 Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth, and we are starting right now. With Leo Philius' opening statement, thanks so much for being with us again. Leo, the floor is all yours. Yeah, thanks for having me again, James. So I'm not going to have a very long opener here because to be quite frank, there really isn't a Flat Earth debate that happens. Nobody's ever had a debate on Flat Earth because there isn't a debate to be had on this. The Earth is obviously spherical. If we want to understand the world as people and as humans, then we have to or at least we ought to set some rules for the best ways to go about doing that. And a lot of those rules involve things like, you know, going out and actually observing things in the world. Things that include consistency, that our models need to be consistent. Things like parsimony, our models need to account for the things that we expect them to account for and do so in explicative and simplistic ways. And I think that when we examine how humans would have thought the Earth was, you know, like six, seven thousand years ago, it made sense to them. They didn't have the technology that we have today. They weren't capable of doing as sensitive measurements on not just the Earth, but various aspects of reality like we are today. And for this reason, I think that anybody would say, if you were alive six or eight thousand years ago, you probably think that the idea that the Earth is sort of this flat plane that perhaps just goes on forever wouldn't have really been that far fetched most humans back then probably never went more than 50 miles outside of where they live than if there's some humans that are like that today. But as humans developed, as we began to develop technologies, and particularly as we began to travel around the world, humans began to see things change about reality going from one place on the Earth to the other, noticing that the position of the sun and the sky wasn't the same, noticing that different seasons the sun would be at a different position in the sky, noticing that the moon goes to cycles that seem to be related to the amount of the moon that we can see relative to our position to the moon relative to the sun. That there was a variety of things that we began to see that when we would see a ship go off into the distance, we would see the bottom of it disappear and then the mass to the top of the mass disappearing last. All of these things are things that we would see and that I can go on and on and on for hours about the things that we observe about our reality just immediately without really needing much technology and with our technology. And it seems obvious that the best model to account for why we see the world with the way that we do is that because the planet that we live on is spheroidal and is traveling at about 67,000 miles in its orbit around a massive star that is about 1.3 million times the size of our planet. We have seen these things elsewhere in reality numerous times. We know these are things that conform. We know the mechanisms how they can do it. We can describe all this very, very well. So we know that the model is consistent. We know that it's parsimonious. It accounts for everything that we need to account for and it explains why we see the world the way that we do. In terms of a flat earth, I've never heard a model. I've never seen a model. All I have ever seen, all I have ever heard are attempts to confute the model that we do have oftentimes by appealing to things that it can't explain that it's been capable of explaining for decades, if not centuries. And that is all I have. Thank you. Thanks, religion and politics and with it gets it glad to have you with us. The floor is all yours for your opening as well. How's it going everybody? Let me share the screen right here. All right. Um, yeah, so I'll cover a lot of what he said. My little opener here. So we'll go to the slide show. All right, you can see it. Yes, now it's showing. Cool. So before we get started, I just got said I've never heard a model. Yeah, we don't have to claim a model models or scientific model actually used to explain. No one thinks that the earth is a disc that floats around in space. No one thinks that the earth is spinning around when they say that the earth is flat. This is a straw man. So when ridiculed, it's actually ironically events. So there's to cover a couple of basic parts of debates that should be known. Falsification is independent of replacements. Meaning, of course, if something is proven to not be true or falsified, that remains a fact in of itself. You don't have to replace it before it is not false or before it is actually possible. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the positive claim. So the shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. This is very important to understand because as he's already done in his opener, he has shifted the burden of proof and that is all that you will ever get. So for example, if this guy tells me that unicorns are real, then he shows me some CGI of a unicorn. He says, we have pictures of unicorns. I can't believe it. Don't think unicorns are real. And then he tells me I have a book and if I read my book, my book tells me about this fairy tale world with giant octopuses and unicorns everywhere. And everyone agrees that this book is telling me about these unicorns that are real. If we prove that those unicorns aren't real, you're just reading some fictitious book that has nothing to do with reality. I do not have to give you some replacement unicorn or mythological character. Then replace your little book and tell new stories about it before your unicorn isn't real, right? Falsifications independent of replacement. So what were we all taught in school? We were all taught the same thing that the Earth is a globe. This is what we're all taught. So when people act like there's no debate, this is so ignorant, you guys are so underinformed and uneducated. We were taught the same thing you were. And almost every single time the person that really kills a flat earther as dumb or ignorant doesn't even know a fraction about the Earth. Or the supposed globe Earth claims as the flat earther, which should be very telling to anyone honest. So what is the positive claim of the globe, which is what we're testing? Claim number one, the Earth is a sphere with a radius value of 3,959 miles. And I suppose it's a circumference of 24,901 miles. This is a positive claim, a shape claim of a sphere with a size claim, a dimension claim of a specific radius value. This is a positive claim that has the burden of proof. Claim number two, the Earth is supposedly spinning over 1,000 miles per hour at the equator while we're roving around the sun 66,600 miles per hour on an axial tilt of 66.6 degrees. This is of course a positive claim of axial rotation. It has the burden of proof. Okay. Claim number three is that this spinning magic globular Earth with a radius of 3,959 is sitting in a vacuum of space that is encompassed in a near perfect vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 tour. And this is a place that you can actually go to. This is a very positive claim. These are the three fundamental claims of the globe Earth. You have the burden of proof as a global opponent to prove that this is in fact the case. So the heliocentric model has the burden of proof for all these positive claims. Okay. So that's just objectively the way that it is. We don't have to prove a negative. We don't have to explain any question you can come up with. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claims as a heliocentric model is. Isn't saying the Earth is flat a positive claim? Um, well, yes, yes it is. So you have the burden of proof right flat is the description of a surface flat is not a shape. Okay, so we have the burden of proof to show that the surface of the Earth is flat because that is our positive claim. Well, conveniently enough, this has been done numerous ways and we can get into plenty of them. Boreal waves can be sent over 10,000 miles with no Earth curvature obstruction whatsoever. How is this possible? Of course, it's propagating over a horizontal plane. 10,000 miles no Earth curvature obstructing it whatsoever. Seconds have been used to successfully navigate for hundreds of years and require the Earth be a horizontal plane as you take an elevation angle to a celestial object. And then it comes down to the plane to have your corner pocket and elevation angle is to a horizontal. You can not in any way use a sex successfully without the Earth being a horizontal plane and it's worth for hundreds of years for hundreds and hundreds of miles. Next, the horizon has been seen over 10 times the geometric limitations of the globe. This falsifies the globe claim. Again, there is no need for replacement of this model. It has been falsified. The entire globe model depends on the accuracy of this claimed radius value. Everything. So this radius value has been falsified. Still welcome to flat Earth. This is not real. And it's okay. You made the positive claim that this is real. We have falsified that positive claim by falsifying the radius. And you have the burden of proof to substantiate your claims. We must not come up with some fairy tale to replace it. So that is where it all begins to be intellectually honest about the conversation and where we are. And cool. Glad to have excited about having a discussion. You got it. Thank you very much, Austin, for that opening statement. And with that, do want to let you know, folks, just a couple of channel announcements as we are absolutely pumped. In particular, got to let you know on the bottom right of your screen, as an example, my dear friends, for the first time ever, Modern Day Debate is hosting our first conference debate con in one month. January 15th through 16th in Dallas, Texas. You do not want to miss it. As some of the debates will only be live for those that are actually in person, by the way. And so you have a good reason to grab a ticket. And we have also made it so that the tickets are still at early bird pricing. So that in case you haven't heard about that, that's still available. If you haven't jumped on it, you can jump on it right now. It's only two weeks away, you guys. It's coming fast. And we are pumped as there are going to be a lot of juicy debates for that. We'll kick it into the open conversation mode. Do want to let you know your screen share is still on Austin and want to let you know in the meantime. If you haven't yet hit that subscribe button as like I said, we have many juicy debates coming up that you don't want to miss folks. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours Leo and Austin. So do you have any contention with my opening statement? Do you agree that making the positive claim that the earth is a globe has the burden of proof? Yeah, that burden of proof is obviously been met. Okay. So you want to take a step by step. The first, the first claim is that it's a sphere. With the radius of 3959 miles, would you like to enlighten us how that was established and proven? I don't know. I'm not a geologist. I don't know how they measure that. Okay. I would assume probably using trigonometric methods by measuring an aspect of the earth and then utilizing mathematics to extrapolate that to the entire sphere, which could be done. So not a, what is a geometrician? I think they're called. So I couldn't tell you how to do that either. Okay. Well, you did just say that you know it's been proven. And so what you've immediately admitted is that you actually do not know that it's been proven because you're not even aware. I do though. The fact that I don't know the mathematical methods through which it was proved doesn't mean that those methods haven't been used to prove it. Well, how can you know something if you don't know it? I don't know what that means. Well, how can you claim to know something as a fact if you don't even know what it is you're claiming as facts? I do know what it is I'm claiming as fact that the earth is a sphere. How was the radius verified? I don't know. If you wanted to know that my question would be why haven't you asked a geologist? I have debated people that do it for a living. Did you ask them that question? Yes. Did they answer it? I'm sure they answered it. What was the answer that they gave? I don't know what a geodesic is. I don't know what a geodesic means. We physically measured the surface of the earth and falsified the claimed radius. Unless you can prove it, it doesn't curve at the rate it would have to if it's a sphere. How do you know that? For example, I showed you the observation of the black swan. If the earth has a sphere of a radius of 3,900, then that means that the earth's geometric horizon or curvature should be no further than 1.225 times the square root of the observer's height and feet. Just basic geometry, right? You can Google it. This is on earth curve calculator. This is not flat earth myth. This is testing the globe claim, right? That means that one foot off of the earth, you should see the curvature of the earth at 1.2 miles. We have an observation one foot off the surface of the earth and the horizon is over 10 miles. That would require the radius be over a quarter million miles. But they claimed it's under 4,000. So we have a problem here. I don't really know anything about that. I just Googled it in like 10 seconds. I found out how we know what the surface of the earth is. And it's exactly what I said. You use trigonometric methods to measure curvature over a particular area of the earth. You could say maybe even over 100 miles. And then you can use that to calculate what the whole diameter of that circle would be. If you have part of the circle and you know the angle at which it's curving, then you can use that to calculate what the whole diameter of that circle would be. If you have part of the circle and you know the angle at which it's curving, then you can essentially piece together what the size of the entire circle would be. So you're saying if you know the angle at which it's curving, you can determine the radius value. But the way that you know that curvature rate is the radius value. So that would be... I don't know what that means. We know it by looking at differences in the angle of the sun. I mean, this was calculated thousands of years ago because this kind of math has been around for thousands of years. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years. We are not in rocket appliances right now. This is very, very simple stuff. But I would pump the brakes on all the arrogance, right? Because you just admitted to the whole audience you didn't know that... What do you mean by arrogance? I'm just stating things that are true. We've known this for thousands of years. These methods humans have been using for thousands of years. Okay. So you're talking about Aristothanes? Aristothanes? Yeah, that's what you're talking about. He was the first one to calculate it. If I remember, my memory serves me correctly. Yeah, yeah. There's no primary documentation of that ever happening even if we pretend that we know it did happen. So it's just an argument from silence, which is fallacious. That's why you had to interrupt me, right? Well, no, but that's what you're presenting. No, no, no. What I'm saying is you're making a positive claim. This dude measured the circumference of a globe over 2,000 years ago. I'm proving that you can't prove that at all because there's no primary documentation of that ever happening. You don't know that. In addition, we'll pretend that... Yeah, this is an argument from silence. This is just a fallacy. No, you're saying that as if I'm just supposed to... Do you know what an argument from silence is? Yeah, you're saying I'm supposed to just believe that it's a real story. I didn't say that. I didn't say you're supposed to do anything. All I did was say that what you're doing right now is committing an argument from silence. Okay, can you provide evidence for your positive claim that Aristothanes did this? The fact that there are thousands-year-old documents of it having been done. Now, if you want to dispute that whether the person who actually ultimately is the actual human that did it, whether his name is Aristothanes, is irrelevant, the math checks out. Do you have an argument against the math? Yeah, sure. I was trying to get there, right? So my preface was that actually there's no primary documentation, but we'll just assume it is real anyway, but you had to interrupt me. So if we assume it's real, do you know that he had to assume the sun was distant with parallel rays? Well, of course it was parallel rays. That's how light works. Light works that the sun is distant. That's the only way light could work. No, light moves in straight lines. Okay, so is there anything such thing as divergent rays? Is that a real thing? Divergent rays? Yeah, there are ways to do that, yeah. Okay, so that's not how light works. The electromagnetic radiation? Yes, it propagates orthonormally, I believe, if it's not interacting with a form of medium. Yes. It actually propagates in a transverse movement. Or do you not know what orthonormal means? Orthonormal, no, it might mean orthonormal. One oscillates this way, one oscillates this way. They're orthogonal or at 90 degrees to one another and normalize of unit length. So they're normal, orthonormal. Is it transverse? Yes or no? Oh lord, have mercy. So you don't, okay, so the propagation of orthonormality would subsume the concept of transverse. Right, okay. So can you provide evidence that the sun is 93 million miles away or is it just a- Oh, we can measure that. Okay, so did he measure the sun was 93 million miles away? Actually, I do not know that. I have no idea whether he measured the distance to the sun or not. Right, well he needed that assumption to deduce to calculations and did you know he didn't even claim it was anywhere close to 93 million? He claimed something more like 3 million. Did you know that? I don't know if anything that you're saying is true or false because I haven't read anything about what Aristotle did in terms of calculating distances from the earth to the sun. This is your claim though. You claimed he proved the earth was a sphere with a circumference value. I claimed that he used simple mathematics to determine what the circumference of the earth is, yes. We know that he did that, yes. It works the same if the sun's local on a flat surface. He assumed a distant sun with parallel rays and assumed a spherical surface. Yeah, but those are facts which is why he assumed them. The sun is distant and electromagnetic radiation propagates orthonormally unless it's interacting with the medium. So your proof of the earth's measurement is that he assumed the earth is a sphere and you can use that assumption to prove that the earth is a sphere. If the earth weren't a sphere, unless you're arguing that there is geometric curvature to it, even though it's not like a sphere, then fine. But that wouldn't be flat. There is geometric curvature on the earth. He figured that out just from walking from two cities. Yeah, that was the claim. Well actually, that's not the claim. That was the observation. He determined that there obviously there was curvature on the surface of the earth because these things that we see in reality happening. But did you know that if the surface was flat and the sun was more local, you would get the same results? How so? Because the divergent rays would create shadows relative to the angle of the local light. What do you mean by divergent rays? They converge to the point of light, the source of light, which is the sun. Isn't that how all lights work? Okay. You just said they're all parallel. So anyway. Yeah, they travel at straight lines outward from the source in all directions. That's kind of how field mechanics works. Well, the globe earth kind of doesn't claim that any of the sun's rays on earth is divergent. They claim they're parallel. I don't know. I don't know what you mean. They're parallel in terms of them coming from the