 Welcome everyone to another episode of modern day debate tonight. I'm your moderator Justin. Tonight's topic flat earth versus globe earth We've got William Harris debating what's it gets it tonight And William has volunteered to go first. So William the floor is all yours. I think you Everyone see my screen you see it now Okay My name is William Harris, I'm an engineer my degree was in engineering physics my specialization was in spacecraft systems I've had many courses in orbital mechanics and spacecraft design Today we I want to explore this comparison of the predictive power between the globe model and the flat earth model What do they predict and what do we observe in reality? The first point I want to make has to do with the most one of the most primitive proves of a globe It is the experiment from Eratosthenes Essentially the globe and the flat earth both would agree that as you go up in latitude across the earth a Shadow would increase its angle more and more as you go higher in latitude The question is not will it increase an angle the question is what trend does the increase in angle take? How much does it increase an angle over the latitude? The globe would obviously predict that at the pole it would be a 90 degree angle It'd be an infinite shadow, but then the flat earth it could never be a 90 degree angle It would never be an infinite shadow obviously So the question is which one do we observe in reality? Of course the globe is correct We see these infinite shadows all the time near the poles Next star movement a globe and a flat earth model both agree that in the north pole and point C you would see a Circular pattern of stars as they move across the sky But when you get to the equator on a globe model you would see you predict you would see stars go from east to west In a straight line across the sky and on the south pole you would see them go in a circular motion again But in the opposite direction of the north pole But in a flat earth model you predict that on the equator you would see not straight line of stars going across the sky But a curve of stars going across the sky on the equator and at the point D on the south pole You would still see a curve of stars going across the sky, but just more straight so definitely not a circle pattern So the question is which one do we observe in reality? Oh, we do observe the globe in reality. Sounds great So we talked about star movement now we talked about planet movement So assuming we were on a globe that is orbiting a star and there are other planets orbiting the star We would predict that we would see these other planets and observe specific type of motions from them from our point of view a Really identifiable one would be retrograde We would see this very specific pattern that you see on the gif on the side of my screen If we were in that situation, that's to say and what would a flatter sir say about planet movement They would say I don't know what planets are We don't know what those things that we just lights moving across the sky There's no way to know what they are or predict how they work or have any explanation for them So which one has better predictive power and which one do we observe in reality? Of course, we do see planets having retrograde motion exactly how the globe model would predict next Lunar eclipses it's crowd favorite Obviously the only object that will always project a circular shadow is a sphere And in a globe model you would predict that you would have linear eclipses and this lunar eclipses would always be circular every single time The earth is always at a different orientation for every lunar eclipse So it'd be a circle every time no matter what the orientation did pen umbra and the umbra would both be circular So and we would predict that we could pinpoint exactly when it'd be observable and where exactly be observable down to the second That would be predictable if we were in the globe now if we're in flat earth What would they say about lunar eclipses? They would say I don't know what that is I don't need to explain what that is. There's no way to predict what they are or how they work or why they work So which one has better predictive power the globe does we do predict these orbits down to the second I'm at it. We do predict these eclipses down to the second In reality and where they're observed obviously as well Constellations and the North Star Both the globe and the flat earth theory predict you will see the Polaris the North Star in the North Pole But when we go to the South Pole on the globe you would see the Southern Cross on point D and point E But on a flat earth model you predict you maybe would see the Southern Cross on point D But you couldn't possibly see it at point E, right because it's on the opposite side of the planets So what would you see in the night sky of point E? Well, they don't have really any explanation of what they would see Because it would have been obvious, but we there is no explanation for it what they see there. They can't see the Southern Cross That's a guarantee. So which one do we observe in reality? Yes, we can't see the Southern Cross at point D and point E Flight times so this is real flight data observed in a real time from flight aware comm I encourage everyone to go do this and test these data points live. There's thousands of them every day Chile to New Zealand is a 12-hour flight goes 7,000 miles. Seattle to London is a 9-hour flight. It goes 6,000 miles It's not perfectly linear correlation between the time and that miles, but it's still generally reasonable especially with the currents of air that go in near Chile in the time of year So this is what you would expect if we were on a globe if we were on a flat earth I can't tell you exactly the travel times they should be because on a globe they never have a good scale on exact distances for what a flat earth map would have Because the geometry doesn't make any sense But you can obviously see that Chile to New Zealand would be about three times longer than Seattle to London So is that what we see in real life? Does Chile to New Zealand have a 30-hour flight? The answer is no the flight was 12 hours not even close The Coriolis effect the globe has a Coriolis effect that dictates Hemispheres on the north sorry hurricanes in the north hemisphere and hurricanes on the southern hemisphere will rotate in opposite directions Because the equator of the globe is spinning and moving much faster The wind is moving faster at the equator than it is at the poles So it would be different from the north heavens here versus the south hemisphere for a flat model You could argue there shouldn't be a Coriolis effect But assuming there is for some reason a Coriolis effect it would not change between the north hemisphere and the southern hemisphere It would be consistent for both. It'd be the exact same. Everything would be turning in the same direction for hurricanes So the question is which of these two do we observe in reality? Of course, we see the globe Coriolis effect in reality Now this is my last evidence-based argument. This is my favorite one. It's for gravity because it is the most Observable consistent topic in all of science ever since the beginning Is is just gravity so you can observe it every single day all day from the micro scale to a macro scale micro being you throwing a ball to your friend with projectile motion or tossing a nuclear bomb from one country to another using projectile motion and gravitational equations it can also explain the Existence of an atmosphere on a ball in a vacuum because an atmosphere although it is very very low density It is still made of atoms which are still have mass and mass is attracted to mass with gravity That is the rule so yes The atmosphere will cling to the globe because the globe is very massive object That is why an atmosphere does not disperse into the app into outer space So it can predict we would have an atmosphere it would predict We could predict the motion of the earth around the Sun and the motion of the moon around the earth Using gravity we can predict the tides of our ocean using gravity because the tides of our ocean is a product of the gravitational pole of The moon on the liquid on the ocean of our planet We can predict the earth and all other planets motion in our solar system as well as all the asteroids and comets That we see orbiting our star we can predict the motion of the stars that orbit the galaxy and the motion of all the galaxies in our universe by Using gravitational equations. It is the most validated concept in all of science into tonight's existence Is to deny is to pour a fish to deny the existence of water So what is the predictability of the flat earth when it comes to something like this? Nada, they don't have anything to predict this level of these level of phenomena So I finished with my evidence Based arguments and now I want to talk a little bit change it up and talk about psychology I want to talk about the psychology of flat earth and talk about why On the world why in the world does this theory still stick around? It cannot be because of evidence It is not because of evidence because every single opportunity that it could have to prove itself true It fails and proves the globe is true every possible time So why could it still exist if it's not for the evidence then why it is because it's about the passion behind the idea Because the followers of father earth are extremely passionate people The followers I want to characterize and profile the followers versus the leaders of flat earth And contrast them the followers of flat earth are extremely passionate people. They're insatiably cute They're insatiably curious They always want to know why and the next step and the next step why why why and that's awesome They can also have a distrust of the scientific of scientific institutions and they can potentially have predispositions to believe in conspiracy and Maybe have a little bit of paranoia as well Now let's contrast that to characteristics of flat earth leaders Flat earth leaders are extremely charismatic and very articulate as my friend wits it is Very charismatic and articulate man But they are also extremely arrogant. They believe they know everything They're intolerant of criticism as that would project weakness to their followers and they're exploitive of their followers they will ask their followers to support them in their endeavors and Then we need to ask why what is what is the incentive these leaders have to push misinformation that they know is false Because these people are smart. So they know they're not pushing a good Faith argument, but why would they want to do that? What incentive do they have? Well, number one incentive is pure fellowship having people be loyal to you and follow what you say is attractive Having attention is attractive even if you're not following them I'm giving him attention right now and that's another incentive they can have a sense of superiority Over the followers when someone listens to you. That's always nice. And of course they can make some money along the way as well So if you have listened to nothing I've said tonight, you have listened to nothing just listen to this last part This is the part that I want to make Brucially aware of this is the most important bit No individual understands all of science none Despite what wits it will tell you no individual doesn't stand at all a astrophysicist Doesn't understand everything about quantum mechanics and a quantum mechanist doesn't know everything about astrophysics So when you are faced with an unintuitive or unexpected fact Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do not throw the universe out with a misunderstanding push Occam's razor to the forefront of your mind and Understand it's far more reasonable that you don't have all the information rather than the model for the entire universe is wrong And that all scientists almost every scientist are liars or ignorant Um, and my last statement is flat earth leaders do not have some special power of understanding things better than everyone else and Do not please do not fall prey to their con Thank you. That's my time. All right. Thank you very much for that opening William, so that was right on 10 minutes or 12 minutes. I'm talking. Yeah You can't hear me William. Oh, we can hear you. Oh, I can hear you now. Sorry Anyways, yeah, I'm just saying that was on 12 minutes. You're good. You were worried about being over. You're just not an issue All right, so with that What's it gets it? This is your chance for your opening. So good luck floor is yours All right, cool. I'm gonna start a timer All right. There was a lot there but um For one, I want to see if we're gonna keep the same energy of Occam's razor, which is that which requires the least amount of assumptions That of course is terrible for the globe model But one thing I want to cover real quick that can just in this whole entire discussion It actually overlaps with the gravity thing. He said gravity is mass attracting mass Which is Objectively not the case anymore. It can't be the case the earth quite literally cannot be a ball That orbits the Sun with mass attracting mass Newtonian mechanics can't exist and I'm sure we'll get into that and I don't know why people keep invoking it but one thing I want to point out that I think is an easy way to kind of go ahead and end the conversation is We have an electric field on the earth Okay, so we have uniform Electric field it's vertical on the earth and it's you can measure the electric field, right? It has equipotential lines. They it's a hundred volts per meter Meaning there's an equal increase of potential every hundred or every meter. It's a hundred volts, right? So there's equipotential lines within a vertical electric field on the earth and it's uniform Okay, this is physically impossible on a sphere You can take a conductive sphere and put it in an electric field and because the charge is distributed radially It will not be uniform. This is a a fact You cannot have a uniform electric field on a sphere So the very electric field we observe on the earth proves that the earth is in fact not a sphere because again There will be spherical Radial distribution of charge what you would have is concentric circles serving as your g are equipotential Surfaces or lines and then you would not have a uniform electric field now Just to read Feynman here to explain it another thing that can be measured in addition to the potential gradient that we just discussed is The current in the atmosphere the current density is small about 10 micro micro amps crosses each square meter parallel to the earth The air is evidently not a perfect insulator and because this conductivity a small current caused by the electric field We have just been describing Passes from the sky down to the earth Okay, you can measure it. You can run a generator off of it actually now The question would be if there's a if there's constantly a downward electric current on the earth would that create a downward bias? Would downward electric pressure Be caused by the downward electric current the answer is of course. Yes Yes, we would have a downward bias because there's always a downward electric current to get more specific Although the electric current density in the air is only a few micro micro amps per square meter There are very many square meters on the earth surface the total electric current reaching the earth surface at any time is very nearly constant at 1800 amps This current of course is quote-unquote positive. It carries a plus charge to the earth We have a voltage supply of 400,000 volts with the current of 1800 amps a power of 700 megawatts at any given time now that's assuming the size of the earth It's actually greater than that So to kind of break this down. I hope everyone's following people refer to the fact that things fall as gravity That is allegedly the effect of gravity. That is little g. It is 9.8 meters per second squared That is not gravity as in the cause of things going down It is things going down you can actually solve for that with kinematic equation You can actually solve for that using Coulomb's law There's an equivalence that has been proven in the electromagnetic nature of gravity a paper written by Constantine mice Who sat on the board of nuclear physics? Institute right that you can actually have an equivalence with with electrostatics now Important to know everything does not fall at 9.8 meters per second squared. It is a misnomer We people are taught everything falls at the same rate and mass attracts mass It's a very simple layman way to explain things to people when they're younger in school The reality is things fall at different rates or the coincidence that the electric field creating the electric current is very nearly constant just like the rate at which things fall so That right there explains things falling on the earth and why there's a downward bias why it's nearly constant But it fluctuates gravameters have proven that things fall at different rates during thunderstorms and mass and quote-unquote Gravity have been excluded as a possible explanation. I have all these papers I'll drop them as they're requested in addition in order so that gets rid of the spherical claim You cannot have a uniform vertical electric field with on a with equipotential surfaces on a sphere. That's physically possible That gives you the downward electric bias That's measurable showing things fall and change at which rate they fall based on that objectively So now you're gonna have to claim there's something additional there that you can't verify it But we can actually verify our position based on empirical evidence Let's use Occam's razor. Remember that which requires least amount of assumptions So we're just gonna go with the actual evidence and also in order to have a vertical electric field with equipotential lines You actually are going to have to have what's called a Gaussian surface and to quickly explain that and we can get into it in Gauss's law you have what's called Gaussian surfaces and typically they're used as mathematical or hypothetical constructs But when you're making a physical demonstration of say a uniform electric field you're gonna need real physical plates to serve as those surfaces, right and They have to be parallel to each other and they have to be perpendicular to the field while on the earth We have a vertical electric field. So what is perpendicular to vertical? It is of course horizontal So in order to have the actual equipotential Electric fill we have there has to be some type of containment above us has to be parallel to the surface And it has to actually be horizontal This is just Facts so that argument right there that fact alone It's rid of the spherical geometry claim it gets rid of the quote-unquote gravity claim and it gets rid of the we live in a ball I'll live on a ball in a vacuum claim Okay, that's six minutes and we can get into that and again. This is a Feynman lectures It's nine point one I believe and it's about atmospheric electricity you can check it you can check the measurements yourself You can go out and verify yourself and you can run generators off of it So for the last few minutes what I'm gonna do is cover a couple things that he said retrograde motion is Not exclusive to the earth orbiting the Sun in fact in order to think that it was you would have to not believe in the current model Which uses relativity and actually says there's a kinematic Equivalence between a geocentric stationary position and a heliocentric model meaning all planetary motion all geometric patterns are Equivalent in both models. They're equally valid Einstein will tell you this point blank and all of his papers. He said it So there's kinematics how bodies move in relation to each other and there's dynamics Which is the supposed force that causes them to move that way? Okay, gravity would be the claim dynamics and then kinematics is just how they move retrograde would be a kinematic Observation right the planets look like they go backwards now, of course on a stationary earth There are multiple explanations one of which is we measure the planets in relation to the background stars So if the planets were to actually just slow down on occasion They would look from our perspective to be going backwards in relation to the background stars There's a much more popular one that's been known about for a long time which comes from the tychonic system That's tycho brahe, which is where Kepler and everyone even got their data in the first place Right and tycho brahe or a neo tychonic system would say that the planets move around the Sun as that entire system Moves around the earth then you would have the exact same explanation that a heliocentric model has which is it looks like they're going Backwards because they're moving in relation to the Sun right and then you have internal planets, etc So there's a kinematic equivalence with retrograde that isn't exclusive to the earth Blind around the Sun whatsoever and in fact the Mercury's perihelion shift shows you that their model doesn't even work Gravity doesn't even work and it hasn't been explained to the state Okay, and we'll get more into this stuff hopefully but lunar eclipses He said that the only shape that can have that is a sphere You can of course put anything in front of something that's taking some type of spherical shape Which could be plasmic if you look at light from a distance it looks like a sphere right has a radius of light So any light source from a distance is gonna look like a sphere Because it has a radius of light right illumination same with the planets and everything but that aside You could take a cylinder and move it in front of the moon and it would create a circular shadow This has been replicated many times if you've never heard of it You may sound unfamiliar to you But it is a fact you can take any shape and move it in front of it and cause the circular shadow and actually lunar eclipses Debunk the globe as we have selenilion eclipses where the Sun and the moon are both above the earth During the eclipse when supposedly the earth is blocking the light from the sun casting a shadow onto the moon Which is a geometric impossibility. This is another time where we'll throw Occam's razor out I'm sure because Occam's razor is the globe's worst enemy north star cannot be seen from super far south That's correct because you can't see forever on a flat earth and whenever all these things were called predictions from the globe They're actually just we looked at the sky We recorded it over hundreds or even thousands of years and then we crafted a globe earth model based on the celestial observations That's quite literally how we made it. So that would be the opposite of prediction That would quite literally be the opposite So if you say hey look, I'm gonna look at all the sky and then make up a model on my head of the earth Being a globe then I'm gonna say hey look the globe predicts. What happens in the sky that is Polarously backwards. I Still got a couple minutes. So that is post-diction not prediction and Actually, we can see Polaris below the equator