 Good evening, everybody. Welcome to modern day debate tonight. We're going to be debating the globey globe phase flat versus a globe versus Austin Geez, I'm reading this all out of order my bad flat versus globe It's because your name globey Mcglobe phase versus Austin witsett and 10 minutes on the floor for you Austin nice Gets it all messed up. I hear some audio, but I I don't know where it's coming from. Um, so Heliosentrism has never been proven in its religion. And so I guess I just saw an email it says like keep Austin on subject or something and I just heard its globe versus flat and it should have been assumed I don't know what the echo is from. I think it's from someone else though, but but I hear me echoing I don't hear an echo and I don't have any speakers on Okay, I don't know I do but it's all good Okay, I have no idea. All right. Anyway, um, so That's so annoying All right, so but obviously the actual subject is that the earth is supposedly a specific thing and it's a model Right, there's a mainstream globe model What is that dude? And uh, that's what we're going to talk about so, um Heliosentrism is part of it that the earth is moving obviously here. They'll tell you that What is going on that is just philosophical models I'm so confused I just I hear me talking delayed Your talking is coming back to you delayed. Okay, okay, okay, maybe I don't know what's going on, but maybe reconnect if you want to try dropping out for just a second here Let's uh, we'll end the screen share if you want to try Rejoining just because it seems to be happening just on your end So if you want to just pop out for a second and then pop back in We'll try to get you going again because it seems like If you're having a delay issue, it's it's only going to probably trip you up going forward. So Yeah, just uh, yeah, just click back on the the link I sent you and we'll uh try rolling it again We'll reset the timer Sounds good. All right. We'll see you right back. Sorry. No problem, buddy Yeah, I can't if I'm hearing an echo. I can't even I can't get three words out Just just in short circuit to my brain Here I'll uh Oh my gosh Here did you want me to hit the remove for you there or is it you can yeah, but I'm just Okay, here. I'll uh, no, I don't want to report to zoom No, actually, I don't want to remove you because then it will not let you back in Sorry everybody. We're just having a little bit of a technical delay. We're Austin's hearing that uh Uh, well, yeah, he's hearing a delay in his ear and we want to make sure that that's fixed, you know And usually when I go out and I'm singing music I have a delay on on purpose, but we don't want that when we're trying to do formal discussions. So Uh, yeah, if you're hanging out in the live chat right now hit the like button and uh, you know give Austin, uh, you know Your virtual support as he tries to get reconnected here. Let's see here Do do do do there we go All right, let's put it back over to here That way we can all hang out for just a few minutes. All right. Nobody cares Ryan. Thanks for that. That's cool So, uh, yeah, we're just gonna hang out for just a few seconds while we wait for Austin to return And then we're gonna get started again. So sorry for the delay Uh, you know sometimes things happen and uh these online spaces and we just yeah tech issues happen. That's right. So Oh, let's just pause that youtube video there Yee-haw so fun enough We will be doing the q&a at the end of our discussion as long as we can get the discussion going So, uh, as soon as you guys start getting questions in there the sooner your question will be asked when we get to the end of the debate, uh, which uh What are our time frames exactly you want to give us an idea of what uh What what you're looking at here for tonight I'll be just so that I don't uh keep you guys all night. I've been known to be bad, you know Let these things get carried away. I mean I I did six hours the other night and I wanted to die the next day. So I'd like to keep it uh reasonable It's 8 30 now. So 3 10 30 I mean three hours is Yeah, that's way more than enough that that seems pretty reasonable for me, uh looking over here too You know as a family guy, I got to get up drawing my kids to school. So, you know Uh, it's always nice to wake up with a little extra sleep under my belt. But uh as for you guys Behaving yourselves in the live chat there. We will be right back So don't mind us. We're just going to return to our intro screen and we will fix this post So I'm going to pop that back over there. So uh, we can kind of vamp in our own space But once again, if you haven't already hit the like button This is your chance. Share this out in the contentious spaces that you like having these discussions You know, if you're running in circles that have Similar discussions, let them know that they're happening here and uh, share that link out now We really appreciate that everybody who takes the time to do stuff like that because it helps us with the network And like I said, it's it's all a part of networking. Hey, maybe we don't have to back out Maybe we just keep rolling because Austin's back and we'll let Austin speak for a second to make sure that everything is Working Hey, Austin You're working Yeah, I guess I have no idea everything just went crazy. Okay. Well, if you're working now, let's restart your timer And welcome to modern day debate everybody tonight. We're gonna be debating globe versus flat earth Uh first 10 minutes is on the floor for you. Austin, what's it? Oh, yeah, so, um, I saw make sure Austin doesn't go off subject But my experience is that normally that happens the other way around but uh, anyway, the subject is is the earth actually what we Been told and that is the global model Um, what now what always happens is people want to focus specifically on sphericity because they can't defend The vast majority of the model, but it's a model. It's a packet bill It says it's tilted wobbling spinning revolving around the sun as a sphere and that it's also perfect So here's a quick deception timeline of how this kind of was born the idea was Um, and here's the government's involvement with a bunch of stuff that purely coincide my goodness What is going on? that's better so Okay, he's always Anyway, so we're so it's a it's a it's a package deal. Basically is the point So here's a deception timeline. Um, we don't have time to go through this But you can take a screenshot pretty telling all the intel agencies being founded right after we went and took a little trip Uh to Antarctica, but it's just a coincidence, you know, all of it's a coincidence So he was essentially was never been proven and it is a religion And I know that that's like a triggering word But you know, it's a belief system built upon the doctrine of men that requires faith and blind belief And that's what this is right. It doesn't require it be about a deity So here is uh physicist George Ellis one of the people that pulled the truth about this Which is I could create a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth's center and it would answer all cosmological, uh data, right, but we Choose the one that we believe in based on philosophy but a lot of people try to hide that fact right and um So that kind of brings us into the first part, which is the earth actually moving The claim is that the earth is spinning 1037 miles per hour east of the equator That's the tangential speed you have the angular speed of 15 degrees per hour And so it's a very specific motion claim And that it's actually wobbling three to four different wobbles depending on the source you look at and Of course, you can't even replicate something actually simultaneously moving four different wobbles But whatever whatever so these are the supposed motions And we're so we're tilted wobbling spinning and then we're you know orbiting the sun 66 000 miles per hour while we fly through space um here is uh You know someone writing a biography about Einstein in a physical experiment ever proved that the earth is actually in Mosin here's Einstein himself telling you that all terrestrial Experiments was a net where a negative result that means any experiment on the earth can't detect that the earth is moving around the sun And if you believe in the current model you have to believe that you can never actually measure detect or prove that it's moving around the sun Anyone that doesn't agree with that disagrees with their model and um, therefore we we wouldn't even be really debating at that point Here you have to say that also there's a coordinate system right a kinematic equivalence in the coordinate system if the sun moves around the earth Or vice versa. It's equally valid here. He is saying that that uh, that's rational experiments. He's saying no optical experiment Even though I believe that the earth is revolving around the sun I've come to the conclusion that no optical experiment optics and physics is of course light Can actually detect the motion of the earth and light is our most precise form of measurement for motion This comes back to michael simorley the most grossly misrepresented test by Every single person that argues on behalf of the globe. They don't know what this test is actually about They claim it debunked the ether if you throw the ether out you still have to explain why it didn't detect The motion of the earth and uh, I could just pull Einstein up. I've done it a hundred times They keep saying it. Einstein said without the ether We still have to explain why we didn't detect the motion of the earth Then they invoked contraction they invoke time dilation They said that the earth is free falling in a straight path through the bending and warping of spacetime And newtonian mechanics was wrong and that is required to explain it and then the actual measurement that was received Had to be an instrumental error and and Einstein said if it's not then relativity is wrong and it collapses like a house of cards Okay, so we're going to run through these but uh, this is them explaining This is another uh quote explaining that well one option of michael simorley was that the earth's not moving through space Objectively that was one of the options edward moorley albert mickerson albert Einstein arthur eddington every physicist knew it Hendrick la rinse they all knew that one of the answers was that the earth is not moving because that's what we would expect If it wasn't moving here's arthur eddington saying that you have to actually clean the aphoras contracted to explain it Meaning there should have been a measurement But the aphoras contracted just the right amount to make it look like the earth's not moving So long story short, this is him explaining it. We can go to this later if we have to but here I'm explaining that if it's not instrumental error relativity is wrong And here he is saying it again four years later. This is really grossly misrepresented. So I threw this in here This is all the replication since then that have shown the same results That it is an instrumental error and it's been consistently measured In fact the friendship changes with altitude it changes with the periodicity of the sun and the moon And the solar motion meaning it changes throughout the year So the actual sky dictates what your interference pattern is This is a major problem because the globe claims that there should be no interference pattern Because you can't detect the orbit of the earth. So That actually refutes heliocentrism on space right there And this is Einstein saying everything occurred on the earth as if the earth's in a state of rest So as long as we can be on the same page There's a belief that the earth is actually orbiting around the sun, but you can't verify it You can't prove it everything's going to happen on the earth as if the earth is in a state of rest There's a kinematic equivalence means any motion you see in the sky could equally be explained at the earth Is stationary and that's what the model says anyone representing the model that says anything other than that are misrepresenting the model And not being honest So and then of course the rotational claim we can get into as well But the pendulum doesn't work the ring laser gyro doesn't work and we can get into specifics of that So Motion's never been truly verified other than reifying it and begging the question Then of course the big one here is that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles Means that it's curving at a certain rate. I think I am like five minutes in So if you have the radius value here And everyone knows what that is the distance from the center of the circle or a sphere Then the earth is going to curve at a certain rate and for intensive purposes up to about a thousand miles That's roughly, you know, 7.98 inches per mile squared That actually gives the globe the benefit of the doubt actually predicts less curvature than the globe actually does So that is uh beneficial to the globe proponents if we're trying to see if there is curvature For all observations under a thousand miles Now what we know in reality is that the horizon is not a physical place and the way this all started was we were told Boats disappear over the curve of the earth That's how we know the earth's a ball Then we went out and we found out that no the boat looks like it disappears But when I pull out optics I can see the boat again So guess what they did they moved the goalpost and said but no eventually you can't bring it back Well, yeah, you're changing what you said. So let's start with step one Definitively you can prove that the boat appears to disappear But actually you can bring it back. It's not because the curve of the earth So therefore boats can disappear in the distance Despite it not being curved the earth now the horizon moves around. It's not actual It's just where we got the word horizon was horizontal. It's a vanishing point in the distance everything in the sky converges down The ground converges up a basic perspective We see that the horizon is an optical diffraction limit Based on our angular resolution and it's just an optical place in the distance and it changes based on Atmospheric conditions, etc. This is very interesting. So If you actually look at the angular race at resolution limit of the human eye being about one arc minute Right, which is approximately between point zero two and point zero three degrees And it gives you an angle of exactly point zero two one seven zero six two degrees of the human eye When you take the angular resolution limit of the human eye And you actually multiply it by A certain wavelength of the typical conditions assumed of visible light You can actually end up getting the exact radius of the earth So where things would fall below the resolution limit of the human eye roughly three miles for a six foot observer Is exactly where the globe claims that the curvature of the earth would start obstructing things If you actually look at the math, it's it's exactly the same and if you look right here We have the equation on one of these pages Oh, it's actually being hidden here But it actually gives you if you do the math and you've assumed spherical geometries blocking it in the distance it gives you 3958.8 miles and in fact it matches up to like 10 decimal places the exact supposed radius of the earth What a coincidence angular resolution limit of the eye Can literally be reverse engineered assuming the earth's sphere causing things to be obstructed and you get the exact radius value 3958.8 That's a coincidence if you're a global earth or that's a coincidence So anyway, we could get into that if we need to and then I'm going to run through I think I have like a couple minutes left. We'll run through some basic evidence. So all engineer a minute and a half All engineering uses plain survey, which is neglects any notion of a curvature up to 100 square miles Then we do it in segments that's 66 feet in each direction of curvature Yet we have to assume the earth is flat to actually build things so when people say still no flat earth evidence Right after this presentation concludes, they would be neglecting all actual engineering in the real world Specular reflections require a flat surface. You can't replicate one without one if the water was convex or concave We wouldn't have that because you would have a diffused reflection. We have them over dozens of miles Here's the horizon constantly moving proving that it's optical We have long-distance laser tests and here is a very interesting one See what globeface says about this so on a globe the horizon is Going down and away from your feet in all directions It's a globe but as we increase in altitude the horizon rises with us So as I get higher the ground should be getting further and further away from my feet down and away from me On a plain earth, it would rise with us and that's quite literally what we see So see if they get that right and now I'm just going to wrap it up We have long-distance mirror flashes radio waves We can get into all the specifics later But we have many different tests that have falsified the curvature of the earth if the surface of the earth is not curving anywhere What is it so what we're left with is a stationary topographical plane And yeah, so the empirical evidence requirement is on those making the claim that all of that's just an illusion And actually the earth is the exact opposite of what we see and use it as so that's the burden of All right, thank you so much for that there and we will Thank austin for his opening statement there Just remind everybody once again, we are going to be doing super chats at the end of our discussion So if you have questions for either of our speakers the earlier you get them in the sooner they're going to be asked So 10 minutes on the floor over to you globy and thank you so much for being here Sure, thank you. All right. Let me share my screen Ready when you are all right 10 minutes starting now All right, so um, we just listened to 10 minutes of zero flat earth proof, which was expected. Um, but here we go We can actually demonstrate The earth's curvature and measure it instead of talking about trying to falsify things like relativity and um showing incorrect Videos with drones flying that are not level. How do you know that drone was level but we can get into that Um, we're talking about globe proof. We can look at very simple things that prove the globe For example 24 hour Antarctic Sun for four months out of the year Well up to six depending where you are um Impossible on a flat earth for very obvious reasons now flat earthers have just said, uh, these are all fake And come up with various reasons to claim they're fake all of which are have no bearing at all And we can go through those one by one you guys like Star trails very simple second proof of the globe Everyone in the southern hemisphere Sees the same star trails looking south Around the central point of rotation called sigmoctantis is the star closest to the center of that rotation Doesn't matter where you are. Um I've done this observation myself on tiktok with two live observers one in australia one in south africa Both looking south southwest on their compass At the same exact moment in time and looking at the southern cross in the sky Uh taken into account magnetic declination those kind of things This is over 90 degrees of difference on the flat earth map Looking, you know this way and looking this way So Declination doesn't really make up for that. It's about a 10 degree difference. So that's not an answer to this This is impossible On flat earth without invoking some sort of magic Okay, where it does work Is on the globe because again everyone in the south right here Is looking south towards the center point of rotation Now, why are there two points of central rotation in the sky? Man, I know maybe because we have an axis And those two points are directly over those axes the the center of axis of rotation Okay No explanation for this on flat earth Another simple one sun sets The sun sets At an angle to the south from your right shoulder to your left shoulder when you're when you're staring west at the sunset It sets to the south everywhere south of the equator It sets straight up and down at the equator and sets to the right or to the north north of the equator Doesn't matter what time of year doesn't matter where the sun is relative to the observer Whether it's north of them or south of them if you're south of the equator The sun sets to the left Now I don't think I have to explain why that's impossible on a flat earth, but The sunset the sun circles counterclockwise here It could never say from africa here or south america. It could never appear to be setting down towards the ice wall It's impossible Again, it doesn't matter where the sun is north or south of you And we have things like southern flights direct flights Qantas 64 for example that flies direct From yohannesburg to sydney 12 hour flight That would be the flight path here or even if you made it a straight line, which it's not because it flies out over the ocean It's at least double the distance of this flight here, which is american airlines 52 flight from miami to televive Yet, they're the same distance and flight time Now flat earth is world invoke magical magical uh air currents that Whisk the plane faster one way versus the other yet they fly the same path there and back So now you're trying to now you're going to say that the The uh the air currents have to be flipping Over the same point of the earth to try to make the plane fly faster one way or the other It's it's absolute nonsense as many examples like this where as you would expect on a globe. It's symmetrical, right? These are at the same latitude north and south these two flights You would expect them to be symmetrical You would expect them to be the same distance in time. You would expect all that and that's what happens in reality Yet flat earthers have to invoke some magic that doesn't exist and they can't prove right time Yeah, right now you're at five and a half. All right, and last but not least we're going to look at uh Some earth curve measurements. Okay, because why look at anything else if you can just actually measure earth curvature so we can use Things called uh reciprocal zenith angles which is this picture here on the right in which case you have a measuring device here at the out of light and a target on the other side um This will this is what it would look like on a globe obviously This angle here a and b would be something more than 90 degrees and that's what we would expect on a globe if this was flat Which you'd have to visualize I don't have a picture for you, but those angles would be 90 degrees so You can do this test over and over again various locations test it repeatedly different weather different locations and measure these angles And they should be 90 degrees on a flat earth Turns out they are never 90 degrees. They're always over 90 degrees Okay, and we have this example right here Which is done by survey or jesse kuzlowski And it measured One minute and 12 seconds of angle between the observer and the target over 7,300 feet Okay Um, I'm sorry. I measured one one minute seven seconds The expected measurement was one minute 12 seconds according to the globe math at the current accepted radius of earth Okay, so you got very close even considering refraction which over it's only just over a mile Not going to be much refraction there, but if you include refraction, you're still within that that margin of error here And this can be done over and over again There's a few examples here from barron ruttledge who does this all the time live. He's on tip-top He shows these measurements. He shows him setting it up. He shows everything right live So this is an excellent way to go through it and actually just measure the curvature of the earth yourself instead of claiming It's flat now a flat earthers won't do is ever show a measurement of anything being flat They just try to discredit The globe model Which never works, but they try to discredit the globe model But they'll never actually just go and measure anything and no laser tests over lake or is not measuring something That's a laser test. That's light Okay, and nothing was ever measured in those tests. So I would love to see a measurement of flatter here's another one from uh Let's see. Well, here's some laser test pictures From fe core. I just threw these in here to show why laser tests are inaccurate You see that bending light there laser lasers refract just like any other light So that needs to be taken into account, which it never was in the fe core demonstrations And they show things like this which They claim proves flat earth yet. They don't show the non Distorted image like this on the right right and look at these look at these cranes over here They look like a fun house mirror, right? Obviously there's heavy refraction going on there, but I'll never show you the clear observation day like this Here's the measurement. I skipped it was the main surveyor You can go check out his stuff. It's very good. You can say I just show you There's a link to the full youtube video and I'm doing it But the result was 180 degrees 17 minutes I'm sorry 17.1 seconds So this was again over 180 degrees which proves that there is a tilt between those two objects Okay, and this can be done repeatedly And consistently, okay There is no flat earth evidence in conclusion. Thank you All right Well with that we will kick it an open discussion And we will we will move into a beautiful back and forth if we get too much cross talk because we know this is going to be an Exciting one. So if you're hanging out in the live chat smack that like button like it owes you money Because we appreciate it when you guys beat it around that's really awesome And a big thanks to all of our mods hanging out in the chat right now We also really appreciate you guys and your efforts. Uh, so let's get into open discussion over you Austin. Oh, let's kick it Okay, yeah First of all, it's funny the laser you showed the the lights bending up and actually fe core Counter for the refractive index and knew it was going to be bending up and specifically predicted it Based on the index and then observed it But you guys need to claim that it's bending down and going around the earth But whatever I think this is the bigger part to talk about with us. You say there's they never show any measurements Did you miss the part where like? All engineering use plain survey measurements. Would you agree that we we use plain survey measurements as if the earth is flat No, I disagree Go ahead fact baron rutledge is a is a surveyor And he was a land survey and he shows exactly how he's calculating all these things and he does not use Not assume a flat earth in the calculations So plain saying saying they're assuming flat earth in these calculations is absolutely nonsense. So plain serving Doesn't treat the earth like it's flat. It actually accounts for curvature Yeah, the basic formulas account for for curvature and even if it even if it didn't That's still not a measurement of flatness. That's assuming over short distances. That's something is negligible Okay, I know what you're trying to say, right? But why does geodetic surveying Take into account curvature and everything they do, right? Well, you're diverting away So first you made the claim that there are no flat earth measurements because it sounds good You guys always say that but there specifically are all engineering uses plain survey and I can read it right here Well, plain surveying is a survey in which the earth's surface is assumed to be a plane and curvature of the earth is ignored Yeah, this is used for up to a talking point off google. Okay, that's not that's not a source What this is this is yeah, it's not a source. I will engineering textbook Really, what is the civil engineering textbook is I can pull you up a leveling surveying manual right now That tells differently. All right, so it's a civil engineering textbook and we're like four sources on here I'll show it. I'll link it. But this is what's so funny. This is obvious Your model claims like oh the curvature is so small that it's basically negligible So when you when you look over long distances and assume that there's curvature Right by actually cherry picking the data and then accounting for refraction and changing the r value That is a measurement, but when it's more accurate at shorter distances using the exact same method That is not a measurement. Is that correct? That's what you just said, right? How is it more accurate at shorter distances? Why would that be a thing? Because the The accuracy of like a theodolite is much more accurate at shorter distances This is why when we build things We build them in small like 100 to 200 feet increments of measurements because it ensures accuracy You know as you increase turbulence as you increase turbulence of the medium in different types of conditions, right? The longer distance you have to account for that more That's why when they actually build things they measure it in very small increments So it's well known and every surveyor will tell you that obviously the shorter increment measurements are the most accurate ones That's because as you get further away the curvature becomes more pronounced No, you just said why would it be more accurate? What yes, so what's your point? So you can see that the shorter measurements are more accurate Yes, shorter shorter measurements are always more accurate. Especially why do you say why would they be more? Why do you say why would they be more accurate and please answer the question? Why over longer distances do we use geodetic survey? Oh, because people assume the earth's a sphere. Ah, it's assumptions So when they build long distance things we just have to assume things are curving to get them right Nope, like long distance tunnels No, so even when we go bridges tunnels all of that for all engineering for 100 square miles Bridges are known to be diverting from each other the towers. So that's a non point again Are you are you okay? So we use plain survey You're making things up towers the towers of the varisano bridge, for example, divert away from each other Yeah measurably The same way I just showed you the measurements of of these the satellites diverting away from each other Because of tension and the amount of Diversion in the bridge is nowhere close to what the curvature of the earth would be The fact you guys still run around saying that the