 Ladies and gentlemen thrilled to have you here for another epic debate here at moderated debate We host debates on science religion and politics and we try to do it in the most fair way possible So everybody has their shot to make their case on an equal playing field And we are very excited as we have many more debates coming up So if you love debates, especially on hot topic, you know hot button type of issues Consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more to come Including tomorrow, so that should be a fun one and a couple of housekeeping Announcements upfront before we get rolling with the debate very excited folks to mention a couple of things first Oh, actually several things. So first you'll see on the far right side of your screen, right? There it is over there is on the far right side of your screen You will see all of the podcast apps that we are on right now. We are invading the world of podcasts This is in addition to being on YouTube. We just got approved for iHeart radio and Google podcasts So those should be over there on that list as well And if you can't find us on your favorite podcast, let us know we will work on getting on there And want to let you know as well, we are very excited a lot of people if you didn't know this I just learned this myself very embarrassing is that some people were saying hey Are you guys getting censored or like shadow banned by YouTube something like that because I'm subscribed But I don't always get notifications There are three steps if you always want to get a notification you have to hit subscribe then hit that little bell picture and then it'll give you a little drop-down menu and you can choose How often you want to get notifications? So the default is it'll only Choose some of the uploads to let you know about and so that's why you're sometimes not getting Notifications, even if you're a subscriber, so you'll just have to click all if you want all so also very excited Want to let you know For tomorrow's debate, it's gonna be a real we've got two really hot button issues And I want to let you know if anybody knows LG are I have to issue. I've just got to come clean now It's it's this is embarrassing as well LG are if you're listening if anybody knows LG are want to apologize. I Jokingly I have no idea. I didn't know who LG are is I just learned today I used LG ours picture in a thumbnail thinking that like oh It's just a person who would never see it anyway, and it was never meant to be a personal jab So just want to let you know that if you're out there LG are as a total mistake was never trying to infer or I should say imply anything about you or anything like that So I have put myself in that thumbnail instead and with that we are excited folks as this is going to be a fun one We're gonna have Austin going first with a five to ten minute opening statement followed by Tom and then open discussion We'll have Q&A at the end So feel free to fire your questions into the old live chat and with that let's get right into it So thanks gentlemen for being here. It's a true pleasure to have you both Tom and Austin So let me first just say thanks and welcome. We're glad you're here Glad to be here Thanks, absolutely so with that Austin the floor is all yours. Thanks for being here Cool. Yeah, I didn't like make a presentation or anything, but I will break it down Hopefully this will be pay attention to it'll save us some time. It'll be productive conversation. So one thing I always say before I debate which always gets overlooked every time is When you make a positive claim you have the burden of proof the globe Earth makes positive claims and Portrays them to be definitive reality. So you have the burden of proof if you don't want to accept that literally doesn't change it, right? So falsification is independent of replacement and what normally happens is As opposed to defending the definitive physical claims the globe model makes we get shifting the burden of proof fallacies But it's like well, how how do pancakes work on a flat earth? And that isn't the issue falsification is independent of replacement. So I don't need to explain every aspect of existence That isn't me hand wave dismissing Any any obligation anything like that, but it is objective So simply if we could get to this middle ground concession, maybe it'd be more productive than some of these things are but The globe Earth makes physical positive claims, right and so then in order to validate those we would look at the Natural sciences the study of the physical world We would hold them to those standards to see if they can be validated Empirically because they are physical claims. They are not Philosophical claims metaphysical claims. They're making physical claims about the earth, right? Or radiuses or comforts orbital trajectories the medium is encompassed in et cetera and As far as I know There are no physical demonstrations That can be presented to even show the potentiality of the globe Earth's claims, right? So show me water spinning Adhering to the exterior of a spinning spherical object. So that is actually your claim So you need to at least show it's possible in the physical realm You know show us where gas pressure can exist for what a physical containment. That is one of your physical claims So if we go through the physical claims of the globe Earth and we can have some physical demonstrations like the orbital trajectory of Spherical bodies based on proportionate mass or bindi spacetime, whatever you want to say Then we can at least accept it as a feasible Postulation, but we do not just have to blindly support and believe whatever it is that you claim is the causation of observations in the sky Etc. And then until we replace the fairy tale the fairy tales true. So that's really simply My baseline he say didn't really know my stance that is my stance. I do not claim a definitive model We don't have access to all the information to to make a definitive claim as to a mapping out of our model But what we do know is that we falsify the globe Earth the globe Earth does not uphold to you know Empirical scrutiny so you need to substantiate that that's what we live on and then I'm happy to go into the discussion whatever direction it goes in but we hopefully we can keep that intellectual honesty as some parameters so the conversation we productive it doesn't happen typically and of course fallacious reasonings never accepted so I'll be forced to call it out when it's when it's presented But yeah, it's pretty much it just inclusion simply falsifications independent of replacement So we're trying to see if there's any physical empirical evidence the earth is in fact this this globe You got it. Thanks so much and want to give you a quick notification folks that I put the links of the speakers in the Description for you in case you're listening and you want to hear more they're right there for you So Tom the floor is all yours. Thanks as well Yeah, thanks for having me so Yeah, we know the earth is globe and not flat Because we can see it we can literally just fly up in space and see it We've put satellites in the air and we can see it We can use telescopes to see the international space station and other satellites we put into the atmosphere and we can just literally just calculate the magnification of the telescopes and The size of the object we're looking at to know how far away it is So we can see that they're exactly how far away they are said to be And the exact size they're said to be And so we can know that they can take pictures and just the camera essentially and so Without some kind of crazy conspiracy theory, we can just see the pictures of the earth being around not a problem There's also lots of things you can do on earth to demonstrate that the earth is a globe and not flat like one as you can To make a big-ass pendulum and you place it in the northern hemisphere and it'll it'll like and start it moving It'll start to rotate to the right or to the Clockwise and if you put it in the sub hemisphere and you do the same thing It'll rotate counterclockwise and if you put it on the equator and do the same thing It won't rotate either way It'll just go back and forth the entire time now if you try to replicate this on just like a piece of cardboard You're gonna have some problems like how do you're gonna get one of the pendulums on one side to rotate one way with the other one Rotating the other way no one in the center going straight doesn't make any sense Is if you try to move the cardboard in a uniform way if it was flat then they're all gonna rotate in the exact same direction and That's kind of a problem for the flat earth model It's pretty easy to make to make sense on a globe earth model Because oh one's on the top of the earth one's on the bottom one's in the center. So it makes perfect sense This also these rotations of these page loans also match the rotations of the stars Coincidentally if we look up on the number it's north hemisphere rotates clockwise down on the southern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise and rotate and on the Equator it just rotates straight Stars go all the way across this crime just like the Sun does essentially So all of those things match on the globe earth model which make absolutely no sense on the flat earth model Apparently the sky is rotating in different directions depending on where you are on the flat earth. It doesn't really make a great deal of sense Hurricanes also follow the exact same pattern most hurricanes and tornadoes rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere The magnetic field like we can do magnetic field testing where we know if you take two magnets you rub them together You get this magnetic field Which is a bubble shape and we can measure the magnetic field of the earth with like compasses and things So we know that the shape of the earth is round because the magnetic field is that shape Just like any of the magnetic fields we create the small ones with our hands just rubbing magnets together We would be the same shape as the big one around the earth So the world is flat. It's gonna create this very very strange dome shaped magnetic field that doesn't make any sense But in the globe earth it makes perfect sense It just looks like the same as all the other magnetic fields we make we just rub magnets together So obviously the magnetic field around the earth is a this what it would be if it was a globe shape So it's you just do that experiment take two magnets from together done The east-west effect is where we can measure the ionic particles or ionic radiation from the atmosphere I mean, you know, they come more from the west than from the east this if we're on a flat earth it doesn't really make a lot of sense because Maybe we're just moving like in one direction more than the other possibly as possible But or we're just on a globe earth and it's spinning and which just makes more sense Which is why that particles are coming from one way easier than the other way Seismic measuring of earthquakes when the way earthquakes have different kinds of Waves when they have when they occur they have p-waves f-waves and L-waves So we can measure the difference between these waves on different Locations that are measuring the earthquake. So if the farther away you are the longer the distance between the different waves But if we're on a flat earth, they should all be the exact same because Earthquake happens in one location and the first wave and the second or third wave Then the rate that they travel across the ground should be the same for all three waves Unless the world is curved in which case that since the waves are traveling through the earth The ones that are the lower ones will actually happen faster than the ones that are on the top Which will actually take longer since the distance between the two Measurement things are actually closer together on a curved surface and on a flat surface So then the difference in time between these three waves actually makes sense on a curved surface It doesn't work on a flat surface So there's another way we can measure that the earth is curved the shadow on the move and the shadow on the moon is a Pretty good evidence that earth is curved Because the earth gets in between the Sun and the moon and creates a shadow Like you just take a light bulb Take a tennis ball and then take a golf ball and you can replicate the moon the shadow on the moon Just like you can on earth so that it makes sense that if the golf that if the tennis ball is the earth Put it in between the flashlight or the light bulb and the golf ball You get a shadow on it the same as with we see on the moon So we get the same testable results. We can say oh hey this stuff We're seeing the observations that we're seeing from the shadow on the moon are the same as the observations from the tennis ball blocking the light From the golf ball. Oh my god evidence the world is round. Oh experiments. You can do in your home. Yeah We he asked for evidence that we can see that there's water and stuff that's on a ball in space We have lots of evidence of that we can just just look at this planets Saturn Schubert Venus those are gas giants Well, Venus is gas body gas or gas giant But we can see there's gas gas is less dense than water and we can see gas can stay in space pretty easily on a round ball We know all they're round cuz we can literally see them and we know it's gas because we can take Gas liquids and solids put them into a container and see how they interact and we can compare the shape and way they Move to the shape in the way the things move on the planets We're seeing today. Oh look. Yep. Those are definitely gas. Definitely not liquid. Definitely not solid and we can also measure the using the light measurements see what kind of light reflects off them enough to get what is called informatic something or another So we can see that they're gas and they're on a ball in space not a problem So we can literally see that this happens So it makes sense to hey it's happening there and all of those other planets It's also probably happening here on our planet. That makes sense Another way we can test that the earth is around as we can see the the adverse effects which can measure the rotation of the earth It measures like we can say that the Cinderpoint of rotation of the earth is underneath the ground somewhere not on the surface So it can't really be flat Because the road it has to be rotating Around a point beneath the earth unless the flat plane has got kind of going around like this something and the flat earth is Rotating around a big empty space instead of an actual ball Just means that the world's round You can build a neutrino emitter like a neutrino matters If you have enough money you can build one or build two on two different sides of the planet And in order to send a signal from one to the other you have to shoot it down through the earth If it was the earth was flat you'd have to shoot it straight So we know that the world is round because in order for the neutrino emitter to send a signal to the other neutrino You got to point it down not straight We can measure the difference in gravity on different parts of the world. So if we are standing at the northern hemis for the southern hemisphere the gravity is actually Measurably less than if we're standing on the equator for saying on the equator It's more if we're standing on the northern hemis for the southern hemisphere The gravity is measurably more than if we're standing on the equator if the flat earth model is true that makes no sense Unless gravity affects just the middle part of the earth Different than the edges. I don't I don't know how that works But if we're on a globe it makes perfect sense because the globe is spinning like a baseball We could just take a baseball spin it and then you add like a little Needle with a string on it and you can actually see that the the the string is actually going around Further if there's in the middle of the spinning part of the ball And it's not