sun. The light just moves in straight lines through space. Right. Right. So if it's divergent in the sense that all those straight lines would diverge back onto the sun, the point of origin. The globe earth model has just a small portion of the light of the sun hitting the earth, and they're all parallel. If the earth is smaller or if the sun's more local, then it has divergent rays locally on the earth. It's a fundamental. I have no idea what you're talking about. Okay. So you have no, first of all, that wasn't even. Optics isn't this hard. Actually optics is a pretty difficult field. It's boring too. Do you agree or disagree that if the earth was flat and the sun was local, you'd get the same results? If you had like a sort of a flat disc earth and a little ball up here with light, with the light, the light would just be covering the whole surface. So you wouldn't have nighttime. So no, I don't think that would work. Okay. Well, that's called a straw man fallacy. My man. Yes, it is. What's a straw man? Yeah. You just straw man of a model of the earth saying that the earth's a disc with a ball above it, then it covered up the whole disc. That is just an unfounded claim that no one on this side is ever made. There's something called all of you. There's something called the attenuation of lights. Sure. So why would the light go forever if it's a small local light source with attenuation? What do you mean? Why would the light go forever? You just claimed to cover the whole earth. Why would it cover the whole earth if it's a small local light source with attenuation? Because attenuation happens when the electrical magnetic radiation interacts with matter. So you wouldn't expect that to happen until it struck the earth. Wait, is there not matter in the atmosphere? Not very much, no. Oh, so there's not an absorption rate of air when it comes to light. There's not an absorption rate of light. Oh, a very small one. A very small one. It's more I think of a refractive index, but. OK, so there's an attenuation rate in the air. A very, very small one. Yes. OK, so it's a small local light source. It wouldn't cover the whole earth. Can we get back to stop trying to pretend you know how to falsify the flatter? Can you prove the globe earth radius value? That's what we're trying to get to here. I already have. We've mathematically calculated it. We measured that there was curvature on the surface and used the amount of curvature measured over the length and extrapolated that to an entire sphere and got an accurate measurement. We've confirmed it today, so. Right. He was over 15% off. Aristophanes did it with the radius value and the person that did it for your model, his name is actually Albaruni. I don't really care who did it. It doesn't really matter. It doesn't just be in a genetic fallacy. You're trying to appeal to the sources. It means falsifying the information when the source of the information isn't really relevant here. No, I'm not. I'm appealing to the fallacious methodology they used. You are ignorant of the method. What fallacious methodology? Yeah, and the funny thing is, is you haven't been able to explain them to me. So I don't think you know much about them either. I never claimed to know everything and I don't. I don't actually know how we've even today measured the circumference in the radius of the Earth. I really don't. I've never asked, but I'm sure if I Googled it, how can we measure the circumference of the Earth? I'd get perfectly fine answers. It makes sense and have a lot of valid mathematics to back them up. I mean, I'm sure that anybody, if they really wanted to know these things, could just Google them or call a university and ask a professional. My question would be, why haven't you done that? Well, hey, isn't it pretty ignorant to claim you know the answer to a subject or question if you're completely ignorant of all the details of that subject? I didn't say I was completely ignorant of all the details. I said, there are some things that I do not know. That the Earth is round is one of the things I do know. Well, you've proven you don't even know how they claim they proved that. Well, through parts, certain methods in terms of calculating precisely the circumference in the diameter, I don't know that. That doesn't mean I don't, there aren't other ways to know that the Earth is a sphere or a spheroidal. Okay, but maybe we should do this, right? You realize that the entire model depends on that radius value being accurate. What do you mean? We could change that value. The Earth can be larger or smaller. It could be more spheroidal or less spheroidal. The point is that it's a sphere. No, it objectively cannot be bigger or smaller. So you're saying that if it couldn't, but it can because there are planets that are Okay, so you don't understand it. So say the Earth has a certain size. That's how we've come up with everything else in the model, like relative distances and sizes of the other bodies in the solar system, cosmological distances. If you don't understand this, doesn't make it not true. In order to understand this, I study. Okay, so to have horrible trajectories, dependent upon the masses, dependent upon the size of the dimension, which displaces a certain amount of mass in the curvature of space time. So the radius of the Earth is directly related to your entire claim as a day and night cycle. Actually, no, our day and night cycle would be related to the rate of rotation of the Earth about its axis. And the way you come up with the rate of rotation is how much it needs to spin within a certain period of time based on its size. No, you can make the Earth larger and it could still spin and have a 24-hour day cycle. If the Earth was larger, would it have to spin faster to maintain the same day cycle? I would assume so. So conservation of momentum is kind of the thing that exists in reality. Yeah. Yeah, so everything depends on that radius value being correct. No. Do you think that the Earth couldn't exist if those numbers weren't exactly what they are? What a strawman. No, that was a question, not a strawman. I was asking you a question. Do I think the Earth couldn't exist? Yeah, if the Earth was larger, do you think that would just, how it just couldn't exist? The Earth can only ever be one size if it's a sphere. That seems to be what you're saying. Yeah, because we know distances to different locations on the Earth, right? And so if that radius value changes, those known distances... Well, of course they would change. The planet would be larger. Why would we not expect that? But we know the distances, though. Yes, because the planet is the size that it is. So if it was falsified, then it could not be a sphere. Well, no, it would just mean that it's either larger or smaller than what it is. And that all the distances to known locations are wrong. Well, sure, because the Earth is either larger or smaller than what we thought it was. It's still a sphere. Well, that can't work because they're verified distances. Yes, they are, because the Earth isn't larger or smaller than what we've measured, because we've measured how large the Earth is. Okay, we'll let the audience, aside for that, double speak. So another thing that the radius value is connected to is to ever go to space, you have to obtain escape velocity. Right? So you have to have a certain orbit. So you have a radius of orbit that's dependent upon the radius of the Earth. Any story about going to space depends on that radius value. So if the radius value is wrong, the entire model is wrong. This is just objective. I don't know what you mean when you say that. You keep essentially making this argument that, well, if the Earth were any larger or any smaller, all of the values about distances on the Earth and the amount of velocity you needed to escape Earth's gravitational field and the radius at which something can be in a free orbit around Earth would all change and your model would fall apart. No, it wouldn't. It just means that the Earth would either be larger or smaller than what it is. It doesn't matter that the Earth is the size that it is. We measure that it's the size that it is because it is that size. But the idea that if it were larger or smaller, if those values were different, all of a sudden, we can't explain anything. No, that's not how this works. I'm sorry. This is not how this works at all. You don't get it. So how far away do they say the Sun is, for example? The Sun is somewhere between, well, it depends. 93 million miles approximately or 150 million kilometers for the normal people in the chat. Right. So that's based on the mass of the Sun. And then it has a distance to the supposed mass of the Earth. And that's how it's attaining gravitational orbit, right? Yeah. OK. So if the mass of the Earth changed, would the rest of the model have to change as well? What do you mean by the rest of the model? No. The relativity would still work just fine. If you changed nothing, so the velocity of the Earth stayed the same, all you did was increase its mass. There, well, that would be a hard thing to do and to begin with because you have conservation of momentum against conservation laws. But likely the Earth would, if it would grew larger, more massive, yet somehow retain the same orbital velocity, it would probably start to fall inward toward the Sun. OK. So if the size of the Earth is wrong, the size of the Moon is wrong, the size of the Sun is wrong, the size of all the Earth is wrong. You mean if we calculated it wrong? They would also have to change, yeah. Not probably not. I mean, if we calculated the Earth of the mass of the Earth wrong, that wouldn't really change much in terms of what we know about the Sun because, I mean, do you realize how small the mass of the Earth is compared to that of the Sun? Well, we're talking about changing that number and relationship, aren't we? Yeah, do you know? It would be like changing our understanding of the Sun by like 100 millionths of a percent. Like it's going to, it's completely negligible in the mass. Well, that's crazy. I mean, yeah, if we found that the mass of the Earth, oh, it's 15% more than we thought, that's not really going to change much else about our model. What about a thousand times? I would need to see some serious justification for the idea that we would be off by that much in calculating the mass of the Earth. A thousand percent? I seriously doubt our ability to calculate that the mass of the Earth is that skewed. Yeah, well, we have an observation where the radius value would have to be 264,000 miles. I don't know what you mean. Well, they claim the radius is under 4,000 miles. I've said something that's objective. You've disputed it, but I don't want to keep going in circles. If the radius value is wrong, the entire model is wrong. The highest levels of academia on your side would agree with that. They would say that if somehow the size of the Earth, if you change the values of the parameters of the Earth, its radius, diameter, circumference, its mass, its density, there are things that would change. You could potentially make it so that life wouldn't have been possible on this planet. But nothing about how we understand, of what we understand rather in terms of the way reality works, relativity, thermodynamics, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, none of that's going to change. And it's through those methods that we know that the Earth is spheroidal. So the methods that we've used to determine the size of the Earth are not going to be changed if the size of the Earth were somehow changed. OK. So objectively, man, I'm not going to keep arguing it. If the size of the Earth is wrong, the entire model is intrinsically wrong. It's all dependent upon the mass of the Earth. How so? Day and night cycle, gravity. What about, yeah, but like I said, those are all parameters that depend on the size of the Earth is. We could go to anything. The size of the mass of the sun matters too. If we change the mass of the sun, we'd get the same things. Things would start looking a little different. That does not mean that gravity somehow works differently. That does not mean that our physics does not work and doesn't give us accurate descriptions of reality. What you're talking about isn't that the math doesn't work anymore. We're just talking about changing the parameters within it. Yeah, that's going to change how the system evolves through time. But the fact that the system will evolve through a set of laws that we can determine that are based in symmetries and conservation principles, all that stuff, that's all going to be the same. Changing the parameters doesn't really mean anything for the physics of how we describe how systems evolve. OK. So you don't know how they supposedly measured the size of the Earth. If you're looking at the moon, you're looking at the horizon. It fluctuated. He reverse engineered a radius value. We have falsified that with physical measurements of the surface. It would require the radius be over a quarter of a million miles. What kind of measurements did you do? Real fast. If the model is, or if the radius value is wrong, the entire model must be trashed because it's dependent upon that R value. This is just objective heliocentric perspective. So if you want to need the radius value, yeah. An R value doesn't have anything to do with radius. The term R value has to do with insulation and thermodynamics and stuff like that. I think it's a measure of the thermal resistance. I think it's over the area of the thing, the thermal resistance of the area, something like that. Yeah. I don't know. That doesn't have anything to do with radius. OK. So if the Earth has that radius and we're supposed to see the curvature of the Earth at 1.2 miles away from one foot off the ground, how do we see the horizon over 10 miles away from one foot off the ground? What? Can you repeat the question, please? Yeah. So if the Earth's a sphere with a radius of 39.59, it curves at a certain rate. That means you can see the curvature of the Earth at a certain distance away from you based on how high above the sphere you are because it's curving away from you. So if I'm one foot off the globe Earth, I should see the curvature of the Earth block my view at 1.225 times the square root of the observer's height and feet. Simply, the square root of 1 is 1.1 times 1.2 is 1.2. One foot off this magic globe Earth, I'm so crazy for not believing in. The horizon should be at 1.2 miles, but yet we saw the horizon over 10 miles away. This is impossible geometrically. Yeah, I would just have to crunch the numbers on that, which I'm not going to do right now because I don't think it really matters. I mean, a lot of the stuff really ultimately that you're bringing up just doesn't matter. There are ways that we know that the Earth is round that don't even require us to actually do any measuring of the Earth. There are complete other physical theories we can appeal to that tell us that not just the Earth, but that all sufficiently massive bodies will be sphere-roidal. So you agree then that there are no physical measurements of Earth curvature that exist? No, I don't agree with that. Do you know of one? A way to measure the curvature of the Earth, yeah. Walk from one place to another. Walk from Tampa, Florida all the way up to Boston, Massachusetts and measure the difference in the position of the sun at the same time of day. And you will notice it will change. You'll be able to use that to determine the angle of curvature of the distance between Tampa and Boston. And then that you could essentially extrapolate all the other pieces and get the full circle and be like, oh, so yeah. The object that I'm standing on is a sphere and its circumference would be this amount. And then from that I can determine with the radius and what the diameter would be as well. Right, but so you have to assume the Earth's a sphere so how can you... The thing there is what you're observing when you make that walk is that you're walking on a curve. That's not an assumption you go in starting with. It's something that you get out of doing it. That's a result of what you're doing. It accounts for why you see the world the way that you do. So on your model or lack thereof you would have to account for why we can experience a curvature to the Earth's surface when there really isn't any. We literally don't experience a curvature to the Earth's surface at all ever in the entire... Why does the position of the Sun change when you move? Holy shit, I'm going to get this wrong. I think it's... Longitude I think is this way. Look guys, I'm not a surveyor. I'm not a geologist. I do physics, okay? I don't know this stuff. I think this is longitudinal. Correct me if I'm wrong. But when you move longitudinally if I'm correct on the Earth the position of the Sun changes. The position of the stars change as well. Their change is proportionate to a definite curvature that we can measure on the surface that we're walking. Why? Because that would happen on a flat Earth and I'm trying to explain but you really have impulse control issues. So when they looked at the sky they reverse engineered the cyclical nature of it to apply it to a spherical assumption. What does that mean? Reverse engineered the cyclical nature of the sky. Okay, let's take it word by word then. The sky has a cyclical nature. What does that mean? It has a cycle. What do you mean by cycle? A reoccurring cycle. The stars have a reoccurring cycle. You mean like they move? In a circle, in a cycle. Yeah, you know that's because the Earth is rotating, right? That's why we see the sky spin like this because we're on the Earth which is rotating. That's what you believe, yeah, because you have been indoctrinated. So anyway... Is the whole universe rotating around the Earth? Is that what's going on? Are you going to go Robert St. Genesis on me? The sky moves over top of the Earth, yeah. How? Isn't that what we observe? No, it's not. We observe the Earth moving. No, we don't. According to your model, we don't observe the Earth. No, according to your model, we don't observe the Earth moving. It's all relative because the mass of the Earth is so big based on the bending and warping of the curvature of space-time. You actually don't feel it. You're in a gravity well and everything is relative. The Earth is so big you don't feel it spinning and actually the sky is still relative to our position in this coordinate system of space-time. It just looks like it's moving because the Earth is rotating, but we can't feel it. That is your claim. Yeah, of course. Just like when you're in a car going 100 miles an hour down the highway, you can't really tell that you're in a car going at 100 miles an hour down the highway. I mean, obviously, you know, the little bumps and stuff in the road, but if that road were like perfectly smooth, there was no bumps or dips or anything what's often referred to as a change of vector, you would have no idea that you were moving. This is why in an airplane at almost 700 miles an hour, you are sitting there like, oh, yeah, I'm just like I'm in my couch, in my living room because that's how that works. You don't feel movement. You feel acceleration. Yeah, and the Earth is rotating, which means it's accelerating in transit. No, it's not. Oh, really? No, the Earth's rotation is slowing at a rate that is so slow that we are never going to be able to tell that change. It would be like slowing down from 100 miles an hour to zero miles an hour at one mile an hour per year. If you were to be... I understand it's somewhat of a contrived hypothetical, but it makes the point. If you were in that car for two years, you wouldn't... You're not going to notice the change from 100 miles an hour and 98 miles an hour over that two years. I'm sorry, but you're not going to notice that the car has slowed down at all. Okay, so I know your argument, right? But the reason it's not analogous with the car is because... You know it, but do you understand it? Far better, actually. So if you're driving the car and you turn it, are you going to fill it? Yes, that's