like three millimeters of diversion is earth curvature is pretty funny You guys didn't just go do the math and prove that has nothing to do with earth curvature It's based on the actual structural integrity of the bridge and the tension But you're running away. We show me your reference on that. I want you to show me your reference on that Wait up. I want you to acknowledge We absolutely do have flat earth measurements because you know measure Plane survey measures the earth as if it's flat for engineering up to measurement That's an assumption because over a certain amount of Austin just because yeah, you have had the floor for a little bit here So let's uh, like loby have a chance here to respond. He just interrupted me Over a certain distance shorter distances There are assumptions you can make that earth when i'm building a deck. I don't need to include the earth's curve measurements It's irrelevant at that distance Okay, but if you were to actually measure it you could measure it for example The the example I just showed you right that was 7 000 feet. That was a little over a mile Okay, that measured one minute and seven seconds of arc Do you know how small that is? Uh, yeah, I understand you are not sure you do boston Yeah, but you are you wouldn't need to account for one minute and seven seconds of arc when you're building a deck at your house or a building That's what you say, but what over 10 miles Over 10 miles Over 10 miles Obviously, it's going to be important. Certainly when it's 100 square miles, which means 10 miles in each direction From where you're starting so that would be significant feet of curvature drop that you completely neglect in reality According to all plain survey and engineering documents textbooks and even government government documents talking about engineering is basic stuff So all engineering up to 100 square miles Completely neglects the notion that the earth is curving and uses plain survey That would be flat earth measurements if you're claiming that you can use the same instrument Way further outside of the accuracy range and then somehow that's a curved earth measurement, right? So stop saying that Why is it outside of the accuracy range? What are you talking about? We just covered that it's way more accurate at shorter distance and you conceded to that right It depends on what you're measuring this fiatta light in this observation here was a was a t2 hermberg And it's accurate up to 20 miles Wait, wait, wait, did you or did you not agree that shorter measurements are more accurate? You're just conflating the issue now This fiatta light Is accurate up to 20 miles Okay, that's okay This is what's this is what's a fact right say with your reciprocal zina thing Well, since you obviously won't concede that we do have flat earth measurements objectively because we have you don't All geodetic surveying what it does is it takes the plain survey data And it stitches it together to get the distances in the first place And then they look out over distances and make separate measurements Assuming the earth's occur a curved surface, right? And then they apply a curvature to it This is a fact the way we have distances is plain survey measurements We don't measure distances with geodetic surveying We actually use the plain survey data We stitch it together and then you guys go out there and use geodetic surveying right assuming it's a sphere and then What you have to do is cherry pick the data use a weighted mean within a certain threshold of a predetermined window Then you weight the mean you assume a refraction value the guy you invoked Jesse Kowalski or whatever his name is I debated him and he admitted to me that if he didn't Cherry pick the data is our value, but it would have been way too big Guarantee he didn't admit anything of the sort to you, but anyway Literally did can you explain to me how we measure these things over these distances? And why why are we measuring these these drops over these distances? Okay, sure. Why do they match? Why do they match the curve of the earth? They don't so this is what's also very funny about it So when you actually look into reciprocals anything goes they almost never match the actual claimed Divergence of the globe and if you're if they're on a small distance, right? It's barely any and then they claim that refraction messes with it And I've heard people try to say that refraction doesn't but I have the actual The journal of geophysical research right here 2010 talking about how the vertical temperature gradients between 0.5 and 0.1 AM during the day and 1 to 2 km shortly after sunset That it reduces the variability of k to the range of negative 2 to positive 5 hours Don't show that frequently used Gaussian refraction coefficient of plus 0.13 is not suited for describing refraction effects in the lower atmosphere That specifically the reciprocal zany angles are affected by refraction Of course your hijacking optics and it doesn't actually match the globe You have to add refraction and say well, it's close enough This is the globe earth still man, and then I'll let you go it is well Yeah, but it shouldn't be diverging at all Sure, it doesn't actually match the globe exactly, but it shouldn't be diverging at all So so you agree it doesn't actually match the globe right like you have to doctor it and take weighted means and I agree You're telling me what I agree on I'm asking Sorry, I'm just eating some words out of here Um, name one thing I said that was words out. Can you define words out? When you just say random words that don't mean anything because you're reading them on the screen and don't understand what you're saying Oh, you just made up a new definition of words up So can you what specifically did I say that words and put them all together and make them sound like something But word solids incoherent rambling that doesn't have any meaning Yeah, can you explain what you just said then and simple terms for all of us? Yeah, yeah, I did already. There's refraction. You read off a you read off your screen. Can you explain? No, I explained it. There's both vertical and lateral refraction that happened in the atmosphere admittedly Right even accounting you have to account for these in your reciprocal zenith angles I talked to jesse specifically about the measurements you're invoking I debated him about them He admitted that you have to account for refraction He said that when you account for refraction and you take a predetermined window So any measurement that falls outside of that you don't count them Then you add a weighted mean to what you do take the measurements down as so you're cherry picking You're already cherry picking just the window you presuppose the globe would predict Then you're going to cut a weighted mean so the closest to the globe prediction gets the highest weight, right? The most weight to get your average then you account for refraction And he said if you get within like 80 85 percent, it's considered a success I asked him then what would happen if you didn't throw out the other measurements. He said oh The radius value you would get would be way too big So that is objectively what they do, right? So that's just begging the question reifying the globe model Many other things it's cherry picking within 88 percent of the accuracy that they expected. They accept it That's what you're saying They have to fluctuate it by 15 to 20 percent on average after throwing out most of the measurements and then they get within 85 percent Oh, they throw out most of the measurements. That's weird because he showed all of his measurements No, he specifically explains that he writes down the ones within his predetermined window and assumes error or extreme conditions If it falls outside that window, that's just what they do man It's it. There's no need to come on here and lie like this. It's really that's all you guys just to claim i'm lying Okay, so you're claiming you're claiming what you're claiming is all land surveyors are taking measurements And then most of them are flat and some of them don't make sense and they just throw everything out and go Yeah, I like these three these three work. I'm going to use those No, let me help you out here man. Ursa globe They assume the ursa globe They don't don't think they're doing anything other than trying to go out and make more accurate measurements of the globe They think they live on we have a predicted range of where the measurement should be if we are on a globe Right. We have a predicted value for standard refraction We go out there We make our measurements and then sometimes they fall outside of that predetermined window It's called a tolerance. They just assume they throw those out and assume There's some type of either user error or extreme conditions because we know that based on the globe and standard conditions It has to fit within this window Okay, so they cherry pick that specific portion and he told me if he didn't do that the r value would be way too big Point blank explain that you know, it's weird though. I've watched land surveyors do it live On tiktok baron does it live on tiktok and guess what he's never done thrown out observations like you're talking about Really? So he went out there and made a measurement live on tiktok and it immediately matched the globe. That's your claim Yeah, really. What was the refraction he accounted for? Standard atmospheric refraction though standard atmosphere a few thousand feet Yeah, that so you see the point though is that a few thousand feet. It's not much divergence Make sure that the audience understands it make sure the audience doesn't we're talking about if you're on a globe That's 25 000 miles in circumference Right, and then you drop a plumb line, which is just a vertical plumb bob on the earth, right on a flat earth It's perpendicular to the plane earth on the globe earth You can treat it like it's perpendicular to the plane earth, but it's just a tangent and it's down relative to the center of mass So as you increase distance away, they'll start diverging out on a globe At 2000 feet. That's basically nothing. That means it would basically diverge out like nothing Like nothing like what's the measurement on nothing? It's just an incredibly small amount It's an but but you know the no we're talking about here, right? So what what's the amount? Incredibly small. Okay. Incredibly small. Okay. So it's so small you can't measure it is what you're saying No, no, no, no you you could attempt to measure it But it's known that refraction is so much stronger of a variable with within that that person that's a fact Thousand feet within 2000 feet refraction is not is almost negligible No, it's not Okay, so I guess that this journal of geophysics Go to Walter Bisland's calculator and put in 7,300 feet and put in standard atmospheric refraction And see what it gives you the journal of geophysics is wrong So this is the truth of of reciprocal zenith angle measurements Is that they don't ever actually match exactly what the globe predicts when you make that smaller measurements It's very small amounts and it's always it's never going to be exactly what the globe predicts even though it's a very small amount Nothing's going to be exact. Okay, but that's not a fair requirement. Oh, okay. Cool. Now. Here's the here's the main Problem here. This is what you should be saying but on a flatter. They shouldn't diverge at all If to make the claim that they match the globe that's not true You have to you have to cherry pick the data and then weighted mean it based on the presupposed r value That's how you get your weight that you apply to the measurements Then you use refraction you move it around by assuming this is where it should be This is how far off it is. There must be this much refraction. That's how it works How come no nobody with a measurement device has gone out and measured this to be flat Well, we just talked about how everyone in the world has actually gone out to measure the earth I didn't ask you about assumptions. Okay. Am I talking about surveying assumptions? Why didn't anybody take a device and go measure over a certain distance and say yep, you're some flat earth evidence We have done that because we know the plain survey. We know the plain survey method works. No, no No, it's not what I'm asking. You know, you know, that's not what I'm asking Austin, but you agree it works I agree. You can assume things are flat over short distances and and and still build something accurately And you're not what I asked. Awesome. And you need what I asked you need them for distances Everybody knows that's not what I asked Austin. Why has it never been measured? It literally has though. Why haven't you gone and rented a theodolite gone and done a measurement And proved the earth is flat once and for all. Why have you not done it? Because it's done every day. No, it's not you're talking about assumptions No, you're assuming that if you increase the distance and assume it's a globe That somehow proves that it is but it doesn't you claim that because I can build my deck and not take into account The earth's curvature the earth is flat Uh, well one sense if you if there's 66 feet of curvature In all directions and you just completely neglect it and are able to build canals and runways and bridges and railways That would be positive evidence towards flat earth to say that there's no measurements of flat earth is ridiculous Now what actually happens at where what happens at greater distance is you hijack perspective You hijack the way that we see and you claim it's the earth curving and even though it almost never matches The actual globe you claim it all matches it because you go to your little website and move a slider around to make it match And you act like it's scientific or something Okay, so there's no actual measurements of flatter That's all I want you to to admit and seems you've admitted it all plain survey measurements ever for all engineering ever That's not a measurement Plain survey measurements isn't a measurement You take a measurement. It's not a measurement of flatter. You take a measurement and you assume it's flat No, and and then it's it's accurate. They're doing that. That's not a measurement of flat earth I didn't see some data. There's no data about measurements of flat earth anywhere No, then the measurements are accurate You go out and assume a globe earth and make geodetic measurements to even do geodetic surveying You have to use spherical trick bro. What are you talking about? Oh, if you assume it, it doesn't count. Oh, so this is actually a wash In fact, it's worse for you because you're making Because you actually have to assume the earth is flat to build things and then what your side does is takes all that data Of flat earth stitches it together and then says I promise it's not flat anymore That's a fact. It's just a fact If it's a globe and you're going to build a long bridge So for the towers, for example, right Wouldn't they just need to be plumb to the earth at both locations? Well, yes, in reality, they would be parallel. That's what you're saying Well, they would no you would build them plumb to a location if earth's flat, they would be parallel If it's not flat, they would be sure a small bit, right? Yeah Okay, and we do that. That's what we do diverge you say No, I'm saying that you claim that you claim they diverge, but you don't account for perspective at all perspective has perspective make things diverge Okay towers of a bridge Okay, so now you're you're diverting away. So you're saying you made you brought a perspective not me No, no You're looking through optics to make your supposed measurements. How is bringing up how you see Diverting away. So when you make measurements perspective changes the calculation perspective and refraction are Automatically included in what we're seeing perspective changes calculations within things like the out of lights. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying you have to actually account for perspective. That's right in the atmosphere And and this was so funny. Did you understand the part of my presentation where if you take the angular resolution limit of the eye? And you reverse engineer it you get the exact radius value of the globe I saw you say that and I'd love for you to run through that math for me Okay, I guarantee you're gonna concede and then you're gonna concede. I'm gonna concede. Yeah I'm gonna what am I gonna concede that if you take the actual if you take the angular resolution limit of the eye Right that you can get the radius value of the earth to the exact decimal place Sure. Well, I want to see what you're talking about because it doesn't even make sense Okay, but whenever I show you you're gonna say it's just a coincidence Oh, you're welcome. I don't know what you're welcome to do screen shares We haven't done too many tonight and I've gotten used to doing an obscene amount lately So if you want to do some screen shares and have your references available, that's cool I've managed to make it so we can see our speakers on screen. So that's really cool speaking of our speakers I will let everybody know that if you're watching this on podcast Our speakers are going to be linked in the description and on our youtube description So check them out there if you enjoy what you're hearing from globey or wits it and uh wits It's got his share ready there Smack around that like button everybody. Go ahead. Austin. All right. I'm on the wrong screens. So I'm gonna clip Let me come over here All right, the angular resolution limit of the human eye is about one arc minute Or approximately between point zero two and point zero three degrees Optical information loss occurs when the angular size of an object is smaller in the angular resolution This angle at point zero two one seven zero six two degrees and assumed light wavelength of six hundred and 66 nanometers You can derive you can derive the radius of the earth If you look here the horizon gain for a six foot observer across that amount of degrees was inverted as height information Loss across the same angle and the two angles were used to construct a sphere or globe with a tilt angle of point zero four Three four one two four degrees, which is just the first amount doubled Right So then what you would get this angle represents the six foot drop from a six foot observer across the average horizon distance of 2.9 Miles the depiction here is the easiest way to understand it either a We're losing information in the distance because the angle of view in relation to the tangent Is actually falling below the resolution limit So you lose resolvable information or it's doing that at the same exact distance because the earth is a ball So what a coincidence that the angular resolution limit of the eye that tells us that we'll lose resolvable information Right can be used that same ratio will give you if converted to assume spherical physical obstruction Will give you 3958.8 miles. I'm sorry Did you have something in here that showed us what the calculation of the radius from the angular resolution is? Yeah, sure. Here you go right here So if if you look at you we just covered the angles, right? You got the angular resolution limit of the eye, right? Okay, so if you look at the formula here, you have quote unquote the way that you would get the radius of the earth You assume that the information Lost is actually because of a physical obstruction as opposed to resolution So you would just make that assumption you would say for example You'd go out onto the ocean and say look the boat disappear at three miles for a six foot observer A it's because the boat's getting down below the eye's Resolvability or b because the earth's a ball and it disappears around three miles Okay, if you assume it's the ladder and it's because the earth is going behind the curve of the earth Then you would take the rays of the earth and you can uh Take distance divided by the tangent times twice the angle the theta the viewing angle Right and so when you do that then you now get two theta Which is point zero two one seven zero six two times two so you get point four three four one two The distance equals the distance to the horizon which is two point nine nine nine five four seven These are the values that come from the eye the human eye and then when you wait up It's so wild to me. I think it's wild So when you actually take those values and you plug it into that formula Which is right here again radius of the earth equals distance divided by tangent times twice theta that formula What right here? No, I didn't answer where it came from. How did you get it? We just covered how we got it. We just covered how we got it We did though. So So the actual the angular resolution limit of the eye, right? No, I didn't ask you what the angular resolution is. Yeah, how did that? How was that formula derived? Because what that shows you is that the information meaning the visible light the information is going to start to follow Resolvability at a certain distance Based on a certain height That's what the angle does because data the viewing angle relative to the information the distance of the eye shows You when the information is going to fall below the resolution angle It's actually based on propagation and reception angles of what you're viewing with billions of points of light or whatever Nevertheless, if you assume, okay, well actually the curve of the earth is blocking something So it's a physical obstruction that causes the loss of information You can take that same relationship Flip it around and coincidentally if you do that If you do that, then you will actually get a radius value of 3958.8078674061 miles Now go google the exact radius of the earth And what's going to tell you is 3958.8 So now this could just be a coincidence. Well, let's use our brain. Maybe it's a coincidence Maybe okay. It's a coincidence coincidence theorists, but let's use our brain for a second Now people back in the day. They didn't have very good optics, right? So they went out there almost stopped sharing they went out into Say look at the boat or whatever right and then it disappeared They're like, man, why does the boat keep disappearing if they were trying to think about if the earth was a sphere They'd be like the boats going behind the curve of the earth reasonably, right? So they'd be like well this it pretty consistently disappears around this distance If you assume it's going behind the curve of the earth Then you would get that value because if if it was your eyes, right It would continuously fall below resolvability at that distance, right? And so you'd be like, oh, but you would think that's because of the curve of the earth Now what has happened since then is we pulled out binoculars and telescopes and Hamras and you can bring the boat back Objectively, I've done it hundreds of times. You haven't done that ever I absolutely have done that if you go out and everyone can do this at home You've brought it back in past the optical Yes, yes with my Just because you've had the floor for a little bit here We'll let just a second for globey to respond here to some of what you shared there in your screen share And let's carry on so the angular resolution of of your eye or the optics that you have with your camera The object could disappear before it's over the horizon It's just too small to see that's literally what zoom is right It increases everything. So you can see it All flat earthers have ever done is zoom back in a boat past that that limit Of the optics of the camera and go look we're bringing it back in over the horizon What you've never done is start with a boat or a ship That's half hidden Or what however much hidden by supposed curvature that we're saying is curvature and bring that back in You've never done it. You've never done it with the sun either That's also that's what you're claiming. Don't divert to the sun So what we we have you have to follow the actual argument you're trying to divert with your talking point But when you go out and you see the boat disappear, this is just a fact, okay If you go out and you look with your naked eyes, it'll look like the boat disappeared behind the water And if you pull out a camera, you will see that boat again. Okay, so that means any that means when Aristotle Supposedly in 350 bc said he looked at a boat and it went behind the curve of the earth And he didn't even have a telescope. He had no idea what he was talking about if he had to pull the camera He would have saw the boat again now coincidentally the very distance that it would fall below the resolvability of an average height of a man Six foot observer. That's where the radius value comes from. Do you think it's just a coincidence? No, see, this is what I think so What he would have seen if the boat was just too far away to see is a boat Getting smaller and smaller and smaller until it disappeared because you can't resolve it anymore not a boat Disappearing bottom up as it gets further away Now what I asked you before is where that formula come from came from and you couldn't answer that question Where does what come from that formula? That I just told you where the formula come from. It's based on the observer You described what you think the formula means. I asked Rayleigh Rayleigh's criteria Rayleigh's criteria. So so show us I just did so so look if we just covered that because I want to get into how you're wrong about Let's not cover it again. I guess I just showed the whole audience. It's simple It's like the angular resolution limit of the eye Rayleigh's criteria So you take the observer's height and that's going to give you a viewing angle Whatever you're seeing in the distance and you're able to determine when you're going to have information loss Coincidentally what the human eye is right the naked eye observer is going to see Coincidentally right where the globe predicts it'll start blocking things in the distance. Keep saying That's not what I'm asking your answer needs to be that's just a coincidence And then okay say it's a coincidence. I said I think you believe something you read without actually vetting it Rayleigh's criteria the angular resolution Rayleigh's criteria Are you denying the angular resolution limit of the eye applied it to the formula for the radius of earth? Okay, with a lot of assumptions and you just believed it Oh, you're not following man. So what I'm saying is if you if you as if you went into that situation And you assumed that the earth was blocking things in the distance because it is a globe Right if you made that assumption you could then take that same distance and viewing angle Right and assuming an r value you would get the exact same r value the globe claims So it has to say it's just a coincidence that the where the like a six foot observer You have a horizon at three miles on a globe That's coincidentally exactly where you would start to lose a resolvable information based on the naked eye on a flat earth And this would happen on a flatter Thor globe earth, right? We all have eyes We all have human eyes. So Now it would require okay And that means when you bring out different optics with more zoom you'd be able to see further and of course That's what happens in reality. Let's see some examples of that We got some examples of that happening of us pulling out optics and seeing far further than the naked eye Bringing a ship back from over the horizon so simple such a simple claim everybody makes I'd love to see one finally Yeah, so I can't show you a video of my naked eyes But obviously everyone knows that if you go out it'll look like the I mean I wouldn't tested this claim You should do that. Oh, she's with your eyes not with cameras Right. So I we all agree that at one point based on the conditions of that day The boat's going to get to where you can't bring it back anymore But you said optics brings it back. You said modern optics bring them back. That's what I said I said that optics is going to bring it back past the angular resolution limit of the eye Right and and on certain days, you're going to see the boat from way further away And you guys will claim that it's refracted up. Well, so why has a camera never brought a ship back from over the horizon? Because it's it's into the vanishing point, bro. You lose resolve a point you can look yeah You can lose resolvable information So when the when the camera's zoomed out and then you zoom in you do see the boat again, right? But once you zoom all the way into the maximum zoom of the camera and then the boat disappears Obviously, you can't bring it back again And this is also going to be based on a 10 you it's going to be based on attenuation And the globe model claims they don't even account for attenuation and refraction, which is insane Absolutely insane Austin Austin need to are you following me? You need to need to reel it in Reel it in your claim is you can use optics to bring a ship back from over the horizon Why has that never been done simple answer? I was all I said it has been done unless it's already so then prove it Unless it's already beyond the actual vanishing point at the time say anything about beyond vanishing points Okay, a tanker ship a tanker ship where half the ship's missing Why has that never been zoomed back in and brought back into the view? Are you saying coincidentally everything that's over the horizon is past the The convergence point of that's what the horizon is. Okay, so that's what the horizon is Come on. Your claim is that you can bring them back into this interview with zooming them in I'm not gonna repeat my claim the audience heard me say that with the human eye It'll look like it disappears. You can pull out cameras. So if I pull out binoculars Check it check this out. Say I use my human eyes and then the boat disappears Then I pull out binoculars and I can see the boat again in the boat disappears If I pull out a camera, I can see it again So as I increase optics, I can see further Eventually At what point in those scenarios was was the object ever half hidden Because I agree with you you can wait till a boat gets so far away that you just can't see it anymore Because it's a small boat And it just disappears you just can't resolve it anymore and you could zoom it back in I agree But he's never been done with a ship half over the horizon being zoomed back in ever Ever is it this isn't true either though because now with the Okay, so this is the problem You would actually have to be able to like record your human eyes or