 People of the internet, welcome to modern day debate. Brian, can you meet me? I got it, you know what? People of the internet, welcome to modern day debate. Tonight we are debating the flat earth. We have Mr. Sensible crossing swords with Brian, formerly flat earth tests. They will have 12 minutes each for opening, 55 minutes of open discussion and a 35 minute Q&A. Brian is going to be going first tonight. And he has a presentation he's going to present to us. So Brian, I will go ahead and kick it over to you. At your first work. And I have a share screen here as well. So let me go ahead and get that up for you. Let's see. So you have a share screen. Yep, it's up there right now. And it will start playing whenever you're ready to go. Okay, I'll tell you what, I'm pretty much ready. All right. Okay, this is a little piece. I want to give a shout out to Mike Kavanaugh, Dr. Zack and Steve Torrance. If you want to see this model in detail, go to Steve on YouTube. This is just a little piece of it. It's literally terabytes of data. It models all the planets, the sun, the moon. And I just wanted, this is just a little, like I said, a tiny piece that's based on a toroidal system. And the sun is like a magnetic focal point. Like I said, if you're interested in seeing it in detail, then it's on YouTube. So here, and I just wanted to back it up with a little quick bit of evidence. You see the clouds behind them thick. I mean, in front of them thick clouds where I'm from, the sun or the clouds block the sun that are that thick. So that kind of supports the idea that it is possibly a magnetic focal point or maybe even a focal point of light. This is Dr. Zack pretty much. I'm trying to narrate this. So I'm going to say he's just explaining how they, all they had to do is add the atmosphere. And all the months of them trying to put this thing together, it fell right into place. And they added it to a globe. And it did the same thing as it did on a flat earth. Instead of the sun setting first and then the real sun actually setting behind it, the apparent sun set afterwards. So it kind of contradicted the globe a little bit. But then he goes on and he shows the model, the epi model up against the globe model to a video he took in reality. And pretty much everything matches. He says, pretend you're seeing a hot spot on a lake. If you're seeing a hot spot on a lake five miles away and it's 10 miles across the lake, if you go to the other side of the lake and you turn back and look, you're not going to see the hot spot hitting the lake through the clouds. The sun's going to be behind you. So everybody has a personal sun. It's basically refracted, if you will. And it's trying to triangulate. It's like trying to triangulate a rainbow. Here's another flat earth model. I believe he made this for celestial navigation. If you want to see this in detail, go to trulon.com, tr-o-o-l-o-n.com. And that's based on the refraction. I think it's like the sun is a focal point of light. So here's a clip. We're looking at it. And you have the sun pointing. I mean, the moon's light is on the top side of the moon. And so we look at the sun and where is it at? It's down about the set. So what they tell us is that the sun, if it's only one degree above the horizon, it's over a million miles above your feet because it's so far away. We go back and look at it. So there's the shadow it's casting on me. Why isn't it doing that to the moon? We go back about half an hour later and it's the same thing except the sun's just further down. So what I do is I go and I check that math. I go to the triangle calculator and put in a distance of 93 million miles and a one degree theta angle. And sure enough, yeah, it's 1,000, I mean 1,600,000 miles. So if the sun, that's how they explain this. So if the sun is above your feet, I mean above the horizon, one degree, it's literally 1,600,000 miles above your head. Okay? So I had some people saying that. There's the info if you want to see it right there. 1,600,000 miles. So if it's two degrees above, it's over three million miles above your feet from a tangent. Okay, so that brought into question. Okay, what about these clouds that are under lit with the sun that's on the horizon? If the light's coming in parallel, then how is it hitting the bottom of these clouds? If it's two or three degrees above the horizon, it should be millions of miles above that cloud. So then I found a picture with the sun on the horizon and supposedly glow proof. And right there, the diverging angles alone, you know, are enough to prove a local sun to me. But look, this sun's three or four degrees above the horizon, yet it's shining on the bottom of the cloud. So I asked, how can all these images exist if the light is parallel? That's an impossibility. If the light is shining down on the moon, okay, and down on a shadow on the ground, how is it simultaneously casting a shadow up into the clouds or shining like directly on the bottom of clouds? That violates the parallel light. I don't see any way of getting around that, but you know, I'm all ears. So give more examples of that. And the sun's clearly on the horizon and all these pictures, that's the closest one. And it's still on the horizon. So one argument gets them tangled up into another one twice as bad. And this is not the only time it happens. It happens a lot. What seems like good glow proof, if you look at it in detail and scrutinize it, you'll run into more problems with the glow. Okay, so here's how they explain the parallel light, which is fine. If the light followed the latitude lines, okay, so I went to Google Earth, and we're observators at the equator seeing the sunrise on an equinox. Okay, he's looking due east. So I typed in my location, or actually at the beach near my location, at Jack's Beach Pier. And a guy sent me a video. He's trying to teach me parallel light on equinox. He said the parallel lines are in space, not on the globe. So, you know, I want to put that to the test. I go to Google Earth, and I look, and I'm like, you know, it worked fine on a cylinder. So the parallel light, we could be parallel with the equator, but on a globe, you know, we're changing orientation. So I want to check and see how that works. So the first thing I did when I found out about Flutter is the first equinox. I went down to the beach, and this is something I set up. I set up two string lines, and one compass east and one dew east. And when the sun came up right after this photo, it sure enough, it split dew east. So the sun does, in fact, come in dew east, at least for me, and it's supposedly for everybody on earth, on equinox. So there's a little setup of me. There's me as a stick figure, looking, there's the pier next to me. And so I want to see where am I looking. So I go to Google Earth, and one thing I know is that Google Earth will only plot portions of a great circle or a great circle. So that's a straight line with respect to your orientation on the globe model. So whatever direction your line's going off into, if you go down to the 3D view, that's what way you're looking. So there's me next to the pier, and there's a sun just trickling above the horizon. Okay? And so I go to see which way I'm facing, and I'm facing above Africa, just off the coast, 6,000 miles away. So I type in a, there's south of the equator, on the same longitude, and looking at a sun just poking above the horizon. I see the same thing. So I do understand that the line is not following the ground. It's supposed to be looking off into space. So if I'm looking at a sun that's just about to rise, I do realize if I start heading toward it, I will get higher above the earth, but I'm still going to be heading in that direction. That's, like I said, that's part of a great circle. So you use that so they couldn't bend and warp it. So they try and show you light coming in over half the globe so they could bend you over backwards. But if you're with the same orientation as the equator, it would work fine. The problem is as soon as you leave the equator, you change orientation. And so that's where I don't know if I want to call it a trick, but that's where the mistake is, kind of got all our heads. Thinking it works has been over backwards. But if you pull strings on a globe, I think you'll see the same thing. It's because it's a flat line. So it'll set out further, a few thousand miles further. That's kind of what the local sun model predicts anyway. You've seen them try to model it. They still have that slight convergence from the observer north and south of Equinox. So the parallel sun, 93 million miles to me, is just totally destroyed at this point. But here's about the stars. So there's the moon. I play a couple of star trail time-lapse with the moon in it. And so whatever the moon, wherever it's at in the ecliptic, it's following them stars. So if it's over the equator, it's going straight. And I don't think I'll get any friction on that. They have to agree with that. And so I got to think it. So we can't show the moon. We can't show the sun in more than one location at once. And we can't get shadows from stars. But what we can do is use a little logic. And I played Mr. Sensible saying that the stars were deviating or they were separating going off to the northern hemisphere. And then he took it back when I said that they're separating. He's like, oh, no, no, they're not separating. So it gets into a technical argument. Even here's Stellarium. When you flatten out the horizon, it still shows separation. There was the Astronomy Society saying that there's three paths to the stars straight over the equator and then right toward the northern hemisphere and left depending on your direction. So anyway, so I want to. And I also in there, you couldn't hear it, but I had other globers saying that it's not perspective. It's not a wide angle lens that has nothing to do with it. But so here I have the, like I said, the moon following the star trail. So what we're going to do is we're going to actually use sun count. Sorry. We're going to plot the angle to stars using sun count. Because like I said, we know the sun follows the stars and its path. So here we go. And so anybody who doesn't know about side count, we'll call it that ball is the sun or represent the sun. The stars in this, in this example, actually, the stick underneath it represents the shadow that we measure. So there's directly south under the equator and we see the divergence and we do measure these shadows. So if you are a observer at the equator and you're in your front yard, you have a little five by five perfectly flat square. You set it up in a one meter stick. You will measure these stars physically deviate. They, they will deviate. We can measure it. And so what's that? Tell us, tell us there's more than one. There's more than one start. There's more than one point. You know, it's not antipodal is what I'm trying to say. There's a couple of different separate star rotations. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much, Brian. You will go ahead and kick it off. Okay. Let me get my screen shared. Brian, I'm getting all my voice straight back at me through you. Thank you. Sure. So while he goes ahead and gets his screen share set up, I just wanted to say that we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we want you to feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. And if you have a question for one of tonight's debaters, please fire into the old live chat and tag me at modern day debate. Super chats will go to the top of the list and they will get priority and please keep it civil insults will not be read. And with that, let's see if this works. Brian, I will go ahead and start your timer at your first word. I'm sorry, not Brian. Brian suggested that this debate was on sun stars. And then when I pushed him, he broke it down say sun angles, flat and glow, parallel rays, Coriolis and star trails, which I thought was a bit vague, but let's see how I do. First of all, what are stars? This is Webb's first deep field from the Gems Webb telescope. It covers a patch of sky that's approximately the size of one grain of sand held at arm's length. This was a 12 and a half hour exposure in several different wavelengths. It's galaxy cluster SMACS 0723. The cluster is 4.6 billion light years away. The smeary lines are other galaxies that are further away still. They're smeared due to galactic lensing as predicted by Einstein. The mass of the cluster is bending the light of the further galaxies. This shows that there is a real gravitational effect caused by their mass. This is how it works. One from the distant objects travels past the supermassive object like a galaxy and the rays of light are bent due to the curvature in space-time. This is an image of space-time curvature. Here is, oh, sorry, sorry, one second. This comes, I'm losing track of which one I'm on. Two, three, sorry. Here's another example, an Einstein ring where