going around as much to the top of the bottom So we can test that on earth just take it basic take a baseball stick a needle in it with string And you can oh, hey, we can replicate what we see about the measurement of gravity on the earth there easy Another way to test the earth is round you can just buy a plane Fly straight in a line just pick a direction fly exactly straight in the line And if you fly for 40,000 kilometers, you'll end up exactly back where you started That I don't think it's physically possible on a flat earth unless you have like some kind of Doctor who teleportation devices Not really every possible another way to measure the earth is round is that the earth's poles moves like a Magnetic poles can move they do move and we can measure how they move and they matter the move in a big spirally shape Wonder why that is like if it's on the virals flat Then why why is the matter pole moving in a giant spirally shape must be something that's traveling in a spherical shape to do that and so either There's some kind of sphere below the earth causing the magnetic thing to be there and spinning in a circle in a ball shape or The earth is globe. That's her globe makes a lot of sense The segment effect is another one which measures the rotation speed of different points on earth You can like go to the point of earth and measure the speed of rotation and at the north pole It's as zero essentially and if the flat earth is right Then the closer you get to the south pole the faster it'll get the speed of rotational increase But for some reason that the equator it increases up until a crater and then after the equator starts decrease go go down so either the the middle of the earth on the flat earth model is spinning faster and The outside of the earth is feeling slower like a lot slower like in the opposite direction to get zero rotation or The world to glow makes more sense The earth Austin experiment proves the world is Globe just the Building big pillars straight up in different locations show the shadow effect of the earth We should be measured have a different predictive result if the world is flat around it's definitely round We can also show the world is round from the looking at supernovas like supernova 1987 And it is not as far away as other things in the universe But it can only be seen from certain from the southern hemisphere So if the world is flat then everyone in the world will be able to see it But because it's only seeable from the southern hemisphere that means that it can't be flat It means that some part of the world is curved away from the others since we can see things farther away from the other Locations, so it doesn't make any sense to say the world's flat There's also a bunch of other things you just go to a hundred proofs of the earth is a globe Don't take it on faith and that would be sufficient Want to say thank you very much both of you gentlemen We'll jump into the open conversation mode and want to let you know folks no matter what walk of life You are from whether you take the globe position or the flat position We really do hope you feel welcome here as we really do want to be as non-partisan and fair as possible So with that we'll jump into this conversation that the floor is all yours gentlemen. I'm sure this is going to be an exciting one Yeah, actually, I'd like to start. I wanted to mention his introduction. Yeah He's right a negative position doesn't hold the same burden of proof as a positive position So if he's just saying like if he's an aglobist where you're saying he doesn't think the world is a globe because the evidence doesn't support it That position would not be the same as saying the world is flat if you're saying the world is flat That's a positive claim that holds a burden of proof that you need to substantiate The title of the bait was like globe or flat earth So if he's not actually defending the flat earth and he's just saying the globe earth isn't supported by evidence those are two different claims and Just want to be clear. Are you just claiming the aglobus position not the flat earth position? No, no, no Well, if there it isn't curved anywhere, then it's flat flat the general description. It's not a shape So yeah, I'm saying the globe earth is falsifiable You have the burden of proof to prove that proved that my only positive claim is a general description of the surface being flat Which I can't substantiate it's void of physical obstruction Assistated by the rate of curvature of your globe model, but also just to respond to your whole introduction of fest In short, no There's not one single physical demonstration that you presented out of all of that that shows physical claims You did things like point to the sky and said since we know that Jupiter is a gas planet or something a gas in a vacuum since we know what the sky is based on what we said It is and assumed it is that's how we know the earth's a ball in addition You said something about a magnetic field wouldn't work on a flat earth What so you can look at the magnetic flux macked up over a plane and it goes around the center of the plane And in fact they have to rodeo manifestations. The earth could be an inertial plane. You're presupposing nothing below it No, I don't know so once I forgive me for interrupting. I'm so sorry about that We do have a volume difference to where If Austin if you're able to help me by turning yours just a bit down and then Tom if you're able to turn yours Just a bit up and then I think we'll probably be at about equal. Thanks for that feedback folks in the chat. Appreciate that Is that better hopefully? Yeah, turn mine down a little bit. Yeah, you're about the same Austin. You're slightly louder yet, but Thanks so much guys. I appreciate that Testing testing perfect All right. So yeah, the magnets thing is if we take two Magnets and rub them together we get a magnetic field and we can measure the shape of the magnetic field. We can see what the shape is Yes, so if we look at that on a flat earth And we can we can we can measure the actual shape of the magnetic field on earth We can just use compasses and other devices to show what the shape is and if we map that out onto a flat plane Then the shape isn't the same as when we're rubbing two magnets together It's like if we rub it together and then it starts to bend It's not even so if the magnetic field around of the flat earth If the earth is flat then the magnetic field is a completely different shape than every other magnetic field We make when we rub it together How so actually you don't have to rub magnets together right like you can take okay I think okay, awesome. If you're able to turn yours up just a bit. I It's maybe a bit too low. Is that all right? All right. We'll get there Okay, so again the shape of the magnetic field is demonstrably different than if the world is flat. How is that wrong? Yeah, yeah, it's just patently false. That's how it's wrong. So I'm explaining so if you have a neodymium boron iron Magnet before you turn it to a magnet you're gonna introduce electrical voltage can turn into a magnet It's gonna have a magnetic field just sitting there. We don't need your rubbing magnets together. It's magnetic It has a field. Yeah, obviously, there's different ways to grab now. Okay. There's just a way to generate electricity So what is how does that show? I'm sure I'm I'm actually getting there. So we know magnetism manifests Torodial You are saying that can't happen on a flat earth and I just explained No, I didn't say it can't happen It wouldn't happen the same way right the earth would be the inertial plane You do know that a magnetic field has an inertial plane through the center Okay, so if there was a Torodial energy Manifestation above and below symmetrically with an inertial plane that is exactly how it would happen Okay, that's not what I said I said we can actually measure what the shape of the the field is like on earth We can see what is the shape of the field the shape of the field is the exact same shape of the Ones of any matter we rub together or create a lecture of force on anyway Anyone that we create like the field it's the same shape if the world is round if the world is flat It's not the same shape. You can't just say that You're taking the magnetic data wrapping it around the presupposition of a spherical earth And then you're telling me that it matches and you're saying it couldn't work on a flat earth I just explained how it Objectively can work on a flat earth and a magnetic flush goes perfectly around the center of a plant No, you didn't so again if we're on I For on the planet we can measure where the gravitational or the magnetic field is actually traveling can measure where where's the North Pole Where's the South Pole and we can say well What is the shape of the magnetic field around the earth you can measure it? We can like use magnets and Compasses to actually say well, where is the magnetic field? But where does where do the curves go? Where's the where is this? What is the shape of the field now if the world is flat the shape is a bunch of bubbles A bunch of up and down bubbles in random places on the earth That's that's what the shape is if the world is flat if you curve it out like a ball Then it makes perfect sense it looks exactly like every other magnetic field that we have if you measure magnetic fields with compasses and then You measure magnetic fields with compasses and then you wrapped it around the ball no So that's what you're saying world is flat We can measure what the magnetic field is and if the world is flat then the magnetic field has these big bumps in it for So for no reason on on the world if the world is flat And why why is it going up and down here for no reason doesn't make any well It's all manifestations within the overall to rodeo magnetic field and the earth is the inertial plane If we look at us means something no because again if we look at every single magnetic field small ones that we create with magnets They have a very specific shape There's there's a big bump over here is a big bump over here. There's a tour row. Yes So so it has this shape now on a flat earth There's a problem because we can see this shape on the world We can measure this shape on the world, but it's kind of like this There's a problem because now you have magnets everywhere There has to be a magnet on every single point on the planet different magnets to create different fields in order to explain that or The world is globe Okay, well you have to cite to me where you took compasses and measure the magnetic field and that it wasn't it's part of a bigger Manifestation like that. It's obvious. Yeah, cuz compasses don't measure Magnetic fields. Yes, they do. So we could just we can move on. I've made my point the way I just disproved your argument. You haven't cited it. You're making a broad claim. It's just I just proved disproved your argument No, you did what I preface the argument the debate by saying you can't shift the burden of proof to a strawman model and tell me since you Didn't strawman anything so again the argument is is that if we look at a magnetic field It has a shape a particular shape if you measure the shape of the magnetic field around earth It also has a shape and I asked how do you do that? Can you cite it? You said compasses that's family false of different ways now with compasses. So you're an idiot. So again That's just one way to measure a magnet. I'm gonna be north points to the south. Yes That's what compasses do they measure the magnetic field. That's what they're reading. Yeah Well, yeah, you want me to explain how compass works they point north they don't measure the magnetic field Oh my god, you're an idiot if it points north then it's reading something to point north Is it okay? So now you know the central point source of the magnetic tour rodeo manifestation It has an inertial plane that could act as the earth military declassified documents assuming electromagnetic Let me let me respond. You have to keep cutting off work. You have to keep cutting now Let's hear from electro magnet electromagnetic propagation over a flat earth assuming a dielectric plane and used for practical usability for direct energy weapons So you're saying that when it comes to practical usability that assumptions utilized But the reading of the magnetic flux itself isn't consistent with that and I'm asking you to cite it And you're just saying you don't have to say Okay, well, we can literally measure the shape of the electric field We can literally measure the shape of electric fields on small magnets If they're the same which magnetic fields or magnetic fields They all have the same shape then there's a problem for your model because on the earth model There's these funny little donut shape bubbles everywhere. Whereas on the letter model. Are you talking about? just any if fourth if the world is flat and we are measuring what the The shape of the magnetic field is and we assume the world is flat We apply the shape of the magnetic field to a flat earth. Then you get all these bubbles. There's a problem Wouldn't you have to know how big the earth is? No, you wouldn't have to know so how far out are you measuring this magnetic field? Where does it stop being measured? How do you apply that proportionately to land layup? The oceans and things where we've measured continent stuff You would have to know how far you you would you would have to know the proportionate relationship of the electromagnetic field I don't think you understand logic here So I understand you're claiming that it manifests the way that's in Possible on a flat earth. I'm asking you to provide some evidence of how so so again It's like if it doesn't matter how big the earth is we can just assume It's 10 feet is getting at the same result because you get the same measurement if the world is 10 feet or 10 billion miles Wherever the points are but we're measuring no matter how far away. They are you still get the same shape a bubble shape Just the problem because it's not the same shape as the magnetic fields The magnetic flux is measured in a revolution would you agree it rotates Magnetic flux flux is a change Yes, and when it's mapped out you can project it onto a plane and it goes in a perfect circle around the center This is provable not debatable. This is the worst argument. I've ever heard two bubble shapes around the side It doesn't I know there's not flux It's I'm more than content for the third part of your to know that I've responded There's a to rodeo manifestation earth axis the inertial plane now if you want to disagree at school I'm not I'm not gonna debate for two hours as to what you think about that because I've asked for specific evidence You said you don't need to provide it and you're just saying vague and ambiguous claims about how electromagnetism works Even though I've already refuted it. Yes, so we can move on to all that nonsense pretty easy Okay, that's what if that's what you think shape of a magnetic field we can demonstrate you can do the experiment in your basement This is easy. No one attic field Shit go look at the shape then you can just measure the magnetic field around the earth and then compare the two shapes You get a problem one is these funny little bubble shapes if the world is flat and the other one is oh it matches the exact same shape as every other Magnetic field we see okay, is if the world is a globe so we can prove that this flat or nonsense is complete garbage And that okay much. Yeah, well that in part is what's being challenged No, it's disputing to rodeo manifestation if you would like to provide evidence as to how that is Actually the case station has nothing to do with the topic Hold on let's you brought up how you could see it in in a local demonstration You could see it and then go apply it to what happens on the earth. That's what you just said I'm not disputing the first parts well known and established how magnetic fields operates. I'm saying can you provide evidence to your Additional