maybe like record binoculars That would be a good idea or just different optics of cameras. That's how you would have to do it But more importantly, I think you can zoom it in. This is the thing Right, there's a few things with things disappearing bottom up over the water one Obviously, everyone understands the concept of like if I hold my thumb up right in front of my face I can block a building right just because of the relative angles So like if there's any waves in the water even a small wave close to you in the foreground can block out entire 20 story buildings Right now. I'm not saying that's the only thing does it I'm just saying that's obviously relevant and over the water things you guys never even discussed that You can just block out a building with your thumb improve. It's a very simple concept And then we also have the reception and propagation angle coming from that object is the smallest in relation to like the eye level at the bottom of the object So if you account for Rayleigh's criteria, the theta the viewing angle is smallest at the bottom of the object So it falls below the resolution angle first or the resolution limit And then you have attenuation being the greatest at the bottom of the atmosphere So you would have to see things disappear from the bottom of bottom flatter Oh more fellow What happened? Oh, that's me. Yeah, I was just saying we're uh, we're looking at your screen I had a I had a feeling I was like do we lose audio for a second there? We all just went Oh, sorry, I said I I said can I share my screen, but no you didn't hear me. Oh, no, that's okay Yeah, yeah, of course your screen is sharing now. So sorry Uh, you're good to go This is what like a 300 foot wind turbine And you're going to claim a wave is blocking half of it Uh, I I said many things or the optical. Yeah, you did say many things. None of them apply Really, can you still man what I said? I stopped listening because I was starving from all the Yeah, and I don't want to say the word sound see it's what I'm saying You guys can never actually still man the arguments. It's pretty ridiculous But the ground the water is going to appear to ramp up in the distance Right, you obviously have things in the foreground that are going to appear to block out things taller than that in the distance You have attenuation rate being the greatest at the bottom and you have the viewing angle of the actual points of light or information coming from say The wind turbines in relation to that vanishing point being the shortest at the bottom the smallest angle at the bottom So we would have to see them disappear bottom up And of course if you here's a video of a boat when you zoom out of it You can see as you start zooming out the bottom of the boat disappears first as you start zooming out of the boat So the fact you guys still deny this is wild to me you want me to show you it doesn't happen Yeah, okay, then let me just show you and everything you just said was an immense excuse As to why these things are being blocked because there's no reason why the angular resolution at the bottom of the thing should be less than the top What it's because there are do you think that like if say there's a boat you think it's just one point of light Or do you think it's like millions of different little points of light? It's the whole thing No, it's not it's millions of different little points of light. So that's what i'm saying you You guys don't even understand and the whole boat is giving off light and as it goes away It's compressing into the distance, but there's millions of little points of light So there's a different angle to the bottom of the boat than the top of the boat right A different angle yeah, well you're six feet off the ground So there's going to be a slight angle change to the bottom of the boat versus the top of the boat Okay, and that's very minuscule And doesn't matter it's that it's going to be smaller at the bottom in relation to The horizon right now the horizon where the ground appears to meet the sky So the angle the viewing angle is going to be smaller in relation to that horizon at the bottom of the boat It's going to fall below resolution first. I mean it's going to fade into the vanishing point first It's just a fact. It's on a globe earth. This also has to be true. It's not a fact On a globe earth. It also has to be true. No, it doesn't Absolutely, but we read this into the ground. We read this into the ground. So like do you have any now? This is my opinion. This is how I actually look at this. Okay. Um People always say like no evidence for flat earth right and like you said that And people always say and why do you talk about relativity because people are scared to have that conversation whenever But don't you agree that like on a base level? We experience the earth right as if it's stationary and as if it's a plane and as if the horizon's horizontal Right and the the globe earth model says that well, it's moving But like it's relative motion is so small that you wouldn't be able to tell Right and that the earth is so big that you wouldn't be able to tell it's curving So that means on its face Using Occam's razor that which requires least some amount of assumptions the earth's stationary plane till proven otherwise So the globe earth has the burden of proof and I've never like there is no proof We falsified the globe so like For example, can you go up an altitude you can see curvature? No, no, wait, can you prove that the earth is moving? Rotating yeah, how so? First off trust your first point You said you can't see the horizon's horizontal. It is not as you go up You can clearly see more and more curve as you go up That's what you guys claim but we only when we send up losses that are actually more level We see that it's flat 120,000 feet up a balloon with a concave horizon because you're using fish eyes It goes yeah, it bends every which way and it's not just fish eye rectilinear lenses I've actually offered each glober that says this money see if anyone's going to take the bet So thousand dollar bet that with the rectilinear lens you can still impose this curvature on the image Anyone want to take the thousand dollar bet rectilinear lens? Still distorts and imposes curvature on the image very very very small That's so it does it does and then it's going to it's going to increase based on angle of view And certainly if you compress an image like this guy did with his little balloon But I just want to point out that like you think we're spinning tilted wobbling flying through space And you don't have any proof of that like can you explain why you believe it you're changing the subject Because we've talked about this for the whole time We have not talked about our the the curvature of earth as seen from high altitudes at all. Oh, okay. Yeah, whatever So have you seen uh kip du gratas's 300 foot rocket launch? I wouldn't No, I don't know use the rectilinear lens showed the lens everything uncut footage all the way up to 300,000 feet Was their curvature like 10,000 feet up He only went yeah, there's no 10,000. I don't know. We gotta watch the video I know I haven't seen it my brother, right? But uh rectilinear lens let's do impose curvature But this is there's a few things that but it's curved perfectly The same rate of curvature when it's low in the screen middle screen top of the screen Doesn't matter where it's showing the horizon. It's the same rate of curvature. No, it's not I've matched it to Yeah, I've matched it to walter bizlin's Earth curve expectations at those yeah Well, you have the first video that's super legit. I guess if you want to send it to me then I'll check it out But we can watch right now Okay, I don't know because I don't want to just watch some long video You think I'm scared of your video of a rocket I just want to hear you say no to the already said rectilinear lenses Impose curvature based on their angle if that camera is tilted down at all It's going to impose a curvature rate proportionate to increase in altitude because it changes your angle of view But what if the curvature rate is well, what if the curvature rate is the same throughout the whole video? Then what what how does that change anything? Because it's not the camera making a flat horizon curve So then the camera is not imposing any curvature Do you know do you know how do you know what happens to the center of of the frame of a It can is still can first of all, how did you know that on the camera on the rocket was perfectly level since we couldn't use the drone Doesn't have to be level. Oh, it's curved every every angle. It shows it's curved Now your example of the drone that requires the drone to be level Otherwise, you don't know whether the horizon is rising with your eye or not That that camera could easily be pointing down a little bit as it goes up So if you're trying at what altitude do we see the curvature in this video? Oh, we can watch it together. You don't know though So just to clarify like we're never going to get to actual we're not going to get to the motion I mean we can stick to we can stick to you claiming that you see it. We can debunk that too Listen, listen motion doesn't prove the shape of the earth. I know you love to talk about that Because you think it invalidates something But literally you can measure the curve of earth and you can go up and see the curve We've already debunked all everything you've said so far. You have that's interesting Yes, but like you say I love to talk about that but No, you believe it you believe that you're tilted wobbling spinning revolving around the sun That's a belief that you have but you don't even So why don't you want to go see why don't you want to go see the earth curvature right now? Why don't you want to go see it? What we mean? Why wouldn't I want to go see it? We can go watch it right now. You want to go see it? I said I didn't care if you pulled the video up a long time ago. It's only been an hour We got plenty to admit that you are clearly scared of the motion argument though Just admit that you can't really you don't know much about it. You just believe it No, I'm not scared of any chair if you'd like. Sorry. Um, the topic of the debate is flat versus globe No, ma is well actually is it is not relatively true is the globe true? That's what it is and it's not It's what it is globe Hey at the surface of the earth isn't curbing anywhere One of us can show or one of us can show measurements and video of earth curvature and measurements of it and one of us can't No, but you but we debunked all your claims. You've been wrong about basic flat earth 101 things You don't even understand angular resolution limit or Rayleigh criteria or relative viewing angles You thought that the boat was one singular viewing really criteria was the formula you were showing and it was not And I clearly asked you three times to to derive that formula that you were claiming you understood and you couldn't do it I literally showed it three times. No, I guess this is what this is what globers devolve to is just like thinking if they Recharacterize and revise what happened confidently enough everyone in the audience will be like, yeah, that's totally what happened I guess we also we also My brother it's recorded. Yeah, it is recorded. Okay And we're gonna we're gonna talk about How you can't actually verify motion after this. Sure That's what I know you love it and and it has nothing because I know that you don't know about but No, we okay. I've already debunked the globe I said specular reflections are impossible with convex to your concavity because it would cause a diffused reflection You duck that long distance like line of sight radio waves and microwaves you just start making up stories We said that plane survey measurements are required to build anything in reality There's all kinds of physical and spherical measurements You showed a laser bending up and your model claims that it has to be bending down You thought it was some type of reputation when they accounted for that with refractive index Everything you said so far has been wrong my guy Uh, tiktok's a little bit of a different world, you know, you can pick out some random people I don't know we're talking about I'm still waiting for a measurement of flat earth that you didn't provide An explanation of the formula that you didn't derive All plane survey measurements ever and you claiming Plane surveying somehow disproves a globe. No, you asked for that's my favorite You asked for measurements of a flat earth. Yeah, show me a measurement of flat earth. You still haven't done it You just claim surveying All plane survey measurements ever I wanted to get a measurement Nobody here believes that that's a globe face Will you play this hurry up because I want to get through your list of misinformation Sure And your presentation. I don't think you do but I absolutely do So here's the camera you used And we'll make ourselves small for now I know you say it doesn't matter if it's rectilinear because it just makes everything flat a globe, but What no, it's just a fact it imposes curvature and globes lie about it not through center frame. It doesn't does it? I'm offering money to a bet on it Nothing through center frame doesn't matter what the lens is nothing through center frame distorts What depends on the actual specific viewing angle Doesn't matter what the angle is as long as the object you're looking at is center frame You want to bet? Yeah Okay, the thing you're looking at is the thing you're measuring if it's center frame There's no distortion. So if I can press it, it'll be it'll be completely straight, right? You can press what the picture. Why would picture of like a table? In the middle of frame if I can press it'll be completely flat Yeah No, it won't I said you want to bet on it with the rectilinear lens No, it won't Okay, pay attention. I know that goes against your guys' script and so you have to just deny it But I mean that's that's why flat earthers exist because they find out that what I just said is just a fact And for some reason you guys have to deny it. It's not a fact No, literally if you have a straight line if you have a curved line through center frame of a fisheye It's going to look just as curved as it is in reality That's a fact of how lens wide angle lenses work. Oh, this doesn't look very curved right there Wait a minute. So as it's going up and down you can claim that the relative locations look like a curve I just saw where it looks flat where it slowed down. That's cool. You want to wait till it stops spinning? That's hilarious because I don't think we want to look at while it's spinning, right? But how was it? I mean, how does it ever look like it's flat though? I thought you said it never looks like it's flat It just watched it look flat. I just watched it look flat Okay, well, I'll fast forward to when it stops spinning. Okay, so we can stop looking at the spinning distortion being created This is uh I don't know 200,000 feet 250 It's always when it starts going down that it looks like it's wait. Do you think that's how much the earth curves at 250,000 feet? Run it back. Run it back. Don't get scared now. You brought it up Oh What happened? You ran away Did I it looks like I'm still here. I don't think you actually did Just run it back. We just saw like the smallest globe in the in the history of mankind said the Zoom crashed unexpectedly. I don't know maybe because I'm sharing. I was drawing you man That's right Of course the second Look at this. So look at the rate the earth has to be curving if that's the ball earth At 250,000 feet. Mm-hmm. You think that was like accurate depiction of curvature of a globe. Yes Okay, so can you show me the math show me the math? Sure Yeah, because according to the math, you would not see nearly that much curvature We have it all Like mapped out and blender and everything you wouldn't nearly see that much curvature Where it curves all the way around you basically see the whole ball in that that frame bro Would you keep going down? You see the whole ball earth barely it's barely curving. Watch it. Watch it Don't go away Going to the apigee Don't run away. Who's right now? It's curving. It's curving. Watch this now. It's gonna start Look at all that curve. That's the smallest globe earth ever bro The smallest glow and you just said it was too much curve now. It's too That's what i'm saying It's too much curve because the smaller the ball the more it curves, right? All right So we can move on this is terrible It's based on the relative viewing angle clearly and that would that's just proves that even the rectilinear It's drastically and grossly input. Look at that. It's always greater curvature when it's going down No, it's not Oh, what about there wait up bring it back bring it back We're gonna bring it back to where it's level here Oh, what about the other way when it was it was showing that it was concave? It wasn't concave. That was the side. It was the side walls of the camera of the the housing Is a point where this is what so what you've done is you you paused one Screen I just pause it where it's low in the frame and I'll do it at the middle And the top it's so funny. Okay. So I'm gonna the bottom of the screen. Okay. Agree to disagree? Here's the bottom. Here's the middle. The curvature rate is changing. That's crazy Yeah, well, it's it's well the earth is getting smaller and bigger during this video Or maybe you're seeing a little bit more of it in the screen now watch No, the curvature rate is changing you specifically claimed that it the rate didn't change It's even debunked you pulled your own video up and been debunked Someone's gonna clip this up and show that you were just wrong. So, okay You can do whatever you want. All right. Well, we disagree make sure when make sure when you do that We've already pointed out that your claims were wrong about the video. Can we move on to something else? No, I'm gonna prove you wrong right here Oh my gosh, see you you're scared to move on because I think you realize like no See, this is the problem with debates a little out of your league. I think if it wasn't open You'd be able to just move on from this You want to talk? No, I just pointed out what was wrong with it. Can you still man what I said? Yeah, you said the rate changed the rate of curvature changed rate of curvature changed. What else do I say? Uh, you said no, uh Nope, nope You know as globers can never still man. Isn't that crazy? You said it was a fisheye lens being curved. I didn't say fisheye lens ever You said it was being distorted by the lens is what you said Probably so because the rate changes and that that that couldn't be the rate of curvature of the globe earth because you see all the way around it from 250,000 feet You wouldn't be able to see the entire globe you have to get many many many miles out in this space to see The end you just saw it curve all the way back looped around that wasn't the entire globe. So, okay Okay, cool, man. So, uh, I already said I already pointed out what's wrong with it The curvature rate changes rectilinear doesn't pose you're pulling things below the middle part of the screen Anyway, you claimed that it was going to be middle of the screen that the curvature you're never going to change We've you skipped past the concave part of it. You skip past the flat part of it Are you going to keep talking through it all or are you going to actually pay attention? You've been debunked live You're literally the definition of not right now. That doesn't even match. This doesn't even match Yes, it does this one tilted slightly Austin. Use your use your imagination. Please Hey, I don't have to sit here for 30 minutes while he watches a balloon video. Is that is that what I have to do? I ever get to bring up a topic you guys let me know when I can bring up a topic What we'll do is just in this for the sake of what you're asking there is We'll give you a minute there. Uh, globy to present what you got here on screen. We're good And then oh, okay. All right It's just because they just in the interest of moving on and being fair Because you're both kind of getting your chip in here on what we're looking at. So did you guys want to continue? Syncing your teeth into this or did you want to move on? Well, no, we're good. I just showed that it matches the Observation is expected by a multibislin Zorster calculator. So Okay, anyone that believes that I mean, I'll just recap it clearly show different rates of curvature was below the middle screen Rectaline your lens I offered a thousand dollars bet anyone in the audience even you if you want to take it that they Absolutely do impose curvature the rates change. We showed concave. You skip past it showed flat You skip past it the rate never showed anything concave Stop lying the curvature of the earth if that's the globe would have been way too great at 250,000 feet Where you see it looped all the way back around. Those are my refutations and everyone that's claiming that that isn't what happened They're just coping. I don't care, but I'm I want a question now. I got a question now All right, can you verify the claim that the earth is a ball that's spinning? spinning also Bring major gyroscopes. Okay. How does that? How does that prove? It proves that we are rotating 15 per hour. How does it work? Oh, no, I'll ask you that question You invoked it You invoked it You asked it's your it's your like point. I know what you were leading to don't act like you weren't leading to this So I want you to explain to me how the sagnac effect works pretty embarrassing Pretty embarrassing. No, I know how the sagnac effect works. I'm asking you to explain it It's your claim All right for our audience if you can Either of you explain what you're talking about here just for our audience. That would be great It's his claim Ryan well Yeah, it's my claim. So when I explain to you how it works You're gonna say somehow it's the magic sky making it happen and not the actual device moving Just explain how it somehow measured the earth moving. Can you explain it? Do you understand it or what? Yeah, sure. Thank you And then um Yeah, and then we'll see the now afterwards so yeah For the audience's sake You're going it I can either draw it out or we can just look at a picture of it. That's embarrassing Which part's embarrassing that you you don't know Everything can go it I'm I'm picking up a picture so I don't have to draw it Austin All right, let's give uh, we'll give globey a second here and uh, once again, we will move into q&a Uh, probably what will you say 10 20 minutes guys? Sure. Cool. All right I think there's gonna be a lot to dig into there. So get them in and uh, don't let me interrupt guys This is the basics of it here So we have a light source that shoots a laser one direction and then another direction And they go around in this loop bounce off these mirrors and return back to this detector plate Okay, now what happens is as this thing is rotating The light say it's rotating counterclockwise on the screen here, right? The light going this way counterclockwise is going to take slightly longer to hit the detector Because the detector is physically moving away from the light source It's rotating away from it The light going the other way We'll get there a little bit sooner So that creates an interference pattern It, uh, shows different wavelengths Uh of the light on the detector And we're able to use that to determine which way the device is rotating and how much it's rotating Now that's the sagnac. The fact that's the ring laser gyroscope. Thanks, bob And that is literally what we use in aircraft now. We use the ring laser gyroscope to an aircraft modern aircraft There's one in germany that is in a mountain that they're using every day to measure the earth's rotation The most precise measurements ever done using these I might add it's a very huge device By the way, they put it in a mountain to make sure they could isolate it from any potential interference Um, yeah, so that's that's a sagnac effect So now this is this works because the detector is physically moving away from the light in one direction um Now go ahead austin and explain to me how this doesn't actually measure earth's rotation Oh, okay So obviously it is a precise way to measure some type of motion or rotation, right into ferometry So you're assuming that it's measuring the earth rotating sure But the problem with that is That we've shown that the measurements change With with altitude So do you wait do you agree that if you keep the same latitude? But that it changes with altitude that would refute the claim that it's a spinning globe that causes it Um, if that were true it would have to be retested. Yes, but that would be um a problem Sure Yeah, yeah, so it has been retested. I will show I won't show just the paper's names, but I could show read some of them off but uh Dimeo did it for example like like early 2000 spend on many times it changes with altitude It also can change with solar motion depending on the precision of the interferometer So this is migglesingale pierce and sagnac effect, right and it changes with altitude so I mean you did at least honestly can see if that were true and I get that your argument would be that, you know It isn't true or whatever and it would refute the look Yeah, that's fair enough if you haven't seen it or ever but uh, it does seem Bob. No, they'll talk about it Bob did also do it, but we're talking about like Very precise measurements done with like army and military equipment by phd physicists and stuff like that Can we get one of those papers? Yeah. Yeah, absolutely So anyway, send it though because you never actually send where do I where do I send you things? You're not gonna do it. Anyway, where am I supposed to send you things Every by the way everyone that claims I don't send them things. You don't you never do I don't know. I don't you've never asked me to send you something I don't know where to send it to you But dude, I send more papers than like anyone that comes on this channel That's the funniest part is that people say that it's so funny, but I'll drop in the zoom actually right now I'll drop it on the zoom. All right, perfect place for problem problem So anyway, so it actually changed with altitude right therefore falsifying that claim So do you have any other you I get you don't know it But I'm just telling you it's been done replicated thousands of times with immense precision Can you drop it in the chat so we can check it out? I am yeah, but millimeter ray wave precision and stuff like that So you agree that if that's true then it falsifies that it's a spinning globe causing it Do you are there any other evidences that the earth is moving whether rotating or revolving around the sun? Well, I'd say there's things that happen in the sky that could lead to us believing Inferring that we're we're moving there's no optical measurements from earth's surface Showing that we moved around the sun. Oh, it's a belief that I know of That's not a belief because we've seen it from space, but you know, you don't believe in that so Well, like but according to your model even if you were out in space like even if I grant you space You wouldn't know if it's the earth moving around the sun or vice versa like because of relativity, right? You wouldn't know Even in space, uh, I think you would be able to measure it from outside of earth reference frame. Yes No, you wouldn't be being on earth as the reference frame You wouldn't be able to measure it but from outside of the reference frame You'd be able to measure there is no absolute reference frame to measure those two bodies moving So you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two moving in relation to each other according to Relativity, maybe but you'd be able to see the shape of the earth for sure and it's a glow. Okay. Okay, but That's cool. You know, I've already talked about specular reflections and a lot line of sight radio waves and all stuff and That's cool, man But what I want to point out is that this is just the fact it's pretty interesting that Like the earth could be in the center of the universe and it matches all observations better Because the current model claims. Well, yeah, it looks like we're in the center But it's just an illusion How does it match retrograde motion? It it it does. There's a kinematic equivalent So there's many ways that could work One is that the planets could just change the speed at which they move Over time in relation to the background stars because we actually measured them in relation to the background stars If they just periodically slowed down then they would appear to be retrograde They could also just move in relation to the sun And then from our viewpoint as the sun moves around us It would look like they're going backwards Which is the exact kinematic inversion of your model anyway, which is why No astronomer ever would tell you that retrograde proves that we move around the sun Because you could just flip it around, right? So there's nothing that you can see in the sky that proves it. I assure you Um, if the planets slowed down they would appear to slow down. They wouldn't appear to loop back on themselves You see how I can bring these into you. Um, no, no, they would just slow down in relation to the background stars So they would look like they're going backwards But anyway, and if they just move in really so there's something called the neoticonic system Which is taiko brahe, but it's a newer version, right? And it's just the planets proving in relation to the sun as the sun moves around the earth And it would make it look like they're going backwards. That's the same thing that your model claims just inverted So in anyway, retrograde doesn't do it. The fact is drop that in the chat. Maybe I'm dropping them right now There's like 12 of them. No the uh a ring laser gyroscope one Yes, yes, I'm about to drop the the interferometry measurements changing without that. Oh, yeah Yeah, but anyway, like so Also, I'll tell you this too, man. Supposedly the pendulum proves the earth's rotating, right? It doesn't though like for 17 consecutive years the alias effect was observed And it shows that it changes during eclipses And that the amount that the pendulum processes changes with uh, where the sun and the moon are in their phases Like in their periodicity the periodicity of the sun and the moon in solar motion in eclipses We went through that we went through that reference that you gave the other day when you were talking to bob And it did not say what you said it said See that's why you never can have any specificity it changed Yeah, it it changed Insignificantly, no it didn't. Yes, it did. We read how much is that how much is that the paper, dude? Dude, it significantly doesn't help you it changes in direct. No, it does help me It doesn't it doesn't though because it changes in It changes in direct relation to those celestial phenomena So the amount does that mean that means the earth isn't rotating It means it means that the earth rotating can't be what's causing it. It means that this that Phenomena in the sky is actually affecting the pendulum and causing it to process or something else affected it All right, so you could just start making stuff up. I guess yeah like you're doing right now No, I'm saying that something in the sky is affecting the pendulum. Well, you're agreeing with me. Thank you. Yeah, no, I'm not Yeah, yeah, you are I said it was insignificant You're saying something else results of the study were insignificant That's not what the conclusion was was the conclusion. No, it wasn't you shouldn't baselessly trust Bob That's what you're doing. I he's I'm not baselessly trust. I'm not baselessly trusting anybody He actually showed the the reference like that you haven't ever done And that was another one where you said you were you know, okay, what you said you were gonna send them all What's the paper call never did Send it to you where? Not to me to him. You were gonna send a whole bunch of things. You never did I don't know where to send him to him. You could he could message me Okay, he told you where to send him. No, we didn't Okay, so here are these in the chat yet. We can can we drop PDFs in here? I mean you can uh, you can always like I say share on screen if you guys want to review something together It's totally fine. You know, you guys are you know consenting to your time here and um, it's all good Can you drop PDFs in the is anyone now? I'm just here. Probably not Anyway, I'll tell you tomorrow Yes, if it's a file, then yeah, you'll probably want to just do like a drive share or something like that But um, yeah, let's let's carry on if you guys have any other things you want to dig into before we get into Q I I love for you to just this prove all the pseudoscience you said I said in the beginning of this Yeah, well like okay, so you can't prove rotation or orbit and you kind of admitted that everything that we see We can't do anything on the earth to prove it and that you just have to believe it. So That's cool. We agree. You just have to believe that the earth moved around the sun But I didn't say that I mean I didn't say anything about that in the beginning. You did you said that we're believed Oh, you mean in the beginning. Yeah, so I'm saying we're concluding that part and we're moving on Yeah, so you have a belief that you can't verify and I believe we can verify the rotation of earth Like a religion, you know I have measurements that we can and I'm guaranteeing those references you have don't say what they you're saying they say When you say you're seeing you like you would like to bet on it We're starting to do the meta. We're starting to do a matter to be here. So let's let's try to never worked out It's never worked out. So I'm using before everybody starts making bets on modern day to be this is a place to make It's an easy way to put the call out Bs though. Is that why we don't have one link that you asked that you said you put in here? Yeah, they're all pdfs They're on your machine. We just are pulling them up. You may start pulling them up if you want to bring them up like on your That's what we'll do actually because I'm making up that I have them We'll just start pulling them up. I'm not saying you're making up But you have them saying they don't say what you say and drop pds in the zoom All right, let's see what all we got here Let's share on over There you go, and you're up and running And we'll give you the floor. Okay. See bass wait up. So they're measuring aether drift Uh with optical wave pan Yeah, that's what that's cool. That's what it is. Yeah Wait up. We're gonna keep I'm trying to look for a specific paper. It's uh, is this not one of them That one's fine. But here you go. Here's the good one Save as download. So let's start popping up right here. I have this is electromagnetic wave propagation propagation. That's what light is Yeah, we're not so we're not talking about uh interferometry. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's what light is I know they use light in interferometry, but that was not testing anything using interferometry. Yes, it was Yes, it was. Okay, so go back to it. Let's let's read it What do you what do you think this means here? It doesn't mean interferometry. I'd want to see where it's what is optical mean What is optical mean light? Okay So does it does other things of light other than interferometry? Yeah, but this is based on mount wilson observatory Which is Dayton Miller's replications of mickelson morally, which is interferometry You can't equate the two if that's not what they're about What do you not see right here? It says mount wilson observatory that's Dayton Miller I mean, I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but you know, I'm just looking at it Do you see how many times it says interference interference pattern interference bands interference interference bands interval interferometer? Oh my gosh, like obviously I know what I'm talking about. You've never read it So why are you actually because you just search the thing for enter? Interferometer specifically it's talking about an interferometer specifically Okay, we just you just admit you were wrong here No, we haven't read it showing something is not proof of anything What where does it talk about the interferometer? What does it do? Would they test what was the conclusion? Interferometer based on the so the work of such interferometer based on the light passing in a forward direction returning to the Observing point along the same path the mickelson's interferometer sensitivity was low to the original ether drift effects The measured value d in such a device visually observed bands offset interference pattern expressed in terms of visible bandwidth The entire paper is about replicating it goes to morally with interference patterns. Here's another one modified stagnic experiment for measuring travel time differences Why are we turning around the different thing? All right, whatever Dude, these are huge papers and I'm showing you that that has been done dozens of times I'm going to keep pulling them up travel time difference between counter propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber You're telling me this is about measuring Interference interference patterns at varying altitudes about earth rotation It's yeah these i'm going to find the specific one that goes up. Yeah, please do because these aren't it These are all showing that the propagation rate changes relative to many conditions including altitude my many conditions including Yes, that's right. Let's say that Because i'm about to find the one that's specifically okay. Thank you. That's all i'm asking for is the one that actually says what you're saying It says all of these show a relationship with solar motion my guy Oh, now it's solar motion. That's what you What like I said that it changes with altitude and stuff like solar motion. I said that the whole time Neither one of those work in your model, bro You said you had a whole bunch of references that show that it changes with altitude. I'm looking for that one Okay, I'm trying to find it here. It is. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now. Let's come over here download Okay, you want to redo the whole family because quite frankly when you don't have it. It's going to be interesting What that's what this paper is it up when you said that about the other one and they weren't so that's No, I told you they were about interference changing based on very uh, the changes of light Relative to altitude and solar motion Well, you're adding solar motion and now you didn't say that. No, I said it. I said it earlier Objectively you said that about the pendulum scroll. What's the title of this one? A theory of wind and experience of millimeter radio waves propagation Theory of wind and experience a phase method of anisotropic media. Do you know what that means? Wait, hold on Experiment reaches Researchers In the ground channel phase characteristic with eight millimeter range radio waves propagation have revealed the problems connected with its model elaboration Okay, so what does this have to do with what we were talking about? Okay, so do you know what anisotropic means? Don't start with the words Okay, austin, please show me how this proves what you said it proved Hey, I'm not spending two hours talking about words with you Yeah, but it's somewhere towards the end and I do you think what's so funny is you're said here We go the expression allows to calculate high altitude relation of the ethereal wind horizontal Component for the latitude by the work results obtained at altitude length So this is specifically about the changes in altitude right here Link is talked about a radio link there though. Why'd you skip over that part? What are you using to measure? An interferometer actually specifically they're using radio waves, which is a it's a certain spectrum of light You know that there's radio interferometry. You didn't know that either This is embarrassing for you. Did you know that radio certainly is embarrassing? So now that you said it wasn't about altitude and specifically I showed you that it is changing without your cherry picking words Awesome. Where's the where's the conclusion dude? This is what's okay This is what's frustrating No, what's frustrating is you're trying so hard to get like a gotcha You couldn't even bring up one paper and know where anything is ever So I immediately went and looked through tons of PDFs pull up a paper And then I'm supposed to have the whole entire all we're showing is that you can't have to enter Right when I'm about to get to the conclusion that exposes you interrupt me every time very tactically Oh, yeah, that's what I'm doing. That is what you're doing So anyway, the point is that obviously I don't have every single paper Memorized off the top of my brain like oh on page 37.8. It says like are you kidding? But this is what you do you you have references you claim the thing There's no time to actually read them and understand them here So then you claim you're gonna send them and you never do and then just everybody goes on there I sent them to everyone that's ever been on this show with me And asked for them every single person So that's just a lie. It's not true Okay, name one person that was on this show that asked for the sources I did this show Okay, I don't know about this show, but I've seen you do it at least three times including to myself No, so this one's saying you just you just you're just trying to character assassinate because you can't handle it Just say out loud again that if the interferometry measurements actually change with altitude then it debunks the claim That is because the earth is a globe that's spinning Show me where that happens. Good. Can we see what this happens in this paper here? Yeah, so I'm about to find that shot right here. Let's see where up to our pages I'm gonna find the exact board Right, okay, they're having a big scroll there I know that's what I'm saying. I'm trying to find the chart. I don't know where it's going It doesn't matter. It's just a fact. Here's what I'm saying though. This paper is obviously a big paper You I'm not telling anyone to believe me. Okay, that's fine. I'm saying it's a fact. It's a fact Look, we can move on. We can move. That's fine. Um, we don't need to watch you scroll through stuff I'll I'll read it I'll read it literally I went straight to where it talks about it changing with altitude And then here it is talking about how it changes based on solar motion. So they actually tested it during different times of the year, right? The differences available can be explained by those with the calculations executed in the supposition from I got to find exactly where it is I don't know if I'm ahead, but here again. This is based on Mickelson Moorley Setup, right? That's what mount wilson's all about with date and Miller replications So this test is objectively about Redoing date and Miller's replication of Mickelson Moorley with interferometry showing that the actual motion detected with the interferometry Changes with altitude and throughout the year based on solar motion and this cannot be explained if the assumed Motion is the earth being a globe spinning. That's just a fact. So that's that's your that's your interpretation of what this That's the author. That's the that's their that's their interpretation too. Okay Okay, well, I'm glad you're on this. We can move on I'll um I'll read this and uh, I guess do a separate response video on what I Yeah, that's so frustrating for me. Um, anyway on the screen there But but the main point is like just so you know interferometry has been done that changed with altitude and throughout the time of year And then pendulum's also changed during eclipses and solar motion and based on the periodicity of the sun and the moon Which would falsify that it's the earth spinning and no one's ever shown a pendulum not processing at the equator. So We got no evidence. In fact that refutes to claim the earth is rotating directly and it was true maybe but I now we're stuck with the stationary earth And so you have a you believe in a stationary globe Sure, I believe in stationary globe. I guess. Yeah, that's right. We falsified the globe this I showed you the motions You claimed you falsified it by showing papers that didn't falsify it. So This might be a good time for us to move into the q&a there guys and uh, a big thank you to uh, Globy McClobe face for coming out and doing the debate We were gonna have you hosted but then, you know, some things slip through our fingers and we're so happy that we got you here And uh, of course, austin. Thank you for being here. You know, it's always a lot of fun when you're hanging out and Yeah, always always a great time, honestly So let's uh, we'll give that big round of virtual applause as we get into our q&a everybody and uh, as we're getting into it I usually like to let our speakers have a chance to grab themselves refreshments You know if you gotta run to the washroom do whatever you gotta do now would be your time speak now or forever hold your p Definitely, uh, go refresh my drink. All right No problem. Take your time. Oh, you're saying step away. I'm gonna I'm gonna step away real quick too then. All right Like I said, yeah speak now or forever. Hold your p. We'll see you in a second guys Yeah, all right for all you guys hanging out in the live chat We are going to move into our q&a right now in just a few seconds We're going to start asking your questions to the speakers, but uh, I'm just popping back in here now to see what you guys are Are saying Oh, man, this has been a lot of fun. Uh, and these guys have been, uh, you know, there's been amicable You know, these guys have been able to bounce off of each other really well as far as I'm concerned Uh, so it's been nice to be able to hang out in the live chat a little bit more and see you guys Especially the people who support us who are smacking that like button and like I say sharing this out in those Lovely spaces where you're like having all the squabble in the the back and forth Globey Mcglobe face has got his refreshment back up and running. What are you drinking tonight? Or is that uh, Is that a no go and yeah, I battle cat. I will do a quick poll. Sorry. Sorry. I did ask you a question Sorry, go ahead. You asked me a question, but you can go right over. It's fine. No, what are you having? Sorry, I did ask a little little vodka soda. Oh nice. Nice. No, I did you notice everybody I apologize at least four times. That's just uh, Canadian. Hmm. Can't help it Cue the music Yeah, and also once again, uh, we don't say it enough I don't think on the show but a big thank you to the moderators in the live chat We super appreciate you. Uh, batman mxxd You know, uh, Shane, uh, Hannah, you guys are hanging out. Um, Oh, let's see Anybody else have anything fun to say here Ryan, what do you believe? I believe we're having a lot of fun. Uh, having this discussion So, uh, once again, you guys should smack that like button and boost this up in the algorithm and we'll try to break it It's a cop out. That's right. You know what? I have been on other places where I've been a little bit more open about the things that I believe, but, uh, Uh, since then I've I've decided that what I really believe in is rock and roll. So, uh, if you check out my youtube All you're going to find is videos of me singing led zeppelin in deep purple and you can enjoy that. That's all you get Oh, and also the theme song that I usually play for the modern database. So witsett is back Everybody's ready to go and We are going to ask your questions now So let's get into it Scrolling There we go question for witsett coming in from kango 44. Thanks for being here again kango The debate has not started yet, but I'd like to know why you're such a cry, baby kango You you came in here before the debate, you know what if there were any cry babies I'm not going to call them out, but I I'll just I'm just going to move on be uh behave myself We don't have to entertain that guys. Let's see if we can get some substance Lj asks if it's a globe. Why doesn't half the earth stay lit? What this is from lj. He is our honorary Always asks flat earth questions. Even if we're not having a flat earth debate Lj asks if it's a globe. Why doesn't half the earth stay lit? It does stay lit. So Not sure what the question means half the globe is always lit When when is not half of the earth lit? I'm confused by the question So that I guess the answer is it always is lit. So your question is moved Did you have any thoughts over there Austin to kind of build on what lj was saying? So we don't just move on. I mean other than like sometimes way more than half of it is lit And then they just start making up excuses as to why but I don't know. I don't know if there's specific times where not the full 50% So I know there are times where way more than 50% of the sphere is lit Which wouldn't make any sense geometrically But they just make up excuses and they claim the light bends around the earth all around the earth and it's There's no way to falsify it, but Is that what he's talking about? Is he talking about like the july 8th observate that they have july 8th thing? Is that what he's talking about? I don't know. I don't know I think it's roughly 65 to 70% of the earth is lit up at one time not talking about the population talking about the actual physical earth No All right, let's move on to the next question there fellas. Do what you were going to say 75% of the earth is lit up at every time at a time. I said 65 to 70% of the earth. Yeah Send me that source Okay, the globe claims that it's because it actually wraps around the ball a little bit official official A little bit. Yeah. Yeah, so I'll teach you. I taught you around Okay, 25% you taught me 75% of my mom. I said 65 to 70 Let's let's carry on because lj had another follow-up question there. Oh, he's brought on. Oh, no, not the glasses These are my glober glasses if I'm just saying if I need to give the glober answer. I got you, bro Oh, man, I'm cracking up already because My mullet hat I can put on for flat earth and we can switch roles if you want to be a little nasally though So, uh, we already asked globy what he's drinking. I'm having uh, this is a beer is what it's called From this is 12 beer. It's a very cheeky thing that you would only find probably in Nova Scotia So austin it's only fair that we ask. Uh, what is it you're having for refreshments tonight? Um, this is just water with some electrolyte mix in it and I had a I had a uh, coffee Coffee coffee and water and I'm over here with the beer and uh, globy's kind of having a little bit of vodka So that means everybody's just hanging out having a good time. Uh, so let's carry on with the questions And I think there's been a lot of fun. So lj. What's the proof of jupiter's mass size and gravity? So it's proof of jupiter's mass size and gravity Let's ask him to you globy What's the proof of its mass? Um, well, you can measure its angular size, um And then using spectroscopy you can figure out what it's composed of Then make an assumption based on its composition and size What its mass would be So yeah, it's based on it would be based on a measurement of its composition But no flat earthers don't like spectroscopy. I think it's magic fake or something We were going to move on but I think yeah, if you want to respond austin, it's up to you I really manage. I see now look at a barrel 100 yards away and tell me what elements are in it and how that's boy All right. All right, let's let's carry on then. Uh, see we got some more kango 44 asks Uh, and also if you're hanging out in this in the live chat and you've got a question Uh, get into the super chat because uh, these guys like I said, they uh, they said earlier on that They don't mind going a little long. So if you guys have questions, uh, We're willing to take them and see if we can expound on what our speakers think kango 44 Says new zealand is in daylight three hours before sydney australia sydney is only 650 kilometers further away than the total side of new zealand Which is uh, 1600 kilometers Question for both debaters. Why does the light take an extra three hours to travel 650 kilometers? So little much but Yeah, you guys got anything on that it would be relative to the position of the sundar out the year It doesn't like why I don't even understand the exact question How much how long it's actually lit is not going to be the same at all times. That's obviously a fact, right? So The the issue is that I think what he's got he said new zealand, right? Yeah, new zealand is in daylight three hours before sydney australia sydney is only 650 kilometers further away What what he's saying is that's impossible on flat earth because the sun's right there. It's only 600 kilometers away So it shouldn't be blocked by anything Right. Oh, what? That's that's what he's getting at That's what I think he's getting at anyway. I don't know man There's light attenuation man every every position of the sun including what was in your opener about where at which angles they set can be explained with Celestial personal sphere. I'd love to I'd love to explore that concept. How does that work? We can only see so far in each distance equidistant There's actually a logarithmic relationship through the elevation drop. So you guys say 60 nautical miles per degree And that's linear because the surface of the earth is curving Actually, you have to cherry pick between like 15 and 70 degrees through that And the logarithmic would happen outside of that range And so actually just a logarithmic logarithmic relationship of curved visual limit Would be exactly the same on a plain earth You guys flip the way that we see with the visual limit claim we could see forever And that perspective doesn't affect the stars and that we look back in time and then I ask you how I didn't ask you how the sphere works So do you want to explore that concept? Yeah? No, no, I understand how your sphere of vision Is constructed However, when you're south of the equator the sun sets to the left always Has nothing to do with where the sun is in your azimuthal grid of vision Could be because of you could be south of you it's setting in the same direction Just like it would in the azimuthal grid in the model It would not No in your model if it's north of you it would set to the left if it's south of you it would set to the right It's optically because it would be doing this, right? Oh, but it's based on the actual curvature of the visual limits based on you and the center of it This is what your model says It's been modeled out and based on your actual curve visual limit, right? There's a curvature to your visual limit So the apparent light source is going to move in relation to that and you being in the center So why does it not matter if the sun is north or south of you? Because it's all relative to your personal Visual limit and you in the center of it, right? So if it's north of you, it should be setting which way If it's north of me, it sets a little bit to the right and if it's left if it's uh Yeah south of me then it says a little bit to the left The other way around but yes, it doesn't matter because it's always going left south of the equator. There is no other way around Yeah, if you just do it both ways goes to the left not to the right, but You're saying on which way you're looking. Yes. You're obfuscating. So no, you just said something wrong No, you did but it doesn't matter. You mean to pull up an observation of it. You mean to show you how it works Yeah, go ahead. All right. I got you And then I'll show you actual video of reality Oh, so you're just gonna hand away dismiss it and say it doesn't work anyway Well, you or you can show me some some computer model of what you think happens, right? Well, let's try again say if you guys want to show what you got. Yeah, let's see Yeah, I'm gonna I I do think this is one of the most simplest proof of a globe All right. I'm sure you do think that sure you do think that All right, so share screen You got it Now watch you see the sun moving over to your right As it says based on where you are and you don't have to change the time of year What's this go ahead and clear you don't have to change the time of year You can just change latitude. It's gonna be relative to your position and latitude in relation to the sun You'll see that the sun sets a little bit to the right of where it is And then you'll see oh it does the opposite on the other side Now if you just change latitude instead of changing time of the year, it would be the same thing So inside your per your personal visual limit. That's why you see what you see Yeah, so that's what I said, right? Depending on if the sun is north of you or south of you it would set different directions, right? Yeah on our model. Yeah on your model on your model because of the grid of vision Right. Yeah requirement of your model, right? Well, that's how we actually measured the sky in the first place and your model did the same measurements But claim that we can see infinitely and straight lines forever and perspective doesn't affect stars So do you do you disagree with the stilarium data? No, that's actually built on the stilarium data. It is Yeah, yeah But do you know the difference? Let me tell let me tell me can you show me that in the southern hemisphere? Yeah, yeah, sure. But you're diverting because your whole home run argument just got dunked on What real fast man? I want to point something out, man Okay, I want to make sure the audience understands I'm gonna say it pretty quickly But so we see in reality that say the street lights look like they're going down because of perspective, right? Or a plane coming towards you looks like it's going up then going down as it goes away from you, right? I mean, that's what perspective does makes things look like they converge Flatter says the same thing happens with the stars As you get away from Polaris, it'll drop as you get closer. It'll rise, right? So we're saying that perspective works on the stars the globe model says yes perspective does do that with everything else But not when it comes to the stars The stars just so happen to do the same exact thing for a totally different reason I promise it's because the earth is curving and the reason perspective doesn't displace the stars It's because they're so far away and they assume that they're infinite distances away and they're equal distances away And that it has to be the curved surface. So that's where they get the 60 nautical miles per degree, right? And whenever you don't assume that crazy nonsense, you understand that we have a visual limit of perspective And you're going to actually get a logarithmic relationship. You have the same 60 nautical miles per degree You can map the same thing out It's going to be logarithmic below 15 degrees and above 70 degrees And they just reverse engineer that visual limit to make a sphere That's where you get the radius value and then they vision did the visual limit What it once said is that your way your way off topic. All right, whatever man I'm sorry that for those who actually want to know the truth. They took the way You're just saying and they made a globe model. You're just saying words. You're way off topic. I'm just saying words. Yeah So let's let's let's let me explain because I don't think you even understand what I'm even trying to get at Oh my gosh I just showed it Yeah, and it's wrong. It's not wrong. It's showing the exact observations. We see in reality All right. Uh, yeah while you bring that up, um, not sure what you're bringing up We'll remind everybody that we did I already and I'm going to open up another one just a second here So keep an eye out for that in the live chat Your computer is giving it a good think there. I thought that was the time for me to back away Maybe I should have vamped a little bit longer Oh, I mean, you know people to actually listen to me. No, I just answered it and showed it anyway, right Zoom does not like when I'm sharing my screen Oh There's the ether I It's loading rather slowly I add a curiosity. Um, what else should I say other than words? It's not letting you screen share for some odd reason Like when you say you're just saying words like What else should I say numbers? I don't know globy Is here are you still there globy? That's not a good sign. What's it? It's the ether baby the ether ain't playing. Oh, no We might have to get globy the screen share may have messed up a zoom. We may have to come back Maybe he tried to do it and it it's screwed up. So he's trying to screen share Stellarium, which is a pretty big program, right? Okay, I'm not sure what the program is but uh It's like all the data of everything in the sky and he has it actually downloaded instead of the browser So he's trying to pull up like it's like just as big of a program as google earth Oh and yeah, he rightfully