distant galaxies- I'm sorry, hold on one second. Are you- No, I am. Oh, it's locked on one- Yeah, that's what I'm going to ask you. Hold on, can I stop and share it again? Yeah, let's do that. And I want to let you know, folks, that our guests are linked in the description below, so if you're listening on YouTube or the podcast that you can check them out if you like what you're hearing. Okay, if I may just race through the first bit. So the first image was the Hubble deep field in one grain of sand area of the sky. You can see the smears of the further galaxies that have been lensed. And this is how it works. Showing the image, hopefully it's coming up. So you've got the distant object with its light rays traveling past the supermassive object, rays of light being bent due to the curvature in space-time. This is an Einstein ring where a distant galaxy has been lensed and distorted by the object in front. Like the way a glass orb twists and bends things that you can see through it. Einstein had predicted that light would be bent by gravity and distorted space-time, but there's no way of seeing this on a galactic scale at that time. However, we do have the sun and that also should bend light due to its gravity. This can only be seen during an eclipse when the solar disk is covered. In 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington carried out an expedition to Brazil to see a solar eclipse. This had been calculated to occur using orbital mechanics and based on gravity, the orbits of the moon and Earth, and Earth being a sphere. And he tried to test the theory. He imaged stars right near the eclipse sun that were appearing in slightly the wrong positions due to the light being bent. Einstein's idea was demonstrated as correct. This shows that the sun is a massive physical object, so massive that it's warping space-time making the light travel in a geodesic that appears to us as bent. So what is a sun made of? If you split the light of its spectrum, it's called absorption lines, known as Fraunhofer lines. Each element causes lines at different points in the spectrum, like a barcode. So once we have the code, we can tell what is absorbed and hence what the elements are. Here's a spectrum of the sun, reading the lines we can ascertain the physical makeup of the sun. All its constituent elements, again shown, is a physical object and enabling us to deduce how it works, i.e. nuclear fusion. We can look at the spectra of other stars and see what they are made of. These are spectra from stars of different types. One is the G2 star just below the centre. You can do the same with galaxies and you get an interesting effect, spectrum redshift. The lines in the spectra still show the same barcode patterns, but they are shifted towards the red. This is Doppler shift. Like the sound of a train or a car horn passing, the notes drop as the wavelengths are stretched out. Think of it like pond ripples. Someone drops a weight in water. Imagine ripples passing you at a rate of one per second. If you walk towards the drop point, ripples would pass you more often. The frequency is higher if you walk away, almost at the speed of the ripples. They take longer to catch up with you, less pass you, perhaps one every two seconds, and the frequency is lower. The galactic light is redshifted as they are moving away. The frequency of light waves we receive drops. We know the stars and galaxies are physical and a long way away and accelerating as well at an increasing velocity. Why parallel light? If I quickly play this, I don't need sound. If this train in the middle represents the sun, light rays hit your eyes coming from any part of it, top, bottom, left and right. We can see as I point out that they arrive from different angles. If we look at another tree further away, light from the left and right still come from different angles, but it's smaller angles. They're closer to parallel. It's the angular size of that tree. The sun's angular size is approximately half a degree in the sky, meaning light arriving here can at most be only half a degree from parallel. Stars are point sources of light and the angle is infinitely smaller again. We can treat sun and starlight as parallel. Why is parallel light useful? Well, Eratosthenes used the fact of parallel light in the position of the sun to calculate the circumference of the earth. He knew how far the second reading was from the first, knew the difference in angles and so could work out how far around the sphere it was, and hence the entire circumference. We rely on parallel light in order for sextants to work. If we put Mr. S at the GP of the sun, with 90 degrees overhead, the zenith, and then add a second Mr. S further away, the sun for him is say 10 degrees off the zenith. He's 10 degrees around the sphere. Every degree is 16 minutes of arc. Therefore, he's 600 arc minutes away around the curve. This is referred to as 600 nautical miles, with one nautical mile being 1.15078 miles. So he is 690.468 miles away from Mr. S1. A nautical mile, by definition, is one minute of arc around a curve. It relies on the fact the earth is a sphere. If Mr. S are triplets and a third is in the other location with the sun 20 degrees off zenith, he's double the angle of Mr. S2 and at twice the angle, he's also twice the distance. 1,200 nautical miles, 1,380.935 miles from Mr. S1. This relationship always holds true. This explains why sextants and celestial navigation cannot work on a flat plane, with a local sun or with non-parallel light. Here we got 7 Mr. S's. Each with a sun are multiple of 10 degrees from zenith. Each should be exactly 600 nautical miles from the other. Simple geometry shows this doesn't work. The distance between increases the further the sun is off of zenith. On a flat earth, each 10 degrees the sun is off zenith does not equate to the same distance, 600 nautical miles. The sextant wouldn't work and it would be useless. Please note this, Mr. Nathan Muteboy Oakley Failsoid and Bitchmade from Australia. So what about star trails? We know that time-lapse images show stars apparently rotating around a point near Polaris, anti-clockwise, yet that's rising in the east to the west, and clockwise around a point near Sigma Octanas in the south, still rising east to west. Flat earth has seen to have a problem visualising this and get hung up on clockwise and anti-clockwise. That isn't the issue. The issue is impossible to have two points over a flat plane unless stars move further apart and close together during the night like gears meshing. Imagine a bike wheel with two hubs try rotating it around both hubs at the same time. Two points of rotation require a 3D environment an axis of rotation through north and south and a 3D earth. It could be any shape, apart from flat. The trails are circular and not ellipses which again couldn't happen over a flat earth. What I'll do is I'll play this next video without sound and talk it. So a nice demo for Mr. Brian Leakey. So I've got a camera and I'm going to turn around and keep turning in the same direction. So I start rotating towards the east and the centre view at the top shows the view to get over the equator. Stars will be rising at one side going straight across and dropping on the other side. I tilt the camera up looking towards Polaris. Now we can see rotation about a point in the sky. It's going anti-clockwise. I then point the camera down carry rotating the same direction and we get rotation counter to the original rotation which now is clockwise. This cannot happen on a flat earth because you have no way of looking below ground level. So Coriolis Flat earth is also can't understand Coriolis which relies on moving from an area of one rotation of velocity to one of a differing rotation of velocity while maintaining original velocity due to conservation of momentum. It wouldn't result in balloons or helicopters lifting off and having earth turned underneath. Balloons travel with the atmosphere and they just get moved around by the air and helicopters also the same but also a powered craft continually adjusting their position. Now this time what I want to do is unshare and share a particular video if I may give it a second. I'm getting good at this now I think for hope. Number 17 here we go because this one's got sound. Coriolis would be the turning of the earth underneath an object above it like this. That most emphatically is not Coriolis and what's more it's impossible due to the conservation of momentum. If we take a tennis ball drop it as expected it goes straight down towards the earth due to gravity. Now let's apply 20 miles per hour of momentum. As the ball is released it falls to the ground at the same rate. Over this time it's also got a forward momentum of an additional 20 miles an hour. It tries to maintain that momentum. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force. So to compare the two while the car is stationary the ball falls directly downwards to the orange marker box. If we place another marker box under the point where the ball was released while traveling at 20 miles an hour it totally misses. It's still accelerating downwards at exactly the same rate of 9.8 meters per second per second but it has the additional velocity forward and it maintains that momentum. We'll start by marking our center point, the point of rotation and another point out towards the outer edge. Now let's say we want to fire a cannon from that outer mark to the middle. We're going to want it to go in a straight line like this. But the outer areas are having to move faster than the inner areas to complete each rotation. The cannon ball will fly straight directly up the screen but it has a sideways velocity due to its momentum it had at the start. That gives us a curved path. That is Coriolis. Coriolis is the deflection from a straight path that is apparently seen on a rotating surface when you are moving from an area at one rotational speed to an area at another rotational speed but while maintaining your initial momentum. So, it's a globe I checked. Please subscribe Mr Boldy. Sensible cats are Mr Sensible Live. Suck it up, princess. Thank you very much. That's the end of my presentation. Alright, thank you so much Mr Sensible for your opening statement. Ten seconds left. Yeah, great. So we'll go ahead and kick it into the open discussion in just a second. But again, I just want to remind everybody that we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. I want you to feel welcome no matter where you're from and tag me at modern day debate if you have a question for once tonight's debaters. Super chats go to the top of the list. They get priority and make sure you keep it civil. Don't attack the person that attacked the argument. Moderators are working to keep the conversation elevated so make sure you show them respect at each other as well. Hit the subscribe button. We have plenty more debates coming your way you don't want to miss. And our guests are linked in the description below so if you're listening on YouTube or the podcast make sure you check them out if you like what you're hearing. And with that we will go ahead and kick it into the open discussion for about approximately 55 minutes I believe. So at your first word gentlemen we will go ahead and start that out. That was some presentation. That was some presentation man. Am I debating you or Wikipedia man? Before we get started real quick can I I want to offer you this. I want to offer we can each invoke up to three yes or no questions. If you say it beforehand and it's nothing you know solid it's not approval and all type of thing but if you want to do that I'll offer you three direct yes or no questions if you invoke I'm not sure where these rules are suddenly coming from. I think it's just a discussion. I mean I'll answer questions honestly as best I can. I hope you will too. I do want to ask you bro. I do want to ask you you said about the stars with the rotation. Are you saying that during the night they will separate and get closer together? Yes and if I could listen in that case you'll be able to show me you'll be able to show me one image of a star constellation like say Orion that's distorted because it's being ripped apart as it goes. Oh yeah yeah that's exactly what happens. The belt of Orion follows the equator. Yes it does man. I showed the astronomy club if you didn't see that where there's three star paths. Nobody in mainstream debates this. Anybody could do a time lapse. I even went as far as going to SunCal and showing you how the Sun follows the exact trails depending on where it's at in the ecliptic. The stars most certainly deviate. SunCal software you cannot show me any film or photos where a constellation has basically spread out and got further apart. What you're talking about is wide-angle photography to get more of the sky showing the rotation of circles. Did you not see? They look straighter but that effect is just purely down to the lens. If