at times Which is also a geometric impossibility on the globe and this is where Occam's razor will get thrown out again And they'll start making excuses Special pleading post-hoc rationalization, etc flight times actually use GPS which use a preferred direction They make meridian corrections. So in the south they use GPS to get the distances They use they make meridian corrections actually subtracting distances over 69 miles and accounting for the preferred direction of sea Actually the variant nature of sea I hope we get into that right if that's what he specializes in and then of course like I said gravity is not mass attracting mass That's arcade. So for the last minute and a half I'm gonna explain this Most people that claim that the earth's a globe that flies around the Sun They all bring up Newton the mass attracting mass you cannot believe in Newtonian mechanics and The heliocentric model at the same time This is a fact because the Mickelson morally experiment did not detect the orbit of the earth And if there's a force acting on the earth that caused it to go into a circular motion You would detect that circular motion with interferometry. That's what the sag neck effect is We did not detect the orbit Einstein came in and saved the day by saying oh Well, actually the earth is free falling in a linear path in the curvature of space time in a geodesic path That's why you couldn't detect it which means quite literally either you pick Newtonian mechanics or the earth is orbiting around the Sun You cannot have both and in fact if you do anything with orbital mechanics or aerospace engineering or anything like that They use Newtonian mechanics So if that were to even be true, which actually you treat it as an ellipse from our position That would be evidence for a stationary earth quite literally because if the Newtonian mechanics was true The earth cannot be orbiting around the Sun. So it's very perplexing as to why people bring that up Of course, also, it doesn't have a time variable gravity would have to be instant You would have to have instantaneous action at a distance just like Newton said didn't even propose a cause He said it must be God doing it etc. Etc. So there's a I know that was a lot I tried out to go too fast we can get more into the specifics But Occam's razor is in the last 10 seconds Obviously that the earth is a stationary topographical plane and that the earth is in the center of the cosmos Everything moves around us for all recorded history. You have to actually make tons of assumptions to explain how those are all illusions Cool Well time. What's it? Thank you very much both of you for your opening statements. Allow me to Just welcome our viewers at over 800 strong tonight. Thank you so much for hanging out with us. This is a fantastic showing It's always exciting to have great debates going on tonight flat earth versus globe now If you think you have what it takes for making a case whether it be for flat earth globe earth pinned in the top of our chat tonight is James's direct email. So why don't you let him know what you think you can do? to Strengthen the claim of flat earth or globe earth or any topic you think you might be qualified to defend We're actively searching out for new presenters here on the channel So now's your opportunity if you ever thought maybe you could do something about it The other thing I want to draw attention to is we are this close from rounding 170,000 subscribers on modern day debate. We've got over 800 people watching I would love to assume you were all subscribers right now, but Chances are you're probably not so why don't you go ahead hit that subscribe button if nothing else Just so we can see that digit roll over would be a wicked wicked thing to see tonight Huge feather in my cap actually if I could turn to James and go see what happens when I'm mod we roll over subs bro, you know Yeah, we're about to head into our opening statements I already have a slew of super chats if you have questions for our debaters Keep them respectful But by all means send over a super chat and we will read them at the end of the open discussion gentlemen We can start the open discussion now. I'll sit here and stay out of your way unless you guys start to dog pile Keep it respectful. Have fun Oh, so Thank you Justin. Um, so what's it? Do you believe Newtonian mechanics is true? No Okay, that's correct. What do you know why it's not true and what it why it is useful though still I don't care if it's useful. It's not true. I didn't say it was true either Because it's really easy to use and simple to use and we can use it for things on the earth that I can use Like 10 other different equations for Because it's made good at predicting the future, right on our small scale. Oh, no, you disagree No, so so it doesn't work on the projectile motion is a kinematic equation from Newtonian physics Do you think projectile motion is good at predicting things? Uh, yeah, sure. We make predictions. Okay, so you do think it's good to making predictions Newtonian physics Yeah, I just said it can't be contradicted yourself already. So now prediction What's not gonna happen is that you're gonna interrupt me when I'm responding But you can calm down. You're not tough. All right, so I already acknowledged that it does make some predictions Okay, duh does make prediction. Duh, but the point is that it doesn't work even on the earthly scale There are places it doesn't work on the local terrestrial scale I agree doesn't work it on the quantum scale doesn't work on the solar system scale and totally doesn't work on the cosmological scale I can show you I need you to pay attention to this. I can give you another equation That does the same thing and it uses an electrostatic equivalence Therefore if our only standard of if it's good or not is if it can make some predictions and that one's equally valid We don't even need Newtonian mechanics So if it did make a prediction would that mean it's true if your equation that you came up with would that mean it's true? No Correct, so you believe you got physics is you believe Newtonian physics is very useful and good at making predictions I wrong what it's wrong though. What about predictions? I know you talked about this I hate to get into symmetrical arguments, but a prediction. Can you make a prediction based on past data? What's it? Yeah, sure if it's a cyclical if it's a cyclical thing, it's not actually if it's cyclical. It's not actually a prediction Mm-hmm. So what just an acknowledgement of a cycle if you want to be semantic and call it a prediction That's cool. It doesn't it doesn't you can't tout it as predictive capability. It was cyclical the anti-kethera mechanism predicts everything that happens in the sky doesn't use any type of dynamics whatsoever. Okay, so it can make predictions Thank you. You see how you're gonna have to be disingenuous. No, you said it makes predictions You said no, I said it's actually cyclical. So it's a post-diction. It's called a make a prediction with it No, it's we actually have a technical name for it. It's called post-diction. It's literally what it's called Is it telling the future? I don't care what you call it. Is it telling the future? No, it's just not it's acknowledging a presumption of the cycle that we've currently observed to that point So if you saw a cycle 10 000 times and you are Assuming in the future it will happen again Is that what you're talking about? Right, so then that wouldn't add any validity that wouldn't add any validity To or like that wouldn't show us that something's valid just because we applied an equation to show us that the cycle's gonna keep happening Which was your argument your argument was since it masses the cycle it proves the globe it literally doesn't So it can be used to tell the future which is what you denied initially in this argument No, we can acknowledge the cycle sure and we can tell the future We can assume the cycle is going to keep happening. That doesn't actually So admit it can tell the future You do not understand the simplicity in what i'm saying. You just have cognitive dissonance and don't reject It's so obvious. You can tell the future with it. That's what you said Do you agree that that doesn't show that something's valid if the cycle's gonna happen anyway? And then you just create something that absorbs the cycle that doesn't add validity to the claim No, it does not prove It's true, but it definitely proves that you can use predictions. It does definitely has predictive power What do we predict with it? Did you listen to my intro It's not a prediction if I already know what's gonna happen different examples of predictions that the globe earth can predict that the flat earth model cannot So it has predictive power. Would you agree if something can tell the future it has predictive power Would you agree with that at least it's not telling the future? We just already see the cycle, right? So sure if you if you want to be semantic and say like, oh, well The this is so this is so ignorant. No, I want to stay on this topic actually a little bit because I know you Why are you so much? Because I want to acknowledge that you feeling uncomfortable because you're about to I'm not uncomfortable. This is I consider this can you tell the future with it Um, if that makes you happy sure. Okay. So thank you. So you contradict yourself again You can also tell the future without it. Okay. And so here's the important part It's a cycle that happens always forever You can tell the future completely without the globe model We looked at the sky and we saw that it keeps doing the same thing forever for all recorded history Which is actually a new problem as you claim compounding vectors that we can just ignore So then you made a globe model Based on the cycle always happening and it took many hundreds of years to make it by the way You had to keep on adding wobbles here and there and just constantly making stuff up to even make it match The cycles that we see now people turn around in 2024 and claim that because it matches the sky It actually proves it's correct when you literally made it from the sky cycle in the first place that is ignorant Right. So that is called deductive reasoning And I know you're very unfamiliar with that concept But it's called looking at past data points and fitting a curve fitting a trend to them and trying to make a reasonable argument for that Trends existence. So that is called using data who predicts Hey, wait, wait before you move on You're interrupting me. I just want to make a point. This actually isn't just you going down on this. Can you not control yourself? All right, no You're just acting like I'm here in his classroom or something. I'm not I I understand. I'm trying to educate you That's nice projection. We're about to we're about to stick on Newtonian mechanics though And we are gonna get educated why you don't believe in Newtonian mechanics You're gonna you can't use Newtonian mechanics. So let's talk about how Newton Newtonian mechanics was disproven With michelson moorley. Can you explain how that happened? I acknowledge Newtonian mechanics is false. I don't have to answer this Okay, so then you We've been past this. What are you talking about? So then why are you why do you invoke it and why do you invoke it? Invoke because it's useful as I said something can be useful and be wrong at the same time That is the argument I'm making. Okay, so then gravity isn't mass attracting mass like you claimed in your opener then It is mass attracting mass. It literally is it you did say this Does a massive object attract another massive object? No. No, so what happens when Something is pulled towards each other. What do you call that? Okay, well, it's not pulled towards each other in your paradigm. I'll happily teach you what happens So supposedly a mass displaces Space time causes a gravity well which causes the bending and warping of space time Which causes objects to basically be guided Through the curvature of space time free falling in a geodesic path still moving linear from their reference frame There is no attraction. There is no force. There is no pulling This is archaic elementary version of gravity that we teach people when they're in middle school This isn't what your paradigm believes and it can't be true if you are orbiting the sun Give me an example of something pulling something else A magnet magnet. So what about it is pulling it? The force Going gets to explain a little bit more. Okay, technically on a magnet It's pressure mediation based on this trypical divergence and triple con of the gibberish again from you, Andrew Hey, can you what how is it gibberish? Which which word did it make sense? What's it? No, it's not it's not that the words are in not words It's that you don't use them in any usable Man, which part of it wasn't usable. Oh, you want to repeat what you said? Yeah, centrifugal divergence. Yeah, go ahead explain Okay, explain it in a way that you think you're a regular audience would understand Okay, so there's a I'll even go really simple for you really simple You have a donut Okay, now we're going to draw the inside of the donut from the inside to the outside It's going to give us it's the lines are going to diverge away from each other It would be centrifugal right because it's moving out from the center, which is what centrifugal means Then we have centripetal moving in towards the center Converging so centrifugal divergence and centripetal convergence are not only not gibberish They're very simple concepts that are just objective, right? And so you need to explain And then you freaked out when I used a word with three syllables in it. No, yeah, it's the pressure mediation Actually, there's no such thing as magnetic attraction. It's actually accelerating towards the null pressure created by the actual magnetic field itself But I want to stick on the fact that you can't use newtonian mechanics And you were wrong about what you claimed gravity was because you were very arrogant in your opener about how we know Exactly what gravity is and it's mass attracting mass and flat earthers just say not on they have to deny it You're wrong, my brother. That is not what gravity is in your paradigm If it was then the earth would have to be stationary so the argument by gibberish Is obscure an impenetrable jargon and a lot of it has to do with using words unnecessarily You did not have to bring in any form of centripetal Nothing when talking about electromagnetism. I've taken many courses in electromagnetism calculus based Thank you. So, okay How do you explain? No, no, no, you want to talk about newtonian physics? Yes, newtonian physics is useful. I'm not true at the same time You can understand things at a third grade level how they are useful and yet they are not true at the same time Would you agree? Uh, and they can be useful, but not true at the same time. Sure. Yes. So it's the concept of gas needing a Container. Is that a third grade level the concept to understand? Yeah, I would say that's exactly right. That's why you teach third graders that And that's why you teach adults Grown-up physics where they don't need a container then why were you teaching a whole room of grown-ups mass attracting mass in 2024 uh, because it does attract each other it literally doesn't buy Morphing spacetime that isn't an attraction. That is a that is a two that is a Byproduct of the does the human push the nails into the wood or does the hammer push the nails into the wood? Actually, there's no pushing a what I what I want you are there's only pushing you're right Yes, but what I want you to understand which one pushes the wood the hammer or the person which one? Both so you could say the human pushes the nail in even though it's not directly by the human, right? That is not in any way Analogous question. Yes or no, it's easy. Sure. So sure. So the point is not analogous Deformation in this spacetime could stop interrupting me. You're so rude. Stop deform your projecting time. It's interrupting Justin Justin Is this a problem? I I don't think it is actually a problem. Our audience is here for it He's trying to reply to you. Thank you. Thank you. So back back. Yeah, you guys are going fine Just okay back to the back to the argument if what's it can have composure for five seconds If you admit a human can be the one pushing the nail in and you don't have to have the most direct Tool that it is pushing the nail in then you can admit that gravity the deformation of spacetime caused by the mass Is also Which the deformation is what's causing the attraction is could also be described as the mass Attracting the object just like that the human pushed in the nail the hammer pushed in the nail the mass Attracted the other mass the deformation in spacetime attracted the other mass Semantics, this is such a meaningless waste of time to talk about this. No, actually It's very important because when you say mass attracts mass that's from Newtonian mechanics and that denotes gravity as a force Right an innate property of matter Right and that has been disproven in your paradigm and of course even if it were true You would require something akin to an ether you would need a medium That's actually giving you mutual contact with the bodies because there is no time variable in newtonian mechanics or newtonian gravity Right, so it's instantaneous action at distance, which is why newton explained, right? He can't even wrap his mind around it It must be god doing it and that anyone that would think that it could act instantly through the vastness of a vacuum through long distances Right innate brute matter on other matter without a medium in between them is It's so great an absurdity that no man with competent faculty of thinking Philosophical matters could ever fall into it So that is very important because if you're claiming to know what gravity is You don't need to denote it as something that's been disproven That doesn't make any sense. So it is important. You're talking science explains things physics explains things math describes things We're talking about do you have a viable explanation of physics to tell us that the earth is a tilted wobbling spinning ball Flying through space and the answer is that you do not so we can't talk about newtonian gravity It's irrelevant. You can't have it So You cite again the michael's and moorley failed experiment They always like to bring up that proves the ether which failed that was acknowledged by michael moorley to be a failed To try to provide the ether. Well, you have to grasp again If it's again with the interrupting control you're done No, I never paused So you you cite failed experiments you you use gibberish to try to back up your arguments And now you're asking me to prove to you again that the earth is a spinning ball Can you please acknowledge any other of the eight arguments i've made in my Opening argument, especially I would really like to hear about the star movement across the sky What's it? Why can you see circles in the sky on the south and on the north and they go in opposite directions? Okay, i'm happy to discuss your whole list, but not on the hills of you hand wave dismissing what you clearly were just wrong About so if you want to be honest and just concede that yeah, you misspoke when you said mass attracts mass No, you can't have that no newtonian gravity is no longer an option in your paradigm You cannot have it and that michelson morally debunked it and that you cannot use it in that newtonian gravity And the orbit of the earth cannot coexist anymore You have to completely change all of physics to believe the earth orbits around the sun if you can concede that Gravity is not mass attracting mass that that's archaic and elementary and disproven for over a century And sure we can move on to something else. I've already acknowledged that newtonian physics is wrong Have you listened to me? Okay? I've admitted that multiple times throughout this debate and you want me to say it again I'll say that a million times newtonian physics is a approximation of reality It is extremely useful in all of our day-to-day lives and designs and it is wrong because it's only Only useful mathematically, bro. Can you please acknowledge this? It's only useful mathematically There is a difference in science and math science explains things math describes things Okay, I mean useful mathematically. What does that mean? Because yes newtonian mechanics on like small scales and lower speeds and smaller gravitational presence Right is somewhat similar to relativity. So or any time of gravity. It's really just reverse engineer from kinematics anyway So yes, you can use it What mathematically mathematically listen bro math describes things, okay? Science explains things you can't the point is that you need to offer an actual physical Explanation that's what physics is You said it's useful on paper. What does that mean? It's useful on paper. I want you to admit what you're saying. What does it mean? What do you mean? What does it mean? Yeah, you said it's useful On paper. What does that mean? Yeah, we use it to do for example engineering. We use newtonian mechanics. So predictions Sure So it's useful to make predictions about the world around us. Sure. What this is the problem What I have already I've already said this you're gonna I've already said this There are many equations that that could be replaced with that can give you the exact same predictions In fact, you don't even need dynamics You can use a kinematic equation to solve for 9.8 for little g Downward acceleration you can use a kin purely kinematic equation with initial velocity height and time to get the same value You can use an electrostatic equivalence to get little g you can use an electromagnetic equivalence to get big Wait, are you trying to say newtonian physics is wrong? Well, what I'm saying is that is that what you're saying? No, no, what I'm actually saying is if you're going to claim the ursa ball flying around the sun and that gravity Is causing all the planets to orbit you need to provide us an actual big boy explanation of it Not just math. We need physics Not just math also observation. That's what my entire no, we need physical explanation So can we move on to another subject? What's it? Are you okay with that? Wait, wait, this is the problem whenever you guys supposedly use satellites and you do all this stuff with satellites You say that this is what you do I want to show that even when people study this stuff that they don't know it Whenever you supposedly put a satellite up you use newtonian mechanics. Well, sure it works mathematically But that has huge implications physically it accounts for real inertial forces Which is specifically impossible And if your if newtonian mechanics was true, right then the earth can't be orbiting So why can't you use insinium mechanics to solve for it because because it's fundamentally different with the eci Because you actually the atomic clocks account for their change of velocity in the towards relative to the center of the eci frame So you can't use insinium mechanics, but you have to in your paradigm So if you actually are putting