purely like hey the debaters come on to make their case we only have debates here on modern day debate there are no position videos where I come on and say hey you know my position is that you know flat earth or globe earth is wrong or oh man those flat earthers or those globe earthers totally blew it they were so bad no no no no no no no no come on youtube deserves a better class of debate channel and that and we're going to give it to them we have big aspirations folks this channel though I am grateful that we have hit what is it 93,000 I think it's like 93,500 we hit today which is huge so like just in the last 24 hours it want to say thank you guys for subscribing seriously your support means more than you know and I've got to tell you we're thankful for it and at the same simultaneously like simultaneously we're excited about the future because we believe that our story is just beginning we are actually small now compared to what we're going to become we are going to continue to expand because that's what people want we've found we've recognized it we've found that modern day today it's expanding people are saying like hey this is cool like I want to come on your channel people are reaching out to us now and sometimes they're even people with major followings people are getting on board and so we're excited about that as we continue to pick up momentum and want to say though thanks for being with us I want to say hello to a few of you in the old live chat and then I've got to go but I want to say t daytrooper gw thanks for coming by true tech glad to have you here tie dot tie d4l glad you came by Joe the toe good to see you again as well as into the break thanks for coming by thanks for your support and good to see you iron horse you wily coyote thanks for coming good bye god guns and glory thanks for being with us into the break as well as lauren kalfi thanks for dropping in am i saying it right let me know eric william may glad to have you with with us tj davis glad to have you here truly and good to see you again sam paedro happy to have you with us as well as master optics glad you're here robert page good to see you again into the break good to have you dylan moats happy you're here mary thanks for being here says best debate channel thanks mary that means more than you know and s camel good to see you here ryan roberts glad you're with us what a world happy that you were here tie let's see hillside glad to have you here thanks for your kind words seriously that means a lot as well as holy someone you got a lot of people in chat tonight thanks for being with us folks good to have you here charlie and anchor in the veil thanks for dropping in solo and gully glad you're with us true tech happy to have you here batman good to see you huge fan of your movies also thanks for coming in miss sweet thanks for your kind words as james i appreciate you so much these debates are so great and some of my favorite entertainment get some sleep by much love thanks so much for that miss sweet totally appreciate it as well as amanda good to see you says love and appreciate you james thanks for that support that means a lot really does thanks for helping us scope out our next spot for our next in person conference this spring folks if you didn't know we do have in person conferences they're called debate con it's a debate conference in other words and we are excited about that as we are pumped to bring debates in person again or it's a fun thing we love doing it escamble good to see you here says i miss steven seen you and me both thanks for that snap trap good to have you here thanks for your kind words that really does encourage me it means a lot want to go or uh i want to say i got to go but thanks for being here jj hemp crete bear glad you came by splatter ivxx thanks for dropping in thanks for saying hello christoph good to see you elaine i'm glad you're here as well as lauren kaff and tj trusty and jf and gods let's see see into the break glad you're here let's see let's see glad you're here lrn news thanks for coming by and want to say thanks for all your guys support it's a busy time as you know but i've got to run because i'm excited to pop in and say hello and and then let you guys go and i want to say thanks for all your support though we love you guys you make this fun we're excited about this upcoming debate you can see at the bottom right of your screen it's going to be huge you don't want to miss it so hit that subscribe button and if you're already subscribed check if you hit that notification bell for all debates because that will make sure that you're going to see that notification for this big upcoming debate on wednesday between steward and arin you don't want to miss it want to say thanks for all your love and support you guys we'll see you at the next one and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable amazing as i said my dear friends thanks for all your support one last reminder about that tick tock link at the top of the description box and pinned at the top of the chat if you do have tick tock means a lot if you help support us by following us as we're excited to be able to expand and livestream our debates over there as well as for us it's really just about the exposure we really are excited that hey more people can learn about this neutral platform so if you haven't yet please do click that tick tock link and follow us there as once we get to a thousand followers we'll be able to unlock that live streaming feature so thank you guys love you guys have a great rest of your night