you measure the distance between any of those stars visually you will find they do not change ever. So Stellarium you're going to throw out Stellarium because I just showed a few seconds of Stellarium with the horizon leveled off. I do understand a wide-angle lens can magnify an effect but I just showed Stellarium. Stellarium acknowledges the three star paths. The astronomy clubs like I said hold on hold on them shadows represent what's going on. So if you are in a single position at the equator and you have just one little flat square piece of ground five five five don't worry about the rest of the earth just your one little five by five box. Now this is what you'll get this is the angles you'll get so them stars if they could leave shadows they would deviate. Brian, let's say you're looking at Orion and according to you you can see the belt splitting out. Absolutely. The belt follows the equator. I'm looking at Orion as well I do not see them splayed out. Different people would see the stars different people would see the pattern of Orion or whichever constellation differently at the same time that is patently impossible and patently I'm sorry to say absurd. I'm not telling you that it spins full circles. Brian is there anything that you can do about the audio on your microphone? Yeah let me try something. I tried to change the settings on my end but I couldn't do much here. Sorry about that folks. I see a lot of complaints in the chat about the microphone so I just wanted to see if we could do anything about it. Hopefully that's a little bit better man. You might have to turn me down a little bit. Let's go with that for now. Okay, yeah I'm not saying it's going to spin a full circle from the equator what I'm telling you is that the deviation is measurable so whatever is going on anybody who looks at the star pass can see Orion's belt the three stars that make up the belt I don't know why you don't know this do follow the equator and yes the head of Orion on the horizon not right above your head now on the horizon as far as the approach and as far as the descent absolutely do see and measure separation that's why in celestial navigation that's broke down from the equator you have a whole separate system in the south then you do the north. Brian two things one I'm getting a lot of feedback again which is awful for me the second is as I said if you took a photo of Orion in your position I took a photo of Orion in my position they would look identical there's no perspective there's no separation and splaying out of the constellation Orion always looks exactly the same it never ever deviates never I wish I could have played the audio I got caught off guard a little bit trying to do nothing you managed to play pre-recorded if I could have just played the one thing I'll show you all the top ballers saying they're different things but the main ones like co-show and all them and listen nobody disputes it's only anti-flat earthers who dispute the three separate star paths I just showed you the astronomy club google go to wikipedia there are three star paths and I'm not talking about like I said overhead but it is if they splayed out then you wouldn't track them properly with telescopes you couldn't constantly keep a star pattern in a scope the whole time because it would splay out and disappear off the edges that never happens that's absolutely you can't depend it because of the audio feedback going on on Orion's microphone you really have to really try to only take turns speaking so just concise statements and then allow the other person to respond yeah I know I'll try and mute while I'm not talking you tend to get a little excited but I'm talking about up on the horizon tracking the stars is not dependable toward the horizon the speed changes you can attribute it to refraction or whatever you want to but what you're saying we should see we do see that it's because of refraction but I'll tell you it's because of what we see and we can measure it it's ever so gentle but that's what we see man there is refraction right in the lower few degrees above the horizon yes but looking at star trails you see the stars going round in a circle the other way if you turn that way if you use a wide angle lens you can see them apparently but that's just down to the lens they never ever splay out if you took a non-distorting photo of that constellation above you it would look the same there as it does there as it does behind me what about Stellarium Stellarium showed deviation none of the star programs hide this it's ever so gentle but it's there you're acting like it's not okay so Stellarium's wrong then are you telling me Stellarium's wrong I am saying as a constellation rises apart from that first few degrees of refraction as it rises passes overhead or passes overhead that way it will not change size I put 50 pounds down to charity if you can show me images two images of the same constellation and it changed I'll tell you what man I will play specifically for you we went through this we went over this for days and they finally had to come to the conclusion and I'm talking about your side the tip of the spear that people debate every day had to accept it because it happens it's on the horizon it's gentle but it happens and you're hold on your stars you're talking about a degree or two above the horizon they start changing speed when they drop below like 20 degrees and half the time when they're under 10 degrees we don't even see them above the horizon I don't think you're doing these observations or I don't know if you're even claiming you are but what you're saying we see ain't it we don't even see the stars sitting on the horizon I've already acknowledged lowest few degrees there is refraction more than that where you showed the sun setting and the apparent setting the sun actually sets before you see it sets because of refraction it's lifted just a couple of degrees and so you actually see it disappear a couple of minutes or whatever after it actually has dropped below the horizon refraction is a thing yeah it had to be a thing on either model but I want to bring it up you mentioned Coriolis and I didn't touch on that in my presentation yeah so what I wanted to talk about is the firing tables and all this I looked into the math and everything and the way y'all describe whatever y'all are describing it's not Coriolis but I understand what y'all are describing and if you want to call it that that's fine but I ask you this if we're on a cylinder would you experience Coriolis traveling from the equator toward the north pole no your rotational velocity is the same at the equator as it is halfway towards the pole it's a cylinder I'm assuming north pole vertically through the cylinder so you've got the same rotational velocity so your conservation of the momentum is the same at the equator as your momentum would be halfway up and right up to the top of that cylinder so no there would be no Coriolis so when you start talking about the atmosphere moving with air there are consequences man and you can't get around them you have to address them so I want to bring one up to you a consequence of the atmosphere moving with the earth first off I want to say that the air is not bound to anything there's no bonds on a molecular level it's free to rotate and you know winds go whichever way they want besides that yes it's not bound but the atmosphere as a whole is rotating and always has been rotating with the earth you're right there's nothing to force force it to carry on rotating but there's nothing to slow it down either now you get variations with winds as air moves towards lower pressure areas from higher pressure areas but overall the atmosphere is rotating at the same speed as the earth like we're stationary right the atmosphere is moving right along with us almost like we're not living at all who would have thought okay well anyway my point was so you say there's no Coriolis on a cylinder because of the tangential speed so that means that anything off in a tangent there will be no Coriolis anything above that tangent line on a globe anything beyond the cylinder in other words anything the size of a cylinder which is the tangent from your feet or above it in other words anything steeper will that be reverse Coriolis right if it's going in other words if it's if we're experiencing Coriolis because the earth is curving down and the tangential speed is changing that means the tangent would be zero below it as the earth curves would be above it we'd be entering a region of faster tangential speed so it'd be reverse Coriolis right no what happens let's take this typical figure you're rotating at the equator at a thousand miles an hour if you jump up into the air you're moving eastwards continuing at a thousand miles an hour now if you got fired from a cannon headed northwards at a thousand miles an hour even though you're also now going northwards the land you're now passing over is not going eastwards at a thousand miles an hour so you appear to end up ahead of yourself your path from the ground looks as if it's curved eastwards okay so there would be Coriolis on a cylinder okay well because imagine a cylinder halfway down the cylinder that cylinder is rotating at a thousand miles an hour near the top of the cylinder it's rotating at a thousand miles an hour it's one rigid cylinder and so is your wind though you just said your wind is rotating with the earth yes it is but instead the earth as a sphere has two slices one at the equator rotating at a thousand miles an hour once per day near the pole it's also rotating once per day but that's a lot slower because it doesn't have to go so fast to get round once per day so if you stepped from one slice to the next slice suddenly you're going faster than that slice so if you go above a tangent then you're entering that if you say the atmosphere is rotating with the earth then you need to live by the consequences and the consequences are that if I project out above the tangent I'm entering a speed like on a cylinder but if I go steeper and I project an upward angle even a little bit I'm entering an area that you say is rotating faster than the area I left not slower so it would be reversed I think I see what you're saying well you said the atmosphere is rotating with the earth if it's rotating with the earth then there's no getting around it there's no getting around it but you're talking about a hypothetical cylinder the earth is a sphere if you think you must have been on a train when another train overtakes or you overtake the other train you look past and they seem to be going backwards as you go past if you threw an object from your window direct at the window next to you it would miss because that train is moving at a different speed that's the same effect as Coriolis you're going from one speed to another right so you can see that if we go up above a tangent we're entering a region of faster tangential speed more angular momentum well the fact is we're not measuring our position against the atmosphere we're measuring our position against the land we fired you from a cannon at the equator northwards you're assuming somewhere directly northwards that because you start off with a faster tangential velocity you'll miss you'll veer to the eastward if we're far away northward yeah that's what they say but you have the atmosphere moving with the earth so let's say if I'm a sniper and I'm laying on my belly on the ground even if I'm at a firing range and I'm aiming slightly uphill at the side of a hill and my bullet never enters never gets down more than my tangent my bullet is I'd like you to address this that you have your atmosphere rotating with the earth so don't try and separate the land again you have them both rotating together so I'd like you to maintain that consistency so if the bullet leaves the ground which is rotating at a certain speed and it goes up slightly it's actually entering a region that is faster it is literally faster if it's at an upward angle until that bullet drops down beneath that tangent okay then there's no getting around it well you're talking obviously talking about a very short distance I don't know what distance you can fire a sniper's bullet a couple miles say and now if you're talking about firing up hill I know what you're saying that's a wider radius on the earth so therefore it's the gravitational velocity is slightly different possibly that would affect the Coriolis maybe cancel it or maybe even more so the other way we need to with the military and correct the tables man because I think it's the last effect the fact that the bullet's spinning that's why everything seems to deviate to the right I don't think we know for sure exactly what it is if at all but I wanted to say one more thing on that it's not just a sniper in the short range almost every projectile is firing at a target of equal height or even higher like on ships they could be firing from the