a change of vector. Oh, so if it turns, you fill it. So is the Earth turning? Is the Earth rotating? Yes. Okay, so it's intrinsically changing direction then. Changing direction? What do you mean? If something's rotating, it's constantly... A rotation? Yeah, that angular momentum. Yeah, but not linear momentum. It must be angular momentum. Oh, and so we just, yeah, we just wouldn't fill it. So I already said you're... Well, no, not on something that's as large as the Earth is. Yeah, I said that already. So if you said it, then obviously you understand this. Then I don't know what your contention is. Obviously you understand that the Earth is a very large object and because it's so large and we're not and where our entire existence has been confined to the planet in the atmosphere that is also rotating at the same speed as a result of friction with the Earth's rotation and everything, we're not going to be able to feel that it's rotating. So yeah, I mean, if you understand that, what is it about that that you're contending with if you seem to understand it so well? Do you think the fact that you wouldn't theoretically fill it proves that it's spinning? Well, no, of course not. What's the proof it's spinning then? The proof that it's spinning would be... Well, the fact that we have actually measured the angular momentum of the Earth, we do have instruments sensitive enough to do it. And there's actually an instrument that's not just sensitive enough to measure the angular momentum of the Earth as it rotates, but can measure a change in that momentum, that force going along the surface of the Earth longitudinally. I believe it's Foucault's pendulum is the device that we can use. Also, we see that the sky is spinning in the same direction we would expect the Earth to be spinning if it were. And yeah, these tell us that the Earth is spinning. So we saw the sky spinning, and so if we theorized that the Earth was a globe spinning and it made the sky look like it's spinning, it only had one direction it could be spinning because that's based on what the sky is doing. It doesn't match the rotation that we expect the Earth to be. That's not what happened. It has to be spinning. Are you saying that if the Earth weren't, if the Earth were rotating, we wouldn't expect to see a rotation in objects in the sky? I didn't say that now. Well, that's the statement that I made. If the Earth were rotating, we would expect to observe a rotation in the sky given that we are on the Earth. And we do see that. That serves as evidence that accounts. So the idea that the Earth is at least rotating regardless of what its shape is, accounts for why we see the world this way. Right. So that's if the stars in the sky are still, right? So what we actually observe. They're not still. Right. You're right, because I time-lapse them all the time. They're constantly moving in perfect circles. Yeah. So here's the question. If the Earth was stationary and the sky was moving, would we observe the same thing? If assuming it's moving in just the right ways, yes. Yeah, east to west like it does. Well, I mean, even beyond that. No, everything else works perfectly. Well, assuming that it moves, I mean, if everything was the sky was moving, but it was moving like across us like this, then we wouldn't expect to see a rotation. So we would only expect to see that if the Earth was stationary, the sky would have to be rotating, but the sky isn't like an object that can move like that. So that's another reason why we know that that's not the answer because like the sky isn't a thing that can rotate. Okay. The stars in the sky rotate, bud. Around the Sagittarius A star, yes. Not around the, surprisingly enough, what would be the center of the axis of the Earth because it looks like the sky is rotating around that, which is also something which comports with the idea that the Earth is not just rotating, but is a sphere and is rotating about an axis. Okay. So yeah, they all revolve around Polaris. We don't actually feel the movement. Your argument is that it's so big, you wouldn't feel it cool. Still objectively, we don't feel it though. That's objective. Sure. We see the stars move. You claim that it looks like they're moving in a circle, but they're actually sitting still. It's just because the stars aren't sitting still. No. Yeah, relative to our reference frame. Well, yeah. Well, sure. But at that point, I mean, there is no app. Wait, what do you think motion is? You do realize there's no such thing as absolute motion. Correct. Why are you diverting? No, you're the one that wanted to divert. You said relative to our reference frame. Well, of course. Yeah. You just said that they weren't still. Yeah. The stars. The stars are moving. Yes. Oh, the stars are moving in. Yes. They are the whole. You do realize the Milky Way Galaxy is rotating. Correct. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. So obviously the stars and our solar system, which is around a star would be moving with all the other stars. We do not exist for long enough to really see that. I mean, Christ sakes, it takes the Milky Way Galaxy 225 million years to do one rotation. That's all pseudo science fairy tales. I don't know what you mean by pseudo science. These are things. These are things we've measured quite well. In fact, we've measured the rotation of not just our own galaxy, but many other galaxies so well that we realize that the amount of baryonic mass that is present in the galaxies isn't enough to account for why they're held together, despite the fact that they're rotating so quickly, which is why we have a thing like dark matter. There has to be some extra mass to create the gravitation to hold the galaxies together because they're rotating too quickly to do it on their own with just the mass that we can see. So, yeah, we do know that galaxies rotate. Well, all of this stuff is obviously tangentially related. And it all comes back to proving my point that the methodologies that I rely on and that everybody else in the same world here relies on obviously work. And those methods tell us that the Earth is a spheroidal ball that is rotating about an axis and orbits a star. Okay. No, it doesn't actually. All practical use assumes the Earth is a flat stationary plane like flying a plane, military documents about horizontal propagation, electromagnetic propagation for ground weapons systems. They had to assume the Earth was a dielectric stationary plane, helicopters, ballistic missiles. Relativistically, of course. Okay, so your claim is that we have to treat the Earth always like it's stationary and flat for anything to work, but it's all relative. Well, we don't have to do that. We choose to do that for convention because it just makes the math easy. No, it's because people would die if you didn't do that. If you flew a plane. If you had to account for spin and curvature in a plane, everyone would die. Well, no, it's just that we don't need to account for the spin and the spin of the rotation of the Earth. That's convenient. Well, yeah, because why would we need to? We're spinning with it. Well, actually, no, your motto claims that the atmosphere doesn't move in synchronicity with the Earth. Well, not perfectly. No, of course not. What do you think weather is in wind and stuff like that? Tornators? Correct. Those are just what it turns within the atmosphere. What you just said would require a move in synchronicity, but your motto does not claim that. No, not necessarily. It doesn't have to move in synchronicity. The atmosphere largely is spinning at the points closest to the Earth at roughly the same speed that the Earth is rotating in those areas. With the atmosphere, there's going to be a gradiance to its movement, and there's going to be turbulence in it because you have electromagnetic radiation coming from the Sun. You have a bunch of thermal and geochemical processes and geothermal processes and all these other geophysical processes occurring that are adding all this turbulence into the atmosphere. You've got humans that are doing things. You've got the tides, all this stuff having an effect. Yeah, it's not going to be like 100% synchronous moving with the Earth. It's a fluid. Yeah, yeah. So anyway, is there any scientific evidence of axial rotation? Rotation about the axis? Yeah, the fact that we observe the stars in the sky, they rotate and they seem to do so about an axis, which is exactly what we would expect to see if we were on a sphere that was rotating about an axis. And it is scientific because as anybody who knows science understands, the beauty of science is that we can go out and make observations about the world and then find models or form models that help account for the things that we see in the world. And the idea that we are on a planet, that is a sphere largely, and it is rotating about an axis, accounts for looking up and seeing, if you've ever seen the videos, you can see it looks essentially like the sky is rotating. Yeah. We would expect to see that if we were on an Earth that was a globe. And we expect to see that if the Earth is stationary and the sky moves like we see it. But see, yeah, that's correct. But there are other reasons. There are other reasons that we have for thinking that the sky doesn't spin because the sky isn't an object that can spin. That's just not what the sky is. You do realize that if you were to just like, and again, contrived hypothetical, but it makes the point, if you were to just float up that you're not going to hit something, you're going to continue out into the vast reaches of space. You do realize that, correct? I know that that's a fairy tale. Yeah. What do you mean a fairy tale? Just to be sure there's not too much interrupting, I just want to make sure there is. I'm sorry. Because there is a lot of like, define this and that's okay, but it might also be, there's a lot of interrupting where I don't want it to be too much. So we might jump into two minute, kind of like modes there for a little while if it doesn't slow down. Cool. Yeah. So as for, there's no, there's been no scientific evidence offered for axial rotation measurement, which is the first one, the dimension claim. That's actually not a scientific question. That's a measurement question, but there's no physical measurement of Earth curvature. He felt to provide that. He felt the providing scientific evidence of axial rotation. Observation is not scientific evidence. That's the first step of the scientific method, your dependent variable. Science is literally the study, the cause of an effect, which is your independent variable, which must be varied and manipulated. That's what the scientific method is. If I can just go look at something and make up stories about it and then claim it science, then science would have no value. So there's no scientific evidence for axial rotation that you can think of, or do we need to move on to the third one? Yeah. There are, I just wanted to say that, see, you propounded this often refuted and just not true idea that science is all about causes and effects. That's just not at all the case. There are areas very well understood in very precisely measured areas of science where causality isn't even a factor. And you can ask most physicists and they'll tell you causality is much like temperature. It's like a phenomenal result of our experience of reality at the scale that we experience it, but it's not this fundamental property that's built into reality. That's just not a thing. So much like temperature, causality is just a result of how we experience the reality that we exist in at the scale that we exist in. So that's just not true. You said observations aren't evidence. Literally they are. The whole point of science is to observe things about the world, find out facts about the world. We look at the world. We see it a certain way. We see it doing things. And then what we need to do is we need to find ways to account for that. Now, I wasn't expecting to have to go into like a lecture on a philosophy of science, but largely when it comes to accounting for things in reality, being a scientific explanation this is often construed in terms of grounding counterfactuals. Don't know if that's a term you've ever heard. And what this means is that if we want to say that X explains Y or accounts for Y, then we need to be able to establish a counterfactual such that if Y was not observed, then you wouldn't expect to see X. If you can't establish that, then in what sense does X account for Y? If you could get X in the absence of Y, then obviously X doesn't account for Y or at least not Y exclusively. And then that results in other things, modifying models and things like that and what have you. But this is how it works. So, if we see something, we want to account for that. We need to be able to say, okay, what about the world and give us this thing that we're seeing? If we weren't seeing this, what else would we expect to see? What would be other things that we expect to see? And this is why these things are explanations. Being on a sphere that is rotating about an axis explains it accounts for why we see certain features of reality the way that they are. And sure, there might be other ways that can at least prima facie account for it and this would be my last point. But there are reasons why those aren't nearly as parsimonious as the idea that we are on a globe. Okay. Yeah, that's actually just not true. So, the default position based on observable phenomena is that this Earth doesn't move at stationary to do anything in the practical world successfully. You must assume it stationary as and fly a plane to the bullet you name it. Or you would not be able to successfully implement practical use. So, actually, we just treat the Earth as a stationary. The sky moves over top of us all circling around Polaris, the North Pole star over the North Pole quote unquote just a geographic location you're not allowed to go to. And it continues to reset. The default position is that you're making a claim antithetical to observable phenomena. So, you have the burden of proof times a million. You're making a claim antithetical to what's actually observed and can be verified. So, to flip the script and pretend that if we don't blindly believe your claim antithetical to all observations, we are out of pocket. It's a bit off-putting, right? It doesn't really make sense. So, there is the Einstein himself. I'll help you out. I'll throw you a bone, right? Einstein himself said, I've come to the conclusion that there is no optical experiment on the Earth that will ever prove the Earth's movement. Although we know it revolves around the Sun. So, there is no Earthly observation that can prove the Earth is spinning according to your own side. It's just philosophical. It's theoretical. And that's just that. And so, yeah, you know, unless you've got some scientific evidence, it's just sophistry. So, I just really quickly want to recap. I did outline what is evidence. And then I explained why it's evidence and how we know that it's evidence. I didn't really hear much in the way from you in terms of responding to that. You did cite Einstein, and that quotation is correct. But the thing that is often left out is what Einstein was speaking about there was movement of the Earth through the aether. This is why he referred to an optical experiment. We are never going to be able, if the aether, the luminiferous aether is a re-entersed still people to believe in even that. If that were a real thing, there's no experiment, there's no optical experiment we would ever be capable of doing that it's going to be able to determine the Earth's movement or any drag on Earth or on light being emitted from Earth as it moves through that aether. So, that's what Einstein was referring to. He wasn't referring to any way of detecting that the Earth moves. But since you brought up Einstein, let me bring up my favorite piece of evidence in favor of the Flat Earth. And that's Einstein's field equations. I don't know if you've ever heard of those. But, obviously, Einstein is a source that we can both agree is reputable. Otherwise, I don't think you would have cited him even though the quote you cited had nothing to do with the motion of the Earth's Simpliciter, but the motion of the Earth through the aether, which is also a thing that isn't real. Einstein's field equations describe what, essentially, what gravity is. And they tell us that mass energy has an effect on spacetime. We don't really fully understand that because we don't want it there in gravity. But, essentially, the point that I'm getting at is that when we look at Einstein's field equations, what we see is that there would be a hydrostatic equilibrium on massive enough objects. Once an object gets massive enough, there's going to be a tension on its surface. There's going to be a tension on the object as a result of its own gravitational force of the field acting on the object creating the field. And that material is going to have a resistance to that tension, and it's going to find a shape that can most reduce the tension across the surface of that object. And as anybody versed in material science or physics knows, that's a sphere. And that is why stars and planets are seroidal because of the hydrostatic equilibrium between the tension on that object as a result of its own gravitational field and the resistance of the material, which is given by the Pauli exclusion principle and things like that, but I'm not here to talk about quantum mechanics, that results from the material that is creating the field that is then putting the stress on it. And it's sort of a symbiotic relationship between those two. Cool. So, it's just Theoretics 1905, the attributed constant speed to light, which actually quantum mechanics pretty thoroughly debunked that. They cannot coexist. To even say the word theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in the same sentence is actually laughably ignorant. But anyway... Wait, do you not know what relativistic quantum mechanics is? I know that relativity can't coexist with quantum mechanics. Well, general relativity has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics. Special relativity has been. And just a quick point for the sake of the audience. The U1 gauge transformation symmetry group, which is what we use... Just to find the electromagnet as well distributed. Okay, maybe you're not hearing me. Just to be sure that time is well distributed. We are going to go into the Q&A shortly. You guys have got a little bit of time yet, but just to let you guys know that. Okay, so yeah. The point is just that actually, it doesn't matter. That's a non sequitur anyway. So it was proposed in 1915, superseded Newtonian mechanics. It actually claims to attribute physical properties to conceptual abstractions. One of which is a privation. Okay, I do need you to stop talking while Whitzit is talking, to be fair, because I don't want Whitzit to do the same to you. Okay? So space, time is conceptual, right? So space, the idea of emptiness, nothingness, of privation, time is a quantification method that we use to quantify passing. We put it into a coordinate system, right? Using breath, height, width into quote unquote space to determine this effect of a gravity well and that gravity effect of the bending and warping of space time. Anyway, on its face, it's inadmissible. Conceptual abstractions cannot in any way have physical properties. It's also falling apart as early as the 50s. The galaxy rotational speeds debunked it. Also as recently as modern times, we now have dark matter, dark energy making up 95% that it's not accounted for in relativistic application and it's off with 95% its occupancy claim. So it's not even close to being viable mathematically yet and none of that even matters. It's all begging the question because on the local scale on the earth, you never account for gravity, you never account for spinning and you never account for earth curvature. This is just objective and we need scientific evidence before we believe cartoons from governmental agencies. So we need actual