claim that it doesn't work on a fire. You just saying it means nothing You're sitting here saying it does this it wouldn't work on a flatter. It's not okay again personally I'm not gonna keep on going to circles with you about it It's pretty simple like if you third party knows the third part if you're too dumb to understand this if you take any object Just draw a triangle you can draw a triangle on a flat plane and you can draw a triangle on a circle plane They have different properties like the angle size on a triangle and the flat plane is 180 the angle size on a circle a ball Is greater than 180 so drawing the same shape on a flat plane and on a circle makes them different They have their different properties now So if we can measure the shape of the magnetic field on a just a magnet that we hold in our hands And we draw that on a flat earth It's a different shape and if we draw it on a round earth Does that make sense? Well, it's just patently false. I've already addressed it How if you have you have you looked at a ferro magnet? Have you looked at a magnetic field to a fairing to me How that is false well you you're really bad about cutting people off dude If you look at a magnetic field to a ferro cell you will see there is an inertial plane through the center If you want to dispute that go for it. Can we please move on to the fact that you know We can't move on because you can't prove your globe earth So you want to die I've already proved it. I'm asking for clarification here How is it not true like do you understand that if I draw a triangle on a flat plane and I draw a triangle on a circle? They have different angles, right? They're different shapes, correct? Yeah So if we take draw the shape of the magnetic field that we measure around the earth And we can draw that on a flat plane and we draw it on a round plane. They're different shapes just like the triangles What's a round plane? It's just a round sphere. Okay, that's redundant. We get it. I am asking you to provide evidence I'm asking you you said they measured magnetic field with compasses and it does this on a flat earth I promise you're stupid. I'm sorry Stop your gibberish answer the question if we draw a triangle on a flat plane and we draw it on a Sphere they're different shapes So if we measure the shape of the magnetic field around the earth and we draw it on a flat plane And we draw it on a round sphere you get different shapes, don't you just like no because the plane is the middle of the Magnetic field for the 20th time. You're so dumb like okay, there's your response Everyone knows your responses If the plan is the center of the field then you have these bumps going up and down on the center of the field because you measure different rates of Yes, you have you have different flux of energy within the overall to Rodial field means you get different shapes Just like the triangles, you don't seem to be following if you call me though. That's your okay fair enough We'll let you go with that way. So it's great opener, dude So it's really easy like if you have if we're standing like if me and you take a compass and we both go North if we're standing in the northern hemisphere We're gonna get closer together every time and if we're standing the southern hemisphere and go south We're gonna get closer together every time if the flat earth was rights And there's just one kind of northern center or somewhere then if we go south We're gonna get farther away from each other no matter where we go which demonstrably false So we know the shape of the magnetic field around the earth has to be different on a flat earth the globe earth Because in the globe there's a two centers and the flat earth. There's not so the globe earth is a fairytale So here's the deal. Can we move on please because you're this I've already presented my argument Are I presented my argument articulately more than once if anyone wants to go fact check what I said Please do if he offers citation. I'd be happy to look at it, but he won't so anyway I just think it's fair. I think it's fair. Let's I think it's fair You made tons of claims and your opener and now you've honed in for however long we've been doing this on one Where I immediately responded. So if you offer some physical evidence that's been demonstrated physically that you can site I'll look at it your mouth isn't physical evidence So you also claimed you also claimed that we know the shadow of the earth on the moon I'm not there yet. So I'm still on this one. Oh, so again if anyone on the earth like you ten people Stand in the northern hemisphere get a compass. I'll walk north. They all get closer together Stand in the southern southern hemisphere walks out. You all get closer together now if the world is flat That's physically impossible Without magic. So there has to be some difference between the magnetic fields in a globe earth and a flat earth because the globe earth has two Poles two center points the fire does not have two center points, right? It's the same shape. You're right, bro They're not the same and for the 10 that was my argument the entire time They are not the same shape if you map out the shape of the magnetic field on a flat earth. It's a different shape Thank you. Thank you for just admitting what we were saying for the past ten minutes idiot. This is bad for the 10th time You're right. They wouldn't be the same on a globe earth and flat earth. Yes different The center if the center is the magnetic source the earth is the inertial plane the Field emanating from the center will go above and below said plane This is provable through ferrule cells observations of magnetic fields. You don't have to understand it Can we move on please? So you just admitted they are different if you draw it out on a flat earth and you draw it out a globe earth They're different. Oh my god. Thank you for admitting what I've been saying for the past 20 minutes So because we know they're going to be different shapes on a flat earth and a globe earth We can actually just compare the two shapes like the world is flat you draw off the shape Does it look like the same shape as the magnets were holding in their hand? No, yeah No, that's okay with different shapes. They have to be different shapes efficacy of Application of the data of the magnetic field is in question if you would like to provide it I will look over it. I guarantee you won't provide it. I talked to Glover's daily. You will never provide it You're just talking making claims. Can we move on please to physical demonstrations that I just did I just did No, you did it. No, you did it. Okay. What okay that you just provided seven Are you claiming you just provided scientific evidence for the Glover? I Provided a scientific test you can do. Yes. Okay, so what was what was the hypothesis the hypothesis is the world is Round not flat. Okay. Well, what independent variable are you manipulating? I'm not manipulating them So oh then that's what sciences, bro You have to have a cause that you are no variables independent variable in science means a variable that can change under certain conditions That is independent of the experiment. So that's that's not what it is So what I'm doing is I'm saying I'm gonna make a have a hypothesis make a testable prediction Confirm the testable prediction. That's that's what I'm doing So I'm saying if our world if there's a magnetic field around the earth there's a magnetic field around a magnet and those magnetic field magnetic fields all have the same shape generally and So if the world if the magnetic field around the earth and magnetic field around the magnet have the same shape And we can map out the magnetic field around the earth and we can draw it Like if it was if the world is flat we draw it It's gonna get a different shape than if we draw it if the world is round when we haven't measured anything We're just saying if the world is flat We're gonna draw what the magnetic field looks like and if the world around we're gonna draw what the magnetic fields look like Just by what we're measuring to the shape of the magnetic field to be right. This is Measurement isn't science description of the earth isn't science measurement is literally one of the things inside No, it's literally an abstract description inherently by the definition. Let's hear from let's give Austin some time as well. No, we'll go back to us again Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying well what I'm saying is yes math is by definition abstract It's used to describe it is very useful because we can use it to replicate things We got a we got a it's okay If you want to if you want to rebut him after but I we have to give him like let's give him a little time to Kind of get his case out. Sure. And just go ahead and address it measurement isn't math was your claim Yes, it literally is now. The difference is you're taking a literal physical material Demonstration and you're measuring it fair enough. That doesn't mean that the materials are real But what you have there as the measurement is just a magical representation. It's just a description science Explains things math describes things So you're telling me a description of what you think the magnetic field should look like and you were conflating it to Scientific evidence and I'm trying to get to the heart of this you can we get some physical Scientific evidence of the globe what the shape should be that's not what I'm saying I'm saying if we take the actual shape We know magnetic fields are like the one the magnetic field in our hands We know what the shape of the magnetic field is this is a measurement. We're measuring the thing This is science. We're not just it's not an abstract description We're taking the actual magnetic field around a magnet and saying this is the shape of what a magnetic field looks like and Then we measure the magnetic field around the earth We can test it in lots of different ways and we take that data and we draw it like as if it the world is flat You get a different shape than the magnet rolling our hand if you draw it around the globe earth you get the same shape So that that's all measurable. It's not like an abstract there. That's just we're just we can say here's the data for the Magnetic field around a magnet. Here's the shape here's the data for the magnetic field around the earth Now if it's flat you get a different shape than the magnet in their hands comparing the two that's called science Yeah, no, it's not when you map things out that isn't science You are the question of the debate you're begging the question and then you're taking the model Which is a begging the question fallacy and a reification fallacy and a magical. It's literally not science models aren't science and You are taking you're taking the data based on the Confinement of what you say the land is and then you're mapping it out on the spherical assumption I'm asking for physical empirical evidence of the spherical assumption No, I'm not making any assumptions here I'm assuming the best you have is inference. You have no physical evidence. No, no I'm taking both you take both I policy say if the world is flat you take the data You draw it as if the world is flat because we see the data draw it out as if the world is fine not we're not like making an assumption that This is how it would look if the world was flat we're saying we can actually measure the magnetic field and Of different points of like what is what is the magnetic field at different points on the earth? So if the world is flat that at this point This magnetic field is this at this point that mega feels this this point mega feels this we can literally just draw it out If the world is flat doesn't really matter what shape you get it's always gonna get the different wrong answer So we it's not this is not just like inference We're not just assuming what the magnetic field might look like if it was flat We're saying here is what we know the magnetic field looks like and if the world is flat We can draw out what we know it looks like in reference to the surface of the earth Is that entirety of the magnetic field what you drew out is that the entirety of the measurements? Is that the entirety of the field no there could definitely be more you exactly you don't even know so Why are you presenting that you're presenting a guest dude? No no again? I'm only presenting the stuff we've measured so the stuff Yeah, but we don't know what the entirety of it is That explains of bubble shapes outside of there, but that doesn't in any way help your face No, it could because if it has a bigger manifestation and there's flux within but it's Torodial and there's an inertial plane that would work perfectly on geosinic stationary plane and the military documents Substantial I'm saying and you've said nothing and you're just speculating no no It doesn't if there's no like bubble shapes in the middle of a magnetic field in one more holding hand doesn't happen So if there's if there's bubble shapes in the flat earth one and then other stuff on the edges That's still a problem You still have this bubble shape in the middle of the magnetic field that doesn't work because it's not anywhere in any Magnetic field we see so that still doesn't work So if we're just using the stuff we've measured there's a bubble shape in the middle of the magnetic field Which is not possible in any magnetic field. We've seen which is a problem. Okay, so the stuff you measured Do you have to then apply it to terra firma? You don't apply it to anything you just say if we take the shape and you Draw it out from the surface of the earth say well, here's the magnetic field We measure here on the earth Here's the magnetic field we measure here on the earth and we just take from surface We draw what it looks like from the surface of the earth and you can change the surface of the earth Shape to see well, what would be the different shapes that is going to produce you don't really apply it to anything You just taking the shapes and measurements and just Referencing it to the surface regardless of the flat earth surface Referencing to the surface was how you ended your response and my question was about terra firma, but you said no So can we please dude? I've given my answer. You can say it's not sufficient. It objectively is we can agree to disagree Can we get on to physical evidence of the globe? I don't want to just talk about what you misinterpret about magnetic fields for two hours, dude So no, I'm not applying it to terra firma terra firma's earth like no I'm applying it to a surface any surface doesn't matter what surface you apply it to I'm not applying this to earth I'm going to a surface you can take the shapes apply it to a flat surface You get a different shape than if you apply it to a globe surface which you admitted to Which means that we can actually say well, which one of these shapes is like the magnet What I admitted is the overall manifestation and obviously different on a globe earth and a flat earth That's what I said. Yeah, cool straw man So can we get to the physical way now that I'm doing I've given you you've led the topic and the whole thing, right? I sure go. Okay. Thanks, man So this is another one of your claims one of the 50 that you monologues. That's why I'm trying to speed it up You said we know there's a ball because of the earth's shadow being cast onto the moon in eclipses So you presuppose causality of eclipses being physical obstruction so you have to explain the three-body problem, which is a known issue and You're so you have to presuppose the spherical nature of the physical. That's not my argument Wait, so the argument is is that if we we see the the there's a shadow on the moon And if we take a light bulb a tennis ball and a golf ball, we can replicate the shadow So we can replicate. How do you know it's a shadow? Because it's a giant dark spot. Okay, so you don't know it's a shadow So what a shadow is it's just a giant no actually what the shadow a shadow is an absence of light caused by physical