ocean up onto the land and they start their bullets always start upwards so like I said I'll end it with this on that I don't want to keep repeating myself but if the atmosphere is moving with the earth then we do have a reverse effect with the upward angle as long as the projectile never dropped beneath the tangent line then we'd have to do the calculations different with a missile we're talking about the path over the ground it takes and the point where it lands you've aimed at a point where it lands it actually doesn't matter let me speak now as it goes through that air apart from the fact of the air possibly affecting the path it doesn't matter if it's ahead of or behind where it should be because of the speed of the air what matters is the target you aimed at and with Coriolis if you fired north then your bullet your missile is going to want to tend to move to the east and I would like an explanation why do weather systems rotate one way in the north of Equator and either way in the south yes me too I need an explanation on that okay hold on two things you say it's Coriolis except for the hurricanes A, I live in the hurricane bell it's a freaking hurricane out there right now but it's finally slacking off so you want to attribute that to Coriolis but I've seen a couple of these storms rotating the other way it would only take one but then you want to attribute that to conservation momentum so if you look into it and the pendulums they deviate clockwise and the hurricanes deviate counterclockwise so if you start with a storm not only that with a storm coming from the Equator and working its way up towards the coast any of them that hit the Gulf of Mexico they're flying directly in the face of Coriolis but the spin itself is directly not conserving momentum so I'm the one that needs an explanation on that why does a pendulum go clockwise in the northern hemisphere and a hurricane go counterclockwise the bigger question Brian is if it goes one way in the northern hemisphere why does it decide to go the other way when it goes south of the Equator if it's a flat plane any effect from rotation of that flat plane will be the same if not worse going further south further away from the center it actually reverses if we thought like that we'd have to assume that if we're on a globe every storm would be a hurricane come from down there the fact of the matter is it's only the storm with enough energy vortex science is cutting edge man it's interesting stuff but I'll say this you could take a plate and a swimming pool and just take and wave it through the water and what'll happen is it'll cast a shadow onto the bottom of the pool clockwise vortex off to the right like going toward the the northern hemisphere it's opposite and then counterclockwise to the right and then clockwise to the left and what'll happen is the shadow even after you remove the plate just one swipe of the plate it'll track right along the pool and there's nothing there here's my point brush the plate through the water of course you're going to get a vortex each way so what are you suggesting causes these vortexes because I can explain it what happens is if you've got air at the equator moving north to try and head towards a low pressure system unfortunately it's got an eastward velocity the area it's wanting to head towards has less velocity so it starts to miss it but it's being attracted towards it so it starts to curl background then you get that curving spiral effect of storms and below the equator it's the other way around is that right so when they form off the coast of Africa right above the equator so you're telling me that they start going eastward or do they head northwest and then they level out and some of them head off to the left and I'd say yeah the majority of them head off to the right up the coast Florida is kind of like the split point the panhandle I mean not the panhandle but the peninsula it's kind of like the splitting point so you're telling me that earth curve took a day off for the storms like Katrina the ones that hit the Gulf of Mexico my point being is you still haven't explained if it's the earth spin why is it going opposite of the pendulum and the gyroscope right here's a diagram of the a gross diagram about the flow as you can see the red arrow is heading from the equator via to the east the blue arrows from the north heading towards the west because of Coriolis if we look at where is that around Spain in the middle of the diagram if that was the low pressure area you've got air rushing from the north but both of them are trying to miss it so they have to start turning and then you get the spiral of weather systems that is how it works this really is not rocket science it is very well known so no weather systems without being on a ball then right? sorry so no weather systems unless we're on a ball that's rotating is that what you're trying to say? I'm not trying to defend flat earth or any other shape earth on defending globe earth and the science works Coriolis I'm good with that but the honest stance is you think it's that and here's your evidence but to act like we know for sure that's how things you know there's always mother nature don't like to be pinned down I'll say that there's always other explanations but I understand the globe does have an explanation I'll give you that but you still haven't explained if it's conserving momentum the angular momentum the tangential speed the opposite from the pendulum so you're saying it's not conserving momentum then which one is not conserving momentum? Brian off the top of my head I can't recall which way pendulums north the equator pendulums south the equator off of their original path but I do know that north and south the equator that procession of the pendulums goes the opposite way and it varies by latitude I don't know if you've ever tried that but I've done pendulums live on streams and I don't think they're as reliable as you think they are but they hold on let me get to my point my point is that I've been searching and I can't find any pendulums in the southern hemisphere many of the colleges any of the schools I'm not saying they're not out there but I've been searching I can't find any I'm not saying that they don't exist I give up on my search if you can ever post one of them you may have one on hand but I would really like to see that I'm genuinely curious well as I said depending on how far north or south you are the procession is at a different rate and you can let the pendulum swing for a while and it needs to be a very long pendulum a very long pendulum that's running for quite a while you can't just have a little handheld one that little thing like that it wouldn't work you can see the angle of the procession and calculate your latitude that works sorry good I was going to say I think Boca was questioned for him I think that was a question I have the GPS engineering documents that say the Saniac effect which is similar is not due to earth rotation that's arguable I didn't bring them so in fact forget I even mentioned it what are you saying that is cool it proves let me say this I'll concede after making that I'll bring it next time we have to have a word with Mr Bob Nodell thanks Bob who proved that the earth was retaking at 15 degrees per hour I knew that was going to come up I was going to say I knew that was going to come up I knew that was going to come up I was going to say I knew that was going to come up no matter what he does he's always going to live with that he posted the results the same latitude he changed heights which is what we would expect if it's toroidal or vortexual we got an over one degree faster rotation is you want to call it the earth rotation so the earth speeds up over one degree if you go up a mile or two his other readings which I don't think he's officially published yet my understanding is that they are within the bounds of error of measurement but also what else can affect the lasers within a ring laser gyroscope which is sealed it's not magnetic the syniac effect yes syniac effect which is caused by the path of the light one way being longer than the path of the light the other way because it's moving that's the only way it happens the only way see for you to say that that's the only way that's not an honest stance in my opinion I don't think I'm not calling you a liar or nothing like that but for you to say it's the only way I think that's not an honest stance man no it's an honest answer and I appreciate you not calling me a liar bro and I do appreciate that's fine the only other explanation could be if the speed of light changes if you send the laser one way to the other way the reason we get the interference is that the path traveled by the light is longer it takes slightly longer going one way than the other interference that is another thing that would cause that is if the field itself was rotating that's the opposite stance for the geocentrists they claim it's the field rotating so that's exactly what we would see and also what we would see is it would be faster as you went up higher so when Bob Nodell and he didn't publish them like as far as into a magazine but he posted them and everybody went through them including me we just did it the other night and it's going an additional over one degree at the same latitude and if you want to say that that there's oh yeah well we expected that that's just a cop out it predicted 15 degrees an hour at that latitude at any height stationary within about a tenth of a degree and it was way way beyond that which proves it's the field yeah it should still be and would be 15 degrees per hour within error bars because it takes 24 hours roughly to retake completely therefore it has and that's 360 degrees therefore in one hour it has to be 15 degrees thanks Bob yeah anybody thanks Bob all the arguments sound great on its face and any of these you look into and scrutinize them they kill the globe like I wanted you to address with the moon above the horizon way above the sun the sun sitting there like a degree or two above the horizon and I went to the triangle calculator and it did show that it's like if it's two degrees above the horizon it's like three million two hundred thousand miles above your feet looking off at zero degrees judging that as your feet if you look up one degree the sun is actually a million six hundred thousand miles above your feet so that's how you all explain the fact that the top of the moon is lit up with a moon above the sun so that's fine but how then could it simultaneously under light the bottom of clouds if it's 93 million miles away that is a geometric impossibility right well a couple things one there is refraction when the sun is very low as I said the sun is actually lower than it appears therefore the rays are shining upward more than you may think there is absolutely no way for an underside of the cloud to be lit unless the light source was throwing light rays up from an apparent lower elevation there's only two possibilities either that sun is physically lower than the clouds on a flat earth which means someone's going to have a bad day and needs factor two million sun block or the sun is below the earth the tangent line is shining up tangent line and up to the bottom of the clouds I agree if we had a sun the size of your model that close we would definitely need that sun block but what also would be what would things look like in the distance how would the sun appear if you said it could be light refracting so if the light was bending up like you said how would it appear to us if the light was curving up and how would other objects how would they appear to us if that light was in fact doing that you have refraction so the position of the sun is an apparent position just like with the horizon because you have refraction and I know fight the flat earth has had a bad time of it from people who don't understand if I look at my hand that's it's apparent position it's pretty much exactly where I look at it but there's air in between air causes refraction therefore it will be subtly different I mean that will be minuscule different but when you're talking about the difference from your position to the horizon that's a greater amount of air a greater amount of refraction it starts to affect things hence that stupid black swan photo I'm asking you though okay so so that's your ant wait can you answer a little more directly you said the only other possibility is if the light's been hitting the bottom of the clouds like if the light's curving up in other words if the sun's not actually that low then the light has to be bending up to hit the bottom of the clouds and I agree that would be one of the only other possibilities so that would make this sun appear lower and also it would make if the light was doing that in the distance it would make like mountains in the background or it would make them appear lower right well interesting you mentioned