satellites out all it proves is that the earth has to be stationary Because you have to use a newtonian mechanics And yeah, do you think they only use newtonian mechanics to design satellites? What's it? Have you designed any satellites recently? I haven't designed satellites But I really I really thought that that's what we were going to talk about. That's what you specialized in I didn't say I designed satellites. Did I um, you would know if you did design satellites that they use They don't only use newtonian physics. They absolutely use relativity To explain a lot of the motions that they're going to have to go through because yeah, they're up high They don't obey the normal every day day today Movements that we see on the day earth, which is what newtonian physics is So no, you're wrong when they say that you say they only use newtonian physics to design satellites. That's patently wrong No, no, no what I or orbital mechanics My subject that I brought up back in the beginning of this conversation where I would ask you to explain the Rotational the stars around the poles, please I think you're scared because well, that's what I have to say real fast I want to point out and see if you can answer this, right? So I'm not going to answer this I'm waiting for your answer about the stars Five minutes ago when you were you were disregarding it completely You complained a lot about interrupting to have done it basically every time that I say something But yeah, they claim to use relativity sometimes for stuff like the time corrections But there's a major problem for you Then with satellites they actually account for check this out a preferred direction for the propagation rate of lights Meaning that they actually account for a variance in c And it's provable. We have the actual documentation Right proving it so I see if you can answer this if the electromagnetic Wave why don't if the propagation rate of is actually variant Meaning that c is variant the speed of light changes and it's a preferred direction It propagates faster east to west. Do you agree that that would debunk your entire model? What's it? I've asked you this question like 10 minutes ago probably now. Okay. Let's move on. You can answer Thank you I would like you to explain the stars the thing I brought up 20 minutes ago the stars What did I say about the stars? Did you listen or not? Yeah, I'm gonna explain it again Explain them explain the motion they take you you're bringing up a day one flat earth argument Which means you haven't even researched it. So there's many explanations for the stars One of which is that we have an azimuthal grid of vision We have a limit to how how we see right and this is provable. There's been many tests There's been many tests to prove it right that we actually see in curved visual space For example the alley experiments. They actually took another test where they had a sphere with many people with Exo exocentric pointers showing that the way they mapped out the relation to the center was curved We have curved visual space. We have a limit. We have anti-croposcular proscular rays, etc All that to say so whenever you look towards the edge of your limit What happens is there's an optical convergence and that would be the southern rotation And of course if I'm looking north and I see the northern rotation if I turn and look south It's going to look like it's going the opposite way Right, even if it's going the same way Just because of perspective It's going to look like it's going the opposite way and then the question that that would need to be asked answer It is well Why does it look like it's going around the pole in the south, right? And the answer is because there's an there's a convergence an optical convergence Just like corpuscular and anti corpuscular rays, right? So when the sun sets in the west you'll see the corpuscular rays But if you look to the east the exact opposite direction while the sun is setting you'll see corpuscular rays Converging to a point over there 180 degrees away That proves that perspective will make it look like there's an optical convergence point. That's what we see with the stars So pretty simple and there's like four different explanations. It's so simple. Um, so I really like that you brought up the This as a myth or grid of vision. Do you have any like models to demonstrate how that works? Yeah Could you bring that up and show us? You know what the model is. Why are you playing the game? I want to show your audience Okay, right. This is for the audience. So and I want to show you something else as my what's the name of what's that goofy dude's name? No, what's the name? It's your model. You don't know it. You don't know. I actually uh Someone's gonna Walter Bislin. Yeah, you've seen him before right? Yes. Okay, so just stick up ahead You're gonna say, oh, how does the light been like that? I would like you to show you. I'd like to show the model, please Oh my gosh, bro. It's so funny that you think that you dictate the whole conversation. You don't know what I could just show it Do you want to show it with it? No, I'm gonna show it because you're not gonna use the thing I asked you to do please But yeah, but I then I'm making the next point, right? Because this is actually not your you don't like run this I'm asking you to explain your way. Hey, can you acknowledge that you? I just explained what I you're in charge with it when I I just explained what happens and you literally hand-waved it. You didn't even acknowledge the anti-corpuscular corpuscular rays You just ignored it You can't actually I'm literally asking you a question about the thing you brought up Yeah, yeah, can you acknowledge the corpuscular and anti-corpuscular rays? Absolutely acknowledged Okay, so you agree that perspective will make it look I get to the diagram get to the model, dude Do you agree that perspective will make it look like I can I show the can I show my screen Austin? Dude, this is the worst but you've never been on here before I'm guessing because you you have like the worst etiquette I think I've ever encountered but I'm happy. I haven't pulled up right here. I'm happy to show the screen But what I want you to do first is actually acknowledge my points acknowledged No, no, so do you agree that perspective will cause the illusion of convergence 180 degrees away from the source Of rotation or light Yes, I looked She said yes. Okay. Well, there we go. That's why it happens on the earth easy stars easy. Yeah, I agree. So here we'll share it So I don't even know what's your contention now. Here's the share screen I would like you to scroll up a little bit Oh, you want me to read his description that very line. No, no, no a little bit lower where it says how does the You see that Yeah, this guy's obsessed with me. Isn't that weird? So this man who created this model does not believe in flat earth In fact, he created this model to disprove it and he knows flat earth leaders use it to mislead his followers I want everyone to know that the model you are using to prove your theory was proven Was used to disprove it. That's what I wanted to show So the next thing I want you to do is scroll down to your model a little bit All right, this dude, dude, I know you think that you're tough on the internet But what's not going to happen is you're not going to sit over there and act like I'm in your classroom And you're going to give me commands. So now what we're going to do is point out Actually, what happened is that this guy put this model out attempting to disprove it under his own admission It was way more difficult than he thought he ended up showing it actually is viable Then he had to take many weeks to try to figure out how it wouldn't work Then he straw man the actual star is not putting the true star data there But random star points then making up the idea that they had to go 180 degrees, which they do not It's inaccurate star positions. Then we started showing. This is just the stellarium data This isn't anything more than him placing stellarium data on a plane So yeah, we showed it to people and then he updated it and brought me up And yeah, he's an anti flat earth or that backfired He admitted that it was way more viable than he thought it was going to be And it was way more difficult to try to disprove it So you didn't even know about what really happened and you try to teach the audience about what happened Is the model valid or not? It's it's a possibility. Yeah, it's one possibility. Thank you So now please go to the actual model and go to change the ray parameter to plus 200 percent Why? Because I want to show you something about your model All right, and now make the dome grid checked on And the stars checked on and the dome ray checked on at the bottom Yeah, check that dome ray stars dome grid They're all on and make observer latitude negative 90 negative 90 All right. Yeah, I would like I would like for you to look at the model from the side of you Why why how is this relevant? I want to show that your theory requires stars on the opposite side of the planet to Exit the dome and the light comes back down to you 180 degrees in the opposite direction For you to try to literally bend over backwards to try to explain the observations that are seen on a daily basis on this earth Incorrect. So where you actually have this of course is at the furthest edge of Antarctica And these of course are not observed date. These of course are not Of course not observed daily there, right the southern star trails mate. Where's the 90 degrees zenith angle measurement? This is what your model. I'm talking. Did you hear me talking? Okay, so you made me go to 90 degrees. What I want to know is where are the 90 degrees zenith Angle measurements that verify this observation that you just falsely claimed are observed by everyone every day Where's the actual there's not one that exists Now one time so what you're saying is this model is wrong, which you just said it was true What I'm saying is when you go to the extremity out here, this actual observation doesn't exist So this model is wrong Yeah, the model's wrong at the edge where we don't actually have Crazy where we just that the model was right Where we don't actually have observational data But when you take when you take it where we do have actual observational data For example, southern Africa every time I'm talking you interrupt. Why would you have the audacity to complain about it? Southern Africa Okay, so like you notice how ridiculous you're being right like you're interrupting me. I'm just gonna finish my point So in reality, we don't make observations here, right? So we make observations in different places So there's and there are many observations are many potential explanations for the southern stars. This is just one of them There's just one of them. There's another person you can look up if anyone actually is curious It's l of two l of two Tomb of illumination used to be flat earth glossy And he breaks down the actual quadrant the optical projected quadrant in the back or in the uh sides Also, someone's taking a dome projected stars onto the dome and shown that the exact stars will be in the south Just completely reflected as a projection to the south It's been replicated that we would see southern star trails on a flat earth with a dome with an azimuthal grid of vision And with the projection with like a pull electromagnetic polarized holographic projection people can think that's crazy. It doesn't matter It's objectively there are many ways to explain the southern star trails This is a fact my turn my turn. So you your criticism is people don't live on Antarctica. It's not regularly observed So it's never this specific situation is involved. Let's go a little bit Let's bring the latitude a little bit more north to southern Africa and then look at it from the side view Okay, now are we are these real people observe every day? Would you acknowledge that a lot? No, no are these real stars Are these real star positions? You're not gonna show it I when I just showed it. What are you talking about? You're not it's from this You don't want to show it A little bit more a little bit more You know a little bit more angle down Where at the earth is and more to the side where the observer is on the side of this Hemisphere, okay, so in this position I don't want to show it I acknowledge the light doesn't in this case exit the dome But you can absolutely see that the stars definitely do still go a 180 degree curve from one side of the planet So while the other side of the planet and then back into your eye That is Occam's razor if I've ever heard it Okay, now let's say the same thing I already said Are those actual star observations or are they random arbitrary stars that he decided to draw lines to what's the answer You know the answer and this is the answer is that it's not even actual observations Obviously, it's a model So no, you don't have to see that you don't model is No, you don't have to see that Right. No, we like the model without the the stupid little lines drawn on there that that was he admitted That this was the only way he could figure out how to try to disprove it because he was surprised At how well he was able to make it work on a flat earth And he actually then arbitrarily through the through the lines his argument is light couldn't been like that Been like what your strawman version of fake observations that don't happen in reality So this is completely backfired on you Of course, there's substantial evidence that we actually see in curved visual space So the real question is why doesn't your model account for what can be experimentally proven? Which is that we have a curved visual limit Right, which means actually your model is impossible. Can I go is my turn? Yeah, acknowledge what I said So if there was a star and maybe it is not in the exact same Location that is on this model because it is a model But if there was a star on that side of the dome What's it do you believe that the light from that star would go to the other side of the planet Take a 180 degree turn back just so it can go into your eyeball and you can see a star from the opposite side of the planet Do you believe that that is how your model works? No, that's not a real so this model is wrong The arbitrary lines he drew to fake stars that aren't real observations Is wrong. Yeah, I've just said actual star in that location Do you think that there's not If There was what's it? Did you hear what I said? You're saying you're ignoring me. Wait, you're saying if we made observations on the earth that we don't Would the model not work the model wouldn't work if there were observations that don't exist. That's correct What's it doesn't want to acknowledge The fact that his model Forces literally bends over backwards the the acronym to describe arbitrary thinking The light of these stars to absolutely bend over backwards just to explain The observation seen at the southern pole as I explained in my introduction You can absolutely see the southern cross Whether you're on point d or point e of my presentation Please go back if you don't remember on both sides of the Antarctica You can see the southern cross to explain that on a flat earth theory you have to have Absurd forms of optics that they like and turn 180 degrees just because you observe it Okay, now again again These aren't actual observations. They have to see from 180 degrees. That's nonsense This entire thing is not even reality and I'm gonna I'm gonna stop sharing it now And like I also explained there are multiple explanations of the southern stars, right? So there are actually there's an explanation that there's actually two two just like It's called magneto hydrodynamics, right? That you would actually just have two actual rotations and that we would see the center the center point You would have to actually go to the south and explore more adequately because that would significantly change certain layouts Further sell which I mean, you know, that's an interesting point The third one is that it's actually a projection and that it projects equally out into six quadrants Which can be replicated has been replicated and recorded. We've replicated this So we get you think it's not possible Okay, I'm telling you that it is possible. We've replicated it in physical reality And what I want to know is how are we going to address all the stuff that falsifies the globe? That's what I want to know because if I'm like, oh, well, I This guy arbitrarily says he doesn't agree with some of the explanations that fight earth has. Okay, cool You you were wrong. We do have possible explanations So let's get to the evidence that falsifies the globe because you agree that if there's tons of evidence that falsifies the globe And then there's possible explanations for this on a flat earth And we're still stuck with the flat earth, right? Yeah, let's get to it. Let's get to the stuff that disproves the globe. Um, so his his explanation again was magneto hydrodynamics Um again impenetrable jargon argument by gibberish. No explanation of it So I want to talk about the thing you said originally before I started talking where you were saying that the stars travel in the same direction on the poles, whether it's north or south because Um Because you're just confused, right? It's about it's an orientation issue So this is obviously going to disprove the globe. So could I please share my screen to discuss? No, I'm sharing my screen You just claimed that this word was impenetrable made up jargon garbage. No, I didn't I didn't say it was made up I said it was impenetrable because you didn't explain it. You didn't explain the point you were trying to make That's what I said Okay, I'm just representing my point another straw man from the flat boy So you think big words are just gibberish No, it's called impenetrable because you know, your audience isn't going to understand it. What's it? I actually explained I literally explained it right after saying that that would mean you stopped explaining about when it started Explaining a different subject. I said that that mean there's two I would say that means that there's two actual rotations in the electromagnetic field I literally said those words Oh, well, I guess the audience will decide when they'll rewind the paper or rewind the video Can I share my screen to talk about the thing that's going to describe the globe impenetrable garbage? That's interesting. It wasn't at all Or is it you're so right. So can I share my screen just because I'm trying to stop sharing it's like I want to disprove the globe right now Uh, dude, it's saying it's saying that the zoom meeting is not meeting or can you still hear me? I can't hear you're still here. Everything's working good. I'm not frozen or anything No, you are not Okay, it's saying that the zoom meeting is not responding. So It's like telling me to close the program If you need to refresh zoom, that's okay as well. Yeah, I might have to just come back Yeah Is it still saying I'm sharing screen? No, I stopped your screen share for you. Okay. I mean you're still actively here Okay, I'm just like just hang on just hang just hang on william Don't those well if he's going to share screen if he's going to share screen I can drop and come back if you're going to put his screen up. I work I can't show you. Yeah, your video is frozen now. Go ahead. Okay drop come back with it before he shares the screen Um, I'll go ahead and just do some some some housekeeping here um So while with it refreshes himself, I'll let everybody remind everybody to hit that like and subscribe button We're getting tons of subscribers in here. This is fantastic. Thank you so much We'd love to see that subscriber count roll over to 170,000 subscribers This is one hot debate right now. I think you guys would all agree. This is fantastic Do I need to drop out? Do you am I looking okay? You're fine my friend. You're fine my friend We're just going to wait for witsit to come back in um I just got to keep my eye on What's it coming back in? Yeah, so hit like hit subscribe Don't forget if you are at all interested if you think you've got a way to Defend a flat earth or a globe earth The modern data bait email is on top. We are dropping the gauntlet We are opening the door to anyone who wants to come try out and attempt Do you think you could stand toe to toe with witsit gets it? Do you think you could stand toe to toe with William Harris? Well, just send your email over to james and we'll give you guys that opportunity Not sure how much more housekeeping I can do while we wait for witsit to How much longer do we have on the um discussion? Yeah, we have about 10 minutes 10 minutes left when he comes back Um, I've got the timer kind of stopped but you guys are doing a fantastic job. The audience is totally here for it Super chat's coming in like crazy if you guys have a question for our debaters feel free to Throw in a super chat. You might also notice that we have some new audience interactions going on here tonight If you sub or you send a super chat or if you become a channel member Your name gets shown on our screen. Hey, we're doing that thing people have been doing forever So your name will be there Forever in history in our backlog of our videos. This is easily The second in the top two debates of 2024 by far I'll let everyone stop and think about what that means for a minute. Well Witsit is literally coming back in. Hey, what's it? What up, bro? We're so nice to have you back. Um, so yeah, the audience is electric. Uh, you guys are doing a fantastic job Everyone's loving this. We have about 10 minutes left before q and a Um, so I will let you boys continue All right, can I share my screen now? Sure, sure, but real fast William You understand that you're just going through all your points and you still didn't acknowledge the one point One argument I made in the opener and you're also avoiding all the direct refutations of your arguments Oh, yeah, I acknowledge that for sure. So back to the globe model. So this is going to disparate the globe as What's it has already described? So the flat earth model Um, you acknowledge Witsit that the stars are rotating in different Sorry are in the same direction versus the south pole versus the north pole on the north on the globe model You'd say it's the same direction, right? That we'll say again You said the stars are rotating in the same direction when you're in the south pole versus in the north pole Due to your as a mythic as a mythal grid of vision. Um, we're seeing that this is going in the same direction, right? Uh, I said that they move in the same cardinal direction, but they move clockwise and counterclockwise Gotcha, so different directions Because of optics do you disagree that if you look the opposite way something's going to look like it's moving the opposite direction You absolutely do disagree with that because we have something that exists called the right hand rule And witsit likes to not tell his followers that this is a very normal principle in physics That the right hand rule gives you an orientation That allows you to Not be confused about things like that when he says something