has dropped off because I think he figured out that he is not Uh, he's not able to be heard right now. So globy, uh, definitely rejoin our chat If we don't hear from you in five minutes, then I'll send him an email And maybe we can move on to some other things. I do have a little bit more housekeeping to do So let's take care of that right quick. Uh once again, thanks. What's it for being here, brother? I appreciate you Mean joe Uh for one dollar said nothing So, uh for that one dollar, I will just say let's go over our first poll right quick And I will just remind you guys, uh, there's 1200 people watching in the live chat right now And we're we're under a thousand likes. How is that? What are you guys doing like I put a little like They got arthritic thumbs or something. What's going on? No, I'm bad. I'm bad I I yeah Let me carry on here. So I got my glasses too. I can answer the globe questions if I need you behave yourself over there I I know how much of a character you get to be if uh, you get those glasses on your face It's still I saw them. It was like, whoa, no He's going for it. All right. So, uh, the poll we had earlier was the earth is and uh for flat 51% voted flat Let's go 38 38% voted a globe And as per the first, uh, thing I ever got james to say on youtube and I was like that guy's cool I'm gonna email him and see about like working with him because that's funny. Um, he he was doing a back-to-back debate And I sent in a chat. Uh, he was like, we're gonna be debating is the earth flat or is it a globe and I commented and said The earth is a loaf of bread and 10% of you have voted that the earth is a loaf of bread So I so the global globe was got 38% and we got 51, baby Let's go. I take 10% is undecided. But uh, yeah, anybody in the chat. There you go This is a loaf of bread. So yeah, 12 1200 almost 1300 people watching smack that like button Globie is returning to the chat now Yeah, I think that program may have eaten up a little bit of too much ram Or maybe a little bit too much. Uh, it made my entire computer restart. Oh, no, that was fast If you reset that's that's a good start. I did I did you know, I actually reset earlier, too I had to reinstall windows this morning though. So I don't know. I might be having problems, but Well, let's carry on I'm gonna try one more time. If not, maybe I can do it on my phone. I don't know Oh, okay. Yeah, if you want to try it again here, that's cool All right I already explained this man. You know, I know you know, I have an answer right like, you know that I know you have what you think is an answer But you don't he did There's steam just explain the specific linear and logarithmic relationship with a plane as opposed to a globe Yeah, that's cool at all, but I don't think you get it Well, while you're loading your program What I'm saying is that if you take the actual way that we see And you reverse engineer the angular resolution limit you get 39 3958.8 miles If you actually assume the loss of information is curvature of earth So you can hijack the way we see and get a radius of 3958.8 exactly Right, which is what the globe claims to be and claims the reason Things disappear is not because of resolution limit But because of the curve same thing with 3950 topic awesome We already talked about that it's not even the same thing with same thing with Polaris angles, right? So that's how you got the latitudes. No, it's not. So we're look we're in we're in july now. So where's the sun? Uh, we're in australia. It's july Okay, so the sun's in the northern south further south further to the south No, it's in the northern sky opposite. Oh, you're saying right now or in july in july. It's in the north Why didn't you say in july in australia? I don't know like What you were saying in july in australia in july the sun north of australia. Why would you bring up austral? Yeah, okay, because i'm going to the southern hemisphere either way either way. Can you guys see my screen by the way? Yeah, everybody can see your screen. Okay, good. So if we watch the sunset It sets to the left Just showed a video of it. Yeah, you said when the sun is north of you it sets to the right Um, are you supposed to be showing something beyond a loading screen right now? Shit. Yeah, i'm playing an animation. I'm saying it's not working. No to the right or to the left is not an accurate denotation It's not on the screen right now. Maybe you need to share a different screen It's not which direction you're looking man. Let me You agree if you're looking west and east and left and right are different Yeah, I mean you look always looking west on the sunset, aren't you could be northwest or southwest But you're looking in the western sky Okay, so i'm assuming that you understand we're looking west when we're talking about this area Yeah, but it's same same situation happens with the sunrise, right? All right, let me try to share you don't know Yeah, it does happen with the sunrise Yeah, and it's explainable with what I just explained to you if you understood it Then you would know that we just reverse engineered that to get the globe anyway It doesn't matter what you think we reverse engineered have to work on both. It would have to work on both All right. I just shared stellarium specifically. So let me know if you can see this now We can see it. Okay. There we go. That's all right. So we're in australia and it's july So that's So the sun is north Now watch where the sun sets. Okay We're looking west Sorry, hold on. I already showed this Back to july I hit too many buttons Okay, so just look where the sun's setting right setting from the north to the south. Yeah, man. Okay I just showed that you didn't but hold on. I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go to december I'm gonna go to the end of december Okay, as far south as we can go. So now the sun is in the southwest sky And it's still going to set to the left Okay And this gets more pronounced if I go a little bit more north, but I'm in the southern hemisphere So according to your explanation a minute ago Depending on where the perspective is of the sun Depending if it's north or south of you it should set in different directions But it never you see the actual if you see the actual position and then you didn't actually Represent what I said my argument was so so how can I put stelaerium to represent what you said? Stelaerium is showing you what we said because if you well actually I'll show you the actual measurements of stelaerium That's how we actually made the model right you understand that right? I don't want you to show me how we made the model. Okay. Well, this is how the flat earth goes like this Yeah, man It doesn't matter if the sun is north or south of you in the southern hemisphere It sets to the left I'll share my screen and this one's narrated for you So I think you're good make that work with your azimuthal grid I think you'll get it and then we can move on because this has been the longest question ever So i'm gonna share my sound really wasn't even a question. We hijacked it What I don't think this was even asked No, yeah, you you hijacked it, but it's all good. This is yeah, we went a little bit south, but that's okay It's so good. All right. Hopefully you can hear this Mm-hmm. Well, so the answer to the mysterious magical sunset phenomenon has what's you can hear it. Yeah Space was talking about is really just as simple as Knowing what the sun is knowing that it's an apparent position and knowing how to accommodate for it with the limit of vision Right. So when the sun when the sun rises, here's what we see Rises and sets and you see what's perfectly on the equator right here. It's perfectly symmetrical Right in the middle. Okay, super easy. So there's the one sunset totally explained Let's go ahead and either change the time of year or change our latitude We can do both because that's what that's what determines the angle of the sun on every model by the way Not just ours. Here we go. Let's move it. Let's say inward and then here We have a nice little arc when it comes back around. That's how we get this wonderful arc sunset going south Wow, look at that arc. That's crazy. And actually we can go back to a different latitude and we'll get Say the inverse will go over here and it's a little bit North. Oh, wow. Look at that sunset. Wow, sunrise sunset and look at the arc and we can also change the time of year Because again, this is how we get the analema, right? Change the time of year Someone who doesn't understand the different sun angles a latitude dependent over earth probably has no idea what causes the analema either I would say That model didn't show the sun going to the left Austin. That was the whole point I can't hear you now Yeah, we lost your audio there, Austin. We lost your audio, Austin Sorry, if you if you can admit that it clearly just showed both of them It shows the if you understood how it's happening and saw the arc from one direction You would know that if you had changed the camera angle It shows the opposite arc and it arcs back down and falls around to the side of south. So like Yeah, I'm sorry if you don't get it, but we can move on now objectively Don't get it You have to say it's absolutely absurd that you're sitting here just like saying things that aren't happening on the screen And acting like they're happening That was your big that was your big argument. I'm sorry. Yeah, you you want to see suncout.org I just showed you that using stellarium data and understanding the curved visual limit of like saving 30 or 59 equidistant in all directions, you would get the same exact optical displacement. That's a different subject again It's the same subject. That's what the model shows Let's move into the next question because yeah, we Doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand it. I don't understand it How can we move on to the next question if he's if he's gonna sit there and just like say I just showed everyone and we can move on everyone just saw it You just said you did not show the sun going south while it's setting in that observation. Yes. No, you didn't Oh my gosh. It's literally the same exact data from stellarium. Yeah, I think it's not this Do you understand that the sun goes to the northeast as it's going around the earth? Do you understand that stellarium data you understand that it would go this way? Whether you're in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere or the deep crater people are saying I took it Well Wait, let me say this one thing and we should move on He just pulled up stellarium to show where the sun setting This program is built from Stellarium's data and showed you the sun setting for the relative observer Begging the question Okay, so you just said it didn't show it and now you're saying I'm saying because the model shows We're moving on where you got to move on mega fan Dan is coming in. Hold on Austin we got to move on we're we're going to keep spiraling if we don't mega fan Dan says if the world is a globe and it's spinning Why do I fall in the same place when I jump straight up? I think that question is for you globey mcclope face have to answer that question I mean if you if you'd like to move on, I mean, you know, but we do like to entertain questions Okay, sure. Yeah, um pointed to the subject A conservation of momentum You're moving with the earth and the atmosphere when you jump up. You're still moving with the earth and the atmosphere It's very very simple I'm not sure why that's a confused topic, but you can go watch videos of People on the back of a pickup truck, right and you jump up or you throw something up in the air it lands right back to you Same concept All right, now we got a little bit of a A more silly one we can just kind of move on from here, but lj always love to see hanging out Tarzan would never think earth is a spinning ball Thanks for your thoughts all Yeah, Tarzan swinging through the trees He's not thinking too much about the old globy poo kango 44 says witsit Are you arguing for geocentrist globe or a flat earth? You have no evidence of either So Yeah, but you know My opponent just conceded that there's nothing that you can actually bring up that would show that there's not geocentric So this is just the fact that you guys are coping with right which is That all observations in the sky show the earth in the center the heliocentric model says that's an illusion Because space is accelerating and expanding in all directions away from every point and there is no center And no matter where you are you're going to look like you're in the center Therefore It is an illusion that we are in the center So when you say you have no evidence that the earth in the center you're saying you have you can't account for any astronomical observation or evidence ever That's what you're claiming is you can't invoke any of that that doesn't even make any sense What so ever if you understood your model you never say that it doesn't have to be a globe Or that to be the case and if you understood how astronomy worked You would know it doesn't have to be a globe to see geocentric observations So and of course I gave you all the evidence for the flat earth you guys just say if you guys just say Oh, no flat earth evidence again You think that it somehow is a win and you'll just repeat it not like ad nauseam So no one really cares this is for truth seekers not people that are dishonest All right Seems like we might have a good spot to move on from there guys Let's try to do so And uh, let's see Lj coming in again says would anybody get on a 17,500 mile per hour roller coaster? big laugh face You know talking about how supposedly like the iss go 17,500 miles If that roller coaster was in a vacuum and wasn't being Wasn't encountering any air resistance. Yeah, I would it'd be fun any air resistance Yeah, it's minuscule. There's like very very few molecules up there You hit a gravity pocket and it gets intense. There's gravity pockets. Interesting. That's what your model said Tell me Yeah on the iss they occasionally like they all fell down on an iss live stream They all fell like just like you do with zero g planes and they literally card that fell No, no, no, no all the astronauts hit up against the wall during a live stream just like you do in zero g planes And they claimed that it was because they hit a gravity pocket now The other guy made a joke about a grab the other guy made a joke about a gravity pocket the magician that dropped the Card he claimed it was connected to a rubber band and he made the joke. Yeah, that's what you thought I was gonna say but too bad and we're talking about the actual time the astronauts all hit the wall Instead of bringing up the card you completely just lied and said they all hit a wall and claimed it was a gravity pocket Wait, wait, so you're saying there was a gravity pocket So you're saying you've never seen the video of all the astronauts on the iss hitting up against the wall No Okay, so I don't think I would be lying just because you're ignorant of something so we can move on I think you would be because nasa's never claimed as a gravity pocket There's no such thing as a gravity pocket a claim Well, it was more so something to do with like a the way that they had to randomly move and it changed the relationship of gravity You guys in the chat. Are you listening to this? You're listening to this chat Dude, it's a fact that all the people fell up against the wall and the iss. That's a fact claimed. It's a gravity pocket Okay, so I can't remember exactly what they nobody did. That's the point, dude Okay, what then what's the explanation? Not a gravity pocket. Let's go see the video and we'll give it get an explanation I've seen a lot of I may be wrong. I've never seen it. I may be wrong about gravity pocket They may have said that the relationship of zero g and the angular momentum changed in such a way that there was a net gravity situation for attention purposes and that's why they all free fell against the wall That's a fact if someone has referred to it as a gravity pocket. That's a fact The only time I ever heard gravity pocket was the card thing. Okay, but you've never even seen this video Last word we'll have for here. Uh globie and one move on Sure. So um, and the only time they've ever fallen or or moved uncontrollably is when they're When they're actually firing the thrusters to correct their, uh orbit altitude So maybe that's what you saw But there's never been a video of them all falling into the wall and then nasa claiming it was some sort of Gravity pocket, you know, you're going to admit it already, you know, so I'm just going to clip you and then put it right beside the video Yes, I hope they do. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay Rough outing bro. I'd ask you to see it, but I know you don't have it Let's move on there guys. Alex five dollars. What's it? Can you walk us through the flat earth model prediction for the next solar or lunar eclipse? Oh, yeah All eclipses are predicted based on cycles and relative latitude and astronomical observations And aren't exclusive to heliocentrism at all and actually I challenge anyone here to actually show me how it requires a heliocentric Models in the formula heliocentric values in the formula to predict the eclipses and where they're going to be It doesn't we actually have all the eclipses predicted on a flat earth and it's it's not exclusive at all You have a coordinate system transform and then you just map out the sky based on the cycles You get the relative latitudes of the positions and we can we can predict all eclipses as well So now we have a predict them except you can't explain why they happen Oh, but he asked wait, didn't he just ask about predicting them? Sure, but you're claiming you can predict. Oh, he just asked about predicting them Okay, we'll ignore the other part that you can't so all that so you agree that all the globers Including mc2 and all these people that claim you can't predict them And that you have to know that the earth's in a heliocentric model Are just patently wrong and doesn't have anything to do with heliocentric model And we have all the math and if I need to pull it up, I will No, I don't think we need to see any more of your math. Um, but again, you have no excuse for how they happen so Predict them or not You'd have to invoke magic on your model for it to happen There's a 651 great astronomical Year right cycles of 325 or 326 18 year lunar cycle 18 year 10 and 11 day 10 or 11 day eclipse cycle solar cycle transit cycle recorded history But then you just take all of this data then you can actually Fully replicate and predict everything including location if you actually understand relative latitude observations on a flat earth That's begging the question You're taking the globe has nothing to do with the globe has nothing to do with the heliocentric model And we've been challenging all these people that claim it does Show us where in the actual formula that they use that it accounts for the heliocentric model at all It doesn't it accounts for a stationary earth All right, p.g. Collins coming in. Uh, what's it remember when we proved that a basketball was flat by taking a zoomed in photo of one Uh, no, I don't remember ever claiming that like What yeah, we know that you We know that your claim is that the earth is such a big ball that it just always looks flat Yeah, we get it or it's just not a ball and it's flat, right? All right, let's move on. Uh, chris berry Let's try to get one here for globy. Uh, just to uh Get you in here Uh, give you a last word. So how did globy isolate the gravity from electrostatics from lj? Did I do some some sort of experiment that he wants to know about? I don't even know what he's talking about Um, I guess he's talking about in general. Yeah Um, okay in general isolating electrostatics. Well, you can do something like, uh Cavendish experiment, right? You you you can use lead electrostatically neutral Um Yeah, you can ground everything make sure everything's tied together, right? So there's no charges built up on one thing versus the other and uh Yeah, I guess that's what he's talking about. That's what you can do All right, let's carry on. Uh I can heather awaken heather. Sorry, uh globy. Can you steel man a flat earth sunset? Then we'll get one you feel you with steel man a flat earth sunset sure the sun gets so far away That it just gets just disappears it goes beyond your Your well, I don't know it depends on the atmosphere could block it at some point if you have really thick atmosphere that day Uh, could it could set sooner than other days? So I'm not really sure how that works But I guess the argument is just gets so far away that it just disappears Which is nonsense because it doesn't shrink Pretty terrible still man The one you correct me. What is it? Well, you forgot the most important part that is that it disappears into the vanishing point That's called the horizon the optical location where the ground appears to converge with the sky That isn't actually physical Right, so it just goes into that horizon that visual limit that slightly fluctuates sometimes the sun I don't know if you've ever seen it's pretty cool Actually, the sun will disappear from the bottom up like with the horizontal line It'll look just like a normal sunset sunset like up above the horizon I've seen that it's pretty cool But so yeah, it's just an optical effect that disappears and it doesn't change angular size because it's within your curve visual limit So it's basically equidistant to you. Oh, it is. That's interesting. It's the only object in the sky It's equidistant from you has it no everything in no no everything is going to be within your equidistant visual limit So it's perspective to the point of convergence, but it doesn't this doesn't shrink because it's within your what would you say? It's outside of your visual limit. So you see the apparent location Yeah, so the parent the parent location would be equidistant equidistant, right? Even though it's not equidistant If it was equidistant because of the apparent location of the curve visual limit then would it change angular size? Isn't a plane equidistant isn't it? Isn't anything else going away from us in your world equidistant because it's on the sphere of vision Nice your loss. No because the plane is within your visual limit We're talking about something from outside of it So it remains the same distance away from you if a plane gets closer to me then it's not the same distance away from me I asked you if it if it stayed the same distance away from you. Would it change angular size? If it stayed of course, of course, it wouldn't but it's staying the same distance from you The sun is not staying the same distance from you parent location is very very further away thousands of miles further away Yes, it's much further away than your curve visual limit So you only pick it up within your curve visual limit, which is equidistant in all directions And you literally had to reverse engineer You're literally sitting here saying the sun's physically getting thousands of miles away from you But your curved visual limit is making it seem like it's the same distance from you That's what you're saying. That's the steel man of what you just said. No, you're not really getting it No, so dude listen man your curve visual limits It's so the sun is closer looks closer than it actually is because that's the limit of your vision Yeah, it's an apparent location. Yeah If it's the limit of your vision, you just wouldn't see it anymore No, you wouldn't see if you wouldn't see it from outside of that So you don't pick up the light until it's within how far you can see And this is literally how we measure the sky. We take a zenith measurement and azimuth measurement We make elevation altitude measurements, right? We have a meridian and then we do this in all directions And it gives us a little dome which is why it's on stellarium You claim that there's a celestial sphere with the one-to-one ratio of a real sphere And that's why it's a linear relationship as we move over the curved surface that make the stars change Actually, no, it's just that we have a curve visual limit like exactly what we measure that you hijacked You then hijacked our angle resolution limit as well and then got the raised value got the raised value from the curved visual limit Said that the earth is curving and what the I'm still working. This is just a fact. This is so funny This is the most obvious. I love when you say that because the next word is gonna be a lie This is the most obvious tell in my opinion Right. So flatter says that everything changes with perspective and things go down when they're above you because of perspective And then embedding also applies to the stars the globe claims. Yes, that does happen with everything But not the stars the stars just do the same thing But it's for a different reason That's literally a still man of the globe So I think we'll stick with the with the one that makes sense and says it does the same with the stars All right last 15 seconds. Can you stand on the flat earth sunset to you go being a moving on? Oh, yeah, my bad Sure, um, I think anybody who's listening and just listen to that understands how Nonsensical it is to claim a sun is getting thousands of miles away But our optical limit is making it appear to be equidistant there as it is it above us It's absurd because that's how they mentioned that. Yeah, you're right. That's how they measure things as they as moofle right the zenith angle But you're saying as you look out That object there is not really as far away as it is That's what you're saying. Well, we're saying it just magically closer to you not magically just you can't see forever It's magically last word. Sorry. Yeah, we got to move on because we are yeah, let's just move on. Let's move on He doesn't get it. We're hardly even a 15% of the way through the super chats Dude, I applaud him for doing better than most people do at that question to be honest And this is yeah, we've got some we've got a wild Number of questions coming in here So if you guys are not aware if you're watching on the podcast right now, we are live on modern day debate So if you're not hanging out on our live chat, make sure you head on over to modern day debate And take part in our polls and all the other good things that we're doing over here Uh, like I said, if you're watching in podcast, make sure you subscribe to the channel so you don't miss these live Events and uh, also so you can see them on youtube. So when we're doing these screen shares, you can know, uh, What the heck is going on? So What's uh, let's carry on guys No, I just keep in the side Oh, no, my canadian came out. Look at that. Earth is life wits it What is the difference between plane and geodetic surveying? Oh, that's pretty simple. So well, we establish a local plumb, which is a vertical and then that's perpendicular to the ground which Vertical perpendicular to vertical is horizontal. So we treat the ground like it's horizontal And then you guys claim it's actually tilted relative to the center of a ball You just can't tell treat it like it's flat. And so anyway, we make the actual measurements using it a plane survey As if yours flat and you guys take the plane survey stitch it together Right, and you look out and you assume spherical trig Right, and you're like, okay Well, let's we know there's a certain rate of curvature that has to happen over distances We stitch that plane survey together to get the distances We know how much it should curve We have a predetermined window and then we try to take averages with different types of measurements That's the primary difference is of course that the plane survey neglects the notion of curvature And is used for all engineering and building in real life. And then the uh, Theodetic assumes the curvature and isn't really used for actual engineering and building in real life All right, well, let us carry on then and thank you again for all your super chats everybody. We do appreciate it. So Scary up here Chris Berry says is with debating mctoon on celestial navigation I don't know Yeah, I saw that he posted something on facebook about how I challenge him to a debate on slash navigation And i'm gonna run away or something's like no my friend specifically wanted me to ask him if if mctoon would debate it So I asked him if he would debate it. Um, well, I'll host it. You know, I will buddy So I I don't want to say yeah, I'm pretty sure my friend wants to specifically debate mctoon on slash navigation, but uh Yeah, I mean, I'm maybe debating the future. I'm I'm uncertain. I said I wouldn't debate him anymore. So Well, you know, send send your friend my email. You got that so Uh, we definitely are always interested in new speakers if it's uh, you know, if it is a new speaker unless it's somebody We know it's it. Is it somebody we know a lot of history and interrupting usually Oh good. Oh, that's fun. You know how that's always disagree Uh, you disagree even lord for both. Do you think the moon is made of cheese? Mmm, yummy No, I'm not even gonna entertain that. Yeah, what kind of cheese would it be though? I don't know man. I was trying to look at those pictures we got Hard to really make out those pictures mozzarella for sure Because they're like the worst pictures I've ever seen in my life. They're just absolutely a joke 2024 are we getting right now 2024? We got like the grainiest most trash picture I've ever seen in my life Oh, yeah, but let's be honest if it was very very good pictures, you would just say they were CGI Wouldn't know because they're absolutely terrible Right You would just say this one behind me was taken by Artemis as soon as they show me stars and I can verify their positions We'd be really heading in the right direction. And that's no cap at all. I'd be like, wow, that makes a lot more sense But if we could actually show a bunch of stars in relation to the moon or where they are Where they're navigating our videos in relation to their celestial navigation or whatever You know, they say they use the stars. There's videos of Apollo with stars What? Yes, there's videos of the stars and the Apollo missions not on the moon. I know not on the moon, but on the way to the moon Yeah, I've posted them Okay, but so we but you asked me what what I would think right if they were high definition Can you just admit that they're very uh, Underwhelming and dissatisfactory images that we received from this alleged lander