mountains the tops of mountains light up first at dawn and as the sun lifts the sunlight goes down and at the end of the day the tops of the mountains are the last things that are lit because the sun the light from the sun are coming from a lower elevation so my either or was either the sun really is physically lower than that mountain over a flat earth which it cannot be or you've got a curved earth and it is below that tangent line that's a big problem in your model man okay hold on I just showed you the triangle calculator like I said that sun that's one degree above the resin is 1,600,000 miles above your feet so how can you explain the shadow hitting the bottom of clouds while casting a shadow down on the moon and down on the ground even if it's a long shadow with a one degree downward angle that's still light coming in above me and for it to simultaneously cast a shadow on the bottom of clouds that kills that proves the local sun 100% the clouds are a lot higher than you Brian this is a very very big I don't know what the word is but you got the sun 93 million miles away the earth is huge the clouds are high it's 3D in spatial awareness that business about let me tell you a report Brian it is to do that because I'm ready to know because you said about in your video about the moon which part of it was lit and there's the sun over there if you hold a ball up you will find that the lit part and the shaded part always match the moon that whole point of that video was to show you that they don't I have another video on my channel with a soccer ball up in a tree and the point is to show you that they absolutely don't but you just mentioned spatial awareness and said the clouds are high hold on so if I go up in the clouds is that what you're trying to say I just told you that the sun is a million six hundred thousand miles above my feet in your model and you just said that I'm like I don't know if you're talking about spatial awareness you said the clouds are higher so you're telling me that if I go up to the clouds the sun's not going to come up with me you're saying it's going to change angles or something you can have there is video on YouTube shot from a plane with the setting sun shining up through the clouds it's apparently lower than that plane how can that be that's my question you're going to say that the sun is below thirty eight thousand feet it's a million six hundred thousand miles above my feet that's where the sun one degree above the horizon if it's like half a degree above the horizon then it's eight hundred and I got Glober's quoting this it was in my presentation if the sun is half a degree above the horizon if it's peeking its head up it's eight hundred thousand miles eight hundred thousand miles above your feet now I'm not going to make this argument if it's below the horizon then you have a point the problem is we're seeing all these all these phenomenons with the sun peeking up overhead or even up to five degrees above the horizon that's a problem bro okay two things you can get this effect while the sun is below the horizon once it's set you can see the lights that you can see going across the sky because the sun is shining from your perspective is shining up towards them and reflecting off them even aircraft just after the sun has gone high aircraft will still be in sunlight but the sun has dropped below that horizon that's impossible on a flat earth not if lights refracting upwards in fact hold on settle down if we just invoke a little bit of action okay just a tiny little bit enough to cause along with the angle changing due to it being local just about a degree every 69 miles that would be all it would take it's just a little tiny bit over the distance and we would see the light hitting bottom of clouds we would see the top of mountains being the last thing to go dark but the shadow not being cast down which is exactly what we do see but if you ever look at either the ISS or any of the other satellites which it's always predicted exactly when they'll pass over if you look at a website like heavensabove.org they'll tell you exactly when they're going to pass over you what time how far above the horizon they'll be when they appear how long they'll be lit how bright they'll be lit and when they go into the earth's shadow but that whole time you can see them because we're talking about nighttime the sun is not in view and yet you could see them for I think the maximum is about five or six minutes going right across the sky over you but there's no sun I agree I agree with my point wasn't I need to make this crystal clear I'm not referring to when the sun is below the horizon that there it's a very small window with the clouds and with buildings and stuff but there is a teeny little window for light to maybe maybe go a little bit past parallel but there is a window I can see that but with the ISS maybe you have more of a window being it's up high but once again we're told that if we we could go to the moon and the light the angle to the sun's only going to change not even an eighth of a degree the sun's going to follow us up if it's above the horizon I will concede that if we're talking about the sun underneath the horizon I'm not arguing that I would attribute that to light Brian if you drive along at night looking at the moon it appears to travel along with you or the sun it appears to travel along with you if you were going to taking a trip to the moon the sun would appear to if you're going straight it would still appear in your window the same position because as I demonstrated the light is all but parallel it's within half a degree sun's quarter of a million miles away sorry the moon's quarter of a million miles away sun is 93 to 94 million miles away the angle the angular size of the sun is about half a degree so the rays of light are virtually parallel so that's what you always say to be the same position all them photos I just showed I just showed a stock of them I've even had a bunch of them from Sally's channel with them showing a sun above the horizon hitting the bottom of clouds with a sun above the horizon supposedly casting a shadow up on the mountains you're telling me it's parallel but it's a million six hundred thousand miles I can't put enough emphasis on that above my feet and you're telling me it's hitting the bottom of clouds and casting shadows up and also casting a shadow on the ground at the same time that's not parallel but I think you're thinking this the wrong way when you're saying that the sun is a million miles above your feet you don't think of that it's the angle how far angularly is it up or down one degree but when you said it's a million miles you're talking about a million miles between a tangent from your feet to where the sun would be if it was at zero degrees to the distance vertically where it is at an angle of one degree the important thing is it's only one degree or half a degree or whatever the million miles that doesn't matter a shot right so one degree sun will cast a shadow about 26 meters long with a one meter stick they show it in sun calc if you go to sun calc that stick that's attached to the ball that represents a sun represents a one meter tall stick it's a shadow link if it's sitting on the horizon my point is to say that it's casting a downward shadow however slight that's light coming in downward so it can't come upward but the point in saying how high it was you said that the balls always match the point is we've documented every month there's a couple days out of the month where it doesn't match the balls that we put up above us anyway in the debate well it was in my this is the very first thing I showed and the explanation is this the explanation is the math the fact that if you calculate the sun one degree it's a million six hundred thousand miles above that's the explanation I will present that after the debate too well Brian I came across another flat earther some time ago who'd mirrored someone else's video and said it didn't match didn't match the moon that was also in shot and I did a debunked video and one of the flat earthers actually said actually sorry you're correct the other one just never responded he was wrong and didn't back down well it only happens a couple times out of the month bro so if you didn't do it at that exact time then yeah it will match most of the time it does match put a ball up in a tree to show so if you tried it at a different time usually it does match but there's time to the month it doesn't but it depends on your position what I did was I put a ball on a pole about a meter long and then depending where you are looking around that ball you would see a different amount of the shadow but if you've got them pretty much right next to each other in the sky so I've got the ball right next to the moon pretty much next to each other visually they will match if I look and there's the moon over there it's a half moon and then I hold a ball over there it's going to look different of course because I'm seeing a different face of it if I turn around and hold that ball right next to the moon they'll match yeah but there are I mean the moon is tough on models I'll say that like I said hold on hold on because it's actually above the sun but that brings me to the selenilium the geometrically impossible eclipse I understand y'all have an explanation but it's not the geometry that you're acting like always works and you can invoke that like I said on my own channel I do concede that it usually will match the ball up above us but it doesn't always match I have it in my own video and that's like the selenilium with the moon on the horizon and the sun also on the horizon and so they're both, you know, and once again I do want to bring up that if that sun's on the horizon it's at least a million above our feet right, the mission search selenilium selenilium if we didn't have an atmosphere it wouldn't happen it can only happen because we got an atmosphere the sun's being refracted so it looks a bit higher the moon's being refracted so it looks a bit higher in actual fact they're in a dead straight line to give you that eclipse but the reflection has been too high so the sun's not if it's let's say if it's two degrees above the horizon it's not three million two hundred miles above my feet or if it's one degree it's not a million six hundred thousand because that was the explanation that's across the table the Glober's explanation on why the sun could be sitting on the horizon the moon right almost in front of it in the top of it lit is the fact that the sun's higher if you got a solar eclipse that's because the earth is directly between the sun and the moon and if you're stood on the terminator line so you can just see the sun rising and just see the moon then what has actually happened is they are in a dead straight line so our shadow falls onto the moon however what we actually visually see is the moon lifted up slightly because of close to the horizon and the same with the sun I would give you that is at least an explanation at least you have an explanation but even that fails because when the shadow does come in it comes in from the top so even if I gave you that reflection which is crazy to me but it's at least an explanation when the shadows do come in the two that I've seen they came in from the top so that whole idea is done don't bring it up again dude ever you did mention something the very very first point in your video you said a magnetic focal point of the sun or something I really really didn't understand what you were talking about there I was trying to explain it it's like a magnetic focal point of energy in that model the best I could do is like I said I should show you the pictures of the thick cumulus clouds and the explanation I've got in debate is that it's washing out these cumulus clouds I think that that's a stretch these cumulus clouds block the light in fact I depend on them in the summertime around here these thick cumulus clouds don't get washed out by the sun so when we look off in the distance you know and it's not clouds just right on the horizon it's a little above but when we look off in the distance I think that could easily be explained if the sun is a focal point like a focal point of energy maybe even a focal point of light that's the only honest explanation I think in my opinion that would explain the sun appearing in front of these thick cumulus clouds okay well Brian you said at the beginning about some yes no questions I'd like to ask you this isn't a gotcha but do you agree that the sun is currently half a degree angular size in the sky sure okay so would you also agree that if light rays were travelling from the left hand side of that disc of the sun and at the right hand disc of the sun they can only be half a degree apart now you're trying to switch to the size like I'm going above a million six hundred thousand miles the sun is eight hundred thousand miles I'm trying to