like people get confused between a six and a nine That's the same as being confused of which direction the stars are going in the north and south No, we know it's two different directions And it's not just a confusion based on your orientation Because you can when you go in the north and you observe the right hand rule You curve your fingers in the direction of the curve of the stars Your thumb will point up and if you go in the south and you curve your fingers in the Direction of the curve your thumb will be pointing down. They are not going in the same direction by observation Right, what's it? You agree with that, right? Dude, that's crazy that you got that. That was a good point. So Do you agree or no? No, of course So I don't agree the direction of current is actually what that's about which is funny Right, the right hand rule is actually about the direction of currents You don't want to talk about that though. Let's not talk about that because that actually works perfectly with the flat earth That's crazy. The right hand and left hand rule work perfectly with the flat earth explanation of a singular motion A singular direction actual direction and then a downward electric current But but what I'm explaining to you is if everything's actually moving in one direction, but then I look The other direction it will objectively look like it's going the other way This do you you're saying that's not true? And then you brought up the right hand rule and said if I assume the air's a globe and I put it Yeah, we all understand why the globe claims they look like they're going the opposite way on the globe All the stars are going east to west, but we're upside down relative to the northern position So they look like they're going the opposite way Gotcha. So do they Move in the opposite direction In actuality, they all move in the same direction east to west in actuality But how about in observed observation the there's a difference in the observed in the actual card Because what's an what's an actuality can be up to interpretation, right? But what's an observed is more much more objective. So what do we observe to be true? How do you not understand what I'm saying, which is that all stars moved in the same cardinal direction? So You agree Same cardinal direction go ahead and explain that all stars move east to west There we go. So when you're in the north hemisphere, they're going in one direction And when you're in the south hemisphere, they're going in the other direction. You would agree Yes, so they do go in two different directions. No, no, no They're you are and the bro. This is so crazy. This is like flat earth 101, bro And this is what he's gonna eat up the last 10 minutes He's not gonna but he doesn't want to address my argument But i'm going to say it one more time all the stars move in the same cardinal direction east to west Right, but there's an optical perceived direction Which is clockwise and counterclockwise if you look at if every star was moving around Polaris and you look south They would objectively look like they're going the opposite direction Objectively, it can be replicated. You would have the optical convergence point like prepostero and anti-compostilaries Which he can see that exists. I want you to address the actual electrical field argument We've talked about like all of your arguments you I'm going to talk for a second now You didn't concede to the retrograde you claimed retrograde plumes. We move around the sun Even though there's a kinematic equivalence with retrograde even according to relativity That's absolutely not true parallax aberration and retrograde kinematic equivalence all work with the earth being stationary Would you like to concede retrograde doesn't prove the earth orbits the sun? No, absolutely not because what planetary what the globe model predicts Is the retrograde movement, right? We would we could predict that even if we didn't see it Right if we imagine just our brand new planet that joined our solar system We could predict the motion it would move we would predict what What um retrograde motion we would see with that new planet. It's a predictive has predictive capability So does a geocentric model No, it doesn't austin as you absolutely guys It's called that multiple times your entire model is founded on the fact that yet we see it multiple times in the sky Um, so we can maybe make some predictions about it But we can't really do any further than that because we don't know what it is We don't know why it's moving. We don't know where it's going. We don't know anything about it We just know we see it. We know more than that. We see it, but we also know more It's called the neotyconic model. Okay, and it absolutely has the same exact kinematic predictive capability for retrograde This is very basic stuff. If you would like to read a paper on it, I'm happy to send it to you, right? It's called the neotyconian newtonian mochian analysis of planetary motion It's not complicated But now so you're wrong if you think retrograde proves the earth swarming the sun I wouldn't be talking down to so many people like flatterthers are just ignorant. That's very basic stuff There's a kinematic equate equivalence according to relativity So that means all astronomical observations can be validly explained from a central position Go read some steven hawking. He'll tell you the same thing But what I want you to do is address my one argument I made which is that we have a vertical electric field on the earth with equipotential lines And that this requires two Gaussian surfaces that are parallel to each other and perpendicular to that And since we have a uniform electric field, you cannot have that on a sphere You cannot have uniformity of a vertical electric field on a sphere. It's physically impossible Therefore proving that the earth is not a sphere and that there is something acting as a second Gaussian plate above us Gotcha, so I will acknowledge what you're saying. Um, the first thing you said, what was that um model that you described that would uh display the geo Sorry the retrograde. It's called the neotyconic model or neotyconian model Gotcha, and you will admit you didn't explain what that model was in this. I did I did already explain it I said oh you explained it. Do you think everyone in this debate or yes Most people would understand what you were saying. Yeah, and I'll repeat what I said already Gotcha, so everyone who's listening right now if you don't already understand what the neotyconian whatever the hell model That wits it just described is if you don't already understand what it is Then he knows he's taking advantage of you Okay, so I are I already said what it is which is the neotyconic model is All the planet's moving around the sun as that whole system moves around the earth I didn't explain that if you can just think about it for a second, you would know that would give you the exact same Explanation for why the planets look like they're going backwards and retrograde It's called the neotyconic system taiko brahi system. Of course was here before any other heliocentric model It's a slightly updated using maki and principle. Here's the paper. Can I share the screen? You're just you're just showing your can I share my screen to the paper? Please? Yes But to be fair you may have missed it But I absolutely did explain that and if you think about it, it makes very simple sense. Um, I'm not sure Yeah, okay the newtonian mocking analysis of neotyconian model of planetary motions It was it was published by the european journal of physics Last time I did a debate on this people claimed that it wasn't a real paper So I just wanted to show it. This is the paper. Um, and actually if you want it, I can get it for you I can get the I have the actual pdf Okay, and anyway, and it's not even like that. It's not that complicated. Please don't freeze again. Okay Yeah, do you understand what I'm saying if all the planets moved around the sun And then the sun was moving around the earth from the earth's position as the planets move around the sun It would look like they're going backwards from our perspective Which is the same explanation the heliocentric model has for retrograde Your so your entire argument is that Everything is moving the exact way our gravity predicts except we want to be the inertial ones. Is that your prediction? First of all, we have science. We just had right. We've already scientifically Experimently proven that the earth is a stationary lab frame with interferometry Your gravity doesn't predict the planet has to yes or no question, but I was thinking you're saying yes So yeah, yeah, the earth is inertial group. I believe that's what I said everything looks Everything looks just like as if they were a bunch of planets orbiting the sun It all looks like that and it very well might be that way Also, we're not orbiting the sun Well, no actually the only looks that way because we created the system over time, right? And it still doesn't even work. We have the mercury perihelion shift. It doesn't work It doesn't even work with your model or with any version of gravity that's ever been proposed Right, it doesn't work But yes, what we saw was that there are something called stars and then planets plan a wandering stars They move a little difference and they move seemingly backwards from our perspective I explained two options. One is that we actually measure the motion right in relation to the background stars So if the planets periodically slow down in relation to the background stars, it would look like they're going backwards It would cause retrograde Secondly, it could just be that the star the planets move in relation to the sun that moves around the earth And that would give you retrograde So now we're going to go to the actual empirical measurements on the earth That tried to measure the motion of the earth that is claimed and prove that the earth is not orbiting the sun And michael simorley requiring newtonian mechanics be thrown out an eye sign saying up turns out Everything that happens on the earth is going to happen like the earth is in a state of rest You'll never be able to disprove it's in a state of rest You'll never be able to measure or detect the earth moving through space That is your current position. So if we're going to use Occam's razor, that would mean the earth is of course at rest You're going to claim it's an illusion But you don't like Occam's razor Occam's razor I do like Occam's razor I do love Occam's razor because mine requires so few or lesser assumptions than yours You are literally trying to say everything on the it all looks like it's orbiting the sun But we're not we're the inertial ones, but everything else is orbiting the sun even But but the sun is orbiting us that that requires a unbelievable amount of Of of cognitive dissonance. What's it? Um, but I don't address the point address that the measurement show the earth is because The earth is the measurement show the earth is not moving around the sun And what your position did if we're going to apply Occam's razor if we use highly precise Interferometry that should be decisive quote-unquote from Einstein Michael's more than times Over 10 times more sensitive than it needs to be to detect the orbit of the earth and it shows the earth is stationary Occam's razor would say the earth is stationary What did your side do throughout all of physics throughout newtonian mechanics came up with a brand new idea Of 4d space time geometry that bends and warps and actually even though we're curving around the sun We're not curving we're going straight We're going straight in an orbit and then we're free falling to a geodesic path And we weren't able to detect it because it's just linear motion and the interferometry can't detect it But then in 2004 we actually detected linear motion with the interferometry by weighing which even just proves that explanation So there is no way the earth is orbiting. It's a fact So your subjective opinion of how you think it's cognitive dissonance or it's convenient Doesn't in any way combat the physical empirical measurements So have you researched any of that? Are you ready for michael's and marley? Yeah, yeah, make us some more Sorry, uh, hold on. Hold on. So we're we're we're pretty much at the end of our open discussion In fact, we're we've gone over a little bit and I know that william. You really wanted to have Like a closing statement. So, um I will allow how much time do you think you want there william? a minute or two Minute or two. So I'm going to allow you a closing statement and then I'm going to return the exact same time to witsett to Have the final word and then we'll go into Q&A. Okay, awesome. Thank you. No, you're welcome All right, it's all yours all right From a funnel argument. I want to talk about this man. Mike Hughes Mike Hughes was born and raised into a loving family in oklahoma city and he killed himself on february 22nd 2020 for the cause of flat earth and if all of the audience tonight truly truly want to challenge their perspective and try to discover real truth Please do not watch another flat earth documentary. That's trying to put Turn that's trying to prove flat earth wrong. Do not watch another one of those instead watch a documentary about Rajneesh Purim or max Nexium that's supposed to say nexium. Sorry with it and Nexium watch red red niche purim or nexium or love has won or heavens gate watch documentaries about these things and other things like them Because one person has already died in the name of flat earth We do not we want to ensure that this never ever happens again. Thank you That's my final argument All right, what's it? You can have the final word. It's just over a minute. So it's all yours bud. And then we'll get into q&a Mike Hughes supposedly Was a flat earth earth that wanted to prove the earth's not curving and shot a rocket up Not even higher than the highest building on the earth And we simply lose we send balloons up over 100,000 feet. What's even funnier is he's on record admitting He's not actually a flat earth there and all the people that were with them making the movement To raise the money came out that it was just a pr stunt to try to raise money He he didn't think the earth was flat So an a globe earth earth Was dumb enough to think it made sense to claim going lower than the highest building on the earth would prove flat earth To try to raise money and lie to people So that's a very underheaded tactic and what we proved is that retrograde was wrong What we proved is that the lunar eclipse is a geometric impossibility on the globe What we proved is that you couldn't even address for a second the vertical electric fill in the earth And that you don't understand the mmx and then subsequent interferometry measurements prove the earth is not orbiting The truth is that the earth is a stationary topographical plane All you did was look at the cycle of the sky reverse engineer model Reify presuppose and affirm the consequent and then handway dismiss all empirical measurements So that is the that is a summary of the debate Thank you. It's it All right, uh, wow What an amazing debate. Uh, that is one i'll never forget. Thank you gentlemen so much. That was awesome The audience here is definitely loving it. I'm loving it And because of that we have a whole lot of work still to do boys Uh, but before we get into those super chats I'm gonna go ahead and just remind everyone to go to hit hit like and subscribe. Don't forget to become a channel member Um, also if you think you've got what it takes to go toe-to-toe with with it gets it. Hey, man Uh, modern day debates opening up the door to anyone who wants a shot And uh, william harris. I'm pretty confident. We're gonna see you again someday too So if you think you got what it takes to go up against william harris and defend the flat earth Hey email us. Let us know what your arguments would be and how you would defend those arguments um Before we get into the super chats actually what I would really like to do, uh What's it where can people find you any given day on the internet? Uh, what's it gets it? On youtube and every platform every platforms. What's it gets it? We're about to start dropping tiktoks and uh x and stuff like that so you can check out I'm gonna be active on x but yeah, what's it gets it on youtube is the primary place and telegram where you can actually Speak freely in uncensored All right, and uh, we've got you linked here in our disc in our in our description as well But william we don't have anything here for you. So is there do you have an active channel? Are you on a discord server is regularly someone might hunt you down and throw a gauntlet for now? I'm just william harris william harris. We all liked william harris very much. Thank you very much All right, let's jump into these super chats, so we um Can go 44 10 dollars question for witsett mr. B spent 50 hours in antarctica filmed the 24 hour sun and Uh filmed the 24 hour sun at the union glacier region. Is he part of the conspiracy? Mr. Beast part of the lizard man alum illuminati Yeah, that's called uh poisoning the well, but uh, they admittedly didn't see the sun for 24 hours So they only saw sunlight They admitted they didn't see the actual sun for 24 hours I know a former nasa employee that was stationed there for six months as you never see the sun for 24 hours Which is required on the globe. We see the sun for 24 hours in the north We have tons of time lapses of it all the ones from the south are faked So that doesn't no it doesn't prove anything admittedly. They didn't even see the sun for 24 hours We're actually planning a trip to antarctica and i'll prove it to you myself that we're not going to see the sun for 24 hours So that's a globe problem All right next question lj $1.99 this one's likely for you william has gravity ever been measured as a force It's been measured as a force as much as a force could ever be measured How's that That's your answer. That's fine. There's a limit to our understanding of anything. There's always a limit and at some point A phenomena that is observed consistently every single time with the same conditions You see it so often you label it a force And once it's observed that many times Forces become facts. So yes, we've observed as a force because gravity is not a force anymore Thank you. What's no problem, brother okay Just for the record, I don't have anything against a little back and forth during q&a But I generally like the person who got the question asked To have final words so william like just so you know I consider that fair play, but I would have let you have last word on that question. Okay Understood. Thank you. Can't go 44 $10 question for witsit in I assume they're saying 2011 Because they wrote 20,111 but 2011 james may tv presenter flew in a u2 spy plane To 70,000 feet and the curvature of the earth is clearly visible is james may part of the conspiracy. Oh, man, dude The geometry of your model says you don't see the curvature of the earth from 70,000 feet, bro Why do you guys say something that you wouldn't see the curvature from 120,000 feet You wouldn't see the curvature from 62 miles And then when you have like incredibly famous theoretical physicists from your side like nildograss thyssen come out and explain this with specificity or the person that runs the world's biggest Planetarium explain you wouldn't even see it from the ISS show all the math you guys throw them under the bus So do we believe the mainstream and it's so obvious what the earth is or do we believe Everyone that undermines the mainstream because they feverishly fight crazy flat earthers Is not really adding up. So no, you didn't see the curvature from 70,000 feet We've been to 120,000 feet and not seen the curvature right with high with a high altitude balloons So no, he's not in on it depends on what camera he uses. I can make my sidewalk look curved I can make my desk look curved if you impose curvature with the lens Your own model says you wouldn't see it from that height. So please don't say that anymore I would love to give a response to this. So first off, you didn't absolutely can but like I said Which it will get to respond and have the final word Perfect. So first off was that you didn't listen to the question He said he was in a plane and observed it. There was no camera Second of all, if you were on a globe, let's explore the globe model theory for a second If you were on a globe, how tall would you need to go? How high would you need to go to see a curve? What's it? Well, it's actually debated. You guys can't give me a definitive answer. So how about you give me an answer? I'm saying I've seen many the math done many different ways because it has to invoke optics And it's actually not completely determined But um, I I personally think that you could see the curvature of the earth from pretty low even looking at the ocean But your model So you're contradicting what you just said you couldn't see them up the curve my airplane Yeah, but my but your model's math Actually says that you wouldn't see the curvature of the earth in a plane You absolutely would not and that's what all the people that do the math for you So if a globe earther wants to show me the math of how you would see it I'll happily look at it Okay, but just basically claiming you see in a plane is ridiculous your model does not claim that it claims You wouldn't see it over 60 miles. Everyone just heard you contradict yourself. You can have the last word Okay, so what i'm saying is that I think that it would be obvious that the earth is a sphere Even at the surface of the earth with things like engineering I think you would be able to see it over like even shorter Increments of plane survey data, right when we actually use plane survey data up to 100 square miles So i'm saying you would actually see it with things like the outlights and stuff like that We don't see it probably don't see it. We don't see that right curvature at all But again, my point is very simple that your model does not claim you would see curvature from a plane So everyone that's still claiming they saw curvature from a plane, which I just feel like seven times I promise you did not Okay, 100% Why not? That's a weird thing to say I know for a fact that no one in here has seen curvature from a plane You I know many pilots including ones that were in the military They say that the earth absolutely does not curve from a plane and know his question said that he showed everyone the curve Meaning he had to have videoed it So I did hear the question and again If you guys think there's a ball that's cool But we've sent out the tube high altitude balloons up 120,000 feet Showing that there isn't curvature. So if you're claiming you saw it from 30,000 feet, something's not adding up, right? All right. Thank you. What's it and thank you, will you uh next question again from lj so far It's just can't go in lj coming back and forward. So lj. Uh and because it's from our favorite lj There's no other lj. This is definitely a question for will you 499 globies blindly trust our Modern science yet. Look where the food pyramid got us in 2024 