physical scientific evidence, bro. Am I good, Austin? You're good, man. Okay. So a few things here and I promise this is all going to loop back to how we know that the earth is not flat, that it's a sphere. So the first thing is, you said that space time is this conceptual thing. It's not. And ultimately this gets into a lot of philosophy of physics, which I really don't want to get into and I don't think the audience is really interested in getting to. But if anybody would, I would just recommend looking up things like relationalism versus substantialism with respect to space time and it's the ontology of space time. In fact, this is the thing I've been reading on a lot in the past couple of days because I've been doing a lot of reading into things like structural realism and onto structural realism and relational quantum mechanics and other areas of metaphysics. So this isn't something that's new to me. There's a huge philosophical discussion being had on this, but even substantialists, relationalists, both would do that. Every physicist I have ever talked to in my life would reject this idea that space time is purely conceptual. It was proposed not in 1905, but in 1915, at least general relativity was. Special relativity was published in 1905 and Sir Arthur Eddington actually observationally confirmed general relativity in 1917 when he observed two stars that were supposed to be behind the sun that are behind the sun, but he observed them out here as a result of the, what's ultimately a shear through the dimension of time, which is how we know that time is actually a real physical fundamental dimension because it can actively be sheared by the stress of mass energy as described by Einstein's field equation. So he measured that showing and the amount by which their trajectory was off as a result of the curvature in space time was precisely what general relativity had predicted. General relativity has never once failed any test that it has been put to. It isn't a complete theory, but that doesn't make it a wrong theory. The reason all of this matters is because again, I'm making a much broader argument here, not just that the Earth is a sphere, but how we know that, and we know that through a set of sound methodologies that all scientists across the planet utilize and that all of these methodologies obviously give us accurate descriptions and ways of understanding reality because if they didn't, none of our technology, the very technology we're using to have this debate, this discussion right now would work. And so if we can trust them in other areas, why wouldn't we trust them here? All of this science shows that the Earth is a sphere that it rotates and it orbits the Sun. Yeah. So you cannot provide any substantive specificity of empirical evidence. You just keep making claims appealing to technology. An accelerometer must prove that the Earth's a globe and that gravity bends and warps and physical properties can be attributed to concepts because I have a accelerometer in my cell phone. The electrical grid uses nothing to do with the Earth being a globe. None of our technology does. You can't fly a plane, can't drive a car, assuming that the Earth is spinning globe. None of that is real. It's just this vague claim of specificity so you can basically appeal to majority or consensus, appeal to authority and credentials. And this is insufficient in no way admissible in intellectual form. We need empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence of Earth curvature, no physical measurements of it, only physical measurements falsifying it. You admitted that you didn't know the radius, didn't know the curvature rate, didn't know where it should be seen, and you didn't know how it was supposedly measured. You then said that if the radius was falsified it wouldn't debunk the globe. Well, every single person with any knowledge or competence on your side at all would tell you that you're patently wrong. Then you asked for scientific evidence for axial rotation yet to get any whatsoever. There is none. Just pointing at the sky and saying, I think that's what it is. Believe my story. This is how you can apply my story. It's called a begging to question fallacy. It cannot be invoked to prove the very thing you are claiming to prove that is very fundamental, rudimentary fallacy. So there are the two primary things. Of course, the third one being you can't have a pressurized system adjacent to a near perfect vacuum into the negative 17 tour. The second law of thermodynamics would not allow that. So there's your three core claims and they cannot exist. They've been debunked. I guess I don't understand what this three core claims thing is. The only thing that's being claimed is the sphere that it rotates about its axis. It also wobbles about its axis or precesses about its axis and then it orbits a star all of which can be confirmed just by higher order mathematical theories that have been confirmed that we've ever tried to test them. Not only that, but we could have been I know flat earthers don't like it when people say this but that's because it's the easiest way to show that their world view is wrong and they don't have any objection other than just blatant conspiracies but we've gone into space. It was five days ago that we put the James Webb Space Telescope and we go watch and go up into space. It didn't hit anything. Where did it go? Did God like swallow it up or something? Like what happened to it? How does a flat earther account for literally watching a thing go up into space? Yeah. So I've actually actually document the rocket launches personally. I know you probably never have done it. I document them with the highest power commercially available zoom that there has. I actually debate the NASA employees on scene. So I find it quite rich that you think that you can bring up the fact that you rockets in Cape Canaveral which I'm about an hour away from and constantly document as if that's some proof of going to a medium that defies the Second World Thermodynamics. So to appeal to the authority of the government means nothing to me. NASA was founded admittedly with NASA or with Nazis Rene von Braun Operation Paperclip declassified. They've lied about all kinds of things including quote unquote global warming temperature recordings all the way back to the 50s were doctored. It's one of the most corrupt establishments that there is. And so I don't actually have to blindly believe stories about NASA sending stuff into a vacuum that can exist. What you will find out or what's becoming abundantly clear is you cannot respond with specificity. You cannot have a vacuum next to a pressurized system. This violates the second law of thermodynamics claiming they went to Narnia doesn't make Narnia real. Can you tell me what the second law of thermodynamics states? Yeah entropy entropy will increase in this sense entropy. Yeah entropy will increase as in it will seek equilibrium spontaneously. What is entropy? What part of my definition do you not? You're using the word entropy. You're saying entropy will increase. What is entropy? Effectively the pursuit of equilibrium. I don't know what that means. So the second law of thermodynamics essentially states that if you contain energy or if you localize energy into one system or one state it's intrinsically going to leak into the others. It's really the simplest way to put it. Primarily because thermodynamics isn't really a simple field. Nothing about spacetime violates thermodynamics. It operates with thermodynamics perfectly fine. We understand the thermodynamics of vacuums actually quite well. You understand the question right? So the second law of thermodynamics necessitates that pressure fills the available space. Systems seek spontaneous equilibrium. Entropy will increase. This is a natural law. So if you have a pressurized system adjacent to a near pressure system will violently fill the low pressure system seeking equilibrium. So how does that not happen? That's an antithetical that's a claim antithetical to natural law. Well, entropy increases globally but not locally. The earth is an open system receiving energy from the sun. So it's not currently undergoing those particular thermodynamic processes. And there's a lot of places in the universe that aren't but I don't know what you mean when you say pressurized if earth's atmosphere will pressurized then you would be admitting that there is a force acting on the atmosphere that is containing it to the earth despite the fact that it slowly dissipates into a vacuum which would be correct. That force is gravity slowly dissipates into a vacuum is not in any way what it would happen. There's nothing slow about gas pressure going towards a vacuum. It's a instantaneously seeking equilibrium. So there's nothing about dissipating gradually into a vacuum of space. You told me that basically there isn't happening on the earth locally. So I guess the second law of thermodynamics switch got flipped off and now we can have pressure sitting next to a vacuum. So it doesn't work and now I don't have to claim that there's a force pulling anything down there. There's a physical container that's the necessary antecedent to pressure. So one I didn't say that thermodynamics doesn't work on the earth. I said entropy isn't increasing on the earth either. The earth is an open system because it is receiving energy from outside of it namely the sun. Entropy only applies in closed or isolated systems. Now the whole universe is an isolated system and entropy on the average globally over the whole universe is increasing but on earth it's not. Also the container again is gravity. The reason that there's mass hovering around the earth so to speak is the gravitational field there. I mean if I put a bowling ball on a trampoline and then I dump the water on the trampoline and let's just assume that the water doesn't leak through the trampoline or anything. Don't you think it would all just roll right down and sit in the well that the ball is creating in the trampoline? It's not just going to fly across the sheet even though there's no water or matter on any other part of the sheet the water is following the curves the atmosphere of the earth is following the geodesic and space time toward the earth that's why it's on the earth. Yeah we're talking about gas so try to keep it up. Yeah that gas is matter. Okay so gas mass. Yeah so we're not talking about the water spinning around the earth we're talking about gas pressure sitting next right? There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum it's all a near perfect vacuum a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter I know your religion very well that telling me that there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum a thing that I didn't even claim doesn't answer the question of what is a vacuum. Yeah it's nothing more than an area where you manipulate the density of the medium and there's at least a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter yeah the vacuum of space time so by reifying and begging the thing in question well no a vacuum chamber recreates what that is you realize that correct and the only way to replicate it is to have a container yes because earth has an atmosphere you could also replicate it by just going outside of earth's atmosphere okay so can you provide any evidence of gas pressure without a container other than begging the very high pressure of the earth's atmosphere at sea level is that what you're referring to at sea level it's everywhere pressure increases or decreases as you go up in elevation that's why we're talking about the antecedent relationship as in the requirement of pressure it's the energy or force exerted on the walls of a container the antecedent is the container if you talk about the gradient that is qualitative or that is quantitative like delta x right we're asking you how do you have x that's gas pressure you're invoking delta x change in x changing gas pressure has nothing to do with the antecedent requirement for the gas pressure to be there with just physical containment so I don't know what you mean by physical container there's a pressure because earth's atmosphere being mass feels the curvature in the geometry of space time around the earth is always drawing an analogy like if you put a bowling ball on a trampoline and assuming that water doesn't leak through the sheet and you dumped water on the trampoline the water will roll down and sit in that pocket that the bowling ball makes where the bowling ball is because the sheet that you dumped it on is curved why do you think things fall toward the earth because space time is curved by the density of earth's atmosphere compared to helium when you say things fall to the earth as if it's an inclusive statement it's inaccurate not all things fall to the earth well I think you understood the context that I meant when I said that I think most people did they obviously I wasn't referring to helium balloons because I don't think anybody's ever seen a helium balloon fall to the earth so then you understand your own questions answers very simple you answered it for the helium like basketballs are filled with the air like they're pretty much 99% air other than this what like 3mm 5mm layer of material that forms the part of the ball that is the basketball how come those fall and why do they fall at the exact rate that gravity says they will basketballs are more dense than the air at 9.8 meters per second as far as agreed upon average it doesn't happen every time for anything but basketballs are inflated with air they're like 99% air why would they not kind of like confused because the matter of the basketball material is more dense than the air but why does it fall at the rate that gravity says it will it doesn't always fall at a specific rate okay so 9.8 meter per second squares and agreed upon average yeah there's an average rate of fall when something's more dense than the air it goes down it has an average rate of fall that's a non sequitur I don't think you understand what gravity is I know it density in our atmosphere isn't why things fall helium balloons rise because helium as a gas is less dense than nitrogen and oxygen okay so density for helium balloons yeah you're talking about gases in gases I'm talking about like objects solid objects in gases they're more dense than the gas yeah okay so what happens when I drop a golf ball if I drop a golf ball in the water then I drop a ping pong ball in the water what happens to drop a golf ball or ping pong in the water it floats which kind of confutes your argument golf ball sinks and the ping pong ball floats right the ping pong ball is less dense than the water the golf ball is more dense than the water it's actually more because the ping pong ball has air in it okay if I had a golf ball and filled it with air it probably float you can fill a golf ball with air okay I said if I were to yeah probably yeah no things fall because of gravity with you know buoyancy and earth's atmosphere those have a thing to do with density meaning it's not actually a force yeah of course not yeah so it's just a fairy tale it's a force that you can think of like a force it acts like a force but it's not a force it's the effect of the bending and warping of space and time it's not the causal agent it's not the cause out anymore it's no longer considered the intrinsic property of matter when you say mass attracting mass so that's the point you're making a claim about gravity can you please prove it you're claiming gravity holds gas down next to a vacuum but what we know about the behavior of gas which there are numerous laws about this right it's just a known natural phenomena right gas disperses in all directions omnidirectional instantaneously seeking equilibrium so if it does that at the surface where gravity is the strongest then how is it going to stop it from doing that next to a vacuum where gravity is weaker you do realize that gas is keeping them together correct gas is always dispersed to seek equilibrium not if there's forces keeping them from doing that correct like what like gravity when does gravity stop gases from going omnidirectional dispersal in atmospheres on planets in stars stars or plasma which is a higher state of matter than gases the reason they're kept together and also the reason there's fears is because of gravity yeah so why doesn't it stop the gas from going in all directions where it's the strongest then I don't know what you mean if I let out gas out of a container on the surface where gravity is the strongest it will go in all directions you mean let gas out of a container you mean like a pressurized container where it's the gas is coming out because you pressurized the inside of it well to have any pressure yeah you need a container well no do you know what static pressure is is can you give me gas pressure without a container yeah please so this lighter is hovering just in the room there's nothing around it it's not in the container there is a pressure on this lighter from Earth's atmosphere okay so what does that okay if you remove the actual physicality of the lighter can you keep the butane gas in it well of course not there wouldn't be a lighter there thank you thank you so in order to have pressure it requires physical containment pressure is it's literally a definition of a gas pressure is defined as the energy or force exerted on the walls of a container um no it's the pressure is the continuous physical force that is exerted on something that is in contact so when I punch my hand I'm exerting pressure what does a container have to do with any of this I don't think you understand what pressure is I say gas pressure well gas pressure is just pressure being applied by a gas okay so I can cite NASA saying that the definition of gas pressure on NASA's own website is the energy or force exerted on the walls of a container that's why it's called pressure because it presses it's just a force exerted by a gas on some object the walls of a container well it doesn't have to be the walls of a container if I if I blow and actually the lighter literally did slide and fall down I exerted a gas pressure on that because my lungs were exhaling gas which hit that lighter with a force moving it your lungs are containers well man yeah but containers have nothing to do with the pressure that I applied using a gas on the slider to move it yeah I did it's the only place you had the pressure built up to excel it yeah but that doesn't have to do anything that has to do with me getting into my lungs those are not the same scenario the point is the necessary to see into gas pressure is a physical container no okay well if you can cite a physical demonstration that can be replicated to provide evidence otherwise earth's atmosphere every star begging the question fallacy what question am I begging that the earth's a ball with a spherical atmosphere no it's not the earth can be flat it still has an atmosphere Austin the earth is flat I'm granting the earth is flat but it still has an atmosphere and that's still held to the earth because of gravity a famous sphere yeah gases have no intrinsic shape but anyway so you're the point is you're supposed to be proving how gas is next to a vacuum and your proof that we've gotten all the way down to is earth's atmosphere proves it that's called a begging the question fallacy we can move on I said gravity is what holds earth's atmosphere despite the fact that the rest of space would be a vacuum and I ask you why doesn't gravity prevent gas from going in all directions at the surface where it's the strongest I don't know what you mean when you ask that what do you mean all gas is going in all directions at the surface yeah if I let go if I let go of gas at the surface level it will go what do you mean let go are you talking about like if I just open my hand right now no the gas is largely just gonna sit there or it's gonna move as a result the turbulence is acting as it was just probably gonna be in the directions that my fingers opened it's gonna be in all directions no yes