on the moon in 2020 This last is the moon, baby. Oh geez. All right. We're No, it could be plasma though. All right, okay. I'm so sorry guys. It's just it's it's fun. It honestly is It's just that it's a word. Um, I'm scrolling through a list if you saw uh, where my scroll bar is right now You'd be like holy light and ryan told me walk It's the moon made of cheese was the question. I see how you guys can vamp. It's awesome. Let's take 20 minutes on that one Yeah Toby walker says why was ruiyong wang able to measure linear velocity with an Inferometer in a lab in 20 in 2004, but we can't measure earth's linear velocity with Interferect for your property. Yeah, sorry. Thanks. I got you brother interferometry What do you that's a question for you? He said basically why was wang able to detect and measure linear motion with interferometer in 2004, but we can't detect the linear velocity of the earth's orbit What was wang measuring? I'm not unfamiliar with what wang was measuring. I'll send you that paper too I actually will if you'll give me your email. I'll send you all the papers. I'll give you my email It doesn't work if it's big big problem for relativity The only way that anyone's even tried to explain it yet is they invoke absolute space Which is You know not allowed in relativity, but yeah, I'll send you the papers. Just send me your email All right Let's carry on toby walker asked why does gps range measurement have to account for the relative linear velocity of a receiver craft This indicates linear velocity measurable with electromagnetic wave propagation Can you say it again? Is that for me? He says it again. That probably is they're probably coming at you, bro I'm going to try to help you. Well always a question says why does gps range Measurement have to account for the relative linear velocity of the receiver craft This indicates linear velocity measurable with electromagnetic wave propagation Yeah, so they're saying that gps accounts for like a variant speed of light that it changes and you have to It's c plus v you actually have to account for the velocity of say the actual satellite or whatever is moving So it's Relativity says you wouldn't have to account for it. So it's saying that light changes its speed And why does the range measurement equation that gps uses to get distances has to account for? Light being variant if relativity says it's constant All right, is that what he was asking? I'm asking I'm rephrasing the question for you I get it. You may not have heard of it. So like they're saying that dude just so you know gps To get the proper distances they have to account for Change in the speed of light relative to their velocity that it's moving when it should just be c It shouldn't change But to get the right distances they have to account for a variance and see like a variant c So c plus v c plus velocity that it's moving Um, which is directly in opposition to relativity But the range measurement equations say you have to use it for gps to be accurate All right. Are you talking about the adjustments needed from gps satellites? Is that what he's talking about? The speed up based specifically on the anisotropic distribution of light. Yeah, like the speed of light changing Yeah, yeah That's the real that's the relevant relativistic change of time due to the distance away from earth No c plus v. That's what he's talking about No, all right Let's carry on then guys because it seems like we're getting caught up on that one can go for the weeds The london underground took the curve of the earth into account during its construction Toe tanks for testing boats hulls take the curve of the earth into account thoughts gentlemen That is a famous one that took the curvature of earth into account the london tunnels, but I think the question was really for you. So I don't know what you got. I mean, I missed it This is something about what about bridges and tunnels that can't account for earth curvature allegedly The london's underground The london underground took the curve of the earth into account during its construction Toe really tow tanks that's very holes take the curve. It's also they really They would have to build in segments bigger than 10 miles. They literally were building it and had to stop Because the tunnels weren't meeting each other because the data they had was so old It wasn't taking into account earth's curvature. They had to make any sense They had to resurvey the area It does make sense because they weren't taking into account earth's curvature But they would have to be building in segments over 10 miles they Yeah, it's it's tunnels underground Yeah, but they're not building in segments leveling it off. I mean, I'll look at it. I'll look at it once Why would you have to build the whole segment at once? We'll look at it, man. All right. Go look at it All right Sorry, uh, yeah, let's let's carry on. Padme the cat says nasa can you tell NASA can tell me that the next eclipse is the best place to see it Why can't faulty tell me the next eclipse where the next clip it is and where to see it when Sorry, the next eclipse is and where to see it It's a little lack of punctuation there. But uh, it's asking you why can't you predict? Uh, eclipses Is essentially the crux I'll answer for you. You can Yeah, we can According to lunar and solar eclipses all of them locations. It's not map specific not coordinate system specific not heliocentrism specific I have it all right here so Okay, according according to him. All right So, uh, I think hopefully that answers your question padme. Uh, earth is life. What's it? Why do geodec geodetic of surveying textbooks and manuals say the curvature of the earth must be accounted for at long distances? Because if the earth was a sphere it would have to be So people assume the earth's sphere and at super long distances And you would have to account for it to understand your optical long range like angle measurements And of course that means that they factor into all other presuppositions and they're cherry picking, right? So if you assume spherical trigonometry and assume that the earth is a sphere and they make really long distance measurements Of angles and you have to assume there's a sphere and then you assume, you know, infinite Euclidean geometry perspective Then yeah, I mean obviously it the question is basically like why do people that assume the earth's sphere and believe that Say that in order to measure it being a sphere with spherical trig They have to treat the earth like it's a sphere curving like come on. You should know the answer to those types of questions All right, let's move on Isaac. Tim says another one for flat earth. Uh, and that's their first super chat. They said end of glober face Uh, wow, we hope to see uh, lots of uh more of both of these speakers here on modern day debate because you guys are a lot of fun So bonds says a 499 so for bonds for 499 says globy Is debate under influence of marijuana a winning strategy for globeside just some constructive criticism Well, I will tell you mr. We do not condone Marijuana in this house. All right. Let me just carry on is a ball flat asks ian mckina Yeah, it depends on what scale you're looking at it Of course the ball is flat if you get close enough to it So everywhere we can actually see it in reality, basically I mean technically it's never flat, right? But if you're small enough depending on the ball size relative to the ball you would appear flat for sure Yeah, if the fairy tale globe model. They told us was true. You would be correct, sir Okay, but that's not a point to discredit the globe Standing on your backyard and going it looks flat to me. So therefore it's flat is not an argument Yeah, it's a cool and fearful measurements. Fossil is not a thing, right? All right, let's move on from there. We'll get it It's not a thing Fossify the radius Never been done All right. Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I mean you say the last word, bro Last word. There you go. All right. My shield is discussed asks austin Can you draw a map that arranges the continents and oceans with their known dimensions on a flat plane? We know the width of australia or the pacific ocean at any latitude from east to west How do you know though? How do you know the distance in in the south southern oceans? That's absolutely not true whatsoever But let me go ahead and tell you guys on this because people really think this is a good argument for the globe They're like, oh man, australia looks different on a flat earth map It's like, okay, first of all, man, you guys need to understand coordinate systems and maps, right? And how they're just transformed secondly, you need to also understand that For example, if we use gps for distances in the south, right? If that's what you're going to invoke to improve the distances of australia and knowing how big it is Well, gps uses meridian corrections Admittedly in their own paperwork, you talk about how they have to subtract distances In the south for the distances to work with the gps spherical coordinates of the assumed symmetry So they have what's called meridian corrections gps And of course, they could just hide the vast majority of it in the oceans Even australia, it could be much like we have it moved out And the second supposed evidence of this Is the way that the plane will travel like say east to west and the north to south and And it's about the same and when the guy pulled it up and showed that no It actually for the same distance it takes different times because if they're going the same speed but different times It can't be the same distances So anyway, long story short, it could look a lot like it does on the globe still be on a flat earth They've hidden the oceans in my opinion the distances are hidden in the oceans for the most part Are you listening to the conspiracy? I just stated a fact called meridian corrections. No, no, no, you stated non facts there You know what gps meridian corrections are? I'm not talking about that. You're claiming we don't know the distance Like the size of australia. That's what you're claiming right now No, I said that even it could be correct But we use gps meridian corrections. I said they could have just hit a lot of the distance in this in the ocean Next one coming in a lot of distance in the in the ocean. Yeah gps meridian corrections my brother. Look it up I'll look it up All right, that one was for Austin. So I did want to give you the last word So uh redolfo coming in garcia. Sorry redolfo garcia says hey flat earthers Have you measured shadows at the same time in different parts of the world and found the sun position or something? You have not produced a universal flat earth model, right? He asks Incorrect incorrect. Do you want me to show it again? I'll show it again real quick Yeah, you can screen jack real quick. Is this a flat earth model? Yeah, here you go So this would explain the relative apparent position. Thus all the relative apparent shadows This explains every single observation in the sky throughout the year And this is a beautiful model important note Some glovers misrepresent perspective and misuse this globe model Interesting to attempt to discredit flat earth a bunch of unnecessary bendy light lines This flat earth dome model can make correct predictions for many observations because the globe model was derived from the same celestial observations in the first place This flat earth dome model is entirely based on observed cyclical celestial patterns and orbits It is in no way in no way uses newton's laws of gravitation in motion The bending or warping of spacetime or any heliocentric specific attribute for calculations in the real world It uses in real world measured 3d orbits constellations inclinations axial tilts distances and velocities in the correct sizes and masses of sun moon and globe earth to calculate all observables So it's basically pointing out here that we're just using solarium data We map it out like it's a curved visual space you guys claim that that's because the earth is curving We're saying no, we're not crazy. We know that perspective also affects the stars We have a significantly stronger position and it accounts for everything in the sky including the shadow positions. Thank you It's rough out here for you guys 2024. I'll be real with you Oh, he left What happened? It's okay. You thought I was gonna go really long. I tried to be I tried to be fast Did I came back at just the right time pretty good? Yeah, you're good, bro That's good. I mean, yeah, because it's great And I was about to start going in on how the fact that gps actually uses the fact that the speed of light isn't constant You have to account for velocity when relativity specifically says it isn't so either gps is wrong or heliocentrism and relativity is wrong But we'll we'll hold off on that. Well, I'm so glad you behaved yourself Well, I was giving my wife a kiss. Good night. What's it not opening up a can of worms or anything over here, mr All right nominal asks Globy you should have a real photograph of the entire earth from space as your background debate or over All right There's one Does the globe model violate any natural or physical laws? If so, which ones and why? Second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy will increase in all spontaneous and naturally occurring systems And that the amount of usable energy will decrease over time as applied to a pressurized system Which people call the atmosphere even though gases have no inherent shape and it would fill the available space violently immediately though it would you know because of pressure reactions to the equilibrium and fully available space so yeah, the current globe model violates the second law of thermodynamics um And pretty much a bunch of things if you get into like the heliocentric big bang cold dark matter cosmology then actually That universe type of model right that cosmology Violates the first law of thermodynamics combined with the second law of thermodynamics Denoting it requires a beginning and that there must be an external supernatural source Which is the opposite of what the big bang currently claims, but anyway, so yeah the second law big time It's rough out here for the And that and while saying we're thinking and that in reality an actual physical reality physical laws are all determined and verified and applied In relation to the lab frame Which is the stationary earth lab frame Right and we can measure absolute motion The globe claims that you can't do that Mathias actually moving so it's like yeah, they just violate off physical laws if you want to really get into the lab frame part of it All right, let's carry on Sean 666 says Oh, hey, why did you trigger the iron maiden Sean? All right, why would governments and space agencies around the world Spends spend billions of dollars to perpetuate what you believe is a lie about the earth being round also wits it You are a conspiracy theorists. They accuse you Well, you're a coincidence theorists You think that the angular resolution limit of the eye just so happens to reverse engineer into 3958.8 miles if you assume the earth's sphere physically blocking what would automatically disappear because of your eye You think it's a coincidence that if you take the angular resolution limit of your eye And where things would fall below resolution the distance so you wouldn't be able to see them If you reverse engineer that you can get the exact radius value of the globe model Which is 3958.8 miles you think that that's a coincidence I would say you're a coincidence theorist and I just you know, I accept truth Even if it's uncomfortable or unpopular because what's true is rarely popular. What's popular is rarely true All right, uh, let's see free free Palestine says the Greeks build a flat earth model as a non rotating plane in the center of the universe The antique theora mechanism aka flat earth working model That's what they said How is the antique theora mechanism a flat earth working model? It just predicts Where the planets are Yeah, I'm a stationary flatter civilization, but You should go look up the documentary the mechanical realm. I'll plug it. It's about the antique theora mechanism. It's very interesting The mechanical realm agreed. Uh, they you know fascinating device, but certainly doesn't prove a flat earth Yeah, I wouldn't say it proves A flat earth. Well, some argue it does go watch the mechanical realm antique theora mechanism The only reason they Say it does is because they think that means the stars have never changed, but they they do measurably, so Uh, okay No Disagree There's a progressive cycle in the sky and it's not what you think it is and your parallax measurements go the wrong way a lot I don't want to open up that can awareness. Let's just Okay, mechanical realm documentary antique there mechanism But you disagree you've measured the proper motion of stars over the last couple hundred years You measured the proper motion of stars and that proves that it's actually not the stars moving, but it's us moving That's what you believe. So I think that's I don't know It proves the stars are changing their location in the sky and in relation to the elliptical They don't change. They're always they're stationary and everything revolves around Polaris, right? You think in relation to the elliptical orbit of the earth In relation to elliptical orbit of the earth All right, let's go. What are you thinking? Rodolfo Garcia asks I think they move In the sky Yes, they do. You're right. The stars move in the sky. Yes, they do you admit that Yeah, yeah, they move in the sky every day. No, I don't mean like rotate. I mean move their physical position You think they don't move crazy I just said they do move Well, you think they look like they're moving but it's an illusion What So weird straw man, so you just tired at this point. I'm obviously trolling you. Speaking of straw man. I'm out of drink care Like yeah, you think that there's actual motion and illusion illusory motion We get it whatever a lot of the claim progression is such long cycles. You can't verify it Which isn't because you can measure it over time Yeah, that's what you say All right, you guys if you are the astronomical almanacs wrong Um, no I think they assume a negligible progression over a long distance long periods of time not negligible. Yes How is it negligible when you does it's such a small minute? Are we don't have resolvability that would detect it over the course of many many many decades So how how long is Polaris expected to move over a hundred years? How long is it expected to move over a hundred years or how much how much how many degrees? I don't know not that much Enough to measure I I don't know supposedly You just claimed it was too small to measure like every 72 years. It moves like a really really small amount allegedly, but Whatever bro every 72 years. It's always moving All right, but it's not measurable till every 72 years. It's slow. So it takes a long time to yeah Okay, or maybe it doesn't do it Let's move on or maybe you can measure it year to year and see go back to the almanacs and see it How it has moved over the years. All right, let's move on right there. Maybe it progresses You always got to get that last word in there. You're such a stinker. Maybe it doesn't I have to correct his misinformation, man It comes back down Did you want to grab yourself another drink there would sit? Yeah low key if that's cool. That's cool. That's a one I'll find something here for a globey unless you want to grab yourself a drink as well and I'll just just housekeeping I'm out, but It's getting late anyway. I should stop. Oh, yeah, you're gonna get yourself in trouble. Are you? Everybody gotta wake up. Gotta wake up get the kids on the bus. You know that kind of shit I hear you everybody else thinks I'm just thrashed. They're like Ryan's totally done in tonight, but not yet Not yet. I'm just a regular parent. This is just how things are It just never ends never ends and and also yes I'm having my beer and having my pen here. So let's see. We got one here for you Globy wall wits it grabs his drink. He's pretty quick For the heliocentric model besides eclipses give an example of a shadow being smaller than the object or part of the object obstructing the light Clean that one up. November behave yourself You're gonna have to say that again. I said for so he's saying you believe in the heliocentric model Besides eclipses give an example of a shadow being smaller than the object or the part of the object obstructing the light It does is he trying I'm trying to understand the question. Is he trying to ask Is he trying to say the shadow can't be smaller than the object? Is that what you're trying to say there? I can't interpret that question Maybe I've had too many drinks If that's what he's saying, it's crazy because I've heard that one before but You can absolutely cast a shadow smaller than the object casting the shadow the shadow can be smaller than the object Just depends on how far away the light is Lj, uh, also ass says, uh, why is globie's background CGI? It's 2024 bra He's just be floating around I guess that's called that's called. No, uh, because none of you can ever prove this is CGI She's yeah, I was gonna say are you just are you just in space drinking? Is that what we're supposed to believe here run by actually the cameraman behind filming Oh, it was you all along. It was me. Oh gee Man a lot of people are going to be disappointed. I guess or excited. I don't know run Boston Bears says Mclover I'll bet your balls boy thought it was so funny when you snacked on lettuce every time You didn't understand what Austin was talking about. It's not word solid when it makes sense Well, that's not a question. It's not a question. It's a statement, but I'll reply to it. Um, I've I've asked many flat earthers when they've said that to explain what Austin has said and it's never been able to be replicated Because whether he's actually reading from and I want to talk about he's not here But when he's actually reading from a from a paper, that's that's fine. It's not word salad But he's not understanding what he's reading. It's pretending he does Uh, and quite often other times. He's just saying some random stuff. So Yeah, it's not it's not about not understanding now. Now all the flexing's over Oh, he's back shush. No, I'm back. No more lying Why yeah Yeah, we're well, yeah We'll just zip it up. No, honestly. Yeah, we were just talking about how how you don't know a word So I mean I get it how yeah, how wonderful salad is honestly No, um, how you guys don't know how to use it properly. I get it Me I was gonna say don't don't say don't come after me. No, I was gonna say, uh It's just cope because they don't understand the point. So it's a way that's like when you explained You explained moon phases the other day. It was fantastic. It was like, I know you talked about inertia And ethereal motion and it's all just words that you made up I can I can repeat it right now. All right. I said, you know, you can because it's a script It's just like the center something to the fact of it's just like the center Of a feral cell image of a magnetic field that black hole in the center is actually just pure potential It's inertial Meaning that it's not changing. It's an inertial state of pure potential That it goes through an energetic cycle. That's like the the cycle of a magnetic field. So that's not word Moon we got a similar words out that word salad because all those words don't tie together to answer the question It goes because I'm saying it may actually be energetic cycle of electromagnetic polarization that give you the same type of black Over top of it. All right. I was I was trying to inject there guys and get the not words out But uh, sorry if I made poor comedy there, uh, austin, you know, I love you bud Let's see. Rudolfo Garcia says hey flat earthers Have you measured shadows at the same time in different parts of the world and found the sun's position or something? You have not produced a universal flat earth model read that one. You read that one. I I showed my model. I'm sorry Yeah, we can predict everything in the sky and he's just wrong. Yeah, I was doing the magic scroll up there. My bad Texas cypher says a barge Califa is so tall that Ramadan fasting changes based on the floor you live on This makes sense on a globe where the higher altitude lets you see further over the curve Can you explain that on flat? The angle of view increases as you increase altitude you can see further over a flat surface as you get higher as well The fact that you guys don't know that still is Pretty sad Okay, let's see I am says how is a plane serving not a flat earth measurement? Especially when considering plane is defined as a flat surface on which a straight line any joining any two points on It would wholly lie Because you're not measuring something To to test whether it's flat or not That's why it's not a measurement of flat earth There's assumptions in those measurements, right? So what I'm asking for is a measurement without assumptions Like I provided in the beginning of this debate and that we're hand waved off Okay, you can actually measure whether the earth is flat or not and it's not Except that we measure the earth to be flat and plane survey measurements on her assume It's you you you assume it is by omitting things Right You would omit the curvature of earth. It's not there You you're assuming it's not there. That's why they're omitting it. I get it measurements work. That's why it's no, it's they're negligible That's why they work. They're 66 feet of curvature in 10 miles though. Okay, but we're not talking about 10 miles We are we are I just now read the engineering the civil engineering textbook That says up to 100 square miles that we use plane survey measurements for all engineering We can move on coming in earth is either coping We're definitely coping. I just want to flat earth measurement I want to see a test done with a measurement and go look earth is not curving Why hasn't it been done? You can't just randomly say plane surveying show me one do one All of one of you guys do one next one's coming in for you here. Uh, what's it earth is life 2024 Whitsett in your debate with will duffy you claim planes in the south travel at 950 miles per hour What distance would that plane cover in 14 hours? And what is the maximum range of a 787 dash 9 dreamliner? Okay, I didn't actually claim any specific speed And uh, the planes that fly in the south typically they they can go over 650 miles per hour And we know that jet streams can go over 250 miles per hour Like just recently it made the news in the north that planes were clocked all over the place multiple planes on the same Day going over 800 miles per hour When the planes actually were only flying like 500 or so when it comes to their actual air speed because the air speeds determined relative To the static pressure around the plane But it's going much faster in general because the air is moving. So yeah, you catch jet streams He said something about you would need them to go up opposite ways or whatever like provably jet streams go opposite direction That different altitude. This is a well known fact now prove it prove quantus flight q 64 The path it takes has opposite jet streams above or wherever it's flying provably right where the southern jet Okay, provably right where the southern jet streams are they're at different altitudes They go different directions and if you knew how autopilot in a plane works it actually maximizes its travel and momentum by Air resistance, so it tries to avoid air resistance So it's going to go with the air that's moving with it and avoid the air going against it automatically on autopilot And you can look it up. It's it's a fact that the jet streams go different directions Different altitude that's how autopilot works, but that's not why what I asked All right. I just answered the question. So if you didn't I asked you to prove your claim that varying Jet streams are used by that quantus flight Oh, what I said is that it would automatically happen because that's fine Let's the autopilot would automatically change altitude based on the most optimal flight path and this is well known It's so you can't prove there's multiple jet streams there based on air resistance And you can prove that the southern jet streams, right at different out the different directions It's been mapped out the data is well known We use no, it's not many other things to do it But to actually get the maximum speed of the jet streams is very difficult certainly in the south That's according to NOAA, right? So it's not well known because I asked you for proof and you didn't just didn't even Bobwinds.com takes all the real takes all the wind data and you can go look at it. Okay. Yeah, I'll go look at it I think what we should do guys Just because of what you'd said about time there earlier Globie and I want to try to Keep us within some of the realm of that. We're getting a little bit over time So I'm going to set a 45 second timer We're going to try to speed through some of these questions and we're going to keep it to the speaker So we're going to cut the cross examination guys. So we really Enjoy that but for the interest of respecting Globie's time constraints there We'll keep it to 45 seconds to get through Thy messenger asks actually membership chat came in says bodies of water rest flat and level no convexity 45 seconds But they do show the measurement of that in the beginning of the presentation You can measure convexity on any body of water Plain and simple Flat earthers misuse the definition of level. They think level is I'm measuring something level here And then I'm just going out infinitely far and that's the same level forever. That's level. That's not what level means Levels relative to where you are. It's a measurement. It's a point measurement. So I'm level I'm level here. I can measure something level here, but if I move 20 feet to the left, that's a different level some that's It's not the same level right and the further you get the more pronounced it becomes But this is measurable which I showed and if he missed the beginning, I suggest you go watch the beginning Specular reflections. All right. Specular reflection. November air says for Globie. Why is Antarctica? That's only continent that tsunamis do not wrap around but bounce back almost like a giant barrier mm Why do tsunamis well first of all I need to see evidence of