obstruction That's what dark is is they have sense of light. Okay, so you're presupposing that it's a shadow on there Could it be something that's just darker? Could it yeah, exactly. What do you mean like I don't know? I'm not offering I'm not replacing your fairytale. I've prefaced the debate with that. I'm saying I'm trying to I'm clarifying What your question is not about the the thing so you are in order to make your point right now, dude You have it has to be a shadow that all I mean by shadow is darker white so so there's not light going there That's what I mean by shadow not why yeah, no no shadow cause it requires physical obstruction What you're saying is the earth is causing physical obstruction of the light casting a shadow onto the moon That's your claim you can't substantiate that there's physical obstruction So there's more light going to one spot than the other spot. So something is blocking the light. Yeah No, you're just assuming that what's dark is being obstructed that lights being obstructed to cast that shadow Now even if I go along with your fairytale, this is my point Can you explain the cell a million eclipse because you touch your model's predictability as if it predicts eclipses? So we should believe it because the globe Earth predicts eclipses predicts and understands and explains eclipses That's what your claim is but it doesn't it doesn't even explain the cell a million eclipse What I'm saying is we can replicate the data by doing an experiment here on earth. So Yeah, it's a shadow. It doesn't matter So it's a shadow because we can see that there's a light part on one side and a dark part on the other side And if it wasn't a shadow then somehow somehow the light is stopping in the middle for no reason And it can't you know like a black sheet there. No, you're presupposing three-body relationship No, why does it stop have to light have to stop anywhere. What are you talking about? How do you know that the light you're also presupposing light for the moon's reflecting light Yeah Yeah, yeah presupposition that's yes it is we can see it. It's reflecting light. That's literally what it means. What if it's self-illuminating? It's awful. Oh that that's fine, too. They're still gonna be okay Well, no, it could be something else that it does maybe it stops giving off part of its light I don't have to replace your great time point is can you explain the cell a million grant that So let's say let's say maybe the the moon is giving off light and some part of it is giving off light And some part of it isn't there's still a problem there Because the light stops at some point. It's not it's not like if you take a flashlight And turn it on it all goes in one direction, right? But if you take a light bulb and turn it on it goes in every direction So there's got to be something that stops the light, which is what a shadow is So there's still a shadow still a shadow on the moon. So we can still know it's still a shadow Uh, no we can't so there could be something in the sky that's dark that causes obstruction You're causing shadow is no. No, it's not. No. No. Yeah, okay. It isn't casting a shadow It could be fading out the light if you want to call that yes Yes, the shadow caused by internally things in the moon. So okay, okay, right? And so that's why I'm trying to get to the heart of issue I'm not trying to have a dishonest conversation I'm trying to actually get to the heart of the issue We're right the whole point is that you're saying that well look our model explains eclipses, right? And so the issue is well, we if we can have if we have an eclipse that occurs that doesn't work with that model So You can't just expect us to accept the the explanation It's a three-body explanation where there's physical obstruction, but we have an eclipse that the model doesn't work with It's called the impossible eclipse. It's called the selenillion eclipse. So how can you tout predictability or explain? Do what what does that have to do with the moon like it's a it's a lunar eclipse Okay, how does it not explained by The heliocentric model. Yeah, because the sun and the moon are both above the horizon during the lunar eclipse Uh what Yeah No, no explain how that isn't explained by science Well, you claim lunar eclipses are when the earth causes physical obstruction of the sunlight and then cast a shadow onto the moon How could that happen if both the moon and the sun are above the horizon? There are other things in between the sun and the moon So the the earth isn't causing the obstruction of these uh lunar eclipse Shadows can be caused by lots of things. That's so explained by so the lunar eclipse isn't caused by the earth's shadow The the shadows can be caused by lots of things So I guess what i'm asking is is your rebuttal right now that in that scenario Earth isn't causing the obstruction. Well, the only thing I know about your senator is that you said There's a shadow on the moon and the earth isn't between the sun and the earth Okay, well shadows can be caused by other things like I don't know if the specific example you're listing It's called the selenilion eclipse It's a lunar eclipse and then there's a shadow what you call a shadow on the moon and the sun and the moon are above s e l e l e n i o n And I know your size explanation. I just Know that most people don't So simply it's physically impossible, bro The earth can't be physically obstructing it if the sun and the moon are both above the horizon Not behind there occurs when the moon moves into the earth's shadow Okay I use blood again s e l s e l e n e l i o n The selenilion or selenilion occurs when both the sun and sun and in Eclipse moon can be observed at the same time This can only occur just before the sunset or just after the sunrise from both bodies will appear just above the horizon At nearly opposite points in the sky this arrangement has led the phenomenon being called the horizontal eclipse Typically a number of high tides high ridges undergoing sunrise and sunset can view it although the moon and earth Umber of both the sun and the eclipse moon can be simultaneously seen because atmospheric refraction. Oh, okay. That's how it's done okay, so We showed you lifetime for the viewer. This is how you go about what you think you just read what google said and you said Oh, that's how it's not explained, right? Well, I'm about to I'm about to explain why it doesn't explain it But I'm just making a point you You just automatically believed that because you're presupposing that you know the earth is a ball and that's If you never look at it, honestly, you'll so you just said it can't be explained Like whether or not the explanation is true or not isn't relevant if it can be explained That's no, I can't it can't though. I'm about to explain. Okay. Go for so that's the official explanation But it isn't the entire explanation. Unfortunately, so we have the sun and the moon above the horizon What you just read claims. They're not actually above the horizon They're actually both below the horizon, but they refract up above and just appear like they're above the horizon What about the shadow? How does the shadow refract can shadows refract? Shadows are a lack of light So the lack of light and the actual light on the other side are refracting at the same amount because there's There's there's so there's light going in one way a lot of light going in one way that reflects off the moon It reflects back and not as much light going Reflecting off the other side and reflecting back and that that light on one side and the lack of light on the other side Are both reflecting the exact same rates So so like There's there's not an issue there. Yes, if you have like particles on one side that refract and they don't refract on the other side you get a shadow like If you take like an image piece of paper and you cut out a shape in it and you put Shine a light bulb through it the light through the image is going to refract uniformly So you're still at the same image on both sides like it's yes shadows and light are going to refract the same because it's all just light Uh, no shadows the absence of light So yeah, so let me explain it to you why this doesn't work. No, you're trying to figure it out lifetime right now No, I feel you you're not doing too bad of a job. Give me like five seconds. Give me like five seconds. Okay, so Uh, what is refracting is the light and the light is refracting where it goes and where it doesn't go is Not light. So so everything that's refracting there is just light. So it's all going to refract the exact same shape Whether there's light or not light Okay, so here's the deal If the ball's here and the sun's here and the moon's over here They appear above the horizon, but they're not actually and then the earth's causing the obstruction The obstructions what causes the shadow, right? That's what makes the absence of light But then that absence of light also has to get lifted and refracted with the other two celestial bodies And shadows cannot refract that is a property of light. I'm gonna see what you're saying So the the the earth and the moon like the the earth is in between the sun and the moon And the light from the sun hits the earth and then creates a shadow on the moon Some of the lights Then gets refracted above the earth not all of it's not every part of the entirety of all light that's being refracted It's just some of it. It's the refraction that's being refracted Not the all light from the sun So the light from the sun is still creating a shadow on the moon And then some of the light is being refracted up in the atmosphere, which is why you can see the sun of the moon It's not like it's well, well I understand the idea even though it's clearly a grasp of stars. Oh, it's the only explanation You have to say they got refracted up. That's the only way to explain it But dude that doesn't explain why the shadow moved to it simply doesn't it doesn't because the shadow requires physical obstruction To cause the absence of light it itself cannot refract. It's nothing in and of itself It's a privation. It's a very big issue for the globe model It doesn't necessarily prove the globe model But to go around and tell the globe model as if it's perfect it makes perfect predictions It's pretty laughable. It literally does it. It's still a working model It does make perfect predictions. How is that an issue? So like the refraction that when you can see the sun and the moon Is only like the people on those one part of the earth like everything else in the universe doesn't see this Eclipse it's just people who are standing in that one part of the atmosphere where the atmosphere is bending the light in that way So the shadow on the moon the moon doesn't see the eclipse the sun doesn't see the eclipse Only people standing on earth in the atmosphere see the eclipse So the shadow on the moon is still going to be there just like it is every other time Like why is this a problem? You're saying that the moon is going to move up and the shadows are just going to stay with it The moon doesn't move at all. The moon is still in the same spot. It's the The apparent location of the moon moves up and then the shadow just moves with it What what are you talking about? So the moon is still the same spot still the same as it is every every part of the year It's not like so the image of the shadow is being refracted up With the refraction of light that can't happen. It's the absence of light. So it can't be geometrically predicted. I'm not Yeah, I think I made my point So so light is reflective. And so if there's a lack of light that's also going to be refracted at the exact same rate Because it's just less photons. Okay. So absence of light can be refract Absence of light is just less photons. So so less photons and more photons are both going to be refracted at the same rate Okay If you want to stick with that one do whatever we can move on that's a shadow isn't perfect blackness perfect blackness is no photons So if you have a shadow where there's less light that's less photons and less photons is going to be refracted at the same rate as the more photons So yes Okay, so the shadow Isn't it does still have light we can only see a bit of the light and it gets refracted proportionate up to the moon Portionate up it gets refracted in relation to tip with What I don't know what you mean by proportionate to the moon It gets refracted at the same rate as all the other light like all the lights being refracted Yeah, proportionate. Okay. So yeah in a relationship with if that's your that's what you want to say Okay, so it can't be geometrically predicted And it happens on occasionally it geometrically based on the three-body relationship It can't be predicted it happens and then they explain it away with refraction Saying that shadows can also refract like you just attempted to do the mental gymnastics to explain and then act like I was stupid It's it's explained by the atmosphere so it wouldn't be the three bodies It would be the three bodies and an atmosphere that reflects light, of course the three bodies are Inherently relevant to your explanation Just three bodies wouldn't explain it it's three bodies plus the atmosphere that would explain it Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, but without the three bodies you don't have any explanation So anyway, my the main point here was you pointed out eclipses As if they prove the globe they don't and I preface the debate bro physical demonstration The only one you've offered is an is an imitation of an eclipse where we have to presuppose The physical nature of these bodies and the sphericity of them I'm asking you can you physically demonstrate the physical claims find that made by the globe earth itself Is there any way on earth that I can go out and locally demonstrate that water will bend convexly around the exterior of a spinning object spinning I mean if not that's cool just concede if not you can say it's hard to get to scale You're whatever whatever. Yeah, you guys Buy buy a telescope. Look at the planets That is not what I asked as for a physical demonstration that can be in the administration No, it's physically the physically the gases are literally around the ball in space. That's a physical demonstration A physical demonstration that can be replicated here on earth that we can independently many times as you want Observation is not science dude as it is. It literally is Observation of science that you're as your claim is literally one of the things inside. Yes. It's the first part It's the first part of science Sure, it's the dependent variable and then you have an independent variable You manipulate it to substantiate cause-and-effect relationship. That's what a hypothesis is it is a cause-and-effect relation Let's just for sure hear the rest from austin. I promise we'll come right back to you. Yeah. Yeah, verified cause-and-effects relationship by manipulating the cause That's what science objectively is. Yes, you can't manipulate the cause. I have no idea what you're even saying So science is testable predictions No, no, no science dude natural science You have a dependent variable and then you manipulate A independent variable in an attempt to verify that it is the cause of your effect, which is the dependent variable Uh, you manipulate an experiment to see if you can replicate the results That's what you mean by an independent variable Experiment no in order to substantiate claim to causation You must manipulate said causation to substantiate. It is in fact the cause pointing to the sky is not scientifically physically demonstrating me to me You can't manipulate causation like what causation is not like we something we can change Yeah, water boils water boils that's a difference. We've got another volume difference. I hate to interrupt guys if I would say it's it's kind of the same thing where Austin if you're willing to turn yours down a bit and then tom if you can turn yours up just a bit for some reason You guys kind of diverge as the debate