my friend if I were to go downstairs grab one of our Tupperware containers put the lid on bring it up here just open the lid the gas the part bit of atmosphere gas that I put in there is only gonna move because I've opened the lid and the moving of that lid creates turbulent force you know with turbulent forces that will then pull that gas out of the container but it isn't if you could theoretically remove the lid without any of that turbulent force it would just sit in there and I can set that container on the top of my desk and there will still be gas in it it's not going everywhere we can move on so container of helium okay put it on the ground take the lid off of the container of helium what happens to the helium the helium rises it actually disperses in all directions upward yes also upward omnidirectional includes upward yes it's meaning it's going like this okay so it's upward the opposite of down in a gravitational field of course well gravity has a singular vector of down relative to the center of that a single vector of down relative to the center of mass on a sphere well up is aesthetically down where gravity is the strongest gas goes in all directions please tell me how you're going to prevent it from doing I don't know what you mean when you say that when you say gravity gas goes in all directions gravity that makes it just makes no sense alright it's getting pretty circular man it may ejectally make sense well I don't you're not doing a good job of explaining how well gas just always seek equilibrium by dispersing omnidirectional relative to its environment that's just how it works called the second law of thermodynamics because the cold high pressure goes to low pressure this is a natural law it's not debated but what if the whole the whole system was already largely at equilibrium and I open the container what happens then how is it how is the open system largely at equilibrium if it's sitting next to a 10 to the negative 17 toward vacuum what do you mean it's sitting next to a 10 to the negative 17 toward vacuum so I'm talking about pressure I'm talking about in terms of gas pressure so if I were to have a Tupperware container in front of me and I open it you're telling me that essentially everything in that container is going to go out and I'm just going to have a vacuum left in the Tupperware container some air will reside in the container because the relative densities of the medium around it of course yeah so I don't know what your whole point this time has been gas always disperses in all directions huge just because just because the air will basically fill back in there because it's the same density as the surrounding air doesn't mean that air trapped in the air wait is your claim that air just sits still is that your claim my claim was that if absent turbulent forces of the opening of the lid then yes it would so what if I just what if I just take this cup that has nothing in it right now how come there's not a vacuum in this cup right now the cup is a container is it not it contains a gas right now does it not why is the gas not dispersing out of it equally is the container closed no it's a container though the gas is leaving the container no it's not so there's a vacuum inside this cup I don't think there is it's the same air do you actually think this is analogous to a an extreme pressure differential well that's what you're making it out to be that I don't think you understand the points that I'm getting at here is that you keep saying well the gas will disperse in all directions no not always that's only if it's lower than where the gas was released from okay so then in the conversation we're talking about objectively the gas will disperse in all directions next to a vacuum right assuming that there is no other forces keeping the gas wherever it's located yes but that force where it's the strongest doesn't keep the gas anywhere so how is it I don't know what you mean it keeps the gas on the surface of the earth is the gravity stronger at the surface or next to outside of our lower which one's strong at the surface okay so at the strongest accessible area of gravity if I let out gas it goes in all directions gravity does not magically prevent it from going somewhere or keep it there it goes in all directions that's where gravity's the strongest so why doesn't it do it next to a vacuum where gravity's weaker how could it possibly do that why isn't it doing that in my cup right now there's gas in the cup you keep telling me if I have a container I put gas in this container on the surface of the earth and I open the container all the gas is going to come flying out and it's going to equally disperse except that it won't because Earth's atmosphere is already largely in a state weak in an ideal scenario considered a state of equilibrium there isn't a lower pressure out here than there isn't a cup okay so if you put that cup in a vacuum and took the lid off what happens well of course then it's a lower pressure around the cup so when I take the lid off the gas is going to move okay so is space a lower pressure than the Earth's atmosphere of course okay so then that means that it would do what it would do the same thing right what do you mean space space would suck Earth's atmosphere away no no no space doesn't suck anything the gas would violently fill space no because of gravity gravity prevents that from happening so whenever gravity is on the earth in your vacuum chamber and you put your cup in there and gravity stops the air because that's not nearly enough mass do you know how much mass you need to have to have the attraction of the earth you need as much mass as the earth you have the whole earth here and then you have the little bitty thing of gas so how is it that because the gas is surrounded by a vacuum on the earth yeah you're now conflating mass attracting mass and saying that there's more gas so it pulls down the molecules that are individual as a collective and the funny thing is that once you open it at the bottom of the vacuum chamber are going to be resting more gas molecules than at the top as a result of earth's gravity gas molecules there will be a gradients in that chamber of less dense up here and more dense down here now granted this is going to be very very small and we need seriously sensitive equipment to measure it but you will be able to measure a differential yeah did you know that there's an electric charge on the earth and that goes up equipotential 100 volts per meter and has a downward current and all that electrostatic occurrences 10 to the 26 power stronger than gravity even claims to be so what's your what's your point yes the electromagnetism is significantly stronger than gravity electrostatics which is a part of the electromagnetism well sort of yeah they're different intrinsically because electromagnetism is coherent and everything that is matter all molecular and intermolecular bonds attractive forces all of them in nature and that is 10 to the 26 power stronger than gravity even claims to be sure yeah what's your point you cannot attribute gravity to any of the phenomenon the local scale because the known to be much stronger force of electrostatics is always present so when you claim the reason things are going down or you're making claims about densities none of it objectively can be gravity your own paradigm says it doesn't actually overtake electrostatics until you get the curvature of space and time actually overtake electrostatics so local phenomena in no way helps gravity I don't know what point you're getting at here I've never denied that electromagnetism is stronger than gravity electrostatics yeah which is like the force is called electromagnetism no it's not electrostatics is the force electrostatics is what happens when you have static electric charges this is defined using the modern physical theory known as classical electromagnetism you can describe purely electric phenomenon using electromagnetism because that's the name of the modern physical theory that describes all electric and magnetic phenomenon okay electromagnetism is not synonymous with electrostatics I didn't say that okay well then stop conflating I'm saying electrostatics the weak force electrostatics is known to be 10 to the 26 power stronger than gravity even claims to be on the smallest scale if you cannot control that variable and isolate gravity claiming it's real as pseudoscientific nonsense but it is real electromagnetism being stronger than gravity doesn't mean anything for gravity also electrostatics is not the weak force the weak nuclear so is electrostatics 10 to the 26 power stronger than gravity yes or no the electromagnetic interaction is roughly 10 to the 26 times stronger than the gravitational force electrostatics I will quote Purdue University if I need to or what about Boston University does Harvard work so it's electrostatics and all molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic that means every molecule that exists that means electrostatic way stronger than gravity gravity is a fairy tale has nothing to do with anything okay how can you measure and also it's it's electromagnetism and I can cite the Feynman lectures on physics on matter and electromagnetism I can cite introduction to electrodynamics fourth edition by David J. Griffiths I can cite classical electrodynamics by I think that's John Jackson is one of the most popular books called electromagnetism and it is stronger than gravity yes that doesn't that has no bearing on the earth being sphere spherical or not is electrostatics and electromagnetism the same thing why does it matter okay because you keep conflating the two and you don't understand the significance of it you're applying the strength value to electrostatics which is not where that strength value is that strength value applies to the electrostatic potential resting potential up to the 26 power stronger than gravity claims to be I just told you I don't think you understand what that even means can you hash that out what was the potential you just said yeah it has as an arresting electrostatic potential what is on the smaller scale the potential to the ability to cause work to do work no no not what energy means what when you say electrostatic potential what is that the the potential the electrostatic ability to do work I don't know okay because what you're referring to is called the it's not really called the electrostatic potential it's often just called the electric potential or the electric field potential and it is the amount of the amount of energy needed to move a unit of electric charge from some given point to some other specified point in an electric field okay so here's a simple part of it man everything that we everything that exists electrostatic intrinsically everything no all molecular all molecular and intermolecular tractive forces electrostatic in nature you cannot name one single exception please do you're speaking specifically molecular forces name one piece of matter that's not electrostatic um neutrons neutrons neutrons neutrons yes they are neutrons outside of reifying the subatomic scale right which if you know it was a non sequitur anyway so outside of the subatomic scale actual matter matter okay neutrons are matter they make up yes they are they make up the nucleus of the they're literally a particle of matter protons neutrons and then the up and down quarks that make up protons and neutrons as well as electrons are all matter particles because they make up matter the neutron is electrically neutral it doesn't have the electric charge so it is a fundamental piece of matter that has no electric potential because it doesn't interact with the electric field okay I'm going to debate quantum mechanics with you it's an attempt to quantify the immaterial it's nothing electron is nothing more than the dielectric end of one terminal end of unit line unit line of dielectric induction the terminal end one unit line dielectric induction it's a gap in the sphere anyway all I'm saying is dude you're just making up theories that are stronger nothing outside of the subatomic theoretical nonsense filled that is matter isn't electrostatic everything is so you live on electric earth that's stationary geocentric the sky moves over top of it in cycles and this is all that we have evidence for and you've not been able to provide any evidence to the contrary unfortunately that's actually viable so I really hope somebody listening in the chat can go to and read all that up please do that because I'd love to be credited for that instead of people like Richard Feynman and I think Wheeler Paul Dirac people like that who actually developed it I'm just reiterating the factual information that we have I have provided evidence not only have I shown that there are things that only make sense at the earth is spherical but I have shown that when talking about the broader models the methodologies that we as humans use for understanding the world and it's through those methodologies that we know that the earth is a sphere so I have provided evidence and justified why that evidence is in fact evidence I remember going on an entire spiel about grounding counterfactuals and how this relates to something's being evidence and to say that something is evidence to say that something accounts for something I think this is worth just saying but I'll ask you this one more time if the radius value that is claimed is falsified does that falsify the entire model yes or no no of course not okay well you'll get there bro what we are going to do is jump into q and a and want to mention a couple of things whoa my mic is funky tonight folks sorry about that that's why that echo was popping in before and I'm going to work to reduce that during the q and a but want to let you know first folks if you've been watching this long you must it's really good odds you enjoy at least one of these speakers and I want to let you know they're linked in the description so if you're like I want to hear more hmm well you certainly can and that includes if you're listening via the podcast as we put our guest links in the description box for the podcast as well and in fact they're at the very top also we're going to jump into these questions we have so many folks I'm going to move fast but bear with me we're going to try to get through every single one of them and if we don't forgive me but Zippy the pinnett says may the truth may the true worth shape win thank you for that Zippy and Magellan says witsit bingo they say that this is on their witsit bingo card reification fallacy presuppose r omnidirectionality electromagnetism and perspective witsit is this what do you think of this smack talk I think it's pretty interesting that all those things still repeat your position and I'm forced to say them every single time so cool thank you very much for this question coming in from Magellan as well as witsit no the burden of proof is on the one questioning the status quo in this case that is you well objectively your opinion doesn't get to change the way it works the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof so I don't have to prove anything falsification is independent of replacements and of course we did falsify your motto by physically measuring the surface of the earth welcome to 2021 the earth is flat may I provide just a very brief comment to that question James or do we not ready for you go ahead so I just wanted to say that they make a very valid point I mean Austin witsit is correct that if you make a positive claim you are committing yourself to a burden of justification to provide some sort of reason that confers warrant for accepting the claim that you made but the questioner there was correct in that if somebody is questioning what the academic consensus is and what the empirical literature show then the onus would be on them to confute that because since there is sound methodologically sound in a vast amount of empirical literature I'll point you to the same thing and then the expert consensus being thrown on top of that seems to indicate that we have good reasons for believing this thing so if somebody is going to challenge that then they would be required to provide that consensus we must move to the next question let's see we do I've got to keep it in mind that we've got to rush through these so as long as we can have them I know that I'm like being so unfair to you guys because these topics deserve plenty of time to be hashed out and so that's why I hate pushing you guys to be as pithy as possible but Heywood yeah Heywood thanks to your you realize what your name says why are all other planets not Earth yeah so saying other planets is just stupid no one says that the Earth is a planet and actually I document the quote-unquote planets all the time they're not they're not static they constantly fluctuate and move and pulsate and they look like they're in a sort of like medium and if I look at the sill and I say look there's a light bulb that means the ground's a light bulb that's ridiculous and we physically measure the surface of the Earth it isn't a plane it's not a planet it's a plane okay you got it Anne thank you very much for this question coming in from Ozzie and says entropy pressure finds equilibrium in a closed system Earth has a pressure gradient Earth is not a closed system gradient proves gravity with it yeah so gradient doesn't prove gravity and again we're asking about the antecedent of pressure the necessary antecedent acts of change in pressure basically once again redefine and begging the question of the pressure's antecedent relationship and then tell me about its characteristics that's called conflating qualitative and quantitative characteristics this one coming in from Hill Sides says the angle of the sun Leo visit flatter intel.com and educate yourself I did I actually understand things like physics chemistry and geology and a variety of other subjects so while I don't know everything I actually consult professionals in the field and the relevant academic literature when I have questions not conspiratorial websites got ya thank you very much for your question this one coming in from Germania says if the Earth is flat why would they whoever they are the secrecy of the Earth's shape ps I love Leo give you a chance to respond to that what's it yeah I don't know why do they tell us there are weapons of mass destruction that they knew were there and then fought a war and then discovered that there weren't there you know why because they had motivation to live probably resources but no just hiding vast amounts of land as this guy preemptively doesn't follow my logic resources that no one knows about wouldn't you as it's literally illegal to privately explore past the 60th south latitude or to fly within 500 miles of each direction of the center so why would they lie why would they not lie and whether or not you know why they lied has nothing to do with the fact that you can falsify the lie you got it and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from you know you know you know you can do it in a weekend yeah I make long distance observations all the time they're consistently in no way demonstrating a globular earth with a radius of 3959 I've debunked the physical obstruction that is needed for the globe earth all over the United States so if anyone wants to actually you know enlighten me of physical measurement much for this question coming in from Kangovar force as it's crazy to think that we have Google maps but are arguing about the validity of an experiment 2500 years ago measuring the earth Google maps uses a flat earth for like maps are flat so cool story next up this one coming in from Leo's buddy standing for truth says James the man always looking for that kind word and thank you Leo seriously I appreciate you man I was so cranky with you earlier and I'm sorry about that I really do appreciate you and thanks for always taking it so well I appreciate your passion and this one coming in from J mole says how do you explain the northern lights looks like an effect of the polarization with an