from fit to fat When has earth curvature ever been measured? so curvature um You can measure the curvature with weather balloons. You can measure it by observing Things going underneath the horizon. You can measure them with Transmission lines and at the salt flats that go so far that you can see them affected by the curvature of the earth there's many many different ways to measure the curvature of the earth and Just because you do not want to believe you do not want to trust in these scientific organizations I understand you you look at them as distrustful people And I get it but at the end of the day You are throwing the entire universe of calculations out with a misunderstanding Thank you. All right. I got a point out for you, bro Seeing things go below the horizon or looking in the distance and seeing a curve is not a Measurements It's like me looking down the the hallway and saying that table is seven feet Like I can guess maybe or something. It's not a measurement He's asking when the earth's curvature has been physically measured not optically assumed and reified So optics you can use optics to make measurements. You agree. Obviously. What's it? Say again You can use optics. Please pay attention to the debate. You can use optics to take measurements. You would agree You can make calculations based on measurements taking averages and trying to weigh out errors And the more the distances of your observation the more the errors exist That's how I think I asked a yes or no question. Can you answer it to make a measurement? No No, you don't make optical measurements optical measurements. They're also a conspiracy Thank you. No. No. No, I no I I ended the question Okay, that's actually you know like the way it works is you get the last it's okay if he responds But I'll still let like I will always come back to you william. I am sorry. What's it? Like the audience is here for it guys like continue to communicate. It's good. Yeah, like so so like for example Geodetic survey and claims that they make measurements with optics, right? But really what they do is they look over vast distances and whatever they're looking at fluctuates So they take averages they have a weighted mean they have a tolerance window They throw certain observations out that don't fit within it They do a calculation to get a weighted mean average and then they try to put it into their assumed model That is not a physical measurement. Okay, that is a calculation Then that is actually just a weighted mean average. There is a fundamental difference in those two things Gotcha. So, okay So you cannot make measurements with optics. So you're saying No, you cannot make direct measurements with long distance optics. No, no, no, you're Moving the goalposts a little bit, huh there bud long distance. That's an addition Well, that's what I'm about optics I was just being more specific because you invoke long distance We weren't being specific before but now you want to be specific. So which one is it optics or long distance optics? Optics in general different thing. I think perfect. I'm so happy. So so optics in general No measurements can be us to believe taken those are physical. What devices were they using in michaels and moorling? Uh Those were interferometry light beams and they were yeah, they weren't measuring sizes and distances What they were doing is actually getting an interference pattern based on Based on motion and displacement, right and they were using light beams and So what field of physics is that usually referred to as light beams optics? And they were using them to make measurements. Yes, but that's not the same as observation I didn't say observation. That's a measurement, didn't I you invoked observation I asked you can you make measurements using optics and you said no and now you're changing your mind You're contradicting yourself yet again. Thank you specifically light Which is the technical term for it as optics as a field. Yes, but can you make measurements using observations? No All right, so we've got a lot of super chats coming. So william last word is yours and we're gonna get the next He contradicts himself again folks. He's contradicting himself like 10 times in this debate I don't know what else to tell you this man is selling you something. He's selling you Uh, what's that for you to sell you a bridge and somewhere that can't have a bridge He's selling you a con. Thank you All right. Uh, next question, uh, we generally don't like to comment on our debaters appearance, um, however I feel like this is good-hearted and okay. That's mean if wits it will, um Entertain us. Uh, did did you can read whatever if it's about me, bro? I don't go Did you get a little sun over the holidays my friend? Yeah, I did the day The whole chat is um loving the red hue. You got that glow looks good So anyways, they spent five bucks. Just ask like why you're so red and yeah, I got sun today Yeah, I didn't think you would mind and that wouldn't be soon All right, uh, lj big supporter tonight lj and can't go of course Um $1.99. So lj this will be for you william most likely. Do you feel you are spinning or is the ground stationary? Oh, man Do I feel like i'm spinning or does it feel like it's stationary? It feels like it's stationary and also Newtonian physics is wrong Yeah, so question. Yeah, so All right, so the super chats the super chats are really coming in now and you guys have got them all Yeah, uh with questions. So let's get to it. Uh, I can't go $44 or $5 question for wits it Is sun cream part of the big pharma conspiracy? Oh, that actually is about a sunday Yes, yes, it is Yeah, no, please read all of them. Yes, it literally is though because they've been tied directly to cancer And oftentimes they put things like uh, like heavy metals inside of them, right? Like certain types of oxidated metals that have been tied directly to cancers. So you can look it up, right? Nitride, I don't know exactly which metal it is, but something oxide just look it up It's ridiculous the stuff that they put even it for coloring like skittles and stuff They put that same heavy metal in uh sunscreen, but you can use things like coconut oil, which I clearly didn't do Okay, I I I forgot but you can use coconut oil and it's good for you sunscreen is bad for you Absolutely, and I suggest not to use it. You know, this is time to cancel your sunburns. So allegedly All right, um anyways, let's let's refrain from any more of those kind of questions if we can But uh, what's it? Thank you for being the sport though. Oh titanium oxide. Yeah, sorry Very uh ozion talks five dollars. Hey wits it good to see you again Why when the electric current switches direction do things not float? Especially in some reverse lightning strikes Okay, um the overall electric field of the earth never switches Okay, there are isolated areas that can fluctuate and uh, even when the lightning looks like it's going up It's actually an area like above the surface that then meets up to the differential above it. But anyway, uh, the object itself has a density right and so that's the compactness of matter or Volume and mass right and of course because mass is volume times density So anyway, the point is that what actually holds the matter together is the compactness of matter is held together by electrostatic charges So that's what holds it together. It has a relationship with the medium Right and then we call that buoyancy If that if that exists that buoyant force is significantly stronger than the 10 micro micro amps per square meter that comes from the sky And when so in order to make something float you're gonna have to introduce a lot of electrostatics or a lot of electric charge to overcome that weight Okay, that's all it is you have to overcome the weight or the buoyant relationship Uh and the electric field of the earth never flips Right. It's overall there's always energy coming from the sky to the ground And and no one ever answers if there's a downward electric current on the earth Would that create a downward bias? That's that's my question that globers are just Ready to answer Next question. It's lj again another dollar 99. You ready, william? Why doesn't earth spin under a hovering helicopter? That is a great question and I think it was asked in good faith too uh, so the reason why airplanes and hovering helicopters uh move With reference to the earth as an inertial frame is because helicopters and airplanes Are already moving with the earth and they have the angular momentum that the earth has already given it by its being on the surface of it So you can look at the earth and not feel the motion Just like what if you're in a helicopter and you don't see the motion of the earth because you are already moving along with it and you are Don't feel any angular force because you have been feeling it. You've been going that way already What does the air move in lockstep with the earth? Uh No, because wind Oh, so then you feel wind, right? So it's not just going to keep moving with the earth because the air most of it does But the air isn't doing it. I said most of it does. What's it? Oh, so it's close, but no cigar. I got it Yes, that's what a lot of science is. What's it? Pay attention Thanks You just gave like a first grade explanation of something super basic to chill out I know it was a first grade destination. Was it a first grade concept? Yeah, but he's pointing out the intrinsic I don't I don't think this exchange is really going anywhere. Probably not. You're right. Yeah Are we okay to move on? William or do you got another word? Oh, you're good. Let's let's keep going. Okay um Can go 44 so can go and lj like you guys Thanks for coming. You're always here. You're always super chatting massive channel supporters. We can't deny that the best We love them Yeah, so can go 44 which means this question's for witsett We have thousands of images of earth from space You can't even begin to show that any of them are fake which makes your whole argument ridiculous You're admittedly CGI How can someone still be around the combo? Look, I'm gonna say this really quick. This is what happened to me. Someone said the earth was flat I thought it was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard. Okay, so I was like, dude We have probably millions of pictures of earth from space. I'm just going to go google them. Okay So I went to just quickly disprove flat earth and look at the earth from space And what did I find out that the famous picture that was on everyone's iphone of the earth from space actually wasn't a picture It was actually CGI Admittedly and I found the person saying that we it was just artwork Basically, he painted on top of it and they took flat earth pictures and wrapped it around the ball I'm like, this is super weird and I'm then I found out the last real picture That was supposedly from space was from 1972 Apollo missions Of course, I already knew that those were fake. So then I fell down the rabbit hole That's the first thing if you're still claiming that they're real That's highly suspect bro All right Thank you. What's it next question lj again dollar 99. I promise they're super chopped from other people Just these two gentlemen were they were there right from we love these two gentlemen. Give it common Uh, what's the proof of jupiter's mass size and gravity? Size and gravity I'm guessing that's for me. Um, so you can tell in objects gravity and mass by Really the only way to make any observation is to test how it interacts with things around it You can tell the jupiter's mass by observing the All sorts of the gravitational effects it has when it's orbiting the sun As well as the orbits of the moons around it You can tell how much mass it has by seeing how massive the moon is and how much the Jupiter moves in the orbit compared to the moon There's many different ways you can measure massive planets and that's just one of them All right. Thank you Enlighten it enlightened mint Tuxon since 15 bucks. It's their first ever super and they didn't put a question on there But I see that they are Active and they have a lot of other questions coming up here in a second But their first ever was just a throw at us of 15 bucks. Very next question is paul brassfield 10 dollars Cargo ships leaving long beach california take a straight route to hong kong They do not take a constant starboard turn to get there How is that possible on a flat earth map? Please explain Assume this is for what's it I I I missed exactly where he said they went So they do not take a constant starboard. Sorry am I I'm getting pasty here They do not take a constant starboard turn to get there. How is that possible on a flat earth map? Please explain I'm sorry. I'm asking like what was the flight is the flight. I'm guessing cargo ships leaving long beach california Take a straight route to hong kong and they do not take a starboard turn. In other words, they don't turn Yeah, can you that's kind of a crazy question because that doesn't exist So when you navigate you can't go straight that literally doesn't exist Right, like if you it's even improving you can't even walk perfectly straight for like a hundred yards So we are constantly correcting with a compass Okay, and typically we even use gps. So in a boat, you're never going perfectly straight You're constantly updating relative to your Your compass and typically in a boat you actually use magnetic declination corrections Right, so the compass will read one thing but you'll have to make a major correction Or you wouldn't get where you're going you don't ever just go straight from one place to one place That isn't how navigation works No, but if you were to go straight on a globe it would be turning for a flat earth you would agree Yeah, you would have a geodesic path. Yeah, right That's the point of the question is if you're turning you're going in a quote straight path on the globe model You'd have to be turning constantly for the flat earth model and you don't that's the point of the question No, he said they go straight and objectively they are constantly updating relative to their compass So if you were gradually turning you wouldn't even know it That's how navigation works. You guys act like they would have to cut like they're going around a sharp turn the whole time That isn't how it would work at all. You would basically be going straight just slightly updating relative to your compass and magnetic declination It's a crazy question. It's also just in completely inaccurate the claim that they went straight anywhere They absolutely did not yes, there's a difference in the paths on a flat earth in a globe But we get it that doesn't doesn't prove that they did one way or the other All right, thank you in light mitzvah That last word is going to be a tricky one for me. Anyways, the gentleman that said 15 dollars earlier Throws five dollars He acknowledges globers so this question is probably for you, william Why do globers reject government docks state flat not rotating earth in analogy? I want to make an apple pie. Can you pass me those bananas? Uh, so I don't know what he's referencing in terms of the documents that we deny exist Yeah, the question's a little tricky to understand But I do understand the part of he says there are government docks that state that the earth is flat not rotating Are there any documents like that you're ignoring william? Man, I would love to know about those docks. Send them in the chat. Thank you No, I also love the apple pie comment. That's my Um Whisco matt five dollars wits it. What is the three-body problem? That's the mathematical problem that no one can actually work out The gravitational relationship in motion between three different bodies at one time You have to break it up into two and they'll just say oh well Yeah, but you can do it just by breaking it up into and then it's greatly debated about if it's even possible with three So that's basically a really lame in terms explanation Thank you, sir Free free palestine five dollars flat earth equals science spinning ball lost In vacuum equals pseudoscience Be smarter avoid globe lies avoid pseudoscience vaccines, too um, I'd love to respond to that so Again, I would just love to push up again I kind of should have read the question of the part of vaccines if I was gonna say keep keep that part of like Keep that part hush william. I don't know if you're familiar with uh, I wasn't gonna talk about it. Go ahead. Yeah, cool Just making sure carry on that's okay. Um, just keep Constantly pushing oxygens are to the very forefront of your mind either All of the universe is wrong and all scientists are liars or you Don't have all the information One of those is far more simple of an explanation than the other one I got it. I got to respond to this real quick. Like no one thinks all scientists are wrong, bro That's poisoning the well no one thinks that you're gonna think that this guy who says that the earth is geocentric Is a phd in physics. You're gonna think he's wrong when I show you this other guy Who has a phd in physics says that the earth is geocentric you're gonna say he's wrong And when I show you robber Bennett with the phd in physics who wrote his thesis on the rigid motion of Bodies and relativity says the earth is geocentric you're gonna say that he's wrong When I I can show you all kinds of scientists that do experiments and think that the earth's not moving And that there's an ether blah blah blah so not all scientists think anything Okay, we don't think all scientists are wrong We think that mainstream science is archaic outdated and dishonest about when things are disproven And everyone believes things that are not true. There isn't some big elaborate conspiracy where people are in on a lie They just believe the lie bro. So come on You're right. What's it? I shouldn't have said all scientists I sort of said 99.99 of all scientists believe the earth is a globe and they're all Wrong or lying to you either all of those people are wrong or lying to you Or you as an individual do not have all of the information. One of those is far more simple than the other one Occamster All right, next question five dollars whisko matt again for witsett What is dark matter and dark energy? And why do they claim 95 percent of the universe is made up of it? Yeah, so really quickly if you assume gravity What it says is if there's a certain amount of mass then there's a certain amount of gravity So when they looked at the sky assuming that's true, they found out that there is way too much gravity Without the mass needed so gravity can't be true. So instead of being like, okay, obviously our belief in gravity is wrong They said, oh, there must be something there that's undetected undefined No one can even figure out what it could be theoretically and we'll put it in mathematically It was discovered in 1933 by fritz the wiki He saw the galaxy cluster was actually keeping all the galaxies inside the cluster when there wasn't Oh, there was only one percent of the mass predicted by gravity to be able to keep it in there So instead of saying i'm wrong, they just added 99 made up mass and that's dark matter dark energy is that the Accelerative expansion of the universe required to explain why it just looks like the earth is in the center of the universe And it's just a major illusion going back to edwin Hubble 1925. I believe it was That in order for something to be accelerating some say four to eight times faster than the speed of light now The universe is supposedly accelerating Then you have to have some energy source to make it accelerate It's called a cosmological constant giving the Hubble constant and no one knows what it is can't find it When we have vacuum energy on the earth and try to assume it's in space It was all by 10 of the 120th power. So those are the dark matter and dark energy problems Side note a geocentric model has a kinematic and dynamic equivalence Invalidity, but does not have the dark matter or dark energy problem, which means it's actually at least 96 percent more viable than a heliocentric big bang cosmology. So That's rough So dark matter does not well, I guess I don't know if I should be responding for a short on time with the questions It's your guys this time you can respond Just when you do respond with they'll have the last word for sure Um, no dark matter does not disprove gravity Grapp or sorry does not well. Yeah, it doesn't disprove gravity because dark matter acts like matter It acts like the thing we define matter as which is something that creates gravity So it doesn't defy All of physics it's acting like mass, but it's absent of what we normally see Also associated with mass, which is visibility. We don't see it We can't detect it with other instruments, but it's still mass because it's still acting As imposing a gravity on things it doesn't discredit all of the other gravitational equations we've measured There are our entire existence as human beings. It's still mass What's it last word? Yeah, that's called a reification fallacy. It's like I assume gravity is true So even though I can't detect it. I'm just going to assume it's true and act like it's there and you're attributing qualities to it Tons of people don't even think in mainstream physics don't even think dark matters a thing It's that's why they're proposing modified Newtonian dynamics. There's over 200 published papers On nasa's own database trying to replace the version of gravity that requires dark matter Okay, so there's no evidence for it. It is a major problem It's because no gravity will ever work if it's proportionate to mass But you know what would work something electromagnetic because I can have two magnets that are the same size Right the same exact mass, but one can be way stronger than the other one So you're limited proportion to mass because of your spherical assumption dark matter is a major problem in cosmology Uh, and it's actually even been falsified With signify confidence with dark matter halos. So dark matter can exist even in your own paradigm So Yeah, it is a problem either well either relativity in your gravity is wrong Or there's something magical there that we can never find and we have to just assume is true. So Uh, you know to each their own I guess Thanks was it Ted la coca 499 looking at the center of rotation You cannot have clock and anti clock wise Okay wise motion Um, I feel like that's for me. I know it is the way they typed it was a little bit off Supporting my point That's for me. Okay. So then it's for what's it? Yeah, but yeah, you absolutely can If it's so if everything is say everything is spinning one way, okay? And when you look out just like how a hallway looks like it's converging, right? That's what happens in the sky the ground looks like it's ramping or yeah The ground looks like it's ramping up the sky will start climbing down So the sky's gonna kind of look like it's coming down in the distance if it's spinning So in the north it spins counterclockwise, right? If you turn around and looked at it, it would look like it's going Clock oh, yeah clockwise. This is just a fact the argue the best argument for the globe would be yeah But why is there a a pole