goes But also a good a point where I can remind you folks that both tom and austin are linked in the description In case you didn't know that you can hear plenty more where this is coming from Thanks guys Well, you asked for like uh physical things you could do I listed about 10 of them in my opening one was just the Penning thing Oh the pendulum the pendulum. Okay. Well, well Then you can see that there is nothing that we can do here on earth where we can replicate water Binning around a ball and spinning and based on proportion mass We can do that. I mean, this is going to be expensive. You just have to build a plasma container to do that But yeah, you know, no one just no one's ever done. Yeah, we have done it. We've literally done it You could cite right now physical demonstrations showing water been convexly to the extreme spinning object gases. Yeah, okay Well, we're talking about water gases are less dense than water. So it's yeah Yeah, that's even more of a problem for you because you're saying that the Immensity of the density of the oceans are bending convexly based on proportion and mass Bending convexly. Yeah. Yeah around the hides No, no the water overall bends around the ball. It's okay. The answer is no, I've looked for it There's nothing such as you know, we can literally demonstrate that happening like we've done gases We can show gases can be contained in a plasma container. It's every nuclear reactor does that So not a problem. Okay. So now you're not watering and if you want to just just kind of turn into a gas Because we're using high energy stuff. Yeah. Yeah. So water can't bend convexly around a spherical object using just gravity At least it can't be physically demonstrated. Let me let me see. Let me clarify here. So so simple The gas goes around the water and covers it and contains it like a bubble So there's gas gas is a bubble and the gas holds the water there, right? Does that make sense? Sure, that isn't no what we need bro, right? Like if you look at it non-biased you're like The globe earth it makes these physical claims about reality bro. I'm just asking you like just be honest, dude The water has to go to the outside of the ball Like the water even though it's always finds level in this scenario doesn't it's because of gravity We need to find a way to replicate it on earth where it can bend around the ball and stick to it while spinning You could just say no, you can't you can't offer a physical demonstration a gas is non sequitur It has very specific parameters. That's outlined by your model. I I don't have that cosmological interpretation That's your parameters. You know what I'm saying is that On the globe earth model what happens is you have water on the surface of the earth and the water is then contained By air because there's lots of air and gas is going around the earth and it acts as a shield to protect the earth from like Evaporation and stuff. So the water is contained in a shell of gas So if we can get gas to like Go around a bubble or whatever to contain the water. Yes, we can do that And show that here is a way to accomplish what you're asking for We can sure well, well if you want to offer it when you find it It doesn't exist. So and it actually that isn't the only causality That's rather just demonstrates on his channel like you can you can build a container of of gases that can go around a surface Being contained by just the gases you put water in it if you want that's fine Yeah, was that a probably an attempt to substantiate that you can have gas pressure without physical containment Even though there was a container in the demonstration, but that's not even what i'm requesting I'm requesting water itself. You're saying that's because of the atmosphere. That's not what the globe model claims You could imitate that if you wanted to it claims it's because of the center of mass Well, no, you just asked how is it possible? How is it possible to contain water on a spherical surface one way? It's possible as if you have a gas container like if you take the gas pressure and you put water inside of it And trap the water that would be one way to do it Trap the water all the way down to the ball then it starts spinning and it sticks to the ball yeah, you just Take gas and cover it with gas and that would act as a container Yeah, that would of course that wouldn't be what the earth is doing because the earth is carrying the water I'm not saying what the earth is doing. Well, that's the whole point. I'm asking you to physically demonstrate the globe earth You ask give a physical way to demonstrate how it is possible to get water on a spherical object That is separated by like just just in space essentially Now I said while spinning based on proportionate mass. That's what I said I didn't say based on proportionate mass I said here's a way to demonstrate that you can have water in a sphere that is Just being held there without anything like without a container other than just gas. Yes, we can do that So the answer is no So so gravity is a different thing like I can't control gravity Like if you're asking me to demonstrate gravity within it with a test that we can do it would be hard You don't have gravity manipulation devices yet. Can't do that. You can't manipulate fairy tales So, uh, yeah, you're right. You're can't you're right. It would be a difficult I will concede It would be a difficult demonstration like if the if this magic spinning Ball was real it would be a difficult demonstration I just think it's weird that people can't see anything nowadays. It's really weird So you brought up something else about if you were you brought something us about a physical demonstration Yeah, like a pendulum. That's what yeah, pendulum's on different sides of the the hemispheres spin differently Right, right the issue with that is um, that isn't for one that isn't an experiment Right, we discussed earlier like to really know that there's to really know some experiment Um, I'm saying to really know that something's the cause of the effect You have to manipulate that cause and then it it changed the effect. That's what science is It's called the scientific method. That's the study of natural science physical science You're making physical claims. You're not making philosophical claims or metaphysical claims You're making physical claims. It has to fit to the parameters of physical natural science You manipulate the cause in the pendulum you just see an effect and then you assume causation You know consistent with your presupposed model There is no correlation of cause and effect with the pendulum and there's a plethora of other issues No independent frame of reference. They have to be started. Um, and then the location difference specifically there are alternative explanations for that such as flux of energy Pertnits to location on earth. Yeah, yeah I don't want to even get into too speculative of a realm because I don't want to deal with it But yes, you know surely there are alternative explanations So simply put all I have to say is it doesn't correlate cause and effect. It isn't scientific You don't manipulate the cause you presuppose the cause of differentiation or derivation So correlation causation are different things It seems like you just don't know what these terms mean and how they relate to science like science doesn't prove causation It can't it doesn't ever do that. It can't it's just impossible causation is a philosophical concept Not a physical concept what science does is it shows correlations and then we infer causation So it doesn't ever show causation just says if my hypothesis is true Here's a demonstrable test we can do and if this test corresponds to what I the prediction I make that's evidence that my hypothesis is correct. That's all it does So if we can say if I can make a prediction that the world is round and we put two Uh pendulums on the two different sides and I get different results and we see that result Oh, that's evidence the world is round. That's just how it works. You don't need to prove causation That's how science works Okay, so what are you saying is you saw the pendulum move and I'm just supposed to believe you as to why it moved Yeah, if I can make testable predictions, that's correct So for example, just take any scientific prediction ever like the cosmic microwave background And we can predict that if the big bang happened or whatever We can see these exact these temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background We look say oh, there are these temperature variations. Can those be explained by other things? Sure, I could just say there are magical pixie leprechauns up there who made the temperature differences because they That's basically what y'all say. Yeah, but the one that makes the prediction first is the one that gets the evidence They get the credit so the cmb gets it right and the blue pixie leprechauns even though they could explain it Isn't evidence so whichever one so you can get to the evidence right so you do can see though that It isn't actual reality You just the first one that came up with an explanation and in addition That's all it works No, no, I just I just objectively stated how science works. You're changing it You're saying you don't have to manipulate independent variable. It's not about cause and effect But that is I could probably offer 50 citations from universities that say natural science Is a study of cause and effect relationship and that you must have an independent and dependent and control variable Yes, that's just you can't affect the cause you can't change the cause They can't prove cause and effect. That's just philosophy of science 101, uh, david hume Is the independent variable cause No Okay, so we just have a fundamental disagreement. That's what the independent variable is Literally, you can't prove cause it's just philosophy of science 101. Okay. Well, we're philosophy and science are completely non-related Philosophy of science that's one field there. That's what I'm saying is natural science is nothing to do with philosophical interpretation Or correlation or induction It's literally all correlation and all induct all science is just induction correlation like all of it There's no deduction in science Dude, you have not been you have not been peeping the gleason, bro Like literally every every university every paper is going to say science is inductive induction evidence All scientific evidence is inductive all of it every single bit of it. So basically to summarize Um, all the evidence that you have we just have to believe what you say is happening because you were the first one to say What's happening? If I can make a prediction first and you can't that means that my theory is more likely right Yes, they didn't make a prediction with pendulum. So that's not how that works There was a huge window of error. There was a huge window of error It wasn't consistent with the presupposed deviation at all. Have you looked into it 1851 the first pendulum? So that's not even that's not a prediction So they said the prediction wasn't exactly correct. It doesn't need to be exactly correct It just needs to be more important than everyone else. So it was the only one It was presupposing axial rotation and then I guess what it would do It was completely wrong and then it updated it based on what they could generally accept as the average So science makes a prediction it tries to get it right if it gets it wrong So don't you see it makes a new prediction like that's how all science works, right? Don't you find it a bit unfounded to pretend that flat earthers are crazy people when you can't say anything other than We presented you an explanation and we were the first ones to do it But no, we can't physically demonstrate That's actually the cause of what we're telling you but just believe us If not we get to make fun of you on the internet and censor you know because that's exactly the same as every other science Like the science that makes computers works the science that makes telephones work the science that makes everything work It's the exact same thing. It's all just we made testable predictions which have a demonstrable result Which you can replicate in machines the same thing So if you're saying that that method is unreliable Well, then it's the same method we use for medicine and healthcare and engineering and cars and planes So so if you're criticizing that Yeah, you're crazy No, actually, I just said objectively what the study of natural sciences and that's the only thing relevant to this entire discussion Because you're making Because you're making Okay, natural physical science is the only thing relevant to this conversation because you're making physical claims We haven't agreed upon parameters. We have a verification method. It's called scientific method and natural physical science And I've explained objectively what it is and you've argued about the interpretation saying that you could never ever prove a cause And I'm sure you're under the philosophy that you could never prove anything science doesn't prove things And that's just that's a scapegoat, right? It's a scapegoat. What so there are so then by by deduction There is no scientific proof of the globe model There's no scientific proof of anything. We could all just be in a break. Can you just answer directly though? So that would mean by deduction. There's no scientific proof of the globe There's no scientific proof of anything science doesn't prove anything. Okay. Yeah, we get it That's the talking point nowadays because y'all don't have any proof But why do you think that's a scapegoat? Like could we not be in a brain in the vet? Is that physically like logically impossible? What could we not be what? Brain in a vat like we're in the matrix like so everything we're seeing is just a delusion of some kind like that's possible, right? I guess you could say anything's possible I guess that fairies could pick me up out of bed in the morning But that's why science can't prove anything with absolute certainty. It can't prove I don't actually agree though. I think that reality demonstrates itself To not be fluid and necessary into creation as a creator, which is a different discussion But I think everything is as reality isn't fluid. I don't think science can prove that That reality's that not rowdy's not fluid Yeah, yeah, well observable phenomena shows us that so you would have to make provide evidence counter to that It's kind of like I agree completely. I agree the fact that everything we see is agreement with that That's called induction. So I can see white goose white goose white goose white goose Then you can assume the next one's also going to be a white goose. That's how induction works That's why all science is induction, but it can't prove anything It's not like math one plus one equals two and it's necessarily the case Science is all just induction. We look at all the examples and say the next example is probably going to be the same It doesn't prove anything You actually brought up a perfect example, right? The issue with induction Is when you hinge your your worldview on that it's It implodes because for example, you brought up we'll use the swans, right? You got the all swans are whites white swan white swan white swan all swans are white But then you find a black swan All swans aren't white although it was logically reasonable to assume that based on the information you had at the time Okay, so well ironically we actually do have an observation called the black swan That's a geometrical impossibility on the globe earth. I'm sure you're aware of it No, I don't think it's a geometrical possibility, but yeah, I still want to go on this thing You're aware of the argument though. Yeah, I wasn't I wasn't trying to divert the conversation That's what I'm saying. So okay, so is a geometrical impossibility, but anyway Yeah, the duck like the thing is dude science can prove things we know a certain temperature that water boils Okay, like we know that heat causes that water to