electromagnetic field it's just illuminating so that would be my answer you can't get to the actual central convergence points illegal you got a KO44 strikes again says Whitsitt please send a link to the website with all your experimental evidence to back your position I hope it's more than the black swan photo where you just don't understand refraction yeah so standard refraction is called terrestrial after claim and the value to then say it proves the r value is actual absurdity actually refraction is the difference between two media it's called snails law you need a differential equation to apply it to the earth but most of you guys I know that that's why he's uncomfortably laughing but not really my problem not ignorance is pretty see through and yeah there you go there's plenty I don't have a website with all the information coming in from amazing GPS says Austin have you studied orbital dynamics have I studied it no I have looked into parts of it that I've actually talked to numerous aerospace engineers about the specific requirement of radius value this guy said they're wrong about so I've talked to aerospace engineers in different books but now I have studied orbital mechanics I haven't studied it says Austin if you are suggesting the size of the earth is wrong what method would you use to calculate the actual size I don't make a size claim to the earth it's literally illegal to go past the 60th south latitude privately so I don't make a size claim I falsified your claim if the earth was a ball it would be really simple it doesn't do this there are numerous things that you could do none of them actually work and every time you actually test the surface it never has that curvature rate so there you go physical measurements of the curvature would be great and it's simply done as this you got it and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from singer of doom says any object of sufficient minimum calculated mass for this to occur is .0001 births that's what's up so a theoretical presupposition of a magical fairy tale reification falsity called gravity that gives physical properties to conceptual abstraction will cause things to coalesce in the perfect spheres I promise and if I can ever see something on the small scale that can I ask Austin just one really quick question just simply yes or no Austin do you know what a defiomorphism is okay okay I must make the earth a ball I'm working on just gauging your understanding people told me the echo is still there don't worry I've got my sweet earbuds I'm going to open these up but Grimlock says stay in school kids math skills are I don't know who they were actually intending it toward I don't think it's towards me I actually understand math I'm good at math for the radius value you don't seem to understand the radius value very well if you understood math that much you would know your entire mathematical construct and framework of the heliocentric model depends upon the accuracy of the R value and is intrinsically falsified upon the falsification of that number so yeah I guess we'll leave it to the audience it was a better understanding of math I tried to open my earbuds oh man I accidentally chopped my earbuds while opening the packaging with the scissors and now it's framed don't worry they were on clearance for a buck I've got another one KGO44 says Whitsit please share a link with all the photos the black swan oil rigs and you would need multiple photos of the same location to make a measurement well it's just about it's the horizon is an apparent location and the flat earth knows that the horizon is on a real place on the globe it's a real physical tangible place that obstructs your view at a certain geometric rate so just seeing the horizon one time beyond that geometric limitation falsifies it and not only did we see it beyond it we saw it ten times further no one ever answers so you know it is what it is I mean whatever and this one coming in from Kent Woods says it is the mark and this is their quoting Aristotle it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it not sure who that's meant for next up Ray the way he says could you both agree that we could live on a convex lens a flat earth model with the surface curves just an idea by the way no it has to be a full sphere because of the things that we observe about our existence on that sphere there is no concavity or convexity to the surface of the earth so either way it doesn't work can I just make one really quick statement to the last quote that we heard from Aristotle I don't really know who that quotes attributed to I just wanted to say this one coming in from King Conquest says Whitsitt why do you think we should see a geometric horizon through miles of atmosphere who told you that why doesn't refraction work in your misunderstanding of the globe I don't know I'll just talk that from like fifth grade up that boat disappear over the curvature of the earth and the reason I can't see parts of the sky is because of the curvature of the earth so why do I think that because that's literally what your model claims and physical geometric sphere edge or tangent point would physically construct your view and physically be there it doesn't just disappear because there's error there so that's probably why I think it is because it's intrinsic geometrically within your own claim so during a sunset is the sun going behind the edge of the earth actually at times angular size does change and no it doesn't go behind the edge of the earth when something moves in the distance reaches a vanishing point due to angular resolution limit and you can't see it anymore this is exactly what we observe so unless you want to look at the end of a long railroad or street with street lights and say I'm going to play into that so there you are you got it and thank you very much for your question John Kramer says thank you modern day debate for having these first amendment open free speech debates good stuff thank you for your kind words and I pass all the credit to the speakers as they're the lifeblood of the channel we really do appreciate them they're linked in the description folks if you've been listening this long there's no doubt you must like at least one of these guys to where you're like oh yeah okay King Conquest strikes again says Leo Whitsitt is playing a character they all are they are unsuccessful oh this is like why are you having to be impersonal they say they don't believe this this but they don't understand the globe fully so I think we'll give you a chance they address Leo but I mean I got to give Austin a chance to respond they're saying Austin because you all have of becoming a Hollywood celebrity or whatever it is they're saying Austin are you now making up a flat earth to become you know quasi famous or what do you what do you both think about yeah openly stating that I think here at this flat has been nothing but detrimental right because people are weak minded and they conform to group think people that are ignorant of the radius or anything about it I guess that what it really comes down to is I had to give up a job offer with six six figures starting out for this and get that that's all kinds of crazy stuff so if you want to convince yourself I just do this to be relevant or whatever that's a cool story bro but the truth is it's actually very difficult it requires a lot of integrity to stand up in the face of societal ostracism and speak the truth so this is basically the empty claim that they had to account for Coriolis which isn't true it's an immanuel if anything and not in reality you don't have to account for Coriolis or earth curvature with anyone but it's the most important thing to do and it's the most important thing to do and you don't have to account for earth curvature with any long distance trajectories whatsoever unless you claim that it's built in and which way did you do it east or west which way were you shooting which way did you have to update was it consistent and all of it doesn't actually exist in reality I know long distance snipers myself this one coming in from made by Jim Bob says Leo I think that Neil deGrasse Tyson is like a morally deficient person or anything despite the fact that there are what I would argue some credible accusations against him in a particular area investigations were done and nothing was really came of it so I'm not going to comment to that but I'm not really the biggest fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson or people like Michio Kekou or Lawrence Krauss because they're not science educators to me they're science popularizers they'll talk about science in a way that makes it seem like this special mystical ethereal thing that you know tried to try to get people interested in it where I believe in just communicating and explicating what science is and why it's important to us so I'm really while I'm not making any statements about this moral character I'm not particularly a fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson you got it I couldn't tell if they were asking because they were like excited they were like ooh I'm so excited you have a book that's signed by him or if they were you know it's true ten years ago he was untouchable and people thought of him as like everybody just thought oh of course he's cool and now it's a it's a more mixed opinion set among the population but this one from Chris Gammon says for both how high do I have to fly above Dallas, Texas home of debate con thanks for that plug Chris says before I can see Mount Everest with a super powerful telescope can you see Mount Everest from any Texas I don't I don't I don't know it's incredibly ignorant to think that you would basically it's what he's doing is strongmanning the flat Earth which is all you'll ever get which is if you're a flat you should be able to see forever effectively see oh yeah if you're a flat you should be able to see Everest yeah totally so how high up would you have to go it's called angular resolution limit to the eye you can't see forever you have a vanishing point in this guy very remedial strongman but if you want to be honest about the conversation look into it if you still think flat Earth means you could see across the whole world you have not even fully understood the position I see that I get the point of the question because it's on the other side of the planet whether you be does that terminology still work on a flat Earth model it's on the other side of the planet you could say like it's far far away I don't know but Droneut 6-6 says whits it gets it why can we use Bocalt's pendulum to determine our latitude anywhere on Earth and why does it not show any effect on the equator well actually there is a pretty consistent drift over top of the Earth but in 1851 with your little pendulum that you keep bringing up from literally 1851 is the best evidence of actual rotation I guess we have but it doesn't prove anything it has to it doesn't have an independent frame of reference and something called the Elyse effect happens during eclipses where in fact it goes the opposite direction it in no way in no way is measuring actual rotation Elyse effect disproves it as does the lack of independent frame of reference and that you have to start at yourself and have some type of mechanism to keep it going can I say one thing just one to clarify the Foucault's pendulum it measures it picks up the angular momentum of the orbit of the Earth and it figure eight as it goes back and forth instead of just a straight line obviously I'm exaggerating a little bit that is due to conservation of angular momentum so I think the opposite during the eclipse though during the eclipse I would have to see data on that okay juicy this one coming in from do appreciate it hillside says not knowing how the radius was calculated just begs the question of how Leo got into this debate Leo are you going to take that I didn't I guess I didn't realize that was like a day get me I have this debate because I think it's important for people to realize that there are certainly valid methodologies we can utilize to understand the world we exist within and when we apply them we find that we are living on a planet that is about 25,000 miles in circumference and is rotating at about three degrees per hour and that orbits to the Earth . The question where did the rocket go when it was launched it didn't come down where did it go I didn't answer that question as the telescope space telescope oh man I was too busy going to check it out before I give any comments. I'm sure it was shot over the water at the parabolic trajectory though. Yeah, but don't things when they're launched have parabolic trajectories? Yeah. Isn't that an aspect? Well, no, that's, that's just a result of dropping the density of the atmosphere, the rotation of the earth as you pull away from it. And you believe it's gravitational field. There's a lot of things that result in that. Also, what is the thing that flashes and looks like a really, really giant satellite that I can see through a telescope going by that they tell me is the International Space Station. And why can I see it at the same, at the exact place they're going to tell me that it's going to be at that exact time when I go to look for it there. Yeah, the ISS moves in a cycle, the ISS. And it's definitely not 252 miles in the air going 17,500 miles an hour, five miles a second with glitches all over their cameras. So I don't, cool story, bro. So then what is it? Oh, light in the sky. But it's not. I've seen it. It looks like a satellite. It looks like a big, big, big thing. Did you watch a lunar transit? What do you, what does a lunar transit have to do with time? You can even supposedly see it is a lunar transit. No, you can see it through a telescope. You can actually see it fairly decently through a good pair of binos on a clear day. I looked at it through a telescope. You just see the light. You don't see the actual structure unless it's. I did though. I saw it anyway. We got it. We got to go on. I had the wrong like on this whole time. That was where the echo is coming from. So embarrassing. This one from Seven Dank attached their question this time says, happy new fear in quotes. All the best James in 2022. Thanks for your support. I don't get it. Is this a new hip phrase among the young people? You guys, okay. I don't know. I have no. This one, this is coming in from. Victor O'Doom says, odd that Witsett is able to exert pressure on his vocal cords to create statements that gas pressure requires a container. Yeah, lungs are containers. Wait, so how come when you inhale, the air doesn't rush out of them equally in all directions? How come you can hold your breath? You close your lungs. Yeah, because there's other forces holding the gas where it is. It closes your lungs. Yeah, yeah, there are other forces that are holding that gas where it is. Ultimately this containment. Well, actually, no, that's not really what happens. There's physical and there's forces acting that hold it. Yeah, OK, OK, we'll move on. This one coming in from Kango for four says, Witsett, I'm about to slap the taste out of your mouth. They said maybe even learn about thermodynamics before trying to debate it. Yeah, OK, cool story. As thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics applies to this fairy tale that you think is real, right? It would fully available space seeking equilibrium, entropy would increase. And so this is an impossibility, according to natural law and your model claims opposite to that. Can I ask you a question? Just a quick question about thermodynamics. What's up, man? Do you know what do you know what the Alden rate is? Nope. No, OK. Yeah, do you know how you can have a vacuum next to gas pressure? Yeah, I do. Just call out your your your big G word. Yeah, gravity. That thing, that thing that we can measure, you know. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Long nights, YouTube says land was surveyed using telescopic transits. Then laser transits were used and now we have GPS. All confirms a spherical Earth. How are they all wrong with it? GPS actually comes after what predated they call the low ran low ran system, which is a Cartesian coordinate system, like it was at a z axis. The only way you have any of the locations mapped out is, of course, playing our survey, then you put that out onto a mapped out surface and you pretty suppose that it's a sphere and think somehow that proves there's a sphere when literally the use case of GPS predates anything to do with a z axis or a sphere. So it's just a very ignorant question. I would say this one coming in from do appreciate your question. Mr. Monster says, what is the moon made of in your opinion? If it's not a steroid rotating around Earth, another spheroid? I think they meant spheroid instead of steroid. So what is it? What is the moon made of in your opinion? If it's not a spheroid rotating around Earth, which is another spheroid? Yeah, of course, and back to the first part here, which that falsification is independent of replacement. But the moon just an apparent location pretty clearly. We have lunar waves, we have numerous things. Now, I don't believe that the moon is actually a sphere that if it was spinning one mile per hour faster or slower, we'd see the other side. But conveniently, it does it and conveniently, it just happened to be 400 times closer than the sun. So optically based on pure random cosmic happenstance, they look like they're the same size because the diameter of the moon's also 400 times smaller than that of the sun. That's a whole bunch of fairy tales. I see a night light, a day light, they're like the same size. They move over top of the Earth and that's all that I have to say. Falsification is independent of replacement. What process emits the electromagnetic radiation from the moon? What process emits it? Yes. Well, there's electromagnetic fielding comes in all of it. Yeah, but what's producing that field? Oh, the power source is clearly in the center. Yeah, but what is it? Some type of magnetic source that it's illegal to go to. Yeah, well, what is that source? It's illegal to go there. How would I know that? What do you mean? What do you mean it's illegal to go there? Are you going to tell me are you going to go to the center of the moon? You can't go to the north pole. No, I'm saying, no, what's the source of the magnetism on the Earth, the center of the Earth? No, I'm talking about what's the source of the light the moon emits? Like with the sun, it's a nuclear fusion. No, the moon is nothing more than a light. So then what's producing the light? The polarization based on the electromagnetic field. What's causing the polarization? You're asking me to literally theorize something that you know nothing about. No, I don't. I think it's you who doesn't know anything about electromagnetism. I'm done. Okay, cool story, man. So yeah, there's electromagnetic field on the Earth and that the moon's the apparent location. I don't have to make claims of solidity, sphere of risk of hearing other nonsense that can be falsified with stuff like the cell and million eclipse. I just stick where in this world, I can be honest and I don't have to believe in fairy tales. It's pretty easy. This one coming in from sphincter of doom it says forces aren't limited to gravity. The forces of quote unquote other gases will also influence the dispersion of a gas. Denser gases concentrate at the surface. Okay, so like I said, we have an equipotential electric field on the Earth that goes about 100 volts per meter equipotential with a downward current in that electrostatics that's on the Earth in the residence field is known to be 10 to the 26 power stronger than gravity even claims to be on the smallest scale. So you cannot isolate gravity if something 10 to the 26 power stronger is there. Now can you? So you have no evidence on the local scale of gravity. Your own model admits this. Einstein's theory of relativity admits this but you can just jump on YouTube, say I'm stupid and somehow it makes sense. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. Does something come forever? It says witsit. Sadly doesn't get it. Okay, next step. Oh man, these people. You're probably getting me number one out there witsit. Does that make you feel proud? You know, it's like Stephen, thanks for your super sticker. Appreciate your support as well as question the answer says literally just saw Leo Google what electrostatics were then read it like he was teaching it, laughing my butt off, great. And he said earth is flat. Yeah, I don't know what that has to do with anything. I Googled electrostatics and then read what it was to show that my opponent was not correct on what they were saying it is. And you're gonna attack me for that. That's just funny. What point are you making? Yeah, I looked something up to show that somebody had it wrong. Well, they technically, I censored it a little bit as they said, then read it like he was condescendingly teaching it as if you like knew it beforehand, I think is what they're saying. Static, I did say what it was before I looked it up and then read the actual technical definition. It's a study of static electric fields. This one coming in from surgeon general says hashtag beta bits make the world go round. Whoops, wrong chat. Thanks for your support. That's right, we do have a Twitch chat folks and I will throw that in the old live chat for you in case you happen to prefer that more. And thanks very much for your question. Sphinxer of doom says I don't think I've heard one argument for why the earth was flat from Whitsitt. Only that it isn't spherical. If so, he's engaging in a false dichotomy. Oh well, and my opener, I very clearly gave you evidence that the earth is flat. We shoot radio waves over 10,000 miles with no physical earth obstructions. Sections have been used for hundreds of years and can successfully navigate hundreds of miles using celestial objects, obtaining elevation angles requiring a horizontal, which is impossible on a globe yet they still work. There's a hundred different proofs that the earth is flat. I'll say it again because Globers hate it, but it doesn't change it. Falsification is independent of replacement. I feel the burden of my one positive claim that the surface is flat. Next. You can shoot radio waves on a Globers. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Stupid New Year's whore energy says why doesn't the angular size of the sun change throughout the day if it is small and near? And also why am I a beta? What? Okay. We'll go ahead with the first question though, what's it? Angular size of the sun and the moon do occasionally change? Actually, okay. Have you never seen like a harvest moon? Have you never seen the moon at whenever it's rising? Have you never seen the sun when it rises and sets? There's not much angular size change difference in apparent location. We don't even know what medium it's in. And there is an angular size change throughout the year as well. So yeah, we actually do see it change. So how does that work on your model? This one coming in from question the answers. It says humbly ask the creator of this world to open your heart and mind to quote in all caps, the truth, and then actively seek it instead of endless ridicule. Earth, and then in all caps, is level. Level just means flat, eh? There is no creator of the world. This one coming in from pineapple platypotomous. Which one of you practices forgiveness the most? Juicy personal question. How can either one of us have a spectrum of that? I don't know. This guy doesn't know what that means. Let's see. I'm curious in your personal philosophies, because it's such a fun. I think it's an interesting question. It may be because I'm in psychology, but do you hold forgiveness as a personal value on a scale of one to 10? Are you guys willing to say? I guess I would probably say yeah. I guess I don't use the word forgiveness, but I am one of those people that kind of, if somebody does something to me, usually I'll just move on and get on with my life. Philosophically, I would say that is very important. I would say 10, because it actually will manifest problems personally, right? So I would say yeah, it's important to forgive people. Juicy, this is the one time where I have to be I think people have heard me preach the idea of forgiveness before. One, in the sense of you're definitely not, well, I can't. But one thing I heard interesting, I read this the other day, is that anytime that you're using, while trying to quote unquote get back on somebody, get back at somebody, is like a waste of time in the sense that you could be using it to put yourself in a better position, like working on developing your own new skills or meeting new people or making new relationships, whatever it is. It's something interesting to consider. T-Fish says, Leo, stop laughing. Whitsit took you to the cleaners. I guess I'm a dirty boy and I need to be clean. What with all my talk of these crazy ideas, like gravity, things falling down, we're all out here flying around. What are you talking about? Einstein ain't going to get me with his convoluted ideas. You got it in. Huge Rs says, Whitsit, why can I see the south celestial pole? Any clear night from my home in Australia? How can there be two celestial poles on flat earth? There isn't a celestial pole. So, you know, all you're doing is all, listen very carefully. All the stars in the sky, all of them, they all go east to west. Clockwise and counterclockwise are nothing more than apparent locations or apparent rotations. They're not the same as actual directions. So, there's the answer. You're conflating the two. Juicy, this one coming in from, do appreciate it. Hold on a second. Loading. You guys remember when we were at the library the last two nights? I'm so glad to be home. Warren Evans says, according to thermodynamics, contained pressurized systems should have equal pressure everywhere. Why doesn't the earth have equal pressure if it's contained? Yeah, it's a closed dynamic system. There's a constant fluctuation of temperatures everywhere, as are electromagnetic energies, etc. We have wind currents. We have gas constantly being produced at the surface level. We have a higher density. Again, we have electric voltage that goes up 100. Volt per meter up in our atmosphere. We have atmospheric electricity, and that would tie right in with the gradient, which has nothing to do with the question of how is the pressure here in the first place again, though? This one coming in? Yeah, go ahead. I was just going to say that all explains it perfectly. All of those reasons are why it's not an equilibrium, because the earth isn't a closed system, because anybody who's ever opened up an actual textbook on thermodynamics knows that if you are feeding energy into a system from outside of it, the system is open to that energy, and its entropy will not be increasing. So, yeah. Okay. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Question of the answer says, some fog hinders sight from 20 feet. Of course, it can't be seen from that far away. There is a lot of precipitation in between. That alone would hinder the view. I think they're maybe referring to it like, it could be anything maybe like, for example, Mount Everest, I think they're trying to say that there's just too much in the air. So, maybe you agree, Austin? Yeah, like basically when you bring up, you said that I should see Mount Everest across the world if it's flat. He's saying, no, I mean fog alone or something like in the air, density of the atmosphere itself wouldn't allow you to see that. But what if there was no fog? Well, what if there was no atmosphere? That's your question? What if there was no? Well, no, is that what I asked? I asked what if there was no fog? There'd still be density of air. So? Okay, so you can't look through infinite distances. Are you saying Mount Everest is infinitely far away? I'm saying you can't look through the air forever. So, Mount Everest is forever away? No, it doesn't have to be. Okay, so then we would only be seeing a finite distance to Mount Everest. Yeah. Why can't we? Whenever it's really humid in Florida, you can't see three miles away, bud. Yeah, but what if there is no humidity? What if there is no humidity? Yeah, what if there wasn't enough humidity to obstruct your vision? It's still a compilation of a dense medium and it's denser and lower to the surface. So you can't see through a compilation of denser and lower to the surface. Yeah. Why? Because I already told you about the voltage potential and you still don't get it. It has nothing to do with it. Really? So there's not a downward current on the earth in the electric field? I have no idea what that even is supposed to mean. Okay, so again, a year ignorant, so we'll move on. Well, it's not that I'm ignorant. It's that the terms you're using are just not terms that anybody that actually understands these things would recognize. Given that I've actually watched lectures taught by people like Alan Gooth in electromagnetism through MIT OpenCourseWare, the terms you're using are not terms I've heard, examining academic literature. That's what I keep saying, I don't know what you mean because of the way you're using these terms. I just quoted Richard Feynman. I just quoted Richard Feynman. Quotes aren't arguments. No, you just said that no one says that Richard Feynman, the guy you brought up earlier as your hero, he just now, I just explained to you what he explained. The look of Richard Feynman's lecture on the equipotential electric field on the earth, 100 volts per meter, the how there's a downward current on the earth. So, okay. You've got this one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Let me just be sure I'm in order. Oh, singer of doom says, flat earthers are hard to find. It's like they fell off the face of the earth. Yeah. No one thinks you can fall off. Can you fall off of a lake? No, you reach a shore. That's called a strawman. Juicy, this one coming in from, King Conquest says, Austin's character depends on his strong attitude. You have to say silly things with conviction to be relevant or else you'll just be dismissed. I think this is a personal attack on you, Austin. Is that what it is? No, they love me, man. This guy secretly loves me, James, and watches all my YouTube streams. I'm not even kidding. He probably does, bro. But yeah, cool story, man. We falsified the radius. The whole model has been falsified. That radius value is wrong. The earth is flat. Don't make this weird. You got it. And Warren Evans says, do we read this? I think we did. According to thermodynamics, contained pressurized systems should have equal pressure everywhere. Why doesn't the earth have equal pressure if it's contained? Once again, it's a closed dynamic system with transfer of heat constantly going on, production of gases in the gas cycle at the surface. We also have greater density at the surface based on an electric field that's equal potential 100 volts per meter all the way up. So one, earth is an open system, unless, I mean, Austin is trying to argue that the earth doesn't get energy from the sun. Also, just because I was curious, I looked up this electric potential of the earth thing, and I found out that, because that's what I do, I look things up when I don't know what they are to find out what they are, and then when I find out the person is wrong, I correct them. The earth actually has a very, very low electric potential. That's why we ground things by touching the wire to the earth. Okay, yeah. So the earth typically has a neutral or negative charge on the surface, positive building up 100 volts per meter. So thanks. This is what I'm coming in from. Do you appreciate your question? Mike Vincent. I've never heard anyone say, quote, I don't know what that means, unquote, so many times in one debate. Maybe after Leo gets done playing Fortnite later, he can go learn more about gas pressure. So I don't play Fortnite. I PK on Runescape. That's what I do in my spare time if we're talking about video games. So if you think you're tough, let's meet in the willty, buddy. Let's go. Anyway, if you get it, you get it. Anyway, I've said I don't know what that means so much because I have never in my life so much heard a drastic butchering of the terminology that scientists would use. Look, if somebody says a thing and I have no clue what they just said, I'm going to say, yeah, I don't know what that means. That's not a testament to how little I know. It's a testament to how little I can understand of whatever the person I'm saying it to is saying. If I don't understand what you're saying, I'm not going to know what you mean. You got it, Ann. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from nuclear creations. Appreciate it. I didn't see a question attached. Let me know if you had one. But it is about 9.30. What we have to do is I've got to tell you one. Folks, our guests are linked in the description. If you've been listening and that includes via podcast, we put our guest links in the description box at the very top every time because we really do appreciate our guests. Seriously, they're the lifeblood of the channel and so you can find their links as well as mango tea. Thanks for your questions. This flat earth is true. Whitsit is correct. Glovers want to continue to brainwash others. I mean, I guess we're also brainwashing them by teaching them that to calculate the area of a circle is pi r squared. That's propaganda too. You got it, Ann. Thank you very much for your question, Mr. Monster. Does the flat earth go on forever or does it end somewhere at a wall, Austin? That's a great question. Some claim that it could be infinite. I don't know. I just know that it's illegal to privately explore past the 60th South latitude. I mean, obviously this isn't scientific at all, but the scriptures say that it'll never be measured. But either way, I mean, it's literally illegal to go there. So you can't privately go there. So I don't know, man. I wish that maybe more people would wake up and stop letting everyone think for themselves. So maybe bigger questions like that out. Yeah, I agree. Governments don't have the right to limit this planet. With that. That is round. We have got to wrap up. It's already been two and a half hours, and so I want to say thank you to the debaters for staying this long with us. We do appreciate you guys, as mentioned. They're linked below, folks. You'd be crazy not to check out those links if you want to hear more. If you're like, yeah, sure. Go ahead and click them right now. I'm going to be back in just a moment with a post-credits scene, just like at the end of the Marvel movies. I'm going to tell you about some of the upcoming juicy debates that we have going on, including folks, if you didn't know this, modern-day debates, first ever in-person conference two days, January 15th and 16th in Dallas, Texas. That, as for example, is picturing one of the debates that's going to happen during that conference at the bottom right of your screen. You can see it. And I will give you updates about those debates as we have put up new debates. There's going to be about 14 debates that weekend. So I'm probably going to hibernate the rest of the winter after that conference is done. But I want to let you know, we appreciate our guests. So Leo and Whitsett are both linked in the description, and I'll be right back with that post-credits scene. Stick around. Ladies and gentlemen, we are 100% thrilled. I am pumped to not be rushed tonight. The last two nights that we streamed, I was in the library. They're kicking me out. They're like, Jayce, you got to go. It's eight o'clock. I said, listen, we can't stop winning. We have to keep winning. And so I just wanted to keep going on with the stream forever. But I've got to tell you, my dear friends, couple of things that I'm especially pumped about and thanks for your last minute super chat, King Conquest. Man, I'm so sorry. I did not get to read that. We just missed it as Austin just left. But if you want to say this, King Conquest, thanks for being with us, as well as T Brown. We're glad you're here. Green Bastard. Good to see you there in the old chat, as well as Brassman and Drace equals love, wisdom, harmony. Thanks for your kind words. I've got to tell you, folks, we have got big stuff going on. Right now, modern day debate is on the cusp of a major breakthrough, a major leap in terms of our growth. And that's something that I've got to say thank you to you for. You guys have helped us get this far. We're pressing up against 60,000 subscribers, which is insane, my friends. We're absolutely thrilled about that and want to say thank you for making that happen. You guys, honestly, I enjoy this so much. You guys make this fun. I want to say you really do, just by being here, asking questions in the live chat, as that helps us put on a good Q&A, just hanging out with us seriously makes it fun. And you really do help the channel just by being here. So we do appreciate you, no matter what walk of life you are from, Christian, atheist, Bidenbacker, Trump supporter, Bernie Bro, Flat Earth, Globe Earth, you name it. We really are. We really are thankful for you. So seriously, I appreciate you. It's always fun with you. And I've got to tell you what else. My dear friends, we have got some based stuff coming up. For example, I had already mentioned this conference is going to be huge. It's January 15th and 16th and tickets are on sale. This is the last night for the early bird pricing. I have continually said like, let's just get a little longer because I really do want everybody to get a shot at the early bird pricing. So for real folks, do click onto this link that I'm about to throw into the old live chat right now as you do not want to miss this conference. It is going to be monstrous and if you're like, I can't commit to two days, is there a one day ticket? There is actually. Yeah. You can actually get a one day ticket because we have religion debates on Saturday the 15th of January and then Sunday the 16th. That's actually going to be political debates. And it's going to be at the imminent trademark hotel near Dallas Love Field, the airport. You guys, I've got to tell you several things. One, for example, I've got to also say thank you so much to the person who contributed to the crowdfund as we not only have in person tickets, but if you want to watch all the debates live, you can from home if you throw into the crowdfund. Now, some of the debates will be live no matter what. In other words, even if you don't throw into the crowdfund, but some of the debates are going to be set up such that you'd either have to one, throw into the crowdfund or two, be a part of the Patreon for modern day debate or three, be a channel member. So that's really big folks is I got to tell you either of those will work and I want to encourage you throw into the old crowdfund because believe me, it is going to be gigantic. You don't want to miss any of these debates and once they're live, we're going to take them down so they won't be up immediately after we're going to try to edit some of them and then some of them we're just going to kind of like cut out the music and things like that and re upload them later. And so you don't want to wait be able to watch every single debate that weekend. And I've got to tell you this too, we're absolutely pumped. If you look at the thermometer on the far right of your screen, we have hit the 1000 mark and you might be like James but out of 5000, that looks scary. There's only 14 days left. Believe me, the last two weeks and especially the last week and especially the last few days are when most of the donations come in. So we're actually on track. We're doing well with this crowdfund. And like I said, throwing into the crowdfund, which I will link in the description as well, we'll get you all of the debates to watch live. And I've got to tell you, there are also other perks in there. So let me give you a review because you might be like, I don't know about like, what is this crowdfund stuff? That's weird, James. Well, let me tell you about it. Don't