what the hell that's a random Random claim that tsunamis don't bounce around Antarctica, but wrap around them in I don't know if that's I'll help you out here. Actually, I'll help you out phd. Tony So he's a seismologist right he he debated me one time on here and he said that it's because the continental shelf underneath Antarctica is different than other continents and because it's so It's like so much closer to the edge deeper down or something like that That the waves interact with it differently and it reflects. So I don't know that's what he said I said something like that, but Whatever that means that's convenient Convenient. I mean, is it a fact? No, it's just he just made it up. I think but I mean, you know, not his facts Is it a fact that tsunamis don't wrap around Antarctica? Yeah, my understanding is that they don't wrap around an article like other land masses. I yeah All right, that was he he said that was an official answer for it. So I'm assuming let's carry on guys We were past that time. So let's try to carry on. Uh, john smith says glow phase. Are you I'm not sure what that means actually so Sorry john smith, but this is probably not relevant and we'll just carry on PLN, uh, this I can't say your name. I'm so sorry, uh, but asks is wits it still a fan of russia Not sure if that's very uh I read it earlier. Yeah. Yeah, we can't we can't we just cannot I'm so sorry Let me just say like like dude stop trying to stereotype people that don't believe in the globe into using like all these different labels and stuff It's super weird. Like yeah, some of us didn't go with tyranny a couple years ago. It's okay. You don't have to stereotype us Thank you No stereotype in everybody in the live show That's what it was you were you agree trying to like lump all flat earthers into one way to condemn them make them look Stupid and paint them as whatever it's just called. It's called a You get it bro poisoning the well the stereotype house No worries. No worries. Uh, let's carry on kango says, uh, witsit is shown in real time The curve calculate matches the video of the earth still says no It literally did it. He literally didn't show it. We were supposed to just look at and say, yeah, it looks close enough It totally matches I pointed out all the flaws with that video And an honest viewer would see that um, but kango is I wouldn't really classify him as that so i was to move on all right, john smith, uh, asks uh, fv or globe all agree that Uh, once again off off topic, but he says that gaza is a tragedy, right? Uh, I mean, you know depending on how you feel about that. Maybe we would have a debate, but uh, America must bow to israel, man Okay, enlightenment took some sorry john smiths. We don't have It's not very on topic globe had me laughing hard when he said Uh, when he called your words word solid, I have a high school education I can understand everything witsit was saying Globe side was sad Did you want to say anything to enlightenment? And uh, globe, what's his name his name is enlightenment tuxin It's calling him okay Sure, he's free to come on and go live with me and uh, explain in uh, his own terms what witsit was talking about I'd love to hear it You got it. Mr. B. Uh, and also It's empty If you want to grab some more you go for it Um, but yeah, if you want to interact with either of our speakers They will be linked in our live description just to remind everybody If you're loving what you hear and from either of them hit them up Mr. B asks what's it? Can you please provide the math formula for celestial navigation to find your position on the flat earth that you claimed you have? Yeah, it's over here in some other folder, but it's just uh, it's a logarithmic relationship It's the same thing. It's what's one degree per 60 nautical miles It would begin to be logarithmic under 15 degrees and your model basically says don't pull any Angle measurements under 15 degrees when you do celestial navigation because they're unreliable and don't do them over 70 So you picked out the portion that would be linear Even if it was logarithmic So if you just take that r value so the actual angle is down to the center of a sphere for you, right? But for us it would not be that way would be out to the the edge of where you're seeing relative to direction So it's just inverted only not a linear relationship. It's logarithmic and every single globe earth that loves celestial navigation and all the math All immediately conceded that the math works perfectly on a plain earth. So So have you not submitted to toon's challenge because his is just about a map, right? So like he knows that obviously if there's flat we don't know exactly what the south is like And so he's not actually trying to see if you can explain the relationship of one degree per 60 nautical miles because that's been Submitted to him He just wants to use a trick about asking out a point in the south and saying you can't use a globe map And literally, I mean Longitude was created for the globe and then there was a patent that you have to use that system to make maps So it's just a stupid dishonor. I think that's the point though, isn't it? It's kind of just a dishonest bet All right, let's carry on november says austin you easily crush this guy flat earth gets the win Uh, so he's uh, he's giving you a compliment there. So we do appreciate the question It's not a question, but uh, you know, at least it's somebody that's not uh saying anything rude. That's always nice Thank you, man. Much love. Yep. Uh, let's carry on here. We always appreciate people. They're just uh, hanging out to say nice things. Uh, let's see Uh, coconut cream pie asks where's nathan thompson not here tonight. We got to the one and only austin witsett Uh, so we're having a lot of fun november says, uh, and vokes ring laser gyro has to google it And so they're they're making commentary on the fact that you were googling things. Do you have anything to say about that there? Sure, uh, if you were intellectually honest You have seen that I googled a picture so I could show what I was talking about while I was talking about it Or you can be a lying fluff and pretend like I was trying to google what it meant No, I agree. I agree. He just looked at a picture. Which is why he butchered how it works I think I think correct me then I mean incorrect me when I talked about it Because it was it was close enough for me to point out my But he said I butchered it so I got it completely wrong. You did a little you did a little bit I don't I was all good. It's it's it's all about the intricate. You can't say I butchered it and then just move on I can actually let this move on. I mean you did okay. All right, so butchered it may be a bit. Well, you get the last He's very lacking of substantive Specific well, let's be fair. This is for globey. So uh last Last word if you have any Best word I think it's okay last word already. You're good. I was gonna say I think it's totally fair to uh google things You know, sometimes I don't know how to pronounce things. I got to look that up just to know if I'm saying things properly I'm like, I got you all I'm on here, brother Know everything, right? Of course, of course, but I think it's a humble thing So the problem would be when you read off google live as if you're now stating it as a factor teaching everyone that you Didn't know right that would be the problem. I agree That's not what I did, but I'm not saying you did that. I'm just saying that would be Excuse me. Sorry enlightenment Talk since once said do you have a good analogy for the globe side of how powerful 10 to the negative 17 to r sitting next to earth 14.7 psi they never understand this A good analogy No, not on the spot. I mean the air would violently fill the available space I mean like even with the normal vacuum if you put a soda in a vacuum chamber, that's way weaker than that It's kind of just like explode Obviously going to be violent To fill the available space So they have to invoke that gravity is a container and just kind of beg the question. So I don't know they don't understand it. You're right They say that gradient as if that somehow means anything which is change in pressure delta x You still need the antecedent for the pressure and what does it continue on forever? Where does it stop? Okay, why does it feel the available space? They don't understand it. I don't think but um Yeah, just think about a soda think about a soda and what's the pressure differential between a soda and the vacuum chamber I don't know Well soda cans at like 30 psi or something like that. Okay So now you have 30 psi next to you know, zero say it's not zero But what's 14.7 psi next to the vacuum? What's it gonna do? But it's not 14 psi next to zero Well, it would be a strong man. That's the straw man that you guys destroy Which is fine. You can destroy that all you want because it's not what's happening It would be in what it would be unless you had a container that was actually Giving you the finite volume to then fill out and get a gradient. Okay, Robert Pollacher says I hope globy drops his green screen to show off his a super cool custom light setup space and lego's collection Oh, man, like what's wrong with having a lego's collection like Is that is that a true question or is he trying to be a little smart guy? I think he's I'm gonna troll funny, but you know what am I freezing? I think I'm totally freezing. You are freezing I was gonna say, you know, I I hide my background often enough, but there's my hendrix worship corner there You know, I'm gonna leave and come back. I'm gonna leave them back You know, it's a good time to leave and come back because uh We had a bit of a sidetrack question and that's fine. See look at that You guys can see the whole screen. So I have to do it that way Now I gotta go up and put up my background again. See but yeah I feel like I gotta show it now. So Yeah, as I say, we we had the moment where we asked what we're drinking You know, where are we at, you know? So Everything's mirrored. So I'm almost screwed up trying to show it but there's the shuttle the Hubble Right, like I got those guys and then the ISS I'm working on the Saturn five right now over here Nice, so putting the lights on the Saturn five right now Well, hopefully Austin it makes his way back shortly because we have quite a few more super chats to go Well, let's just see what everybody's saying in the live chat there. I better fix my background too But Let's see Just check the live chat make sure you guys are all just hanging out and having a good time behaving yourselves Oh, yeah, no guitarist Austin's back here while he's joining back and getting his audio. I'll show you my sad story Uh, well not a sad story. I just gotta put it back together. It's a shame. I got it yesterday But I gotta fix it I could hold it the whole debate. I swear. She's so pretty All right, Austin you made your way back glad you're Back here up and running everything's good to go So let's get back to our main screen Now that we showed off all our backgrounds and let everybody know that uh, we are existing in the real world We're here in the real space. Oh and Austin is now not He is gone. All right. I was in my spaceship, bro. That was real Yeah, yeah, no you take it off there. Go go. All right. Let's say here. Um, Mr. B We read that one. All right. Now we've got a little bit sidetracked James gp glober in the video You showed off the rocket launch. You said camera doesn't curve lines. The video showed the launch frame had a slight curve why Because that camera was the was on the frame of the rocket the launch pad looking down at the rocket That was a different camera altogether. And yes, that was probably a wide angle camera What the camera going up on the rocket was not so yeah two different two different cameras. That's why All right, well, let us carry on. Let's try to fix my camera there. So behave myself. Let's see here. We got moderator globe face your club your cup was empty at halftime lol Uh, hey, my cup is always got a little refill here next to it if I ever so need to My wife was wait for sorry. It's still empty I was to say you are welcome to take a second. It's fine. All right. So globy For me and joe says how do you explain the sun fading away at sunset? Go ahead and say it never happens The sun fit it doesn't fade away at sunset. There's clear video With a solar filter of the sun setting behind the horizon. This is how we all see sunsets every human being sees a sunset going down Now the excuses there's you know all the excuses that we make for why it's disappearing bottom up But then when people like him jump in with the question, we just see a sun fading off into the distance It blows my mind. That's not how anyone sees the sunset if there's clouds in the sky Sure, it might it might obscure the sun as its setting. So maybe it makes it appear to Disappear but that's not how a sun sets on a clear day with a solar filter You'll never see the sun disappearing off into the distance It's literally been filmed with a solar filter disappearing at high altitude. No, it hasn't it literally has You're talking about the david weiss video Many of them. Yeah, no, no, there's only been all right. I've only seen one They're like five it was david weiss They're like five of them and he he completely used a post edit fade out Wow 100% So you're actually accusing of editing the video. I'm not accusing he did It's been it was analyzed by someone I know All right Let us carry on there guys You can laugh all you want. No, by the way, by the way, the glover argument is that it wasn't a good enough solar filter Did you say it wasn't a good enough solar filter? I said, that's the actual No, all the videos you guys show of uh, you know the sun being zoomed back in and all that never has a solar filter on it Except that one did all right. I saw in the live chat somebody was concerned I didn't get to their super chat. Don't worry. We're getting there There's just a lot of questions here and if I do miss your super chat Just tag ryan thymod in The modern day debate live chat there and I'll make sure that I don't miss your question So james gp says glober in the video you showed off the rocket launch use of the camera Doesn't curve lines. The video showed the launch frame had a slight curve. Why we just read that one Oh gee, see this is this is that that that finger thing I was telling you about You say mullet hat when talking flat earth a small hat when lying Not sure what that sure what that means. Is that another uh Another uh comment then just move on Not sure Benjamin scott says globy why on july 8th is 99 of the population of the earth receiving unlight Sunlight Sunlight. Yeah, sorry. That's just That's just because because 99 of the population lives on one side of the globe All right here. I'll just you know, I mean real quick sure and won't take won't take Yeah, you got some time this This part of this half of the globe You look at it like this Is all ocean And then you can see some of australia here the rest of the population is living over here So yes Half of the globe or about half. It's a little bit more right or a fraction going on But when you got to understand when they're talking about that also they're talking about Some any form of light not just daytime right dusk dawn You know every time every type of light Okay, so yeah All right, Sean 666 asks Why would governments and space agencies around the world spend billions of dollars to perpetuate what you believe is a lie about the earth Being round. Oh, yeah, we did what read that one as well Yeah, as you say that was earlier because I was trying to find one for wits it because we asked you a few I'm sorry, uh, benjamin scott said I mean sunlight Not sure what you're referring to let's see. He just asked globy why on july 8th is 99 of the population on the earth receiving sunlight. Oh, he was correcting his typo on light I I was giving the benefit of the diet. I was like Is this the dude? Oh, no the canadian came out That maybe this was something I hadn't heard of ticky tack asks. Uh, the earth is in the shape of a peanut Don't think so Okay This is declaration of fun. Uh-uh proportions November's as earth is not an omelette papyroid globy got crushed another declaration Um, then alexander l makes the declaration says utter destruction of witsit. Oh my we got some conflicting People in the live chat and they're letting it be known skidmark. McGee puts in five with witsit Why does your evidence begin? Uh word salad isn't evidence Where does your evidence begin word salad isn't evidence your claims and lies Are not evidence. So when does your actual evidence begin? That's all they have. It's it's like pretty sad. I feel bad for them honestly, but um, they can never even give one specific example of word salad and when they say they do I just absolutely embarrass them and show that it's just that they don't understand words and It's really pretty lame tactic, right? So I provided all kinds of evidence Much of it was just completely misrepresented. Half the time it was near lying Whatever I dropped all kinds of evidence specular reflections And not have convexity or concavity because you would have diffused reflection That proves that the surface of the water is actually flat and we went on and on and on playing survey measurements line of sight microwave high frequency Inter-parametric measurements a different altitude changing relative to solar motion and periodicity of the sun and the moon Which proves that it's not the earth moving the actual pendulum changing its procession based on Eclipses and solar motion and periodicity of the sun and the moon improving. It's anyway, you get it I gave a lot I gave a lot your coping and then you have to say that I used word salad because It's just some way to try to act like I'm like lying or not saying the truth. You're coping. You're coping. That's the answer That's it's what it is is quote mining. It's more than more than word salad. It's quote mining Anyone's on my quote mind all right quote. Oh, sorry. Go ahead Uh, einstein because we all know that he believes the earth was a globe moving around the sun, right? So you're trying to you're trying to quote mind him to invoke that he somehow Admitted that he doesn't know if the earth's moving I never said that I said even he admitted that though he believed it you can't actually prove it That but that's what you're insinuating, right? No, I'm you're quote mining him to try to pretend like he didn't actually know It was moving. No, that's a lie My whole point is that he's a hostile witness He's one of the best guys on your side that saved your model to claim it's still moving And even he had to admit that you can't actually prove it no measurements on the earth No tests on the earth could ever prove it So that's not a good one. See if you got another quote mine. I never quote mine. I never cherry pick I never do any of this stuff you guys said definitely not If an example of quote mining you are over one. I just did just explain why you're wrong That doesn't mean you're right in your explanation I if I had listen, it would be quote mining if I said or cherry picking if I said einstein Thought that the earth wasn't moving or something. I didn't say that I said einstein even had to admit that no optical or terrestrial experiment can actually detect the motion of the earth Even though he believed that it was moving around the sun Even einstein admitted it as a hostile witness. That's not quote mining. How about searching. I don't know what words mean I'm not searching for papers using chat gpt and sending those links out as if they mean something That's another lie. So what actually why we saw it happen That's another lie. So what actually happened was I did ask chat gpt for extra sources once I couldn't find them. I reached out. This is what actually happened. I emailed brian I emailed brian mires and I said look, I can't find any of these papers used to be a professor Do you have like access to databases? Maybe these are old papers? They got pulled but you can find them or something I can't even verify if they're real. Can you help me find them? And then he sent them to mctoon mctoon did a video mctoon did a video and claimed that actually I claimed they were real It just went around claiming they were real and I had read them And now all the globes repeat that lie when actually I just reached out to a professor and said I can't tell if these are real It's funny how all the stuff you say about me requires you to lie. It's funny. How how'd mctoon get them? We got to move on because brian mires emailed that forwarded the email to mctoon and then mctoon lied Oh mctoon lied. I just specifically stated what happened All right, let's move on guys. I think we've uh called slander by the way when you call me a grifter in a con man That's also slander. Yeah, I think we've gotten as much out of that one skidmark McGee So, uh, let's try to carry on before we get ourselves in trouble. Alexander. Oh, I'll see That's kind of just an ad hom. So we're gonna move on from there. Sorry, Alexander But thank you so much for your support. Uh, it's not very productive. Mr. Lollipad says wits it Can you explain celestial navigation? Thanks for your first super chat Yes, again again So on the globe earth, right? They say that the stars look like they're dropping in the sky Just like perspective does to say street lights or the hallway But that it isn't because of perspective. It's because the stars are so far away That perspective doesn't make them change. It's because the earth is curving And since there's a celestial sphere around a curved earth and there's a linear relationship a one-to-one relationship So 60 or one degree per 60 nautical miles that the stars will change, right? They'll displace one degree every 60 nautical miles you go across the earth because the earth is curving at that rate Okay, but the flat earth would just be actually perspective does make the stars go down Just like we see them. It isn't the one exception in the universe where perspective all of a sudden stops working And then you would have the same relationship only it would be logarithmic over a plane surface with a visual limit as equidistant All right, uh, mr. Kai suggests that we don't use words that we use muppets our puppets instead. It's more effective Yeah, what's you're just using words, bro? That would be that would be fun though if we uh, we we animated a debate, you know We can do it with a i at this point and uh, other uh, you know auto uh auto video filters, but uh, let's just not all right, so uh lj says No, we read that one. Did you we're actually getting near the end? Look at that Ljolo says uh globers think witsit is just a good debater. This is true. The truth defends itself So is uh, let's go. Thanks to you witsit. Uh, well, it's just that the truth is easy to defend Let's see here witsit debating a mctoon on celestial navigation from allen Maybe my friend wanted to debate him specifically. He's got beef with him. I guess that's why I asked mctoon We gots the beef can just obsess with me once clicks like that's why I normally don't engage with them We gots the beef, but let's not take the tea. All right. Yes. I have bed bugs asks I don't want to say what a thing to make me say live witsit turns does witsit gets it my precious I'm I think they're just being rude. Uh, but that's their first super chat. So no just I don't care. I don't know what they were looking for. Rudolfo Garcia Uh, I have to work on my gallum impression now. Look at that. Do you have midnight sun in the flat earth model? It looks like you have nights every day in your model. Do you deny midnight sun in the south hemisphere? Uh, yeah, I don't I don't agree with that claim because I know I know people that Even one that worked for nasa was stationed there for six months said you do not see the sun in the sky for 24 hours Like we we've at now you claim to have one video or whatever You said that you could debunk all of them. Well one of the most famous ones that got millions of views on youtube They ended up coming out and admitting it was doctor because it was so blatantly the end was chopped on The end was added to the beginning and they admitted that they did it after we called them out That's a fact. So I know people that have been there. They say you don't see the sun for 24 hours You see light and it includes a former nasa employee that was stationed there for six months So I certainly don't deny it in the north And I would have to have verifiable evidence I'm trying to go to antarctica myself next December and I will see what happens and then when I don't see it You guys will all make excuses for it. I mean, we know how I go It's hard to listen to the lies like that. I mean, and if you're not lying, I feel bad, but I'm sorry globy That wasn't was for him and we'll tell those are all facts. Those are all facts. Yeah, they're not facts It's fucking 25 hours sun in the article. Exactly. That's okay. I'm doing this for you globy as a fellow I'm gonna bet a stack it was facts All right only sheeple asks for both what causes the shadow on the moon during the total lunar eclipse No, woo. Please explain clearly how it happens. Are you get 20 seconds each? You go first the globe blocks the sun Next You're presupposing that it's a shadow and I don't have to do that and you don't even need a spherical or circle Objects to cause that shadow you can use if it's a circle or sphere itself It's going to create that shadow regardless of what size it is or what shape what's blocking regardless of what shape it is and of course, um I don't think that it necessarily the other shadow I think it could just be an energetic cycle There could be something else in the sky and sell a million eclipse He bucks to claim that it's the earth blocking the light from the sun Certainly does as it does. All right. I've modeled the selling alien in my freaking living geometric impossibility I'll show the video right now Were you just cheating and claimed that it's really up in the sky? No, I modeled it with a globe and I simulated refraction and I caused the selling alien Yeah, just beg the question that works. Anybody can go to my tick tock and look at it tonight How much can refraction lift the sun and moon up above the horizon? Um, you want like a tape measurement measurement? It's maximum half a degree. It's plausible maximum half a degree All right, we got to move on guys diligent disciples says remember when an astronaut dropped a screw on iss Oh, no, no, that doesn't count A screw They've dropped all kinds of stuff. Oh, I know the screw the screw video. Yeah, I've debunked that as well The screw video. Maybe we should watch what we always say. No, I'm kidding. I'm just making bad company drop stuff on the ISS It wasn't a screw. It was uh, he was pulling a panel out He was a twist lock and they claimed that when he pulled it out. He dropped it like there's magical gravity Um, but you can slow it down and I have that also as well under I believe got a lot of flirt play playlist you can Uh, when you brighten up the video and stuff you can see the pin that leaves his hand Um, clearly showed the pin in his hand and if you follow the logic of the video, you'll see that He pulls the pin out He looks down never reaches down for anything But they think the looking down is him picking something up and he goes around And then you can see his hand never opens. He has the pin in his hand the whole time And he puts it back in and opens the panel Um, yeah, that was painful to listen to man. I'll show it right now. But again, you know, it's cool It's cool. You sound like you sound like a sleazy defensive attorney or something Because I took the video Uh, brightened it up so you could see what's not you're good, man. Yeah, yeah, you're good means I'm a sleazy defensive I don't even know I'm I'm saying you just sound like a defense attorney But like I don't know about the specific video. I mean, there's definitely dozens of videos that objectively they're using virtual reality augmented reality If they are you make no one's touching anything and things fall right in front of people Hey, they move and then greens behind them. Let me show you something just to the audience Hey, guess what guys do you see how there's virtual reality behind me? You see when I move you see stuff behind me Yeah, that's how virtual reality and green screens work. Yeah, you see how stuff that's what happens on the iss When there's crazy when there's digital signal loss, you get the same thing. No, you don't I literally watch my tv does that No, you don't say no, it doesn't anybody with tv with satellite tv has experienced that When you move behind you a green screen appears just directly where you are just placing the background never appears Okay, it gets pixelated and everything. No, it's green. I have it. I have it. Okay, sure you do We gotta move on. I'll look at not go. Wait. Wait. Let me say one thing Go look at nasa fried the last live stream on my channel. Good luck. All right. Yeah Thy messenger, uh, let me know in the live chat that I missed the chap. He said, uh, uh, Rob Schieba's work on atmospheric lensing due to heat temperature over water When you see boats cut in half the atmosphere is acting like a lens You sure we missed that one? I feel like we just always but Yeah, if you guys want to respond so yeah Any thoughts? Oh Yeah, light attenuation magnification turbidity and density humidity all these things are going to Lessen the information that's resolvable not to mention your angle resolution limit relative angles Things would have to disappear from the bottom up as it blends into the horizon the distance on a flat earth That's the most ironic part of all of it except we can't model that in any other scale Except you literally can you can't yeah, it's been done at university. I showed it on my channel Rayleigh criteria shows it actually doing the same exact thing. Oh cool. What video was that? Let me write that down Uh, I don't remember the actual university. Maybe it was uh it was uh I don't know. I remember I totally made it up. It's not on my youtube channel. You'd buy thousands of people at all All right, let's see here Robin page says the drop experiment has been done We're dropping a ball from great enough height shows the deflection from vertical due to the difference in angle Momentum sniper rifle fired north to south is same All right Is he is he saying something about courier was? Say it again. Maybe the drop