boil We can substantiate cause and effect relationships by manipulating the cause dude And and if you're going to pretend that physical claims don't have to adhere to those parameters But at the same time pretend that you can tout them as objective reality That is that is crazy, bro. That's psychopathic. That makes no sense How do we know that water boils at the 200 degrees or whatever? My repetitive observations of water reaching boiling at that heat So white goose white goose white goose white goose white goose and we assume that the next one's going to be white goose Is that right? Well, if you could if we could start making water boil without it reaching that degrees then it would be different Well, right, but that's the thing is that it's using induction It's saying we've seen it a whole bunch of times and we're going to assume it's going to be the same in the future Right. That's what it's doing. It's how we know, but we but this is the issue We did manipulate the cause And see what the effect was the globe earth never even does that part. It skips over to the induction part That's the fundamental disagreement we're having here Like I just I want to go back just to the induction part. So all science is just induction So when it says the water boils at 200 degrees The reason we know that is because we've seen it a whole bunch of times in the past And we're going to assume it's going to continue to be that way in the future So white goose white goose white goose white goose next one's going to be a white goose It actually doesn't always boil at 200 degrees if you if you raise or decrease the pressure in the atmosphere It'll actually change temperature. So um, but that's the point is that science is just induction It's all induction. There's no that's not a proof. It's just induction Okay. So basically, um, science is a philosophical realm in which we theorize Strictly and if we're the first ones to come up with a theory We have dibs to it no matter how preprocessor insane of this And that can actually be conflated to physical evidence of physical claims of reality of where we live That's where we're at. That's the best we got is it is do we really not have any better than that? Because as a non-biased person when to find out if you're at this that doesn't cut it for me I need empirical physical evidence I can go verify and replicate that show potentiality of the globalist claims None of it works dude. None of it works dude. The glue for the model is a reification fallacy To pretend it's it's unfounded to question it is pathetic in my opinion. So yeah, I mean Like do you believe in the theory of relativity for example? Yes, okay Would you say time is physical? Yes Time is physical. Yes Please elaborate how so Time is physical because we made the predictions that if time is physical We can see that time and space been under certain conditions We can measure those conditions and make testable results and say, ah, I'll look at bins. So it's physical Okay Well, no the mathematical construct was one thing and then Einstein changed the conceptual backing And he's Lawrence transformations Evolved into the theory of relativity. He changed the conceptual backing what I'm saying is you just said well since we said it was physical It is time. Is it physical time is human construct We've used to quantify existence, right? Like we measure passing and we've quantified it a gun like agreed upon parameters or increments But it's just a construct time itself isn't physical You can't bottle up time space itself is also a concept of a privation It isn't physical either and so to combine the two and then attribute physical properties to them Is the literal definition of a reification fallacy treating abstractions as if they were concrete So we come up with abstract ideas like The earth or whatever and then we take those abstract ideas and apply them to things like let's take an apple An apple is an idea in our head We have an idea of what an apple is and then when we apply it to the world We realize oh, there's other things that were there that we didn't realize like it has seeds or that it's a fruit or that it It grows or that it has in the lifespan like all these properties are of the real thing that exists in the world So we have an idea of time and space in our head But no one cares what those are those don't matter at all What matters is is what our time and space in reality But what they are in reality is physical objects our idea of time and space don't matter like that's that's the reification You're taking this idea in our heads of time and space and thinking that means anything They don't mean anything. What only thing that matters is what are they in reality? What they are in reality is measurable things that we can Bend and weigh and compress No, yeah, right, but that is only under you're saying basically if you get all the air out that's what's there. I promise But you can't substantiate that that's what's there And in its inception time and space both are concepts Just because you've taken the concepts and then say that in fact they are real Doesn't make them real and the concepts. I've just described is objectively what space time is That the the definition of the words didn't change time the measurement of magnitude between two points Passing that's what time is change. So the the definitions did change so time Well, they add physical properties to them and then they attempted to quantify with the physicality assumption of space And give it volume height width breadth. Yes, that is what you meant like larynx transformations The risk transformation is measuring a difference in time between two different observers. So it's not actually a straight line of time Passing from one point to the next. It's not how it works in physics. That's not what time means in physics. So It's like it's like this So if I can say I have an idea in my head whatever it is square circle god magic leprechauns, whatever you want And I can say if my idea is in reality Then I should be able to predict something that we're going to see that we don't know yet And if I can do that and I can do it a lot and get it right a lot That's good evidence of whatever my idea is no matter how crazy it is Is true because no one else can do it. No other ideas can do it only my idea can do it or does it first And so that's good evidence that my idea is correct That's not what happened. That's not even what happened That's exactly what happened time Einstein said time can bend if time can bend i'm going to make predictions about Gravitational waves and the curvature of light around the sun and the orbit of mercury and say oh Hey, we can actually verify all these things that ah, so I have so there weren't any predictions prior to Einstein predictions about time bending Yeah, the sky's reoccurring actually and not all of Einstein's predictions works like certain planets didn't cooperate within the newtonian paradigm or 98 no, I understand it was predated. I don't understand it predated but They still tough the newtonian discovery and then they take the i sign application and say it doesn't work with 98 We can't explain what 98 percent of the universe is it doesn't work on the cosmological or quantum scale But I know it's real What I'm saying It's an abstraction bro. It's a concept. Is it pretty good if you want to think of it like that whatever it doesn't matter That's not secular to my points. There's no physical evidence for it. It's making physical claims Time is not physical space not physical. It doesn't matter how long you say it is Can you substantiate that it is because something that isn't physical can't have physical properties, dude Yeah, yeah, so go go back to my I can do that so go back to my original example I have an idea in my head doesn't matter what it is magic pixie leprechauns And if my idea corresponds to reality and I should be able to predict things and no stuff before we know it So so I can predict that this is going to happen something We've never seen before under these conditions And if I get it right and I get it right again and again and again That's pretty good evidence for magic pixie leprechauns or whatever. So in einstein's No one made any predictions about time bending before einstein because everyone thought time was a time doesn't bend though So so we wait so go go back so time so einstein's magic pixie leprechaun is time bending No one made predictions about time bending before that Einstein said time bends hear the predictions and he got them right no one else got them right no one else could predict them So everyone he thought time was a physical concept got him wrong einstein got him right So that's good evidence physical evidence that einstein's interpretation the idea in his head is in reality The problem with that is it's a reification fallacy that treats abstractions and gives them Concreteness and there's no physical evidence to support that could happen I don't care if you think it sounds good. It doesn't matter if he's the first one to do it It's actually being basically reluctantly acknowledged to be fraudulent In modern proponents of your model. So but nevertheless, it's a reification fallacy time is objectively not physical It's a concept. It's a quantification math is abstract. It's a language. It's a description space is a concept of a privation Like we discussed a shadow as a privation. That's absolutely right. Those are those are reifications So reification means you're taking an idea and applying it to something in reality That's like a hypothesis is a reification. You say I have an idea and I'm going to assume it's in reality That's so that's a reification But then you confirm it with a testable prediction the testable prediction isn't a reification It's a literal thing that's occurring in the world. It's not a reification So you say that if my hypothesis is correct It'll cause this thing in the world that we can see and I get it right and you don't That's inductive evidence that your idea is actually in the world. It's not a reification. So that's evidence It's not a reification I'll give Austin a chance to respond but soon enough we'll probably go into q&a So whenever either of you is ready to defer to the other if you're up for it Otherwise and maybe about five minutes or so I'll bring us into the q&a. Thanks guys. I'm good with the q&a Okay, well, then I just want to say one thing inclusion Basically, my issue still stands the same, bro Like we don't have any physical demonstrations that can show potentiality of these physical claims pointing to the sky saying I know what it is doesn't work for me doesn't work for anybody that's being honest Time is not physical. It's a concept that measures magnitude between two points neither is neither a space It's a privation concept. You can't say the curve. That's physical property three application fallacy And that's the glue for the whole model and we falsify the radius at one foot observer height seeing far too far It should be 1.2 mile solver tent the radius would have to be over a quarter million miles They didn't try to explain a fraction with seven over six r Which is actually extending the radius So the only way to explain observable phenomena is to say that the earth size fluctuates constantly But it's a ball of promise. We don't know how to explain it But uh, we can't physically demonstrate it But you're stupid if you don't believe it we can physically demonstrate all of our physical claims I think the logical stance is pretty easy to see so one question What do you mean by potentiality because potentiality means something exists and has the ability to change in some way So if there's a potentiality of global that means already exists I think you mean potential the potential possibility or something. Yeah, yeah, sure The possibility that those physical feats could ever even occur. Okay. Yeah Because potentiality is a specific term in philosophy means something different I think that it's well understood what i'm saying that the potentiality of what you're postulating Oh, yeah, we get I totally yeah, you're right. We understand what you were trying to say totally for sure Yeah, so nothing to the actual purposes. We'll jump into the good old q&a I want to say we are excited folks as we if you have not noticed at the bottom right of your screen tomorrow We will have a debate on whether e-sex work Is whether or not it should be Accepted or maybe you should we say no, no, no, this isn't good So that should be a hot button issue that we are excited for then we also have tomorrow We've got a lot. So we've got three debates tomorrow. I'm gonna die afterwards. So we've got in the morning We're also having a debate on whether or not Trans women ought to be able to compete in women's sports So that one will be another hot button issue And then we also have one at night and whether or not male privilege is real So it's going to be a wild one. Hopefully we will see you then and with that We will jump into these questions. Thanks so much folks really do appreciate your questions We're gonna try to get through as many as humanly possible and thanks for yours iPhone musings. Thanks for your thank you sticker Appreciate that support. Glad you're here gps. Thanks for your question said wits it What is your evidence to support your positive claim that gps doesn't come from satellites? Have you tested this for yourself? Gps uses Cartesian coordinate points. So feel free to enlighten me how that proves a globe earth Gotcha raven zero. Thanks for your question said this is the problem with all Here we go flat tards Sorry Just reading what it says. Love you. There's flat tars globe tards everybody. Okay, so we can they say this is the problem with You flatter thurs You're good. Do you say whatever we can give you all the answers But if you're if you lack the knowledge to understand certain Answers then why bother? Yeah, just a vague vague claim that isn't true. So typically actually every time I have interaction I have to teach people about the globe earth Gotcha and thanks for your question. This one comes in from p barns asks Or states in science the burden of proof sits with those Making the contentious claim not those citing what's already been shown to be true Well, the obvious part in question there is shown to be true So, yeah, we make one contrary claim. It's to the surface general description We have substantiated the earth consistently presents itself void of physical curvature So, yeah, the burden of proof makes lies with those making positive physical claims Well, I also stands with people making negative claims, too But I didn't want to like bring it up. Gotcha and Matthew Matthews. Thanks for your question said We'd said you basically just said quote. I have no evidence the earth is flat. So don't ask unquote No, that's the thing. Uh, I broke it down. Maybe after the super chat But flat's a general description of the surface and yes, we have substantiated that it's void of physical curvature That should be there based on the geometrical claim of the ball earth Flat is not a model or a shape. We don't claim one. We don't have access to all the information So again, that's a shift in the burden of proof Substantiated my one physical claim Gotcha and iPhone musings. Thanks for your other super sticker. You love the super stickers appreciate that jpp 3030 thanks for your question said I have never seen so many flaties Triggered by tom's factual introduction in chat It was just a whole bunch of uh Demonstrable claims that's right. Demonstrable tasks that you can all do to the show that the world is down to the globe I need you Next Did you need to take a drink before you know, yeah, no, yeah, I got a response. I started coughing out in a while, but No, dude, he was just saying explanations of observable phenomena But not showing how they were physically substantiated Well, I gave like literally the tests you could do like the the physical instantiation I told you how you could do them in the in the opening. It wasn't