worry. Don't worry. I'm not a ghost. I'm still here. So as you can see, my dear friends, on the screen, DebateCon is the name of our conference. It is going to be two days with approximately, it's going to be 10 debates. It's up to 14 debates now. So some of them, if you attend in person, you would actually watch one of two particular debates live. And so that's something to keep in mind. But I've got to tell you, we are using Indiegogo for this crowdfund. They are trustworthy. They take, it's only about 5%, which isn't bad realistically. And so that way, we can put more funds to the actual conference. And that's absolutely essential for us. But I want to show you, you might be like, James, I like, how do I like sign in though? Well, take a look at this. You can actually, without even creating an Indiegogo account, sign in with Facebook. It's so easy. Piece of cake. And that way, you can throw into the crowdfund. And it might be you want one of the perks. You can throw into the crowdfund, whether it be to watch it live or for one of the perks. For example, even though we'll have an in-person audience, if a person throws in 50 bucks into the crowdfund, they'll actually be able to ask a question in live time to the debaters where I'll basically, either through text messaging or through Gmail, I will get their questions during the debate and then we'll actually read them during the Q&A. So that's one perk example. And I've got to tell you, we're absolutely determined and we are absolutely encouraged. We are going to make our goal. It is going to be gigantic. And I've got to tell you, you might be like, tell me more about this change. Like, how does it work? Well, this is, as an example, what you would see in the Indiegogo website. So let's say you logged in through Facebook and then you'd see these perk options where you can click on whatever it is you want. And so, for example, you can watch all the debates live as some of them are going to be live. But like I said, you have to be either a patron for Patreon or a member or throw into the crowdfund. The other stuff, let me show you this because you're like, tell me more. We've successfully done this before. My dear friends, this is not our first rodeo. We have made this work before and we are confident that we can do it again. So for example, if you look at the screen right now, you will see Mike Jones and Michael Shermer. And the reason is because we did a crowdfund for that debate about a year ago. And it was a successful crowdfund where we met our goal and it was a phenomenal debate. And I've got to tell you, you may be like, James, are you sure you know what you're doing? I mean, that's only one. Good for you. No, no, no, no. We've done it twice. So you remember this one in this summer? We did a crowdfund that was successful and we met our goal for that one. So believe me, we absolutely believe it's going to work. And you might be wondering, you're like, James, I don't know. What's with the crowdfund stuff? I mean, you know, James is that are you trying to raise enough money to go on vacation? No, no, no, no, no. 100% of the funds that come in through the crowdfund as well as through the ticket sales are being reinvested back into DebateCon part two as we plan on having a conference in May. Now, Toby, thanks for your super chat says, James, considering your background, what's your true personal opinion about Flat Earth? Don't hide behind your overly neutral PC moderator persona. Be honest, please. That's funny. I don't know if it was ever about being PC. I really am not super PC, actually. But Drimlock says, oh, by the way, yeah, I mean, I think you guys already knew that. I'm actually a Glober. So I welcome Flat Earthers and I welcome people who are Glober Earthers in the same way that, you know, I can't agree with everybody. You guys know where I stand on a lot of these things. But Grimlock says, James is secretly a Cube Earther. I mean, yeah, that might be true too. But I want to say, in terms of our budget, you might be wondering like, James, I don't know, why is there even a crowdfund? Why not just have all of the debates streamed live for the public? And that's just it. It's like, well, you know what? This actually helps us raise funds to cover the cost because you might be thinking like, oh, James, is everything free? Not quite. And here's why. For example, and I'm not complaining. I mean, we took on this goal and this challenge and we're taking a big leap, but we know it's going to pay off. In other words, we think that we'll be able to cover with ticket sales and the crowdfund together. I think we'll be okay. And it'll allow us to do this again in the future because we do plan on doing another in May. But let me show you one on the far right side of the blue pie graph. That blue chunk is the venue itself. The venue is actually quite expensive. So it's about on average in Dallas. It's about 4500 per day for a venue. It is quite pricey. Second, that's the average. Speaker hotel rooms is the orange chunk on the bottom as that obviously costs money as we are flying in the speakers. And so for them, basically to be not like having to jam in both of their flights on the same day and then try to debate between those flights, that would just be exhausting. We are putting the speakers up in hotel room and not only that, but if you look at the far right side, or I'm sorry, what I meant to say is the speaker per diem for food is the orange chunk. So we are covering their food while they're there because we appreciate them being there. None of them are actually being paid on rariums. And that might be surprising to you. A lot of people think like, oh, I bet these people just fly around for free. And it's like, well, if they're taking time from their work, they rarely do. Most people will want an honorarium. There were people that asked for an honorarium. And I was like, oh, maybe we can work something out. And I was like, no, I was like, you're asking for too much, to be honest. I was like, no, it's just not going to work. And we let them go. And there's a big name person in particular. But the reason is we were like, hey, listen, we are willing to cover travel costs if the speakers are willing to come in and debate without an honorarium. And we're thankful. These speakers are awesome because for them to only, like for them to only have their travel costs covered, I would say is a generous move on their part. We appreciate them. And so that's why we are covering their food, their hotel, their flights. And I've got to tell you, look at the chunk on the left side. That gray chunk is their flights. And so some people, we are thankful. It's some people are local. So we can actually just, that reminds me, I've got to book somebody's last minute flight. Two seconds, writing this out. Book Daniels flight. Is that, here's how this works. It is a big venture. And we really believe it's going to pay off in particular, for example, we really believe modern day debate is going to have some crazy growth. Like I think we'll probably have a new couple of thousands subscribers within the three day span of the debate, like the first day, second day and the day after, I think we'll probably grow by about 2000 subscribers. It's that's a, which for three days is a massive jump for us. That's like our usual per month. So this is going to be big time. And we think that it's definitely going to help us keep growing at a faster rate in the following several months. And so we are not ashamed to say, we want to grow. We don't think there's anything wrong with it. We think it's a good thing because we actually believe in our vision. Namely, we are absolutely determined to provide a level playing field so that everybody can make their case on a neutral platform like modern day debate. We are absolutely determined to do that and to get people from different walks of life communicating. That's our goal at modern day debate and to do it in the most fairway possible. So our Twitter, our YouTube as tempted as I am, I'm not really tempted with YouTube, but Twitter sometimes I'm tempted to put a little juicy, spicy tweet out there that shows my own personal views. But I won't do it. The reason is modern day debate, regardless of it being our Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Twitch is going to be neutral. That's something we've already decided and that's the way it's always going to be. This channel is never going to turn into like, oh, like James is going to turn this into his pushing his own views on this or that. No, no, no, no. This is always going to be a debate channel and it's always going to be a platform for everybody to make their case on a level playing field in the fairest way possible as we try to get people from different walks of life talking. And Jerry Ray Sissom. Thank you so much for being a subscriber with Prime. I see you there in the old Twitch chat. We appreciate you subscribing with us seriously. Thanks for using your Amazon Prime sub on us. For real, I'm dead serious. Like, that really means a lot. And in the old YouTube chat, pumped to say hi to you though. My dear friends, I've been going on and on and I do want to say thank you so much for all of your support of the channel. I am pumped for real. I really believe we've got a couple of people. I mean, I'm just, I'm excited about this conference. It is going to be huge. Let me show you the poster because you might be like, huh, James like, there's a poster? What are you talking about? Oh, there is. Topazal did a fantastic job with this poster and I've got to show it to you. So let me pull this up because you might be like, huh, like, who's all going to be there? This is big time folks. This is not like me debating with like my uncle Remus. Like we're getting big time speakers. Believe me, you won't want to miss it. Let me just show you some of the debates because you might be thinking like, huh, like, I don't know what's all going to be there, but tell me more James. Well, I will. So for example, here's a panel that we are planning. Destiny, Amy Newman, a surprise guest in Zander Hall. If you look at the main page of our YouTube channel, it'll show you debates like these. We've got them all up now. And so like I said, some of them will say you got to be there in person to watch it. That's a small percent. There's only like, oh man, I think there's only like three or four debates out of the 14 that you'd have to watch in person if you wanted to see them live. And then we're going to release those eventually on modern day debate, but it's just good for you to know that. And I would encourage you though, check out our main page. So if you just click on our little icon there under the video, it'll show you all of those debates, which is just nuts. Seriously, we are absolutely pumped for this and we're excited to fulfill this vision and we're thankful for the speakers and helping us do that. Now, a little too high says, this is honestly fun to watch and participate in. Thank you, everybody, LOL. Thank you a little too high for your support. Seriously, we appreciate you. And is it Desian Wilkes or is it Deshawn? Deshawn Wilkes, I think it is. We're glad you're here. Let me know if I pronounced it right. He chilled. Good to see you. Thanks for being with us. And thanks for being with us. David, pumped. You made it as well as TJB pumped. You came by Master Optics. Glad to see you back. And Hugh Jarvis says, Nathan's still a Patreon member. I don't know. I honestly don't. Cranky Beast, 2259. One of James, one by James, a new Spider-Man for his man. I don't know what that means. But ExtraJ pumped to have you here as well as Nano pumped. You are with us. And Canabare, am I saying it right? Canabeer? Oh, that must be it. We're bumped. You are with us. Chad Nuts, glad you are with us. Nathan, thanks for dropping in. Sage Ohio, good to see you there. And ZX, CV, BNM, pumped you're with us. Flattered Viking, thanks for coming by as well as Crow, Magnum and GG Cash. Glad to see you. St. May, pumped you're with us. Let Tornado, good to see you again. And Rook Chavez, good to see you. He says, please hit that like button before you leave. And I do appreciate that. We appreciate that. Thank you for your support of the channel. Seriously, those are ways that you help the channel. They say it helps boost us in the algorithm. I think there's truth to that. And we do get a lot of recommended video views. In other words, YouTube does show our videos to a lot of people. Like they recommend them in people's because they can see our stats. Like they're phenomenal. We are like, YouTube has helped us grow. That's like why we've gotten to 60,000 almost in three years, a little over three years. But it has been a fun ride. And we're excited about the future. Join us now while we're small folks. Believe me, we are still small. We've got big things that we are planning. And the Mrs. Vader pumped that you made it. Thanks for being with us. And Alpha 100, glad you are here. Extra J and Prof Phil Bell, glad you came by. Thanks for being with us. Let's see here. Toby, glad you're here. Rock E. Shepard and Quantum DeGreaser. Thanks for being with us. Pear D. Bear. Glad you're with us. And Georgie. Georgie of thanks for being with us. Jerry system. Glad you're with us. And let's see here. Oliver Katwell says, I feel like you could justifiably steal the conference money stating quote, I told you it's debate con. I was up front the whole time. That's funny. We're excited. Just like Twitch con or VidCon. Debate con is going to be monstrous. I am pumped for that. It is going to be the biggest debate conference in so long for real. It is going to shake the foundations of the online debate world. We are absolutely serious about that. You guys, it's just going to be great. Heat Shield says, you might want to tell new viewers what you're even talking about. Why should I be interested in what's going on? You should be interested. And that's a great question. You should be interested in this in person debate conference that we have January 15th and 16th in Dallas, Texas. And you should show up live if you're anywhere near. The tickets for that are actually... Oh, that's right. Let me put that in the chat again. As early bird tickets are still available, we wanted to give everybody a chance so that they weren't kind of like, Oh, James, I hadn't even heard about it. Yes, we have early bird tickets. And so these are honestly dirt cheap. Like we've looked at other debate type conferences or panel conferences and we're like, Hey, like we're competitive here, especially because in my opinion, my bias opinion, we're offering a bigger lineup of better debates. And I've got to show you some of these. So I've already showed you on the bottom right. You can see that one. You know, James, what else though? I mean, that's, that's just one. Is there other stuff? Here's another one. This one's going to be only in person. Grudge match between Dylan Burns and infrared on whether or not Taiwan is a part of China. You don't want to miss that as well as let me pull this last one up and show you this Joe Biden on trial. Whether or not Joe Biden has delivered well since he's become the president, that is going to be there as well. You guys, that's going to be an epic one. We're going to, that's the starter for the political day. So I am pretty pumped about that. It's going to be a lot of fun. You can watch them from home, as I had mentioned. And you guys, it's going to be absolutely based and or red-pilled as my friend Saisho Knapp would say. Nano pumped you were with us as well as Alpha 100 and free thinker glad you were with us. Grimlock says, what about the budget for the wicked after parties where everybody gets hammered? Yeah, I actually don't have that built into the budget. So if, if anybody wanted to get alcohol and get crazy afterwards, we don't actually like offer that in terms of like, we're not covering that. It's something that we, you know, this is our first conference. Maybe we'll offer a free drink in the future or something, but frankly, right now it's just not in the cards. And frankly, I just feel like in the future, even though I don't want to be closed-minded, I don't really feel inclined toward doing that just because you guys, as the viewers, I think would rather see your funds like your contributions of the crowd fund or buying tickets be used for getting more speakers into the next conference because this isn't going to be our only conference. We are actually going to be doing, if this goes well, which we think it will, probably twice a year and bigger than you can imagine. Seriously, it is going to be a lot of fun. I'm pumped about it. And you guys, seriously, you will be absolutely pumped about it as well. It's going to be great. So, but yeah, I hadn't even got to tell you guys, how are you guys doing? Tell me how you are, because I am curious and I want to know. And I do like to get to hear like how you're actually doing rather than just me talking up here. I want to say, how are you? Nano, good to see you. Since I want to see another T-jump in R and raw debate, those are my faves. That's a based idea. I like it. Aran's actually traveling at that time. So, we didn't get him for this conference, but we do plan on getting him for the May conference. And thank you for your kind words. Georgie, Georgie, thanks for your kind words. And thank you, cranky beast, for your kind words. I'm pretty sure you're still Sarah, but that's appreciate it. And Alpha 100, thanks for being here. Soyboy, and that's right. Thank you for all of you who are channel members. I don't say thank you enough. Seriously, Oliver Katwell, for example, thank you so much, as well as Brooke Chavis, Sideshow Nav, thanks for your support of the channel. Seriously, there's a lot of you out there. Jared A, thank you so much for your support. You guys, I really do appreciate it. We all do. I've got to tell you, happy holidays. Like seriously, I'm pumped for you. We're probably not going to have a debate for the next two nights. Gonna take a little rest time, and I've got to recover. I'm actually a little bit sick. I'm getting better, but I am glad to get to recover the next couple of nights. We'll probably be back Sunday, and then we will... The plan is to have pretty much a debate every day leading up to the conference for the last like 10 days. And I've got to tell you though, you guys, I love you guys. You guys are like a fam. You guys rock. It's just a blast with you guys. So happy holidays. Happy New Year, you guys. I hope you have big plans for tomorrow night. I think I may go to sleep early because I actually have just so wiped out. This week, I've been wiped out from travel, and I've been wiped out from being sick. So I actually probably need to go to bed early just so I can get up the next day and hammer away at modern day debate con. As I'm telling you guys, these debates are going to be unreal. It is going to be so fun. I am seriously just pumped. So I love you guys. Thanks for all of your support. Thanks for making this channel fun because you guys really do. You guys make this channel awesome. And again, you don't want to miss this conference. Like it is going to be some top notch, like super high quality stuff. So hit that subscribe button if you haven't already. And that notification bell. And that way, you'll always know when new debates are coming out from that conference as well as the debates before and after that conference because we've also got some big ones lined up for before and after for real. We are trying to like have a good synthesized schedule where it's like, wow, you've got some awesome stuff. Cranky Beast 2259. Says I'm cranky. Good for you. And a guy 4573 says beta. Thanks for coming by a guy. And the Zook. Thanks for coming by KLW EIN. Thanks for dropping in. We're glad you were with us. And I've got to rest my voice and rest tonight. So thanks guys. I love you guys seriously. It's always so hard to say goodbye because I just enjoy this. So thanks everybody. Looking forward to seeing you on the next debate and have a great rest of your night.