demonstrate if the sun light would be parallel near its diameter it can't come in further from the sides from that distance the geometry if the cloud is bigger than half a degree the sun can't wrap around it unless it's closer to the sun and that would change the angular size of the cloud in other words I'm just trying to establish that if the sun has an angular size of half a degree if light comes from the left or from the right of it which is virtually parallel if we're talking about a star which is a point source of light there is no left and right so therefore the star light all comes parallel I'm just asking if you agree with that absolutely yeah I agree with that but I was just arguing maybe I jumped a gun I was just arguing the angular size of the relations because I showed the Eratosthenes diagram and then I took a load of Mr. Sensible's on there to show that if I was 10 degrees away I'm 600 nautical miles 20 degrees away I'm 1200 nautical miles 30 degrees I'm 1800 that relationship holds true and then I showed a diagram with a flat earth and a local sun non parallel light with 7 Mr. Sensible's as you got further away the sun was at a lower and lower angle the distance between them did not increase 600 nautical miles per Mr. Sensible each of which is 10 degrees but it got longer and longer and longer demonstrating that celestial navigation using a sextant could not work on a flat earth okay I need a long response to that I double checked these angles and I tried it at 5 degrees I just went 69 miles per degree I think that's empirical no matter what model we see 69 miles per degree however you want to explain it whether you want to put the sun and the stars a good gene miles away and measure from the center that's fine that works okay or if you want to use a light refracting with a more local sun but then I measured it at 10 degrees it's still 69 miles per degree it wasn't until I got out almost 1500 miles to where it started mismatching so like I said it wouldn't take much and for the light to curve that model that I showed from Trulon was just that it was a transform for a flat earth with a light refraction and if you plugged these observations into the models like Cinemax and all that that's exactly what we see that's why the other model works so good the sun and the refraction the model did it for them it fixed the light and it actually contradicted the globe to a certain extent anyway but it didn't make it totally unfeasible so take just a gentle angle and one more thing if we measure if you measure a triangle and you put in for 69 miles for your baseline and you put in for your angle observation one degree you get a height above the ground 3958.7 miles the exact earth radius so I think that's obvious that that's how they got the radius was that they did the triangulation and realized that as they went further that it wasn't working so I think it was just easier to map it on a ball and that's how they did it so you said you tried to map these out and could you just mute cheers and you said for the first degree it was 69 for the next one it was almost exactly I'm glad you're honest enough to say that pop my diagram up again as you can see each one is a multiple of 10 degrees but look at the difference between the left most and the next left it's huge basically it gets more and more inaccurate the further you go around but if you have parallel light and the light source a great distance away all you're doing is curving around a curved surface so every time you curve 10 degrees you have moved 600 nautical miles 600 arc minutes from the person who's got the sun directly overhead I issue that as a challenge to draw basically a row of mister sensibles each exactly the same distance apart and equate to the correct number of degrees at the sun's light source I'll do better than that there's two mathematical models that I already presented and I've come up with my own so I just come up with a ratio a refraction ratio and it's ever so gentle and it's a direct function of the distance so all you do is this is how I got the distance but he said I used the sphere and I'll give him that, I'm not trying to claim the OZV money but I did get accurate within about 8 miles so what I did I come up with a formula real quick, I come up with a formula by doing the triangulation so you measure your angle in real life and if you get say 30 degrees you triangulate it with a height so what I did is I measured the polaris I went 69 miles and I measured a one degree difference so that's based on no refraction so then when I get off 30 degrees I want to measure the refraction and get my true distance so what I do is I measure the triangulated distance from 30 degrees and then I apply this formula 90 minus A which is using cosine over 90 times D which is the triangulated distance times point A which is 1% of the angle and it works until you get down to the horizon in fact a lot of the degrees it's on the dot matching 69 degrees per mile on the dot but the mother too had it mathematically modeled out so there's your challenge is answered three times in one paragraph I just want to say with regard to MC Toon, okay I can tell you that he is a 100% honest person and if you either met his challenge or let's say you met his challenge because he hadn't got the rules correct and you've sort of solved whatever he would pay up, okay Yeah, that's not a contentional sense but I'm not... Yeah, he's a good guy but we know that every 69 miles you move away from the pole the polaris drops one degree now if that's a flat surface and you draw triangles at 10 degrees 20, 30, 40 degrees up you're going to get differing heights of polaris Well, let's see you draw triangles Mr. Sensible on your ball draw triangles and tell me No, nobody needs to Listen, nobody needs to It doesn't matter, nobody needs to the point is the height is not in any of the calculations that's right, that's right you can't try and pin it on us to provide a height it's not part of the calculations period it wouldn't work on the surface of a sphere unless you transfer the mangles down to the center and put your stars and sun like an infinite amount of miles away that's the only way to make it work so don't act like it just works there are explanations Right, well I already established that starlight is parallel Okay, I guess Yeah, we'll leave it there then that's fine Alright, well thank you guys so much for having that open, vigorous discussion Let's go ahead and kick it into the Q&A in just a moment I just want to let you guys know that we will be having the RHE podcast is having in after show, directly following this episode so I believe Mr. Sensible said he would be able to pop by for a little bit I don't know if Brian will be able to be showing up there also so if you guys want to show up there after the debate, that would be great Also, our guests are linked in the description below so if you like what you've heard from either of them tonight please go ahead and click their links and show them some support show MDD some support by liking the video, sharing the video subscribing as he has many more juicy debates coming your way and I will go ahead and start the timer for the Q&A and let's go ahead and get into that so of course super chats go to the top of the list so if you have a super chat we still have some room there for that and we'll try to get to the other ones if we have time first super chat comes from Whitsit gets it for 499 they say it can't be proven that the earth is in movement, Hawking agrees it's a philosophical decision based on the Copernican principle it's a religion that's for you Mr. Sensible you're muted by the way I think what he was saying who did you say Hawking I thought it was Einstein optically if you look at the moon is the moon moving or are we moving we're in different frame of reference so who is right there is no correct frame of reference but yeah you can't tell just by looking that we're moving quick point for Aston I think that was his point is that there's no way to prove that it's the earth spinning they pick the ladder on philosophical ground because they can't stand the thought of the horrible position of the sun being in a unique position or the earth being in a unique position and the rest of the universe paying homage directly to us so that's why they chose this ladder yeah well I said optically but if you use a gyroscope like Bob did, thanks Bob you'll find that we are moving and if we're not you've got the entire universe rotating around us every 24 hours which I think you're going to need a bit of evidence for that's funny because Einstein made his quote after that experiment it's his super chat for him so we'll let him have last word so let's go ahead and move on to the next super chat from Malvia for $5 they say ridiculing Fleur first is a must-cas they refuse to do the experiments that will prove the earth is round they are well whether or not it is a must that is not what this platform is for as far as I as far as I understand it James is his vision is to provide a neutral platform that is an equal playing field for everyone foster that environment by not insulting each other and ridiculing each other what we do is ridicule their ideas with facts, logic and reason, hopefully so I hope that if you want to ridicule their ideas I mean I understand that there is a time and a place for that start your channel we can all do some kind of maybe collaborations in the future, I don't know if James will do that but I'm certainly okay with ridiculing certain bad ideas but other than that can I put a quick response to that can I make a short response to that sure, sure that's why I posted a couple models and then I just supplied another formula to just to try whether I subscribe to them models I don't think I can prove any model 100% anyway but I just wanted to present them to try and cut down on the ridicule give them people something to go look at and try and prove wrong so that's what I recommend that guy do alright, let's go ahead and move on from a commercial sound and video for $2 they say can a glober show a measurable curvature Mr. Sensible, you're muted again sorry, I'm trying to be polite so I don't make noises I sent a balloon up called MAGE to 38 and 3 quarter kilometers and took video evidence showing the curve of the earth and to rule out any claims of distortion the camera that was used was not a fisheye lens it was not a wide angle lens it was a non-distorting lens with two strings that were held taught across it the horizon was curved and the strings weren't so I put my money where my mouth is and carried out an experiment so no circle of sight in other words if we took the picture straight out of head and there was a little bit of curve so when we turned what did it start over or did it keep on curving down or is the horizon an equal distant circle of sight it's an equal circle of sight but it's if the earth was flat you would see further in one direction unless you happen to be right in the center at midday then the sunlit portion would be in every direction it was not midday and yet all you could see was identical in every direction and it wasn't just visually radio stations 400 miles away could pick up the signals those that were further away couldn't because they were round the curve and if anyone wants to see that I've got a whole playlist of mage videos on my Mr. Sensible Life but actually if I may I am sending up Mage3 and I want to open this to any and all flat earthers if you can come up with an experiment of reasonable price and not too heavy please contact me I'm happy to lift a flat earthers experiment to hopefully 38 kilometers so you can try and evidence the earthers being flat just contact me that would be great first thing we did is take a drone I don't know what I meant because that was his chat I'm sorry hopefully you'll get a chance on the next one Carney Kahn for 5 euros says do you think it's a problem for flat earth that all navigation is based on the globe while flat earth cannot field any workable alternative if not please explain that second I mean I'll keep saying this that second model was 4 celestial navigation it's a transform there's explanations for why we see what we see but it's functioning and that equation that formula I come up with myself it works for celestial navigation celestial navigation is based on a celestial sphere with flat baseline distances in circles of equal altitude okay there's no height for you the globe can try to hog 60 nautical miles per degree that's empirical causing that that's what's in debate you can't say it's 69 miles per degree that doesn't work on the surface of a sphere without assumptions and that's assuming the stars are way way far away and assuming that there is a center of the earth to measure to and equate the measurement so it's a model nothing more nothing less can I respond real quickly Brian a nautical mile nautical mile is one minute of arc 