just me just giving examples That was kind of the point of every one of the examples I listed No, but okay, I'll give you a chance to respond to austin because it was originally for you that that super chat was And then yeah, but I just I'll just keep it quick. I just disagree one of the examples Oh, look, you can take balls and make an eclipse. You have to presuppose the boss Gotcha. I do I I hate to ask but because it does seem almost as if it does like literally I do wonder if One of your sometimes my mic does weird stuff We do if you're able to kind of help me out both of you just by Moving toward the middle and then thanks for your question. This comes in from shigawire Says tom is awesome as ever, but this super chat is dedicated to the excellent moderate Moderator james coons. That's really I appreciate that. It's very nice of you and say it. Um, thanks for your question says I hope t jump is substantiating Dot dot dot Yeah, but no, you can't just say it doesn't substantiate. We need physical demonstrations to substantiate Oh, no, I think they're on your side. I think they're saying that they Are skeptical of whether or not tom will substantiate or they're make they're making fun of that's like my favorite word But you ever know I think I think I think what's it is you write tom. I can't hear you bro. Even I can't hear you testing testing Is this some sort of tasteless joke on us? No, can you hear me now? No, it's okay. Yeah, I have no idea When I was doing that so yeah, um, definitely you can substantiate all the claims I make you can build the pendulums you can build the experiment with the light bulbs and show it's the same You get the same results you can do all the different, uh, you can see all the different effects I mentioned you could build the neutrinos and point them down at the earth to get the signals You can do all of those things yourself like do them all they're they're literally experiments that you could do Next thanks for your question. Anthony Let me know if I mispronounce chicante Cicante says there's no triggering everything. He has said is just level one flat earth research. This sucks Okay, I don't know That's it. That's to him Gotcha He's basically saying you haven't actually like looked at the flat earth position enough to really know some of the basic questions That's right. I don't I don't need to research fairy tales. It's kind of like why Next ironic. Thanks for your super chat from bearded devil 1864 says witsit Is just pushing the burden onto t jump to avoid his own Commence the flat earth c line c lioning. There will be zero valid arguments for the flat earth presented by witsit Actually, can I bring that one up because that's not a problem like he can totally do that He's just doing the same thing atheists do to theists when they say that there is no god We're not actually trying to prove god doesn't exist. We're just trying to prove the things that theists say are really stupid So if that's his only what he's actually claiming is just that what the arguments that global authors make or Are dumb and he's trying to disprove those arguments. That's perfectly a legitimate position. You can totally do that That's not a problem I gotta give him props for saying that at least that's the first time I've ever even heard someone acknowledge it Yeah, cool and sunflower. Thank you for your question said it is I sunflower destroyer of vegans bow to me Thank you for that. By the way, wotan is a vegan. Wotan might also be back soon. Somebody requested them MacGyver institute of ninja technology. Thanks for your question said witsit Let's talk electro statistics sometime. I'm a subject matter expert and a flat earther hit me up Oh nice. Yeah, everything that has matters inherently electrostatic A new ally against tom jump. Okay, so jpp 3030 I just love these guys This says I'm talking about tom and austin, but as well as jp says it says how is flat earth not a positive claim again witsit I guess we it's a positive claim to the general description of the surface of the earth not a model or shape gotcha bearded devil 1864 says what causes the flat earth magnetic field What causes it there's some source of magnetism from the center and there's the earth axis the inertial plane Gotcha and erin armstrong. Thanks for your question as well says witsit nice arrest pick ha ha ha Were you recently? Thank you. Okay. Well, it's been a it's been a minute now. No, it's perfect. Okay next up Thanks for your question from bearded devil 1864 says what causes oh wait, we got that Anthony chicante says panicked already and called him an idiot I'm not sure who that's full. Oh, that must be for tom Yeah, no, it's fine. I copy believe it's all the time like this is a surprise Gotcha and thanks for your Anthony follows up with another super chat says you got to moderate this globe head james ad-homs interruptions already Man, i'm sitting right here. Okay, robert summers. Thanks for your question said How would you predict tides on the flat earth down to the minute daily? Oh Yeah, tides just have a reoccurring um nature to them and tidal locking's never been substantiated. So how do you do it? Gotcha and thanks for your question. This one's from Gurmania asks why haven't we seen the ends of the earth if it's flat? Can't go past the 60th parallel and you can't see forever Okay, and thank you for your question. This one is from Absinthe says time to get out the crayons tom jump. So widths it can get it Yeah, I mean those coloring books gonna make the flat earth coloring books will be like a big publication would be hilarious I would just folk. I would say the best course of action would be go physically prove the earth curves my man We've already done that. So I mean I'm gonna make those coloring books. Yeah, yeah, let's see kevin gilfoo. Thanks for your Question. I know kevin. You told me how to pronounce it Gilfauw Thank you says tom jumps chair makes better arguments than widths it. He obviously doesn't quote get it Unquote that's why y'all gotta be more. I'm sorry. Hold on. I'm still insulting you it says That's They say that's why he keeps trying to change the subject of magnetism Anyone that knows me knows that's like my favorite subject, but uh Yeah, anyway, I cool add arms come up with a better better insult dude than just switching my name around with not or doesn't Gotcha Thanks for your question Michael Dresden tom might remember that name says t-jump is angry and in all caps getting owned Thank you Uh, but Anthony chicante says for truth's sake someone moderate this glober I thought I did all right. You know He's passionate. Germania. Thank you for your question says do flatter. There's believe in outer space Or is that a conspiracy too? Well, uh flatter. There's don't make a habit of believing Things y'all are real big on the b-word, but you know, we don't believe the current connotation of space where they say There's a near perfect vacuum adjacent to a pressurized system. We claim it violates second law of thermal dynamics Gotcha, and thanks for your question. This one comes in from our dearest friend paul martinson appreciate it says Kind of funny how a lot of people try so hard to fight against the observable natural law Jesuits are laughing their butts off at these subservience I have to be honest. I don't even understand it. Do you often explain this to us? Why are the jesuits laughing at why are they laughing? Well, the jesuits had a big seem to have a big hand The propagation of heliocentrism and then a jesuit priest proposed the big bang theory So I think people kind of have realized their hand in this this whole model. Maybe Gotcha and shigawire. Thanks for your question says witsett. You need to learn trigonometry geometry and basic maths Before you can participate. You can use con academy. It's free Yeah, you need to try to go find some evidence that doesn't require planar geometry or trigonometry and s actually applies spherical trigonometry Gotcha and thanks out to your quote your let's see Thanks for your statements from movie theory who says and read these because there's two in rote tom interrupting because he knows He's losing its official tom lost call this one james Actually, I normally interrupt because you use too many words together that don't make sense So I'm usually asking for clarification when I interrupt Gosh, yeah, and paul martensen. Thanks for your question said I've mapped an equation out to make the math describing time traveling leprechauns plausible Trust me. I have a math equation for it If it makes testable predictions, then yeah, that's good evidence Excellent and stupid whore energy has entered the building. She says How does witsit explain? I'm saying it the way she says it with her sass. How does witsit explain? Mathematics oftentimes is found to describe Reality like the math of circles correspond to physics of pendulums Uh math of circles. Well, there is the golden ratio. It seems to be consistent without existence But math just describes things and then of course once it's accurately described it can be replicated Gotcha, and thanks for your question from Elijah Freeman says witsit 45 minutes in move on Gotcha, I don't know if they're a fan or a critic, but jungle jargon. Thanks for your question says flat His name's on the overlay. Okay flat. That's all you got. You don't even get flatter. They're just flat Are you aware there are daily non-stop 14 hour flights between south america and australia? That's uh Actually, not true. So well, it depends on what you're saying Like as to how they could disprove the flatter. That's not true The one flight they claim is like an anomaly But so yeah, you'd have to be more like specific with what you're trying to say Gotcha and paul martinsen takes another jab at tom jump gives me great pleasure to read this Okay, i'm just kidding. Tom. I love you, buddy says trust me guys. There is a rabid hyper speed There are rabid hyper speed leprechauns Prancing all around us. There is an equation that makes it work Well, if those leprechauns can give me gold berks every time I ask for them and i'm a millionaire and you're not It's pretty good evidence Gotcha and syed amad. Thanks for your question friend says falling back on fallacies means you have no argument Which also where is witzitz flat earth evidence? Can he please? Substantiate with specificity Uh Dude think about people saying logical fallacies don't matter when they're like literally in place because they invalidate The consistency of an argument or how it's even like a viable postulation People actually think that that's not a big deal and yes, I did present some evidence We didn't get into we talked about theoretical magnetism a long time But we have long distance observations void of physical obstruction that substantiates the flat claim Gotcha and let's see p bars. Thanks for your question says tom jumps chair Here it comes up again creates a magnetic field that powers his brain. You can measure it with a compass Very nice shingle wire. Thanks for your question says the one using pretentious language To make himself look smarter is quite obvious It's not tom Um, I missed the first part. I think it's something about me using words pretentious language Yeah, yeah, sometimes whenever you want to make a specific articulate point you create a bunch of different descriptors So they know exactly what you're saying Gotcha and thanks for your question from michael dresden strikes again says lol better luck next time globers you lost Richard ashton Like says everything else is round. Can't we be flat and special? Yeah, that's just that's just stupid, you know Just because things lights in the sky appear to be circular orbs doesn't mean terra firma is a ball Next thank you for your question. I always love this username A little fat girl says sounds like witsett is presupposing that the moon Magically becomes dark in some spots Uh, no, that's I know it's not very uh common you globers experience this but Intellectually honesty is what I presented. I prefaced by saying I don't know there's a speculation Gotcha paul martinsons strikes again Thunderous blows being hurled at tom says i'm pretty sure this glober doesn't understand how light works pretty sure I understood this in second grade That's impressive if you understood how light works in the second grade and what photons are Next up mikey riot. Thanks for your question says next week witsett versus magnets and shadows Make it happen james all hail the chair I miss what he what is he asking they want you to debate against magnets and shadows Oh Okay. Oh, yeah, cool. Cool. That'll be a very productive exchange with inanimate objects. I'm sure stupid horror energy Strikes again saying you can take a time lapse of the shadow on the moon from space during an eclipse Oh Cool story bro. I don't think he believes in space I don't believe in theoretical conceptual medium of spacetime bending No, I don't gotcha juicy. We might have to have a debate on whether or not space exists That'd be super fun raven zero. Thanks for your question says Oh, wow, so witsett doesn't understand shadows now Yeah, what I said is objective shadows absence of light caused by physical obstruction Gotcha, and paul martinson This time swings a hook at tom says This guy is holding on to the globe like a kid would a teddy bear Take it away and the tantrums are predicted At some point that kid has to learn to grow up and join reality Yeah, I'll join join the flat earth reality That'll be fun paul is coming at you Rob kin thanks for your question says this is for modern day debates witsett gets it gets it Thanks for your support rob and uh sciat amad thanks for your question says flaticity earth icity With specificity and substantiation icity Now how about that positive flat earth evidence witsett? Yeah, um, it's as opposed to critiquing the way that I use words. How about you actually respond to the argument with Specificity and I've already addressed the whole flatter. There's don't have evidence thing. Yes, we do earth presents itself geocentric stationary plane Y'all have no physical evidence. We have all observable phenomena. Gotcha, and That just does nathan tomson used the word specificity a lot for some reason makes me think of nathan. Is that one of his? I don't know. I know. I don't know. It's kind of like one of my favorite words I think it's like the best word ever made maybe he would have enjoyed tonight's debate It would have it's it's the way he would have wanted it. So He's we hope he's doing well. Nathan. I next up. Thanks for your question Sean charles says nobody can demonstrate Large body of water sticking to a spinning surface So why would we believe lever watch can arch? Oh level water can arch or leave a lump of water in the middle of the ocean Tom why is that? Uh, you could hold a drop of water on a pin. It's a big ball of water on a pin Gotcha, and thanks so much appreciate your question from reality hijack says if you magnetized a flat square piece of metal the geometry of the field would be exactly the same toroidial bubble space as a spherical magnet Having said that the earth is clearly a sphere with it Oh, well at least that person was honest enough to acknowledge that what I said was objectively true that the toroidial manifestation is Is independent of the physical matter that it's emanating from and the earth acts as a inertial plane So I've said I disagree with you on the end, but whatever better than nothing Gotcha someone said I wish Nathan can debate though. He's banned from the chat. It's true. Nathan broke the rules. We have to apply them consistently I don't know folks. What do you think of the live chat? Should we let Nathan back? Tom wants a shot at Nathan Yeah, Nathan's afraid of me. He's afraid of debate. It's sad So that's not true. Let Nathan back spam one in the chat for Nathan back Because Nathan by the way folks, he's now he's uh, he's not in jail He dead Just kidding. Do you know who says that though? I was quoting somebody a favorite famous youtuber. He's not