rotation? Hey, that's the argument that you guys why is there actual? A central point that the stars are moving around the opposite way The actual appearance of the opposite way isn't a problem at all for flat earth It's easily explained with perspective. That's what happens And I also answered the other part as well, which I gave corpuscular anti-compuscular rays and it was handway dismissed, but anyway The corpuscular and anti-compuscular rays do not address the problem in any way as I have described to you You know, it's spinning in counterclockwise and clockwise directions two different directions Then depending on the location you're at and you literally showed your model And the only way you could explain it is for the light to literally bend over backwards To justify observation Which is how much more of an assumption do you need than literally bending over backwards outcomes razor? or front of your mind Again, that isn't true We did address the whole thing that the model doesn't even show the real stars and I said there's multiple explanations It's not complicated one more time Just like when the sun setting in the west you see corpuscular rays if you look east 180 degrees away You will see anti corpuscular rays where it looks like the sun's over there But it's not the sun's all the way in the west. It's just something that happens with perspective It's just a well-known phenomena. Okay, and this is why solarium maps it out in an azimuthal grid We take measurements. It creates a optical dome based on our limit So long story short we see in visual curve visual space There's been tons of experiments and yes, that would give you optical versions around a singular point And I don't understand why people don't understand that all the stars move east to west But you have clockwise and counterclockwise which are optical. Okay, they're relative to perspective. They're not the same as cardinal directions You can verify this with demonstration, man I'm really happy wits have brought up that model again. I remembered remember everybody go to that model I told I said what the name of the model was in the beginning go to that model Use it read everything the glober who made it said about it. Please. I encourage everyone to Okay. Yeah, it's all good. I don't care That brings us to To to Saka 10 pounds wits it. Do we echo locate with our eyes? Is that why we have a limit to our vision? Do we echo locate With our eyes Interesting idea Um What I just do what I do know is that we've done tests that have shown that we see in curve visual space So i'm just taking the evidence for what it is, you know It's just a fact most people think that we see in euclidean geometry So meaning perfectly straight lines, but it's been proven that we don't we see in non euclidean geometry We have hyperbolic visual space based on different distances that even changes In fact, they had to figure this out for very precise robotics in the last few years because the robots were not Accurately denoting visual space assuming euclidean geometry They had to update it to very specific curve visual space learning models to teach the robotics to work Okay, so there's many tests that show we see in curve visual space And we we have a limit based on that curvature of visual space Uh, so yeah, that's I don't know exactly the other idea that you're suggesting But I wish people would research some of this stuff, you know Like instead of just assuming we're making it up. Just just look it up look up curve visual space Thank you, sir This next question i'm going to read it, but i'm just going to mention to the Superchatter that And you're pushing just a just a touch on the last word here, but i'll read this one Please just try to be a little bit more Respectful So try verifying the distance between us and polaris 432 light years ago be honest dear cgi globe lover You can't because it's pseudoscience and then the globe diarrhea is what I the word I kind of Didn't really want to put out there out a line I mean it's my feeling. I mean it's minor, but i'm just saying let's we're getting to a line Anyways, uh, william that question is clearly for you. Um parallax That is one of the best ways to Determine the distance from stars can also use different types of interferometry um There's multiple different ways to tell distance from stars, but parallax. Please look it up All right razor robertson two dollars will please come to the aftershow amazing performance Thank you guys um Wisco matt five dollars wits it if you can use you like how this is a game show for me. Hey wits it If you can use a vacuum to pull air away from my floor Why does that much stronger space vacuum not pull everything off the earth? Vacuums of course don't actually pull right the gas just fills the available space and second law of thermodynamics, but uh Yeah, that's clearly an alley-oop to me because uh, they can't explain it They actually claim some of the gas does go into space By tons and tons, but just I guess some of it does some doesn't so a good good point that Even a smaller vacuum is going to have the gas fill it on the earth if you put a shoebox with gas inside of a Vacuum chamber and open the lid. It's going to violently escape Right, but somehow we have this this ever expanding limitless vacuum around us and the gas pressure of the atmost is just sitting there So yeah second law of thermodynamics the gas would fill the available space if their model was true It doesn't and of course again the electric field being vertical and uniform and equipotential Proves that there's a physical Gaussian surface above us also debunking the vacuum claim I'm so happy you brought up the um atmosphere again. What's that? I want to push this this proof one last time Um, and I want to ask you about this. What's it if the globe was true and if gravity was real? um Would gas molecules made of atoms and matter would it be attracted to the globe? Uh, no because your model claims gravity is not a force But if in in a good way, I guess that I guess no Yeah, no gas gas goes straight up. It goes in all directions. Omni direction was first displaying He doesn't understand what gravity means. He doesn't understand the argument Well, I understand the argument very well You would claim that the kinetic velocity of the kinetic energy of the gas overtakes the slight bias created by the earth Pulling but that's how you would say it which is not how long would that would that bias override gravity The earth doesn't actually pull according to your model. It's submitting and warping a spacetime But what worse? Yes, I will say a force could in theory prevent gas from leaving somewhere if strong enough Right in theory, but you would have to actually you but that's just in theory You would have to actually replicate that with a demonstration which cannot be done You have to actually have you have to have plasma in order to even kind of do it And it still has to be within an overall container and we use magnetic fields We know that gravity is not even remotely close to that strong. So you have a major you have a major problem The physical antecedent to gas pressure pressure is depressed on physical containment and until you can verify a demonstration Otherwise, it's a baseless claim flying in the face of the second law of thermodynamics And that's not negotiable. You don't get to argue against the second law Let's explore your claim that you just made so if in theory the the particles would be attracted to the earth And it would not go on forever. It eventually would be clung to the planet. You said that Could you in theory then take different measurements of different altitudes of this atmosphere? And you would have different pressures at different atmospheres at different Sorry at different heights in the atmosphere because the part that's closer to the earth is being pulled more And the part that's further away from the earth is being pulled less Therefore it'd be less pressurized further away. Would that make sense in this theory? Yes, if we were to entertain something that actually violates the second law of thermodynamics Then you could theorize an explanation for the gradients So pressure can be observed in a vacuum without a container in this theory that we're making up Oh, that's yeah, but that's called begging the question. You're just affirming the consequent. We're talking about the gas That was a theory. You said theory Yeah, we're talking about the gas pressure here Is it physically possible and the second law of thermodynamics says it's not possible I didn't say here. I said in theory the only way to have a gas pressure gradient is to have Gas pressure inside of a container Well, you just contradict yourself. Thank you. I didn't You did because you said it if gravity was true, you would not need a container for gravity to cling to the surface That's not what I said. You said that I want to put Well, we're not rewinding live here, but I don't know. I mean the audience would say I'll let you I'll let you respond and Okay, real quickly to clarify what I actually said was if we were to entertain a theory and not a scientific one That contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which is obviously saying that it's impossible It's not on the table to debate to actually quote Arthur Eddington You know, if you go against the second law of thermodynamics, you're best Basically destined to oblivion. Your theory has no chance. It's a natural law. It's not debatable So no, I don't believe in the fairy tale show a demonstration We can prove that it escapes and goes into a vacuum on the earth where gravity would be the strongest So that's a you problem All right, next question run boston bear 499 William, can you provide any exclusive evidence that the sun is 93 million miles away? Okay So The distance from the earth to the sun, how do we know this distance? I don't remember the proof on the top of my head I can tell you Do it so the two the two most popular claims is um That they sit radar to the sun in like the 60s A radar bounce it's logical Yeah, and then some will say you could technically try to use trigonometry to look at the transit of venus Right to then deduce like a full transit of venus across the face of the sun to try to deduce But even as I'll tell you that's not actually like tinnable or realistic You have to have way too long of a baseline You have to have like incredible synchronization And then the actual optical resolution that we even have access to today isn't good enough to do that Plus atmospheric and temperature Disturbances cause that to be impossible and then of course the radar bounce didn't work They admitted in the paper which has never been done again since the 60s that they couldn't even differentiate Between the radar bounce like the echoes and the solar noise. So they actually it was unsuccessful. So Both of the main things I've ever heard are like they don't work Thank you. What's it? Yeah Okay, so actually can I add one last point to that? Of course you can because it's your question This is how people should communicate with each other We need to acknowledge when we don't know something and cooperate with each other to figure things out We should never establish some kind of Undeniable godlike ability to know everything because once you have established that You have now found on the rabbit hole of manipulation. I don't know everything I'm not the god of science. There are things I absolutely do not know And What's it should admit? He's the same way. Um, of course, and I think that's uh I think that's how it should always be. Thank you. I think flatters are way more like that We admit we don't even know the size or anything you guys think you know What's 4 000 miles down is it just give me kind of 10 seconds to show this picture to everyone You guys tell me what you think Uh, is the sun 93 million miles away and if it was Wouldn't we have parallel light rays? And if we did could we have a localized hot spot on the clouds from 100 100 000 feet up in a high altitude balloon We have a localized hot spot directly under the sun if it was actually 93 million miles away with evenly distributed parallel light rays And I would tell you that the answer is of course. No that you cannot Well, my answer would be of course. Yes, there's all sorts of things that could make that hot spot atmospheric effects Even just a smudge in the camera. It could easily make such an effect Um, just because it's parallel and this image doesn't disprove anything about the globe This is what you'd expect to see when you send a camera out there All right, um Yeah, it was his question and you know what to be honest this next question kind of We'll let you guys probably roll into this a little bit more Um from the same super chatter run boston bear another 499 says william Can you provide any exclusive evidence that the earth orbits around the sun? Excuse me. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I know this one Parallax that is that that is one piece of evidence for rotating around the sun um retrograde motion of the planets Is also evidence of that because those Orbits of those planets show that they are orbiting the sun So it but it would only show it's orbiting the sun if we're also orbiting the sun So you'd have to make that connection there Uh solar rotation you can see the sun rotating as you literally orbit it Um, and of course the seasons considering that the earth is tilted that is additional proof that We orbit the sun. Thank you. Literally none of those are actually exclusive evidence Or it's not at all I'm just going to tell you real fast that that question actually comes from my show Going globes it was the first question we asked like and you provide any exclusive evidence that the earth orbits the sun And it's obviously because I know the typical answers of parallax You didn't even mention aberration and retrograde And admittedly if you actually do your research and understand the kinematic equivalence None of those things prove that we're moving around the sun In fact, relativity requires you say the same thing would happen if the earth was stationary I explained the neopticonic model I explained that the stars could just even slow down or the planets could even slow down in relation to the background stars So none of those things are exclusive evidence the seasons also are not the sun is either moving on an ecliptic plane Or it's just an illusion because we're tilted, right? But then the cosmic microwave background actually showed the distribution at 23.4 degrees way beyond the local system proving that the earth isn't locally tilted Long story short There is a kinematic equivalence everything that you just named is just kinematically equivalent on a stationary earth None of that is exclusive evidence that the earth orbits the sun. In fact, that doesn't exist You're sending you're sending me off. Uh, what's it? I want to talk about, um The philosophy of knowledge for a second You can never know anything with absolute certainty And when you keep saying exclusive evidence for something, um, that is not a realistic expectation to make any kind of Requirement for any kind of theory if I see someone walk in my house There is no exclusive evidence that he walks into my house My eyes could just be playing a trick on me the whole time I can always dig a deeper for another question that denies that that person is walking around in my house I can always dig deeper and deeper and find itself, you know, that I don't actually know the thing epistemology um But you have to eventually admit what is and isn't more reasonable and that's the purpose of Occam's razor It is far more reasonable that everything we observe parallax retrograde starla rotation seasons All those things add together to paint a picture You can't look at one piece of evidence and make a conclusion out of it You have to look at it all and then make a decision Yeah, thank you That's called the ponderance of evidence and if we apply Occam's razor to the ponderance of evidence All astronomical observations make the earth look like it's in the center of the universe Your model claims that that's an illusion Because everything's accelerating expanding in all directions Even though they can't figure out what energy is causing it and we have the Hubble constant or the Hubble attention problem Where they don't match up the measurements don't match up Because they have to say oh, it's a giant illusion that the earth in the center of the universe Occam's razor would say All astronomical observations show the earth in the center of the universe Because it's in the center of the universe Not that space and time bend in warp and time stretches and slows down and the universe is accelerating expanding You just can't really tell and that there's something mass magical there that no one can find that's making it happen And that's not Occam's razor So Occam's razor is that the earth is in the center to quote Edwin Hubble A central position of earth can never be disproven We avoid it at all costs because the idea of a special and unique position is intolerable and horrific Okay, so it's a philosophical decision And yeah, I mean I wish you would look into that I I actually think you're probably pretty cool, man, and I think that you should look into it I think you should watch the documentary the principle you should actually look into the geocentric position and find out the truth is At your own model admits that all of those things you listed work just as well On a stationary earth. So That's pretty cool. You're pretty cool too wits it. Um, it's just a shame You feed your followers a bunch of misinformation to benefit yourself because you you you Have a lot of incentives to do such a thing as I discussed in my beginning argument. Um, but No, I I'll use one example to try to make it as quantized as possible retrograde motion retro good motion is obviously Would be clearly observable if we were orbiting our sun and those other planets were orbiting the same sun that is Hands down obvious Look at the presentation. I made it makes it clear as crystal But wits it says yes, that would explain it But no That's not it looks it's just going across the sky just because it goes in that direction And that orientation does not mean it's that way It just happens to be set up to look exactly like as if it's orbiting the same star as us That's literally what you're claiming with the the accelerating universe is claiming It just happened set up the exact way to make the earth look like it's in the center of the whole universe And we're talking about the vast majority of the universe not just the little solar system So that's a way more you problem You think that most of universe is conspiring to deceive everyone on the earth with all astronomy to make it look like we're in the center That's what your position says So the neoticonic system the ticonic system came before your belief that we fly around the sun What interferometry measured it stationary? So we don't even have to speculate about which one makes more sense One's been measurably proven with interferometry My All of my arguments look back at the tape all my arguments have been based on observation comparing two different things to each other mine is not based on Authority or anyone individual who's lying who could be lying to me Mine is all about observation every single observation was consistent with my Model and it would have been a completely different observation with his model One of them has Occam's razor on its side. The other one doesn't let the audience decide Yeah, all right. Um, so just to give you guys a state of where we're at So far with just about every super chat. I ask we've been getting like two more. So The exchanges are great. Everyone's here for it. Uh, but it's you guys that are on your clocks. So let's uh Let's keep going. Shall we brian peck two dollars six quadrants. Are you sure about that with it? No, of course not. That's why I said that's just one of the Potential explanations that someone has shown is viable With actual demonstration. So I don't I don't know exactly how everything works That's the whole point Just like he said only that's that's actually what I say all the time and actually to address the grifting idea Like I lost an incredibly good paying job Because I wouldn't take flat earth videos off the internet The notion that I do this for money is hilarious. But anyway, you know, I mean, I didn't say you make much money I actually lost the ability to make much money. So you gained other things what Follow ship Oh, so you think it's like an ego thing that people follow me and I would rather be poor to make sure that happens You said it not me. That's crazy that you think that's the case, but okay I don't I don't want to go any further down down this path. It's not even on topic Yeah, but it was like three slides in a row. He said it. So I mean, I just I don't yeah I don't disagree and the slides would have just kept coming back and forth. So That's okay Yeah Whitsett has A great following and they're all here in the chat tonight and he brings it with them And we're all here to watch the both of you and we're all having a great time So it doesn't really matter. That's all good Um run boston bears sends 499 to ask you both a question Um, so since he names william first, I'll let william go and then I'll let witsett go and we'll just stop it there Can high frequency radio waves and microwaves Propregate through the curvature of the earth If not, how are they sent so far in tests? So I'll let william answer first Can I share my screen? So I'm so happy that someone was able to give me the opportunity to actually show The many other slides I have which if anyone is interested Please just pause it at any one of these locations because you can read a lot that supports all of my theories Um So this is the one Yes Frequence these radio frequencies that you describe absolutely can go much farther than you would intuitively believe. No, they are not limited by The horizon all the time they can go much further. Uh, it's mainly due to You guessed it refraction. Absolutely. Um on a very basic level, you can see a clear refractive Refraction effect just with your eyes on a normal basis based on the weather conditions of the planet, but within even slightly more complicated weather condition Different locations of the hot and cold Atmosphere you can actually have a bending of light that goes down and then starts bending Bounces off the earth and then starts bending right back down again. They're called trapped radio waves in the atmosphere And this is not a this is not just with me handing waving concepts. Um This is a absolute feature of Refraction that is one of the longest known sciences since hundreds of years ago Um Also ionic waves do bounce off radio waves. This is 15 peer reviewed articles that support that. Thank you All right, what's it your response? Um, yeah, I want to show one slide two real quick and then I'll just I think he has to stop first Let me see Sure stop Don't crash with it Yeah, I don't know why I did that so Zoom does that to me all the time. You can see it Yep So he brought up