60 minutes of arc in one degree 360 in an entire sphere it's all to do with the angle of the start from your vertical it's based on a sphere right and I think I get less where it's based on and we do the math based on the stars circling okay we get the azimuth and the altitude okay y'all are questioning the altitude that's not what's in question the stars do a circle okay they do it's a pattern it's almost like a clock up there you know for seasons and time and math is done based on the position in that circle at a certain time of year and depending on the time of day okay so the sphere that has nothing to do with it you try to hog the 16 nautical miles per degree that's based on a celestial sphere model okay we do still have room in the super chat so ladies and gentlemen if you do want to send a question to our debaters go ahead but once that does fill up I will let you guys know but in the meantime I do think that to get to all the questions and try to make sure that there is room for more super chats we should just try to let the person who is being addressed answer the questions from here or not the next question is from pineapple platypodmas I hope I'm saying that right it says from 999 flat earthers they have a sense of humor they're always well this is kind of an insult let's just move on from 499 what it gets it says hawking said you cannot prove the earth is in motion it's chosen due to Copernican principle that the earth is insignificant that's a religion it's kind of an insult to religion but whatever all that was based on after the Mickelson Morley and everything you're saying they've been around for a long time it's sensible and they all say that it's not proven Mickelson Morley was also doing the ether but sorry I've missed what he said I've missed what he said could you read that again quickly sure hawking said you cannot prove the earth is in motion it's chosen due to the Copernican principle that earth is insignificant that's a religion but we do know the earth is in motion orbiting the sun because we know that the outer planets we can see them traveling across the sky and then we get retrograde motion when the planet apparently goes backward for a while before returning to its original path because we've overtaken it in our smaller faster orbit nearer the sun one second I missed something so hawking's wrong I missed a question I think from pineapple planet at the bottom this says why are flat earthers all Christian when the gospel says nothing of it uh man he's kind of that's a fallacies box that's all into one mold I don't have a certain exact religion you know I might consider myself Christian but I'll keep an open mind on everything and all flat earthers are most definitely not Christian that's crazy actually support that. I think I mean there's a large majority of flatheads about religious but there are Christians who are globe earthers as well of course. All right earth is life for five dollars. Brian how could there be a southern celestial pole on a flat earth? That's my power right there. That's my my nemesis earth. Shout out earth is life. I think I just did a good job showing you how in one spot don't think about the shadows bending and twisting around on the earth. One little square flat box you can show star separation. It's not much Mr. sensible. It's off toward the horizon you know like 30 and start dropping down 20 15 degrees where it starts becoming apparent. It's in Stellarium not much but it's there we can measure the separation. So that shows that there's it's not any portal it's another star rotation. All right next question from Wits it gets it for 199 says gotta teach the globers yikes Brian for the win. So you got a fan up there Brian. Next question I read this one and I skipped it. Forget about that one too. From JT6 Mania for $10 Canadian says plane moving east at the equator at 800 miles per hour plus 1000 miles per hour momentum equals 1800 miles per hour plane moving west 800 miles per hour minus 1000 miles per hour against momentum equals plane flying 200 miles per hour backwards. Did you follow that? Yes I did follow it yeah I did follow it. The momentum is the same you're just adjusting your or the plane is adjusting its speed against the earth that's underneath it. If I'm sat here you don't say I'm moving at 1000 miles an hour plus zero you just say well I'm moving at zero miles per hour. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that but I'm afraid a lot of flat earthers seem to think it's a problem whatever speed you're going if you apply more thrust with that direction you will increase your your velocity but it's only going to look like that increase that 800 or whatever it was you've added because the original 1000 the earth is still moving below you anyway so gotcha. Then from Robert Summers for $5 says did we ever get any evidence for Brian's constellation claim? I mean no globe earther would argue that if it's the earth moving the sun and the moon will follow the stars according to where they are in the ecliptic. I think at least give I mean to me I gave something that demands answering but you can go to SunCalc if you're at the equator you will measure deviation it's not a lot but it's measurable I mean and like I said you can see if you go out and look you can't see the stars right some nights it varies let me just sum this up okay but we can always see that Orion's belt stays straight overhead and the head and the feet distort and deviate in the distance that's a fact Stellarium shows it just go to Stellarium bro. All right just go look at it outside at night. From one from Whitsitt gets it for $199 says Einstein said pendulum doesn't prove rotation it's for you Mr. Sussman. Did he now I'd like to see that quote because we got conservation of momentum and with Foco's pendulum the pendulum tries to maintain its original back and forth swing but the earth is rotating underneath it. All right from Whitsitt gets it once again for $199 says Sagnac said it was the vortex of the ether. Okay if he did say that and I'm not going to argue the toss because I don't know but if he did say that he's wrong simple as that and I would like to say Whitsitt I did email you because I would like to have a debate if you're up for it please email me. And the gauntlet is thrown from Whitsitt gets it once again for $499 they say. Relativity says the path contracts while in motion actually so claiming Sagnac is because the path traveled is longer due to motion contradicts Einstein. When the earth is not rotating at relativistic velocities it's only traveling if you equate your approximately 1,000 miles an hour. Relativity is coming to it. I gotta respond to that. There are implications if like I said if you want to get the atmosphere moving with the earth so that means that every molecule as we get higher is somehow going faster that's and so that's going to be an action requiring some kind of energy and that's not explained in science so there's no way of getting around it so the air that's higher up has to be moving faster so what's the energy causing that to move faster if it's not tangential also where is the point that you're saying we can observe all these all these things that you're claiming where we could where's the inertial frame how high I mean you keep talking about it I meant I meant to say where's the the frame we can observe this stuff you're talking about the airplane and all this stuff moving with the earth the atmosphere moving with the earth where can we observe all this where can we see actual Coriolis what what height well if you were a ballistic object being launched from one place to another you will experience Coriolis you will see that the target you were shot at has veered if you're headed northwards has veered to the left for some strange reason if you were stood on the ground watching that ballistic missile for some strange reason your missile is not flying straight it seems to be veering to the left why sorry to the right why it should be veering the opposite way like I said if you're firing at a it's a projectile not a missile a projectile firing it up upward it's then it's entering an area that's moving faster it should be exactly opposite of what you're describing until it drops down you say that it's just the the ground but then you want to say it's the atmosphere moving with the ground so you can't have both I think you don't maybe I'm not rephrasing this correctly but in my opinion you're invoking the atmosphere moving with the earth but not accepting the consequences of that all right well let's move on maybe that could be the subject of the next debate from Connie cam for five euros says why do maths work perfectly on a globe but to make them work on flat earth you have to get very creative can Brian explain how maths work on flatter I think I've already done that but I think there are there explanations needed for any model so for example the flatter would predict if it's the the local sun with the angles with a little help from refraction we would predict that the sun would linger on the horizon and that's exactly what we see now it's explained in a globe is refraction okay so the globe also needs its explanations so to be fair also um you give us this crazy long explanation about how the seasons work in the angle and the energy and all that and it's simple in reality it's Occam's razor the sun's closer it's hot the sun's farther away it's cold all right it goes it goes faster in the winter than the summer all right he's already explained the math fixture calculator what's it gets it for 499 says no Hawking and Einstein both said you can't prove the motion of the earth with any terrestrial experiment not optical that's a different quote yes I did see that super chat come up so thanks for getting back on that with it yeah so Einstein did say that I'm not aware of that other quote um but yeah with ring laser gyroscopes we can detect that that gyroscope is rotating if you can come up with another explanation as to how a ring laser gyroscope reads 15 degrees per hour I would love to hear it gotcha from earth is like for five dollars says Hawking also agrees that we live in a heliocentric solar system stop cherry picking quotes that's hostile witness the best of witnesses is to use the quotes from the people that are did not hold your point of view so um you know you keep uh all anti-flight earthers uh not just human sensible say yeah it proves the ring laser driver proves the globe look these are the people who invented these machines uh said it proved just the opposite san yak and freaking uh michelson he he showed the uh the necessary measurements for the ether with with san yak and proved that it's the field rotating but they conceded uh Einstein that's why Einstein and Hawking all of them said this because they proved it's the field and they said there's no terrestrial experiment they can prove the motion however we are moving at 30 miles per hour or 30 miles per second around the uh sun I mean it's it's it's a religion I see what austin saying uh I don't think you've addressed his uh his questions permanently are you saying they're wrong mr sensible that uh that they did have the experiment well we need to move on let's go ahead and move on uh from what's it gets it says for 4.99 so the only physical measurement of the curvature is a video viewing circumference of light optically changing relative to angle yikes well if you say that then isn't it funny how every uh uh high altitude balloon that films always happens to be slap bang in the middle of that lit circle and never right at one edge that's interesting and of course there's nothing to stop you instead of I mean it's wonderful you're doing all these super chats austin supporting mdd but there's nothing to stop you putting some of your cash in and sending up a balloon to show us that the earth is flat right and let's move on to earth is life for five dollars says brian lying about foucault pendulum after making a video calling me a liar hilarious no I pointed out is dishonesty not a direct liar I think I'll let um anybody go to my channel it's the last video before the mdd introduction uh if you anybody wants to see the introduction I put together I apologize to james I hope he's listening I did not know I genuinely did not know that that we could I put it together right before the debate now that I understand I won't do that again I wasn't trying to be slick I just thought I could make it easy and just consolidate my information and play it and talk about it I'm aware now but uh to end it I'm gonna say that uh anybody can go see what was originally talked about um I was defending myself because you put out a video acting like you did what I claim or challenge you to do and it's clear you did not take on the challenge I'm not saying you won't but at this point you haven't mean uh anybody wants to know about that just go look at my channel it's the second video sorry