really dead Nathan is he's not in jail either But I know next thanks for your question. This one comes in from Stupid whore energy is just the energizer bunny. She doesn't stop. She says What's it? How do you manipulate the cause of radioactive decay? Um, well, I don't guess that you necessarily could I certainly don't believe the presuppose interpretation of rate of change And it's ridiculous Don't believe in radioactive decay I don't believe in in it being applied to any extended period of time with an assumed rate of change Gotcha, we do I'm looking at the live chat We do have let's see. We've got a lot of we got a lot of ones. We've got some twos We have Alan H says hell no And then we've got Let's see. So I can't remember what did one and what did two mean? Yeah, I don't we bring him back. I said spam. I said hit one if you want if you want Nathan back. Yeah public space Public space got it. I the he did that's from jesse lee peterson. Okay. Thanks for your Feedback chat. We will perhaps bring Nathan back. Tom wants a piece of him And but I I will say it is true that we you know, we do want the chat to be relatively friendly It's like totally cool to lambast and just excoriate people Arguments, but the people themselves we'd ask can you take it easy on the people, you know Sometimes you go after their appearance and stuff and that's where it's like, ah, come on It's now you're like harassing him. So next up. Thanks for your question from paul martinson He is non stop after you tom. I hope you're ready He says put any gas in a coffee can and place it 200 miles away and ask any Scientist to tell you what that is And then times that distance by 12.5 billion Yeah, if you put a gas Large number of gas in a coffee can if it's like a heavy gas It's still going to be in the coffee can you can still measure what it is by like just Looking at it and seeing the effects of what it does in the coffee can because it's not going to be the same as a liquid Or a solid and so you can compare it to a liquid a solid and gas and a little container next to you and say Oh, look, it's like that one. So it's a gas. It's pretty simple Gotcha, and John rap. Thanks for your let's see State questions that bend water bend gas Are you a three year old? What I don't know who that's insulting. Who is that meant to insult? It's talking about when we were discussing how I asked if you could physically demonstrate water bending around a ball And you talked about gas Gotcha Next up. Thanks for your question. This one comes in from Michael Dresden. Tom's old buddy says Tom is word salad philosophy of science all caps lol Yeah, I just straight up took that from like the staffer encyclopedia. If you can just even look it up. It's not not too hard Physical science proves things with okay next. Thanks for your question from gabriel k says there is only a five degree tilt To the moon's orbit on the earth Slash sun plane. Have you done the math to verify that earth can't cast a shadow in this case? Yeah, uh I'm asking you if the earth's shadow can actually Refract up above the horizon with the appearance and apparent location of the moon itself. So Come on Gotcha and thanks for your question. This one comes in by the way, joey rocker People have said they're like we want to hear joey rocker in a debate. The door is open joey We'd love to have you if you'd like to come on just want to let you know that and gabriel k Oh, we we read that one. Thanks for your Question from not asher says please ask witsit why we have no proof of a barrier around the flat earth And why the all all of the governments collectively decided they want to hide that land Why would the governments want to hide land? I think that's pretty self-explanatory You're asking me a why question. It's like if I walk up to you with my iphone I'm like, hey, look your girl's cheating on you bro. Look at her and you won't look at the video till I can tell you why she cheated Like, okay, don't look at the video bro. Keep dating her. You know, that's not my problem And what's the proof of containment the necessary to see it to gas pressure is physical containment And there's also military declassified documents that they use an approximation method to determine the brightness of the firmament And the approximation method was proven correct Gotcha, and thanks for your question. This one comes in from let's see Paul martinson Like a pitball. He is just on tom like white on rice says natural law supersedes any theory at any time Observable verifiable repeatable all the time You can't observe laws laws are descriptions of consistency. So the laws are the science stuff It's you can't just like observe the law. It's induction. Gotcha. I feel like Tucker Carlson when I read these They want to take away your freedoms. Okay, next up. Paul martinson. Thanks for your question says natural No, we got that one. Sorry. Anthony Chaconte says axiomatic In all caps flat earth doesn't even need science. It's that obvious Stick that in your pipe and smoke at tom Yeah, okay Abandoned science. That's a good good methodology. I like it. So the globe earth does Next up 85 or area 85 restorations. By the way, if somebody knows where I took that phrase It's from an old debate. So if you love debates, especially on religion and atheism That I was quoting an old debate there when I said stick that in your pipe and smoke in area 85 restorations Thanks for your question said if the earth isn't rotating. How was I able to build a folk called pendulum two weeks ago And calculate my latitude based off of it Yeah, there seems to be a general reoccurring drift the pendulum Claims causation is axial rotation. That's never been substantiated. Is it consistent? It doesn't have independent frame of reference and you have to start it And fractal escape. Thank you for your friendly correction. Feedback said it's pronounced Joey Rocha Joey Rocha You are very welcome on here anytime. So sorry about that. Very embarrassing Next and godless witch Bella says someone banned me for nothing Oh, I think they're not talking about our chat. I think they're I think they're talking about somewhere else Okay, thanks for your question. Oh, yes, Bruce Wayne says we need a muslim to debate an atheist, please I think we actually have that we have that this sunday Did you guys not see on one of our upcoming debates this sunday? We're debating does islam fit in western society? That's one i'm a little bit nervous about that's going to be a wild one. So yes, that's this sunday folks It looks like it's going to be a juicy one And thanks for your question. This comes from sunflower says witsit It's about the predictive capacity of a model Flat earth can't predict as much stuff as global earth can Accurate predictions have utility Yeah, um, you cannot tout predictability when the model was built over 500 years of seeing reoccurring observable phenomena. That's it's foolish Stupid whore energy says otherwise. She says time can pass more slowly unrelated Due to proximity to physical objects. So it is physical Yeah, that's preposterously stupid. I'm just going to be blunt frankly honest. I make sense this I don't know the only way that we have to measure is a physical mechanism The actual passing itself time Is a concept we use to quantify the passing Gotcha, and Let's see. I want to see if anybody knew what debate that was from all right next up. I uh alex stein I just saw this pop in the chat. So i'm reading it like spontaneously says austin crushed this dude Not even gonna name you. Oh, they say T chump lost Tom is not amused Okay, thanks for your question. This next one comes. Oh wait, hold on my computer's spazzing Two seconds next up Area 85 restorations. Thank you for your question says Flurfer crying random fallacies That's when you When they realize they don't have anything Now there's nothing random to it. They were very relevant to each time I mentioned them and fallacies are very important for logical consistency of a point Gotcha, and poll martinson. Thanks for your question says if people think time is physical I think they're too far gone save your breath Next thanks for your question from uh It's just many a's in a row says tom jump. I like how you explain things props Thank you. You got a fan out there tom next. Let's see if I think I've got all of these Yep, we got that Next thanks for your question. This one comes in from sayada mod says went to the school of nathan oakley and sleepy warrior Seriously, nothing but fallacies by witsett at the end Yeah Glovers always say that they they mentioned those two people or qe and none of that's the case I just think for myself Maybe that would show you guys that you're using the same consistently fallacious reasoning that is required for us to call it out Gotcha and thanks for your question. This one comes in from lily r o says How freaking boring must be the life of a flat earther? No space no time travel sad P. S. James is the best-looking moderator ever. That's so kind of you. I really do. I'm convinced lily ro is actually Bob the postal worker from alabama. Thank you, bob But let's see. No, I didn't make that up at the end though. But now I'm like, oh, I should add that I should just tack that on at the end of super chats james is the best-looking moderator ever by the way Zach ran again. Thanks for your question says What's witsett got against bowls? I just don't believe in magic spinning cartoon balls brought to me by jesuit priest that defy basic laws of physics Next apps one one two three things for your question said, so we're all astronauts paid actors Only 24 people have even claimed to go past low earth orbit So yeah, I don't find it too outlandish to think that 24 people lied Gotcha, I appreciate your questions folks. We've got another one from D Darko Hope you're doing well good to see you again says what we know is a drop What we don't know is an ocean maybe both of you would agree with that and Lost v. Thanks for your super chat said let's get wotan back I couldn't agree more. I loved victor A lot of people I feel like they got sick of them. We're like, yeah, wotan Tom, did you ever debate wotan? Yep. Oh, yeah area 85 restorations. Thanks for your question says I work at a rocket launch and test site as an engineer Can you explain how i'm quote being lied to? Unquote when i'm the one When i'm one of the people does designing and building vehicles that we have sent to space Okay, so you designed some vehicles compartmentalized and therefore you can now independently verify you went into a magical bendy spacetime medium that defies the basic law of second law of thermodynamics because you did a part Like that's come on dude Next up. Thanks for your question from gabriel k says everything is concept not just time so Through a way science. I think they mean throw away science and our sanity because we can never know for sure Are you a po? I just have this feeling That's not my position. I think science does prove things Yeah, it's just standard definition of science science can't never prove anything proof only exists in math and logic Google the definition of science and proof Gotcha and thank you for your question Robert Summers says gravity predicts tides with ease. Why can't you all? Gravity the 9.8 meters per second squared agreed upon average of rate of fall predicts Something when it would be negligible to the effect on it or are you talking about bendy spacetime? Which would still be negligible actually tidal locking was explained after the phenomena was recorded and reoccurring people should learn their own religion Before they teach other people about Gotcha and Ellie azer torrez. Thanks for your question friend says way to go Jay tump you failed fifth grade general science Yeah, fifth grade flat other science, uh, not really interested in those kind of classes Next brian broka. Thanks for your question says seriously you try not to just believe things What about your magic sky daddy? Uh, yeah, well, I think the necessary antecedent the creation is creator and anything other than that would be foolish to even entertain So I don't you know, yeah, that's not Really much belief for me. Can you can you propose an alternative? Gotcha and Sean Hawkins one of our favorite modern day debate critics Glad to see you Sean says why is witsett getting help from qe on discord? Who's Dude, Sean Hawkins is this guy that like stalks my youtube and makes videos of me and he's like obsessed with qe And Nathan oakley or quantum eraser He's the one that presented the black swan. Anyway, shout out qe and Nathan oakley And sleepy warrior and chocolate and everybody else that makes you clown spiral because if flat out of stoop Why would you stalk us and get so upset about it's really kind of weird stop being weirdos? Gotcha brian broka. Thanks for your question says austin Could you please inform us as to your scientific qualifications to criticize einstein and dictate what? Real sciences Yeah, my qualification is the cognitive processing ability to understand what the study of natural science is and then apply it to the natural world Gotcha stupid horror energy. Thanks for your statement says I believe in james's balls Thank you for that support as always and Next so we let me see. I think we're pretty much to the time where we we've kind of run out of time We want to say thank you so much to our guests Tom and austin. It has been a true pleasure I put the greatest flat earth debate on all time on the thumbnail and I have to tell you guys It was tremendous. Thank you guys so much. These guys are linked in the description folks So if you're listening shan hawkins, if you did not know austin witzitz YouTube channel link well now it's there for you shan you can watch as much of him as you want so We really he's a huge fan So thanks so much. We really do appreciate everybody for your support mods By the way, this is a new thing we want to do if you're a moderator even we have one of our Sean hawkins is one of our bigger critics. Seriously. Sean is like Really come at me at times if I remember and he's a moderator But that's okay, you know what we keep our critics around folks That's what you got to do We're we don't want to be an echo chamber and I do want to remind you of the vision for modern day debate I'll say this quickly and succinctly folks We want to provide an equal platform for everybody from all walks of life We want everybody to get their chance to make their case on an equal playing field And so really we do want to let you know you're welcome here Flat earth or globe earth or christian atheist gay straight trans you name it no matter what walk of life We want you here. This is a melting pot of different ideas trump supporters Democrats you name it. We're glad you're here. So thanks so much for all of that. We really do appreciate it Hey, james. Can I make a quick shout out real quick? I just want to shout out Um, if y'all want to continue this conversation after party 24 7 platter discord the arena 24 7 you can go in there one-on-one moderated debate If you want to actually learn about the discussion it's a good place to go Gotcha and This has been a total total wild one. I seriously enjoy this So I do hope you guys have a great night folks. We're gonna be here with three debates tomorrow See that one right there Debate on E-sex work With ruby spacek. She will be debating sj. Thomason tom's Long-lost best friend you debated sj, right? Yeah several times. Oh, yeah, definitely So that should be a fun one with many others folks if like I said if you want reminders hit that bell notification if you do subscribe And depending on how many you want just click all if you want all I don't think youtube is Why would they why would they shadow band such a tremendous vision that we have here? We're excited about the future. So as I mentioned tom and austin are linked in the description. Thanks so much everybody I just hate saying goodbye. I just love being here. So keeps everything out the reasonable from the unreasonable folks Take care and have a great night