experiment has been done. We're dropping a ball from a great height enough height shadows deflection From vertical due to the difference in angular momentum. There's no There's no commas in here guys. This is that wasn't I have no idea what he's saying Sniper fire a sniper rifle fired north to south is the same I'm trying. I mean if you're trying to say that if you drop an object free fall that the earth moves underneath it Then you don't understand your own Model so i'm not sure what you're talking about man, but uh, there is actually a drift over top of the earth Measurably increases with altitude Um, let's see Alexander L says what's it pulled up a paper that debunked him. He's Saying that you debunked yourself. So You just It just resorted just lying at this point The paper literally shows that interferometry Friendships measurements increase with altitude and change with the periodicity of the sun the moon in solar motion Objectively you saw the title of the paper go read it doesn't disprove or debunk me at all Boy, that's going to be a great sound bite. Well, I'm glad I was excited You know, this is one guarantee you won't take that sound bite show the paper and then clap right to the paper I guarantee you won't do it. Okay Well, I was gonna say uh, regardless of that, this has been a lot of fun And uh, we always appreciate it with it's a good nature and engaging with some of the chats that are a little bit more Pointed than what we may like or especially me the kind canadian host coffee converter asks What's the agi eccentric explanation for the measured Dernal and annual Doppler modulation of emr received from pioneer galaxies stars and cmb And crucially, why are all of these modulations received in phase at earth? I think they're asking that one to you. What's it? I didn't I didn't catch it or geocentric explanation. Sorry. Yeah. What's the geocentric explanation for the measured? So it's di you are an al diurnal and annual Doppler modulation of emr received from pioneer stars galaxies And cosmic uh background radiation or cmb. Sorry and crucially, why are all of these Modulations received in phase at earth? That's a lot I'd have to I'm I'm just gonna go to you and incredibly I'm going to be able to give you an incredibly subspecific Answered based on not being able to fully follow the question But there's a kinematic equivalence the your position in relation to the sky including the galaxy including the cmb all of that There's a kinematic equivalence So uh, I would have to like actually read to get the paper and see exactly you're talking about that seems like way too specific Look, I asked a crazy question. Sorry Austin. Uh, this question is actually they're asking. What's the geocentric explanation? So he's asked they're asking me right like oh, sorry. Yeah He's trying to imply that it's a proof of heliocentrism, and I'm saying What you're talking about the actual changes and how everything comes in phase in relation to the earth and relation to the cmb Etc like there's a kinematic equivalence. So there's nothing that's going to be moving out in space in relation to the earth That's going to be exclusive to heliocentrism If there is some other specific thing that like I'm not understanding about your argument You got to give me a break. I didn't I didn't follow it there, but uh, yeah email me or something I might have missed all the cuss words out of the email or I'm not going to respond All right, uh, let's carry on. Uh, yeah, yeah, keep it kind everybody. That's that's the key You know you catch all those catch all the flies with honey. That's the old saying Guillotine says it's so sad when flat earthers make the same mistakes atheists make by taking the bible to be literal If jesus used metaphors and allegories, why can't the rest of the bible and god bless? Okay, like what I don't I don't really know Practically any flat earthers that say the proof the earth is flat is the bible They found out that the globe is shrouded in lies and deception and that they're lying about the base and then they're like Maybe the bible is viable again That's it. And um, I would say, you know, if you think the creator wrote it or inspired it and claims to have made it And then describes what he made You turn around and say he said here's what I made and how I made it But it's all just not that the opposite is true Whatever bro, you know, you're doing mental gymnastics and I would say if you believe in it You should probably be pretty cautious of doing that if you actually think it's the words of the creator about whatever All right, eddy torres says globetrotter. How is it that 99.9 percent of visible universe is plasma, but the moon is a rock 45 How is it possible the moon's a rock? Well, it's solid. We've landed on it. We have samples of it Um, the craters cast shadows. You see these shadows If it was its own luminary with plasma or whatever you want to call it, it wouldn't have shadows on the crater exactly opposite the sun um Yeah, I don't know what else he wants Actually touching it is probably good proof, but All right Let us carry on then. Let me just stop the old timer there. Um, I am trying to keep this uh, like I said on uh on a good track here. So Uh ambient guitar music says uh question for globe. How is a full moon so bright edge to edge? That was a full moon so bright edge to edge The sun's reflecting off of it What's what's the what's the um, what's the issue there? Yeah, I think that there shouldn't be like an illuminated circle around the edge of the moon if it's just for a sphere reflecting sunlight Well, if you actually Adjust the isos it get a nice clear shot of the moon. It's not overexposed. You will see it's darker on the edges I don't know. I understand. I've seen what he's saying with my naked eye. I don't know that anything I would agree It probably doesn't look much darker, but if you actually adjust brighter properly Yeah, well it looks brighter than it is because it's all blurring together But if you zoom in with a telescope just the iso Got a nice Balance shot of it. You'll see that it's darker around the edges the same thing with the planets I actually asked me that the other day about jupiter But yeah, if you go look at shots of jupiter, they are darker around the edges. Oh, look, it's a cat. Yee-haw I love cats. All right, uh, rudolfo garcia Ask later on says to the moderator. Please don't skip my second question. You read this the first one twice I'm sorry. Uh, I asked a follow-up question on the flat earth model. I'm sorry So we had some speakers that stepped out for a second. There was a few buffering issues So, uh, I might have skipped around a little bit to try to find questions for other speakers. So once again, if I did miss your question Uh, that is my rolling excuse going forward So just to hold on and bear with me rudolfo while I find that follow up Rudolfo asks, do you have a midnight sun in the flat earth model? It looks like you have nights every day in your model Do you deny midnight sun in the south hemisphere? You read this one And he's You know what he missed it. He sent this he sent this later Um, that happens every once in a while. All right, so Now after all that scrolling My finger's gonna be so tired in the morning. I swear. All right Uh, rick rite says globy. Do we see in curved visual space no connecting flat earth to it? Do the textbooks say we see in curved visual space? No, the textbooks don't say that Okay, the fact that point perspective alone disproves that concept We see in straight lines We provably do not Approvably do not so we don't see straight off into the distance. We can't measure things straight. We can't see straight We can't in the foreground. Yeah and like intermediate range intermediate range. What's been proven Just been proven last time for globy Yeah, so the reason tests like the one I showed in the beginning work is because they're Short distances we can see in straight lines. Obviously We tend to build things straight all the time with measurements So not really sure where this crazy talk as we can't see straight lines comes from right x1 coming in for you What's it? Mr. Lollipad says what's it? Can you explain star rotation on a flat earth? Uh, yeah, man, you have a equidistant limit to how far you can see you have a huge like in my opinion like plane r parallel Expansive stars over the earth. So as you approach the edge of that, right? It's going to look like it's dropping down because everything that's going away from you looks like it's going down And so you're going to see it from an angle view and then as it's as it's towards the edge And you have your visual limit You're going to see like it converges like anti corpuscular rays since it's all rotating Anti clockwise counterclockwise You're going to see it do the opposite when you look the opposite way around that convergence point And therefore you would have it in all directions It all is mapped out on this bottle all of it's mapped out There's other explanations that some people resonate with but I think it's just visual It's just how you see it just makes perfect sense and it just matches all evidence So many people can deny Occam's razor says there's two celestial poles because earth's a sphere Now we care about Occam's razor, I guess. So I'm just using your own argument against you Oh, I agree. I agree in that scenario Until you understand that we can't see forever Then Occam's razor sounds better for the globe So I just closed the poll and we'll continue on with our final chats here everybody So the poll for who was the most compelling speaker? For Whitsitt, no doubt we had 54 percent For globey for sure. We have 39 percent and neither I like soy or I only like soy with 6 percent So a thousand of you were able to vote in the poll But less of you were able to hit the like button So what's going on with your fingers everybody? Can you just bring it down and just that would be great You can vote in the polls, but you can't hit that. What's wrong with you guys? Yeah, let's run through these things Let's roll. Oh, I was gonna say I'm keeping you guys on 45 seconds, but there's there's been so many but yeah I am near the bottom now. So Um, let's see crush bandicoot Hey, you know and mock on one of my favorite games How can you say, you know the size of Australia when the government has huge sections fenced off and guarded by the army? Because rabbits and dogs in quotes Is that for me? Yeah, yes. Well, I'm sorry late I wasn't even listening how saying how would you claim to know the distance of Antarctica if the government has huge portions? Uh marked off. Sorry, Austin. It was how can you say, you know the size of Australia? They say that's what I'm asked what I meant when the government has huge sections fenced off and guarded by the army because of rabbits and dogs cartography sailing around it I mean, I'm not familiar with Australia as far as anything being roped off because of dogs So I don't know if that's a trolling comment or not No, I I've I've never heard of that either, but I can imagine it's like crazy. They're my understanding The fact that you think we can't fly over it or sail around it and measure it is up to us Oh, but whenever we go the same distance allegedly, okay, whatever We're going to speed up. All right, because like I said, uh, the globy wanted to get out of here Way earlier and these questions just keep pouring. So I'm bringing the timer down to 25 seconds guys. We're keeping it to the one side Um skid marks McGee says once again Whitsitt claims are not evidence skid marks McGee get yourself some new underwear Wave don't like messing with those skid marks. Um, mr. Lollipad says whitsitt Why does it get colder the higher up we go in altitude? Since we are getting closer to the sun shouldn't it get warmer on flat earth 25 No, you could have the same exact answer that there's less heat transfer with less air And it could just be in a different medium above you even like outside different layers of containment or anything So it's the same answer As your model because it's basic physics, right? So yeah, there's less heat transfer with less of a medium All right next one mick chun says prove the image behind you globy is real and not CGI or composite 25 seconds I can't do that in 25 seconds. Um, but sorry about it. It's real All right, did I miss my chat's getting read july 8th sunlight? No, he no. Yeah, you did miss it twice. You did miss it. You did was stop messing with me I was going to say because No, no, no, he missed. Yeah, his answer was just that the population lives in in a smaller area on the globe Okay, I was going to say because uh, yeah, there are there are sometimes so many questions and uh, I have asked a lot Of super chats in my time here with modern day debates sometimes and I'll just kind of All right, mr. B asks so no actual formula then grab it and ready to post on next super chat Okay Not sure what that's in reference to it might have been something we were talking about earlier, but uh, you know Where to find our speakers jackson hemmer says wits it if I fly my drone in the air and show you the curve and show You how objects appear beyond the curve will you concede 25 seconds? Hey So that's gonna be him. He's asking if he showed you his drone wits it Uh, I was showing the curve, uh, would you concede? Concede what no, I'm not gonna concede that lenses in pose curvature when I have high optical balloons way higher than a drone so What I concede what that lens and pose curvature and that the out the horizon rose with the drone Sure, I can see that You by the way, the answer is for the globe that perspective rises the horizon up Even though it's going down away from you and half the globers don't know they have to say that the smart ones do And they openly do a lot of them say no, uh, it's like no It absolutely does rise with you because of perspective perspective exists on the globe also So you guys can John Smith says but it also drops John Smith coming in says maybe modern day debate could have gloves off debates on occasion where both debaters and Moderator agree to read all super chats could be extra entertaining Uh, I usually read almost all of them even the extra spicy ones except for the There was one there was one wasn't there with it that I was like and you saw it too We just can't yeah, no, it's like trying to get the channel struck. I don't know about any more Yeah, yeah, let's not do that. Uh, it's no fun Jackson Hemmer says I love modern day debate, but every time we have a debate on this topic We go off the rails. It's a slap in the face of my entire career I'm an astro a photographer and I use the earth's curve all the time You objectively do not use the earth's curvature to take pictures of the sky So that's just ridiculous if you want to talk about an equatorial mount You haven't understood how that doesn't prove the earth is curving Removing and I encourage you to look into it my brother, but you can 100 look at the sky with astrophotography without Counting for earth being a ball. That's insane to say something Scared to ask why you would have to equatorially Align in the southern hemisphere on a flat earth All right, that's it. We've already talked about azimuthal grid is how you made all the measurements And that's what he would be talking about is like, oh, well, I can look at the relative angles and know where I'm at And I assume for the curvature is like no, we just talk about the logarithmic relationship on a plane Let's carry out Benjamin Scott since my question was meant misunderstood. What's it? Why on July 8th is 95 of the population in sunlight when experimentation has shown this is impossible He's asking me that question. Yes. Yes Okay Okay, it's not impossible at all if the vast majority of the world's population lives in the north You have a local light source over a plane. It can be completely 100 replicated If you're asking me To say why it can't work on a globe. I would say it's the physical geometric distribution of the light Not the actual people that see it I don't know if he's trying to get me to answer why it doesn't work on a globe or why it wouldn't work On a fighter either way. I did but let's go. All right. Let's continue any torus. I did ask your question A couple of them. We're just waiting for you guys to get down the list here. So Sorry, if you got impatient and you were asking me in the live chat, but we got there I killed Earl asks. I don't know where that equation came from but the r slash times r plus h equals sign Times angle the radius is different at the equator Then at the poles. So the radius in the paper is incorrect in either direction Any thoughts Well, who who is it? Who is it for? They're saying I don't know this uh, this is from iKillDurall. They said I don't know where that equation came from But uh r slash bracket r plus h bracket equals sin plus angle bracket Okay, just reading it long form there any thoughts. What does it say after that? It says something about it being different uh equatorial and at the poles Yeah, the radius is different at the okay at the poles. So the radius in the paper is incorrect Okay, it was about when I yeah when I showed that that you can use the angular resolution limit of the i to get Alleged radius of 3958.8 in their stand But the distance at the radius is different and the poles in the equator and I'm like, what is it different 13 miles 13 miles different that wouldn't change the curvature rate out of 4,000 miles anyway that wouldn't change this at all the angular resolution limit reverse engineer gets you the mean radius of the earth Which is 3958.8 All right Let's carry on Ian McKenna says please discuss the haversine formula in mathematic terms Thanks by 25 seconds Haversine Haversine haversine haversine Oh, what was the question? Sorry. What was it? Sumi's asking you Explain that I have a sign formula Yes, it actually does it actually falls apart uh on non-local application And again, you could just flip it over with the curvature of the of the sky All just reverse engineered from the eye. It's very simple reverse engineered. I mean you can plug into gps coordinates and That's how we made the globe model my brother and pop out the radius number That's how we made the hammer. We're at time there asks america lend it or sorry. They're Making a declaration, but I'll read it jackson hammer. Thanks for your third super chat says america landed on the moon yesterday Go americans. By the way, this proves the earth is round. We can see it Well, thanks for that. We're not going to go down that one Because we will get you guys back For that exact thing. I'm sure that'd be something we can entertain run boston bear asks What's it? Will you please explain how we see in straight lines close? And what happens at great distances 25 seconds? Yeah, so whenever we see closer we can use euclidean geometry with like decent reliability But as we get closer and closer To the convergence or the limit of our perspective where things begin to converge the distance What happens is things from the top converge down things from the bottom converge up and From the sides converge into that vanishing point in front of you So it just starts to curve and compress into the distance has been proven by many different universities by By super advanced robotics updating their learning methods. So until you get out to the extremities That's when it becomes more of a curved logarithmic function It begins to compress into each other at the edge of your visual limit Which is exactly how we measure this guy for all recorded history All right Oh, let's see. I have one other message about a miss super chat So I'll ask this one that I got here from the same person and then we'll dig around Run boston bear says what's it? Will you please explain how we see? Just read that Eric, I'm going to look for that other one though One guys that you asked about in the super in the live chat Eric waters says if the earth isn't rotating, why does the sun set? So if the earth isn't rotating, why is the sun set? That's for you. What's it 25 seconds? Because it gets so far away that you can no longer see same thing. They actually again Just hijacked the fact we can't see forever said that we can't see forever And then said the reason that we don't see forever is because the earth is curving the angle resolution limit of the I once again was reverse engineered to give you the radius value If you take the angular resolution angle of the I you get exactly 3,958.8 mile radius If you assume that the earth is a ball that's blocking you they reversed how far you can see It just gets it goes too far away into the distance And then you say if it's not spinning because the sun is moving instead of the earth moving Which is what we actually experience the sunset time change depending on atmospheric conditions It does sometimes It does Even your model claims it that's amazing. We can predict the sunset 10 years from now on a certain day. No, your model claims it changed for all fellas It's called it's called a astronomical refraction up to 0.5 degree lift 0.5 that has nothing to do with what i'm talking about Yes, your model claims the sun is already underneath the earth when you see it setting and it changes how much it gets Lifted up talking about refraction. Okay. Yeah, so that would change the sunset time. Yeah, would it Would it would a would a thick atmosphere cause the sun to set way sooner than a non-thick I know you added way sooner to it in a desperate attempt to cope. So let's move on I'm not coping with anything There would be no way to predict the sunset next week, let alone 10 years from now on a flat earth That's incorrect. We have an azimuthal grid of vision. So we have a personal celestial sphere So we know what the weather is doing 10 years from now. We have an equidistant limit to our perspective. It would be very consistent Oh, very good. What's that limit again? I forget roughly 4,000 miles 4,000 miles. Yeah, interesting Okay, how you know brother Well reverse engineer the eye That's what you did your model is a belief system reverse engineering how we see it's a fact Sure, it is. So I know it must be a rough tough pill to swallow man. All right. So we're very tough to swallow before we spiral completely so Yeah, the question that I was accused of missing there from run Boston bear because we've been a little bit all over the map Just trying to like I say filling questions depending on where people are But we did ask the question about the salad earlier and had some Fun with that. So we'll carry on run Boston bear If you missed it go on back and check it out Padme said we missed the one on flat earth where countries and areas would be able to see an eclipse at the same time It doesn't match reality explain without the sophistry I feel like we did this one as well But they said right now in the live chat that we missed it. So if you want to go Is it man? Can you something? Sorry, man? They're coming at me in the comments too. What was it? What was it? Yeah, yeah, you could always come in with some of the comments pad made the cat says on a flat earth More countries and areas would be able to see an eclipse at the same time It doesn't match reality explain without the sophistry 25 seconds We have a visual limit to how far we can see in each direction. It's equidistant It's the azimuthal grid that we use to measure the sky the globe claims the same exact measurements in the same exact Dome grid they claim that the reason that it cuts office because the earth is curving as opposed to just having a visual limit So no, you would not be able to see it forever. It's just a baseless claim It's called a strawman fallacy because you're coping that you can't say the earth's not flat unless you make up Some ridiculous model and then add Euclidean trig to perspective lines that can see forever and then claim flat earth isn't possible We are out of time and what we shall do is if you guys would like Would you like a minute or two to do your closing? Up to him, man. I think we've heard everything and we even need closings. Maybe so. Yeah, we need a minute closing You go first That's cool. Yeah, yeah, I like doing the I went first so he should go I you know, I like doing that and I got called out for that in texas for Doing it that style, but yeah, well flipping it around I did yes, and I think that's cool So globy one minute on the floor if you don't mind your closing thoughts on our discussion tonight and where everybody can find you Sure, uh, you can find me here and on tiktok same thing globing flow phase um One minute conclusion. I so I think we've determined a you can't measure flat earth. It's never been done We claim it's plain surveying measures flat earth I keep asking for a measurement of flat earth can't find one So so yeah, we can measure curved earth Right, we we can measure earth's rotation right and the refutations that come from flat earth are always these Random claims of a paper that can't be found or that don't reference the thing we've referenced And that supposedly debunks everything that that's been done in science Uh random claims that our site is limited to 4 000 miles with no backup to that either It's just it's a bunch of random claims that that quite frankly are excuses um Southern celestial poles The sunset angles as we went over earlier All those things are just so simple and they only work on a globe Not to mention actual earth's measurements as I showed in the beginning so again, um Yeah, I think the flat earth just has denial of globe. They don't never have any flat earth proof Which is fine. I get it. You're trying to falsify the model, but Um, I guess I'll just keep waiting for that flat earth proof All right. Well, thank you globy mcglobe base for being here at modern day debate We appreciate you hanging out and having this discussion and this debate With austin. What's it austin one minute on the floor? It's all yours So we talked about how actually the globe earth is claiming that the opposite of everything we experience is true it has the burden of proof And uh can't instantiate that it's rotating or that it's wobbling or that it's orbiting and actually all have In its points of effect that we're in the center of the universe And they claim it's just an illusion and that the earth looks like it's flat And that's just an illusion and that the sun looks like it's moving but that's just an illusion We covered how they actually just reverse engineered the eye the angular resolution limit of the eye will give you the supposed radius of this globe What a coincidence the world's craziest coincidence ever that their limit to your eye will give you 3958.8 mile radius If you assume it's actually curvature of the earth blocking how far you can see It's such a coincidence that it give you that exact value We did go over flat earth measurements. We went over specular reflections. They were deflected We showed that you can do all astronomical observations and positions. We have an entire working flat earth model We found out they hijacked how we see And then they claimed that the earth is a sphere because we actually can't see forever And that's the biggest key to all of this and once you figure that out you realize That's how we made the globe in the first place. Welcome to flutter All right Well, thank you to both of our speakers for being here tonight at modern day debate Big round of virtual applause if you haven't already Smacked the like button around we'd appreciate that if you're hanging out in the live chat And uh, we're gonna let our speakers go because we went a little bit long So, uh, I'll I'll put on some tunes where I scream at you and I'll let these fellas go So thanks for coming out to modern day debate. Cheers everybody Yo everybody welcome To a little bit of preamble at the end Which is thank you for hanging out and thank you to the mods in the live chat For doing everything that you guys do Super appreciate everybody and keeping a cordial in the live chat super super duper appreciate that I think it was a really fun and amicable debate And if you haven't already hit the bell for the notification For the debate coming up on friday We're gonna have president sunday going up against luke and it's going to be a good creationism versus evolution debate So definitely make sure you pop that and we'll hopefully see you there Just checking out what you guys are saying in here In the old live chat The ball got popped. Uh, I thought that's not referenced what I just said Oh, let's see Oh, yeah, but honestly like I popped in the live chat a few times and I was pretty surprised. I was like, hey, you know what? Despite there being so many people hanging out It seems that we had a really behave crew everybody was making a lot of commentary debated, you know Uh, you know related to what we were talking about. So, uh, we do appreciate, uh, you know, you guys having the input there And uh, love seeing uh, like I said lots of engagement in the live chat So once again hit the notifications for those debates if you didn't see the debate that happened the other day It was it was spicy. It was It was interesting. Um, you know, you might look at ol rye and say well, gee I don't know if he knew what to do right there. I might have been scratched my head a few times So if you want to have some fun, uh, go check out the debate that we did just the other day Uh, I think that would be uh We'll call it a palate cleanser from this That's that's my joke of the day. So, uh, yeah, let me close it on out here guys and uh, thanks you Thanks everybody for so much. Uh, I think it's been about a year that I've been here with modern day debates So, uh, just so pleased to be here pleased to be working with james, uh, you know, you guys are the best And very happy with the connections that I've made through modern day debate. Um, you know Just just good time. So, uh, let's look forward to another great year of hosting debates and uh, seeing who else we can find to get on the show Uh, so yeah, if you have a speaker that you're interested in getting on the show Or if you want to be on the show, you can email us at modern day debate at gmail.com That's how you get a hold of james, uh, or if you want to get a hold of me Because uh, you know james is sometimes busy doing his schoolwork and whatnot and uh, I can sometimes find a little pocket of time that I can Work with people to get them on. Uh, you can email me at bc.adt at outlook.com. So, uh, check that out and uh, Yeah, thanks everybody and uh, have a great night. Cheers