bro the challenge to me was it it's um it was a challenge to uh him to uh to go film at night with uh calmer conditions and he went at like an hour before sun set with a crazy shoaling and waves and all that stuff I just it's just a little personal thing all right am I saying that name that ring fool cults pendulum oh yeah the fool called pendulum as uh you know it rotates clockwise uh it's supposed to be conservation momentum but the hurricane anybody could look this up y'all the hurricane rotates normally not always but counterclockwise the foe called pendulum in the north rotate rotates clockwise okay so it can't be conservation momentum for them to be opposite it could be something but can't be that foe calls foe calls traveling all right from uh the craw daddy zero two nine cents for five dollars brian would you be willing to donate your brain to science I think it would help find out that's funny man um maybe after I die man I want I want certain I want certain promises to my family though man but uh yeah I don't know why not hilarious craw daddy hilarious from Robert Summers for five dollars says I didn't hear any evidence for the stars brian do you have another positive claim that has evidence I could start my research with the only honest stance is is uh you know well how twinkle twinkle little star how we wonder what you are so you know they've been seeing that for I mean ever but all of a sudden we got it figured out perfect I think the only honest stance is uh you know we can model it as this and uh but it's a model it's not proven and the chances are it's one in a gijian that we're spot on with our you know it's it's a model it's good a good model I'll give it that I mean it's worth the debate and everything but we don't know what the damn stars are we'll never go to one you know it's just speculation it's a story often likes color religion it's hard to disagree with that only I showed that the spectrograms uh of the stars we know what they're made up of writing her the last word okay um you know the guy who just saved hundreds of thousands or at least probably yeah hundreds of thousands of life updating the MRI going against uh kershov's law proving it to be wrong okay and they wouldn't he had to spend his own money and publish his his research and his theories and and the new york time okay that's what it takes to get shit peer reviewed today and uh so when it gets kershov's laws and kershov's laws he then went on to prove that the sun can't be a gas okay a gas does not emit continuous spectrum it could be like graphite or it could be maybe some liquids at certain pressures and all that the only thing uh we're we're not in a lab with the spectroscopy okay anything in between your observation is gonna it's gonna show up okay so what's up there hydrogen helium is that a coincidence it he proved the sun it could be anything it's certainly not a gas we know that 100 for sure all right um from what's it gets it for 499 they say again einstein said fulco's um pendulum doesn't prove earth rotation yes earth's rotation is accounted for via relativistic application with the sky it's pretty much sensible i'm not sure what he's honestly not sure what he's uh getting out there can you repeat that man again einstein said the fulco's pendulum doesn't prove earth's rotation yes earth's rotation is accounted for via relativistic application with the sky yeah i'm not sure what he's talking about uh about this relativistic application with the sky but what we do know is fulco's pendulum uh the amount of procession varies with your latitude uh the closer you are to the pole closer you are to the equator you go beyond the equator and it starts to process the other way it can't be on a flat disc i say disc uh or other it could be square but it can't be on a flat surface object all right from earth is life for 20 they say thank you so much uh from they say flights from johannesburg to sydney which happened several times a week take between 10 and 13 hours while traveling 550 miles per hour how is this possible on flat earth when these airports are on opposite sides of flat earth you're muted bud that depends on what um what map you're using um you know like a mercader i think is what they're using it looks you know it looks flat to me um whether it's a glow projection you know you all say the ground's curving we say the light's curving okay it's going to be the same damn map that was my point to mc turn is uh so i'm not claiming that uh he owes me money but i was trying to come up i show him an explanation of why we see and measure 69 degrees per mile it's the light bending so we're going to get the same measurement so we can map it as a with a as a glow projection all day long we gave an explanation uh showing how that would work if it's flat we get the same uh the same observations man they're empirical but the answer is questioned more directly um i mean there's they're starting we've been uh pressuring them and they're starting to come out with the actual speeds of some of these planes and right now it has the record speed i think of 801 miles per hour from i think new york to london don't quote me on that but um they keep getting higher and higher because we're pressured and trying to get this information so that's that's a 250 mile an hour jet stream they never mentioned this years past we're putting pressure on them you know people are timing shit and uh and they're having to come out with this information and uh on a flat earth and uh maybe even on a globe toward the poles or toward the extremes the jet streams are going to be faster anyway so in the southern hemisphere you know they they like to say it's a pear shaped earth the navy showed an animation of the earth that looked like a pear now that they've got satellites up i could go on and on and on but uh the evidence for suspicion is there and um you know it ain't just a little bulge at the equator it's uh bigger down there pear shape i think the point is that on a flat earth traveling from one side to the other would be right across the entire area but in actual fact those those sides are closer to each other on a sphere um and it doesn't equate to the the travel times if you take that flat earth disc and why is there not a proper flat earth map it should be easy compared to a globe map all right obviously i think let me give a quick last word real quick um i've presented a flat earth map at the beginning and um yeah it would equate we just need uh faster jet streams of a couple few hundred miles an hour for them observations i have a video like third or fourth to last showing with a un map where um you know you only have to travel about 550 600 miles an hour for for south america to australia according to the un map so all right and uh five dollar super chat from shon hawkins they say why does brian refuse to be humble when he demands humility from everyone else i mean i'm big on honesty man that's why i like debate mr sensible your answers uh concise and as honestly as you can uh if you go to talk to somebody like shon i mean shon you sit in this chat is opening yourself up for me defending myself but uh you'll never get a yes or no out of this guy well he's it's like debating a mule no no offense but um you know he's got his stance i respect that i hope uh he can learn to respect my stance the way a lot of people do nowadays all right and uh from earth is like for two dollars they say james web space telescope flat earth done boom jeez we just spent 10 billion dollars to get and uh like we see more stars in a galaxy oh we can't explain uh we can see the ones on the outside spinning exact speed is the ones in the middle so all we did is uh is zoom in on our on our grand problem with cosmology where it's off by a unheard of factor man that's for them to bring that up and for you to bring up a high altitude balloons bro it's crazy you look at these altitude balloons or look off in the distance man i i mean i understand you're defending your model but man that's the best proof of flour just look use your eyes man at least consider the possibility that since we're not seeing it curve it's not curving but james web uh waste of money in my opinion all right so that's the last of our super chats we'll read the rest of the questions if we can get to them we have three more minutes left if you send a super chat right now we will read it next uh green chili bear at modern day debate rising above the earth at what point do we disconnect and see the earth spinning beneath us i believe that's a question sorry can you say that again casual yeah um rising above the earth at what point do we disconnect and see the earth spinning beneath us well you're gonna have to leave the atmosphere and uh travel quite a long way but it would never look like it's spinning because if you if you look it's going to take 12 hours for a point on one side on that visible sphere to travel to the other so it's not going to be whizzing around like that gotcha and then we can be ate it real quick to be fair we've been we've been asking uh all right let's look ahead and just uh move on from what's it gets it for 199 they say Copernican principle is philosophy it's Copernican principle is philosophy it's religion and then uh digital demonic davaro says uh for two dollars hypocrisy around here come to australia i'm sorry hypocrisy abounds here come to australia when i go i'm sorry they're dropping off the bottom hey i'm just i'm uh i grabbed my shovel man i'll be there in a few days man got another one in here from sofa king sleepy says for five dollars so you don't know where the sun goes at night and then to bring up relativity as a reason why gravity doesn't exist yeah i think he's answering austin but i'll defend austin man uh we could see i could show you observations of uh they say the sun just goes down and keeps going down i could show the moon falling behind it's pointing off to the right and encourage the light turning a little bit to the right they say it's going down but it if it's a reflection on of the sun on the moon it's it's going in a circle that's uh my opinion all right um okay regular questions back to that again one toothy cow says uh for the flat earther why does every government space agency geologist cartographer astronomer astronomer physicist and all the others spend so much money hiding the evidence no they're not hiding evidence they have a belief man um i man i even if i did the measurements early on i would have initially mapped it out probably as a ball too man if i got the 3958 uh reading at one degree 69 miles and um i mean it's a lot easier to model it like that man and uh back then you know they they went with what they could work with i think uh you know shit's progressing shit's moving on we're updating we're learning new shit we know like they they invented the the sun model with being a gas like back before any of the the knowledge we have nowadays it's time to update move on it's a little more complicated but uh we're modeling it more and more we're learning more and more so uh bear with us all right so that should conclude our q&a section sorry i messed up the timer there at the end but whatever um didn't get any of our super chats there so that should be it i think there is one there is uh well it's not showing up on my list here yet let's see let me look at the live stream um this will be the last one ladies and gentlemen so from which it gets it for 499 we bring up relativity because globers don't understand it we have to explain to the glovers and quote Einstein to debunk modern anti flat earth claims well i would say perhaps your misunderstanding Einstein because he thinks this is a globe well he knows it shout out to austin man he uh is a big supporter thanks for uh for helping me out to austin i think to make his point solid is that all these claims just to say that's all we ever get is you don't understand or you're misinterpreted him he made it crystal clear on some of his point that uh i mean it's hard to misinterpret so shout out to austin good job uh support me bro all right so with that before we go i just want to thank moderators in the chat for key elevating the discussion james for creating the platform the audience and everybody who sent super chats um and everybody who uh engaged in the conversation want to lastly thank you the debaters for you guys are the lifeblood of the show so thank you so much for being here and engaging in this conversation um everybody who's still watching like it if you loved it share it if you want to spread it and subscribe because we got many more juicy debates coming your way speakers are linked in the description below so check them out do it now um and thank you everybody have a great night there's an after show hopefully the everybody will here will be there if i'm not hopefully we'll see you next time and in the meantime keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable have a great night