the ionosphere. That's a depiction of it on the top right. Uh, this started with marconi They sent transmission way too far for their globe. So All over heavy side theorized there must be some ionized layer if they're reflecting it back down So I have here the ionosphere is said to have a frequency range of up to 40 megahertz And this ionized region of the atmos allegedly reflects radio waves back down to the earth to explain why Line of sight transmission far exceed the geometric limitation of the globe earth model The world record transmissions ranging from 100 megahertz to upward of 100 gigahertz have been sent line of sight far beyond this Assume physical geometric limitation These frequencies are far too high to reflect off the ionosphere. That's phosphine spherical earth assumption Actually, they go higher than 100 gigahertz But if you look at the records if the if the ionosphere is 40 megahertz And it is true that that's if you have ionized gas, that's what plasma is plasma's ionized gas If you shot a radio wave that it would bounce back Right, but if you send a frequency that's higher if it's a higher frequency than the plasma, it'll penetrate straight through it Ironically when they claim they send radar to the moon and all this stuff They never have to worry about it bouncing back because they know it's higher than 40 megahertz But when we send things line of sight over the earth horizontally all of a sudden it's magically there And then how convenient let's talk about aqua's razor real fast to close it out We shoot it line of sight it goes horizontally for thousands of miles The globe claims that there's some magical ducting effect that's never been directly detected or measured in its theoretical And according to the military very unreliable for any type of predictions And it goes as if it was completely straight and horizontal over a completely straight and horizontal plane earth But really it's an illusion. It's curving magically whenever we need it to so there's no actual evidence that you could go thousands of thousands of miles With high frequency radio waves magically bending around the globe And it's too high to bounce off the ionosphere because it would penetrate it due to the frequency So long distance high frequency transmissions of emf absolute are like em waves Refute the globe model All right, i'm gonna stop can i say one last thing or no nope. No, you can't nope sorry I just really want to get going because um A lot good. Well, you know, it's your first debate here. You've been fantastic. Uh, the chat is electric for you. You've done Thank you guys. We've had a great time with both of you guys. What's it? You done great too, man But yeah, we're super chats. We're getting behind and that particular questioner Uh, asked you both so I allowed you both to answer so no response Um west fee or fe fe five dollars when the truth exposes lies And dishonesty the demon festers like mealworms Just look at chat earth is not a spinning water ball. Sorry wits it wins Don't think there was a question. I think someone was just uh spiking the ball and for wits it Next joey v 499 William do you believe in any conspiracies or do you just trust the government? The government lies to us Absolutely, they've admitted to it to us many times I really don't want to conflate science with the government because the government is not the same thing as science Um, so please don't conflate those two things Uh, yes conspiracies exist. We know this for a fact um Most modern day conspiracies you should not jump down the rabbit hole of um, because If you use doctors, it's not reasonable to science can be wrong as well Um, as we've seen in the past But it doesn't mean it's not the most reasonable explanation for most things in our life It doesn't mean you should write it off all as invalid just because it has been wrong in the past And just to reassess all these truths and fictions one more time I talked about things you should look into other than flatter documentaries There's other things you should look into I don't know if we know what those were, but I would really suggest record the tape Rewind it see what those things were look them up watch documentaries about those things to get a Real mind-blowing experience that might completely reassess your perspective. Thank you Enlightenment uh, Tucson five dollars For witsett who I hope is an earshot Austin can you explain the power of 10 to the 17 tour next to the pressure system? They don't understand this the global belief is scary Yeah, like the The only vacuum can even get remotely close to that on the earth has like 10 to the negative seven I think and it takes like immensely thick Concrete walls with rebar and it still doesn't really work as far as insane maintenance Um, but even in that situation if you had a pressurized system Certainly like 14.7 psi at the surface, right? It's going to violently fill the available space because entropy always increases So with all natural systems entropy increases therefore the amount of usable energy decreases It's going to fill the available space violently seeking equilibrium And so if we actually had a pressurized system on the earth and it was encompassed by this ever-expanding Vacuum of space the gas would violently fill the available space. It has infinite space to fill So you according to the second law of thermodynamics you literally could not have this gas pressure system We have on the earth that keeps us alive inside of a vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 torque could not be adjacent to that It violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is the most indisputable and agreed upon natural law, which isn't a theory It's just observation. It's a natural law. So that's a major globe problem I really want everyone to rewind the tape about 15 minutes back Or we were talking about this very fact about the atmosphere and how he admitted blatantly that the theory of gravity and the theory of the globe both together would in fact lead to atoms of mass Would be pulled towards large Massive bodies like planets therefore creating some kind of gradient atmosphere. He did say this he denies. He says this now So he'll deny I'll say it again, but he did say this rewind the tape. I trust you guys Okay, no, I was the answer is no I literally didn't say that what I said was sure if you wanted to entertain a theory that violates the second law of thermodynamics Then I understand your claim of a gradient That's what I actually said And no grad gas goes in all directions. It doesn't get pulled down to the earth There's omnidirectional dispersal of gas violently filling any and all available space where gravity is the strongest Which is the closest to center of mass at the surface of the earth We can put a pressurized system of gas inside of a vacuum chamber and if we opened it up, right? Where gravity is the strongest it will violently fill that vacuum But when we get up higher and higher and the gravity gets weaker and weaker and the vacuum gets way way stronger All the sudden it doesn't matter. It'll just sit there beside it We don't have to worry about it and that's not how it works in order to have a pressure gradient You have to have a container Let's explore this one more time. So if in the context, uh, I'd really Like honestly, William, you don't even see this list of superchats and we love to get through all of them I trust him man. You yeah, you're right. Yeah, this was so great Maybe we'll set up a part two or something But you guys have raised the bar for 2024's debates this year. I can tell you guarantee you that's an honor So wisco matt five dollars witzit. Why does Meach forgive the name. I hope you'll understand what's it Michio kaku professor of thermal theoretical physics Say that there is a crisis in cosmology You said it right in the context of that quote He was specifically talking about what I covered earlier, which is like the dark energy problem the cosmological constant problem um, which is The more that we look out into the space we see that the alleged measurements of the universe accelerating aren't matching up And when we keep making measurements, it would need to go something like four to eight times faster than the speed of light So you have to have some crazy strong energy to make like space itself and the universe expand that fast But there is no energy to do it And then what he was talking about is when we go into the like on the quantum scale We look at the electromagnetic vacuum. We see that there's energy in a vacuum. By the way, it's just an ether but anyway Whenever they looked at that and measured it and then tried to apply that to the problem It was off by 10 to 120th power and he's like that's the biggest discrepancy That's ever uh existed. So yeah, he's talking about the dark matter dark energy problem specifically the cosmological constant problem And it'll never be solved. Let's be real. So yeah, it's a major problem in the mainstream cosmology All right. Thank you, sir. Um, yeah, let's go uh, let's let's let's Activate speed around a little bit and we'll just get through these. All right. You want to go for five hours? I'll go super fast my bad No, no, you're I'm probably the one slowing you down No, it's it's fine. It's fine. Our fans are here for it. We're all good. I'm just saying like, you know We want to get to the end of the super chats. Um, your answer links are fine You you answer the question you need to the way you need to answer it These people have paid money to hear your answer. Let's not necessarily shorten the answers Let's just cut out the give and take and just go through it. All right um, so this one nominal five dollars william what percentage of Imaginary matter does your accepted model require? God You know that is I I don't know how to answer that question I'm sorry It's 83 of all matter in the universe is supposedly dark So you meant dark matter because I wasn't sure if imaginary was some other strange category I did the air quotes. They typed it with quotes imaginary matter Okay, I mean if you mean dark matter. Yeah a ton of it. Yes Like that 95 percent I think 83 percent Toby walker five dollars. Why did the instrumental error recorded in Michelle michelson's morally end up correlating with the Side real motion of the sun when measured by date and miller So why did we say why did the quote-unquote instrumental error of michelson morally correlate with the sidereal motion of the sun when Arroborated by date and miller that was it exactly and this is why I can never debate this topic. Go ahead. Whoever that question was for That's him okay, um I don't know the exact technicalities of that experiment and I'm not going to Make up a false answer to try to make you think I'm some god of science because I don't know everything So apologies solid answer To the chatter That's so tempting, but I want to go I want to go. Thank you, sir. John male lawyer five dollars Uh, william in good faith. Would you admit you have a bias to your educational field and it could lead you down a straight path I'm on a bias towards things that can be used repeatedly and observed consistently So if you want to consider that a bias yes Enlightenment Tucson five dollars. I cannot explain the desperation of harris Um, bringing up the mike hues. Wow. Do you realize you are making more true earthers? I'm so sorry. Can you repeat that one more time? They're uh, basically it sounds to me like, uh This person is challenging your arguments that it is actually, um, convincing people of flatter Sam, why'd you bring up mike hues when when he's not actually a flatterer through that? It'll make more people become true earthers to see that that's not true. Uh, yes, um Mike hues I really wanted to push that point make sure more people know about him because he is a product of the environment He was in he was a follower of a theory and it was manipulated by people who led him Down a path that he should not have been down that resulted in his wrongful death And it proves that misinformation is more than just Herm harmful. It's deadly So people who push it know they're doing so in with malice and It's uh, it's something that it's a big problem in today's world. So I wasn't a flat earther girl. We covered that I don't know what you mean. That doesn't have what are you talking about? Okay Daniel summer ten dollars Do you think the prospective dome would be a contributor to the reason why triangulation may be a challenge For estimating the height and distance to the sun and moon Yeah, of course because we see the apparent location of the sun and also we don't know the the composition of the medium between us and it Right, um, presupposing solidity and the medium between us a differential in the medium Is gonna also mess up, uh, how we supposedly tried to measure the distance to the sun But yeah, we're seeing the apparent location the sun like probably so so Yeah, you're not gonna be able to just look at it and know how far away is it's insane And even if you use triangulation like you could say oh the sun and the moon The sun is 10 times bigger than the moon and 10 times further away Or you could say it's 400 times further away and 400 times bigger, right? It's just a ratio Just like the first person that did it said it was like they were 11 times bigger Whatever so yeah, once we're short. Yes, it would be a problem because we see the apparent location of the sun not the actual position all right, um and Congo 44 comes back five dollars in response to our very first super chat So to give you an idea of where we are in super jazz Um in the mr. B's video you see the sun not just light as the sun never sets in Antarctica You do not see the sun for the full 24 hours That is incorrect. And so if you only why is that incorrect? Because you don't actually see the sun for the full 24 hours says who? From my understanding in that video, they don't show the sun for a full 24 hours Oh, I think she's referencing that mr. B saw the sun for 25 hours That's what i'm saying and they supposedly went down there and there's some video They don't actually show the sun mr. Beast is lying is your argument Mr. Beast This man hates mr. Beast Sorry It's just weird that like you They're claiming that he went down there and saw the sun for 24 hours But the truth is they didn't actually see the sun itself for 24 hours Yes, there is sunlight for 24 hours. I even mentioned. I know a former NASA employee That was stationed there for six months during their summer. I said you do not see the sun for 24 hours. So Just claiming he said something Doesn't mean anything. I don't even know if he actually said they probably didn't Persons being disingenuous about the actual video if it seems like so Anyway Thomas Compton the fourth or four Five dollars. Mr. Sensible showed curvature with the mage project. Why do you lie? What's it? Uh say it again Mr. Sensible showed curvature with the mage project. Why do you lie? Yes, yes, he claimed to show curvature on a balloon, right? So if that's true, we're gonna have to throw out for one nil de grass ties in and other scientists on your side That claim you wouldn't see it from 60 miles. Let's throw them out. The math's not agreed upon That's what I'm saying anti flat earthers make different math than the scientists They say we're so stupid for not believing they throw the mainstream scientists under the bus But anyway, of course, he actually showed that you when you use a lens and based on the angle of view That it'll look like things are curving just like you can look like things are curving up Right. So in these videos of the balloons where it looks like it's curving and then it tilts up It looks like the earth is concave That's just what lenses do and they claim that oh rectilinear lens doesn't have any curvature That is objectively not true There isn't a lens that exists in all of existence that doesn't impose Curvature and distortion So when it actually levels out you can see that that it's a flat and rising towards eye level And that's a globe problem curvature on a lens does not mean what the lens We're in some mode. We're just gonna go Okay Trust me. It's really bad brutally honest 11 pounds if earth Was flat logically the sun's rays would illuminate earth's entire disc not parts if flat wouldn't at all If flat wouldn't all the countries be experiencing same daylight hours as all the same time What's flat earth rebuttal Uh, man, this is like the first day. Okay If you have a smaller local light source as the sun Would not illuminate the entire surface at the same time Just take a flashlight on your phone Move it towards your desk and you'll see that it doesn't light the whole desk up, right? So it's called light attenuation So the absorption rate of light relative to the medium And there's a radius of light relative to the actual source and divergence based on the proximity of the surface So no just literally take a flashlight move it over your table and see the whole table doesn't light up And that that's a ridiculous straw man of the flat earth That's like it doesn't light up But you'd still be able to see it from different locations in the last The questions for witsit and I really want to get through these super chats So we're just not going to do any responses. Okay. There's questions for you, bro. Don't worry Um Eris 385 five dollars witsit. Have you seen the flat earth debate between preachers greg lock and dean oldle? Do you think the bible proves the earth is flat? um I did see the debate. I was on the front row in person um, I think it was kind of bad faith and pretty crazy, but Uh, no, I don't think the bible proves the flat earth I think that that's not the way that you go about this discussion Um, I do actually think the scripture are true, but heavily manipulated But that is not that is no way made my decision or something. All it did was make me reevaluate the scriptures as potentially valid and viable, but I know I don't think that the bible proves the earth is flat I think that truth and the evidence of the earth just adds validity to the bible So maybe you would say it the other way around but I don't think I don't know really any flattery that exists that claims that The reason they believe the earth is flat is because the bible says so strictly that isn't a real thing Just people go back to the bible once they find out All right. Mott Mott sends 1499. What physics did the paper cited by witsit use? Newtonian, Einsteinian to show the equivalency of Tycho's braias And Juana's Kepler's models of retrograde motion Yeah, uh, yeah, Tycho Brahe and Kepler. Um, they in that paper he uses Newtonian mechanics. So it's called like the uh Neoticonian Newtonian Machian analysis. I mean, yeah, it's kind of a mouthful But uh, yeah using the Machian principle and stuff like that, but he used Newtonian mechanics And of course just to clarify I'm not evoking the paper because I believe that you know the earth is in the center of the universe using Newtonian mechanics I'm just showing that In your own belief system It's there's a dynamic equivalence of the earth being in a stationary and most people don't know that and they seem to not want to inform themselves about it, but Uh, yeah, it was Newtonian Uh, megy maren Megan mary spends a dollar 99 in support of william flat earth destroyed again um, antonio Ignaz five dollars witsit. Why do airline flight paths rely on a globe earth to optimize travel times slash costs? Oh, man, if people assume that the earth's a globe and then it's run through a globular transformation And they would just go there. I mean, what's the matter? I mean, honestly, why do planes not lead their path? Like lead their target so they can save tons of money on gas that way I mean people are told the earth's a globe people assume the earth's a globe People navigate with magnetic declination corrections on a flatter thinking that it's supposedly a globe And that's all it is actually tons of flights make way more sense on a flatter They would be way out of your way on a globe. Yeah, they go way out of their way To make the distance way longer on a globe, but then when you look at a flyer if it's like the shortest path So actually the opposite of that is true All right Jack jazz jacket two dollars. I believe this is for you william airplanes move with the earth, but not sniper bullets Um, I do believe snipers do have to take corolla coriolis into effect not an expert sniping so I would highly encourage um Make sure you do more research on that can't give you the best answer for that Ted lococa dollar 99. So why is down more powerful? What's it? There's a downwind electric current on the earth. It's 10 micro micro amps per square meter So at any given time, there's an electric bias that's going down to the earth There's equiptential charge increasing 100 volts per meter this creates Of course, the earth surface is negatively charged up to 400 000 columns that creates a downwind electric current Just sets the bias. It's it's pretty weak on a small scale overall There's a lot of electric pressure coming from the sky radiant energy comes down to the earth. It's provable It's measurable. That's why we have a downer electric bias things equal seek equilibrium relative to density and buoyancy after that Alice McGee sends her first super chat To wits it. Why has no one reached the end of the flat earth or hit the wall? We can sail right around the earth Okay, there's obviously something called the Antarctic treaty which has had subsequent legislation since then anything past the 60th south latitude You cannot freely and privately explore that area Yes, you can go on a proof guide of tours to like the tip of one of the quote-unquote islands or the edge of an article whatever But uh, you can't freely and privately explore out past the 60th south latitude or even towards the quote-unquote north pole Either the north warning system has been in a place since 1957 uh international geophysical years So the answer is that you can't freely and privately explore there. They don't let you go I know this for a fact. I reached out and tried to do it. I reached out and tried to get approval I asked them what the prices were. I even tried to line up people that would pay the $250,000 permit fee and there's all kinds of crazy fees and they they do not They will not let you go across Antarctica. So Uh, that's why people haven't done it. It's it's literally not allowed All right, use the caber dollar 99. I am impressed by this debate. Great job guys Uh A nominal bear five dollars this This is the best moderator. Thank you so much. Also wits it. Please explain to all that we see Too far the math and how they use refraction as a scapegoat. Thank you Yeah, so this is going to sound almost robotic, but I'm trying to save this time So if the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles and the earth has the curve at a very specific rate We can know where the curvature of the earth should be which is the geometric horizon at 1.2 25 times the square Root of the observer's height and feet and we should that's where the physical curve of the earth should be in relation Now how you are above it? We see observations where like mountains are 273 miles away and should be miles below the curve of the earth, etc We see way too far So what the globe says is oh well the light's actually being bent around the globe matching the rate of curvature of the globe To lift things up five miles vertically behind the curve to make it look like the earth is flat Um So yeah, basically refraction is just a reification fallacy. It's a mathematical assumption based on how much uh curvature is missing Sir brine peck two dollars ships use gyro compass no magnetic declination Okay, uh ships absolutely account for magnetic declination my brother, so Uh, I don't know if you knew that or not, but yes, they also can have a gyro compass on board Uh, but they use magnetic declination to navigate if you didn't you would be in some trouble All right, ten la coca Ted la coca dollar 99 wits it could you be wrong? Uh, sure here But I would need actual physical empirical evidence Right right now my position is that the earth stationary topographical plane And that the earth is in the center of the universe and that's what all actual observable empirical measurable evidence says Um, it's been pretty much definitively refuted. I i'm always open to potentially being wrong I think anyone that isn't is super disingenuous But uh, I think we've proven as flat earthers that we are because we all Believe the earth was a globe and then had to admit that we were wrong Um, so yeah, I I don't see it. I'll be honest I see the evidence as overwhelming and that the The current model is physically impossible, but could I be wrong about some of my understandings of the earth? Sure All right, I'm gonna speed these up now get ready um scott with one t Two dollars will explain tidal nodes with the globe moon model the globe So talking about the waves and the tidal titles in the waves in the ocean, right? so that is a byproduct of the earth And the moon pulling on the earth and having the water be focused towards the direction of the moon That I would really suggest go back to my slide when you have the chance rewind it go look at the Graphic I showed on the screen. It's a direct cause of gravity the moon's effect on the earth All right, thank you Sky scion 499 william. Do you have any exclusive evidence? Oh Oh, did I accidentally go backwards here? Hold on. No, they probably asked the same question because it's one of mine on my My slide like on my my show. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I said the earth orbits around the sun. Yeah I don't remember this daniel summer question. So William, William doesn't have any exclusive evidence the earth orbits around the sun. No the answer is no You can never be a hundred certain about everything, right? What's it context is like Exclusive as in it can only be explained if the earth is moving around the sun Not if the earth is stationary. That's the context of the word exclusive, right? So not a hundred percent exclusive Yeah, we've explored the question. We've already explored the question. It's a different super chatter. Um, clearly a fan. Uh, so They can they can rewind and check the answer back there daniel subner summer no subner. Yeah, I had it right 10 dollars wits it Please explain that while refraction can obscure objects that can be seen but cannot make objects appear That are obstructed from view So the very nature of refraction is it bends like pretty sure they it's for wits it. Oh, I'm sorry yep Yeah, although there's physical obstruction of uh, like Something in the distance. You can't just claim that that actual physical location itself is going to disappear then reappear somewhere else That's the major problem of it is uh, they actually invoke refraction to claim that the Horizon is a physical place that's moving and then disappearing etc Um, so yeah, just a bit. It's just a baseless claim. I mean, yes in theory refraction Snell's law is about two medium light can bend quote-unquote relative to different mediums They're using a singular medium using a density and temperature gradient claiming it does it But it's never been established in a lab setting. It's never been verified It's literally just a mathematical contract when someone wants to come show me the rate that they claim with the conditions that they claim And show it in a lab setting and we can talk otherwise. It's just you know, it's a reification fallacy All right church of the flat earth 499 their first ever super Will uh, so for will from a cockpit would stars appear to rise while you maintain level flight or move east slash west Yeah Because you're going across the surface of the earth. So yes, you would start seeing new stars as you Change your location on the planet. Yes All right lord raw five dollars wits it. You're the man um, and then Uh, will will you're a man too? I'm just gonna say what's it. You're the man He said you're a man You're meant to say you're the man too because the the rest of the question kind of goes Okay, i'm a he had a little yeah In any case, that's that means the business minded talk five dollars Globes have a nominal scale. What does a flat earth Use and please explain it on your own map I don't claim a map, bro So if they lied about the earth every time the model under attack is tragic The tactic is to ask where a map is if they lied about the earth But you even ask and so I mean, you know, the king gave it a Korean 76 can't make a flat earth map You got to use the globe coordinate systems And so you can't even patent a map without using the presuppose global coordinate system So, uh, yeah, we can't freely and privately explore the earth to figure out exactly what the earth is or how to map it so All right, I can see the bottom guys. We're almost there So i'm going to take two seconds right now to remind everybody to hit that like hit that subscribe button We did not hit the hundred and seventy thousand that would have been super exciting But that's okay. I'm sure when I wake up tomorrow, it'll be a hundred and seventy thousand What's it? William? Thank you so much. This has been a great time. We do have some more super chats We're not going anywhere yet I just wanted to take the time and let everybody know there is an aftershow If you're not over it if you're ready to go in even more At matters now, there'll be an aftershow both you gentlemen are welcome over there Um moving on to our next super chat daniel subner ten dollars Just contributing for witsit as an atta boy for keeping your cool and your humor great Yeah, i'm a fan boy. Keep it up. Thank you much love much love T for two dollars How did nasa create cgi image in 1976? I think that's for witsit All right, i'm trying to get my charger I guess that's for me because people were like, oh how they have yeah, okay So they had big models that they made of the earth and of the moon admittedly They could just take pictures of models They didn't even have to have cgi not to mention that you can actually see Faked like photoshop, etc all the way in the early 1800s people used to actually sell spirit photography where they would They would overlap in black rooms or like the photo development rooms and make you look like their spirit of their relative was there Photoshop isn't a new thing But you could just make giant models and take pictures of them Which is what they did because you can actually find the pictures of nasa's giant moon models with the actual texture and all of that So they could just do the same thing for the earth. You wouldn't need quote-unquote cgi and They also if you ever seen a funny thing happen on the way to the moon We actually saw the quote-unquote astronauts in the quote-unquote spaceship Faking the earth from just not much lower altitude trying to make it look like a globe through the window using a circular Window, so that's not suspect at all. So anyway, yeah, you could fake it many different ways Alexander rin 499 if gravity doesn't affect gas. What does it affect? Why not gas? That's for you. What's I think that's for what's it? Yeah I know it's uh, that if gravity allegedly were true We can tell with empirical evidence it clearly wouldn't be strong enough to prevent gas from escaping in all directions Because where gravity supposedly is the strongest the surface gas will still Immediately and violently fill the available space of a vacuum So you could not have quote-unquote gravity holding it down as we can test the claim on the earth improve it violates the second law of thermodynamics So that's the actual point that keeps getting skated past All right nominal since two dollar super chat for a previous super chat from t Who says 1972? So I think they got the date wrong of the CGI image of 1976. They're correcting with 1972 It's the first time I've gotten a super chat for another super chatter um AP 499 And they say both sides can you list your points that do not assume globe or flat? But still work either way. So, um, I'll give you guys both, uh, like 30 seconds to answer this Uh, go ahead William first. Yeah, so I would just reiterate look over my whole presentation my presentation wasn't about proving globe my presentation was about proving the predictability of each theory trying to give each theory the Accurate prediction that it would give and then compare it to what is being observed. Um, best arguments stellar movement across the sky What's the issue? I ask can you list things that would work on both? Models and gives like kind of like a this litmus test of honesty or whatever But yeah, like, uh, you could say that the way that the planets move, right? You could say the way that the sun moves and the way that explains on the earth is as with the grid of uh vision Right, so you have an apparent location of the sun you can replicate this take a light over the dome You'll see it displaced, you know actually go on an arc even if you put it in a circle So it physically can demonstrate exactly what we see in the sky with stellar motion, but um, yeah, what could work on both? I mean You you could claim things like the position like optical positions of planets stuff because that's how we made the globe Um, yeah, it's the physical measurements that don't work And there's there's quite a few things that you could say would work on both right a lot of things go into both basket Uh, Sean 666 cents two dollars toby walker ten dollars. Why did you dodwitz its question about the uniform vertical electric field? How are the lines? Equip potential gradient lines parallel on a sphere I forgive my wording. I'm so happy someone brought that up again. Yes an atmosphere absolutely can act as an effective plane of Conductive energy So yes an atmosphere can act as a plane if that's the claim you're trying to make Thank you. Yeah, let's go quick because there's more super chats coming in With it, please explain analemia anal analima Yeah, the analima. Yeah, it's just like you can look at it with a time lapse the sun just changes its position throughout the year It has an ecliptic plane So it creates like basically a kind of like elongated figure eight in the sky They claim that even though the sun looks like it's moving and looks like it's changing its position throughout the year It's an illusion and we're tilted wobbling four different ways flying through space even though that's been debunked So it's just a kinematic equivalence. It's but the analima actually probably impossible on their model But that's just the sun changing throughout the year and you know changing its position on its ecliptic plane All right church of the flat earth 499 william from a cockpit at 30 000 feet Flying straight and level for one hour Would the stars appear to rise and go around the curve? or side to side around the pool around the curve or side to side I so flying at 30 000 feet Straight and level for one hour Would the stars appear to rise as you go around the curve or side to side? If you're going in a straight direction on a curved planet, you're gonna see Stars rise across your field of vision So rise. All right Alexander in 999 Originally, we used information gathered from a lunar eclipse in ancient Greece more recently We used the laser reflection from the mirrors placed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission Not sure that's really a question I saw what's it kind of shake his head and we'll count that as the answer and move on Yeah proud flur 499 william has yet to address what's its one point to vertical gradient of Man these were eco potential. Thank you, sir. Eco potential energy hashtag level heads Uh, I think I kind of referenced it back where the guy asked about the gradient the Current going into the earth when I said that an atmosphere absolutely can effectively be used as a plane of charge An atmosphere can't it doesn't have to be a physical plane doesn't have to be a It doesn't have to be a solid it can be a gas that acts as a Electrically charged plane plane is a geometry term. It doesn't have to be a solid Oh, right. I think we're getting into like what's it's uh, it's all good. It's all good. Yeah, it's awesome It's great. The support we get from uh, our viewers is great Clouds create or thoughts create 499 William clouds appear to merge into the horizon. Are they following the curve of the earth? If not, why do they appear to do so? Um clouds appear to merge into the horizon. Yes, they go Across the horizon and on to the other side of the onto a side of the earth. You can't see um, if you really want to talk about strange Optical observations you see at the very Edge of the horizon you have to understand how refraction effects Light in air on a planet it can change depending on the weather Especially the temperature it completely changes the refraction index of the air and it can make light act in funky waves Thank you uh See davis 9 12 499, um There's a part of this question. William, uh, feel free to decline to answer. Okay Hey, thanks for the debate wits it love your stuff question to william. Do you believe in god? Oh God, I don't know if I wanted out myself. Um, but I guess you're free to decline the answer I mean that is not the topic of debate that's kind of personal technically at this stage Yeah, I feel like I I'll not answer that question. All right Lights for angels five dollars. William. Can you explain why a helium balloon floats using the current model of gravity? And not density or buoyancy little g equals acceleration Hmm No A balloon floating up is because of buoyancy. So no, I can't describe it without buoyancy because that's what the phenomenon is Bike token 999 to william. How does this? How does the same face of the moon stay locked on a spinning ball? Please explain why the pulling force of the sun's gravity doesn't pull the moon's face away from the ball Yes, so gravity Doesn't necessarily Mean it's going to be uniform over all sides of a globe one side can have a more Gravitational pull than the other when you're orbiting a planet The one side that's going to be attracted to a more will be the one that faces the thing. It's orbiting Thank you, sir. Tristan Arnold 499 wits it may the creator bless you for the intensively seeking and sharing the truth I'm prom. Thank you for support Mott Mott sends 698. Let's just wait for elan to send us to mars. By the way, what happened to my other super chat? um Sorry, if I missed it mott mott I can quickly scroll back after Um and see if I missed it Did you by chance maybe say something in there? I chose not to read um Malario 1 99 can use can you use telescope in san diego and see hawaii? No, dude, if you think you should be able to see across the entire earth You still don't understand the first part of a plain earth so crystal Foros $2 azea 422 40 22 says the earth is a circle Does yes, and he uses a different Hebrew word for ball right for after that. So Yeah, circle. He says he drew a circle on the face of the earth. So show me a flat circle on the face of a sphere Uh, you don't have a face. So yeah, he's a dip. He has a different Hebrew word for ball the same All right, thank you I'm gonna read this next one more like a comment because we've explored it twice already Mercedes f1 fan 299 mr. Beast went to Antarctica showed sun never sets He didn't show the sun in the video. Why are you guys lying? I Maybe we'll have to check it out. I guess yeah The science of science five dollars tipped to the mod. Oh, thank you, sir Eric Robinson two dollars wits it. Are you really? All right, you're you're a fun guy. You'll like this one's probably right wits it. Are you related to bilber? Oh, that's funny. I don't think so you do look like him um And 99 god five dollars. Oh proof of people upright Entipododal on the bottom of the ball from a viewpoint outside of the ball There is proof of people upright, which is all flat earth requires I don't think that was really a question. I think that was A statement about their position Um west flat earth two dollars Austin freestyle Megan mary 199 just wanted to say love mdd Did you just say austin freestyle? This is austin freestyle All right. All right. Check it ready do it man. Oh, they want you to freestyle Break it down. It's gonna be a freestyle though But better than veteran don't want to let him and ain't got a choice But to let him and I feel it in the ethers coming through the speakers You're talking to see me speak up, but you're not about it I believe I'm confounding but that's what we're found so deep today, John And I wonder what sound is a perturbation reverberation I heard the hate and I swear to fake and absurd debate and feel still stuck in the matrix station waiting for stations to say it Take a debate. We're going to take it. Hey Amazing If I would try that I would trip on my face Is a ring Yeah, sweet Megan mary 199 says just wanted to say I love mdd. Well, mdd loves you. Thank you so much Matters now two dollars after show on matters now will begin soon. They've probably already started John Malola if you guys are still here when this stream ends you'll be redirected over there automatically So you don't have to miss anything John Malola two dollars for for both So let's do this one quick for was nasa's moon landing faked. William Hell no What's it? What was the moon landing faked of course All right, randy karting 499 What why can we see the moon in the day if the moon is supposed to be In the other side of the earth in the globe model This is a very good question. Um, the girl the earth like The moon is not always on the opposite side of the sun in the globe model The best example of that is the solar eclipse where the moon actually eclipses the sun at the exact same point in In the optical space. So no, it's not always on the same side All right, so people sending some some bigger. They're spending more bigger amounts of money They're still sending them in Church of the flat earth dollar 99 White stars don't appear rise from cockpit flat 100 They said wit he wanted me to say he set you up like three questions about like does it do it We have time lapse of the planes that show that they don't move up the way they should and when asked left or right Is because supposedly there's this ideal rotations of your flying like say southwest northeast different directions You should see them also move to the side right because they're supposedly spinning in relation to the globe And then in relation to which way you're going with the curvature of the earth dropping They're also going to rise that way and that this time lapse of the planes. Uh, don't actually show what it's predicted by the globe Am I missing like a lot of super chess? Is that what you're trying to say or no I'm saying like no, I'm saying like the question's been given to william like two or three times It's the same guy that was kind of like setting him up. But yeah Yeah, I see and I understand where I went wrong with my reasoning where I answered that I did not take into account the motion of the earth and you're right If the earth is motion moving then I have to ask a couple more questions to make sure I get it It's pretty complex because it's like it's like compounding vectors, right? So yes, correct Uh, yadin 20 dollars Why is it that people in southern australia can't see polaris due to the distance? But two people in capetown and tasmania Respectively can both see the southern cross without any issue while someone in san francisco can't Um because they're closer So you can't see forever. I don't know why people think you can Things just uh things in the sky go down the ground ramps up until it reaches like the optical limit And actually it's curved visual space and one thing I will point out about the southern star trails Which I find very interesting is everyone thinks they claim that they can see them all through the southern cross from these continents all looking south No, they're not looking south. Well, actually look at the observations. They look like southwest They look at different uh elevation angles and different directions. They don't all look the same directly south That's not true And in fact the way that they get their corner direction is by making magnetic declination corrections Right, which is just whatever they claim it is in the south So you could think they're looking opposite directions make because you made a huge correction because in the south it gets crazy When actually they're not so anyway, yeah, you can't see forever on a flat earth. It isn't complicated man All right lights for angels 20 dollars William We can make objects float using electro statics Do the same with gravity hint you can't because it doesn't exist density buoyancy electro statics That's all we need not gravity Ha ha nelson's voice I think they're trying to do simpson's impression there Um, I think they're just arguing against your answer from previously if you want to respond feel free Yeah, um, if you want to try to say I should be able to use gravitation to make things levitate That is not true gravitation is inherently An attractive force So no that wouldn't apply to my argument But yes static electricity can apply a different force in addition to gravity on in certain situations like rubbing a Balloon on your head All right scott with one t five bucks Explain how the current time from sunset to darkness is equal right now Both north and south of the equator despite being opposite seasonally I think that's for witsit. Yeah, they're actually not so actually the twilight Twilight is longer in the south I mean shorter in the south So you guys tell me on the globe when it should be symmetrical Meaning that there's just a globe with a certain size turning giving us day and night That means six months apart right on the opposite sides of the area that we should have the same twilight But we don't they're shorter in the south Which makes perfect sense on a plain earth because the sun would have to be going a little faster tangential velocity Not angular speed right in the south to cover more ground and it literally shows it literally is the twilight is shorter there That is physically impossible on a globe. It should be symmetrical Based on the geometric claim. So Yeah, I'm not sure if that's exactly what he asked. It doesn't matter. Let's good news. Look. I can't scroll down anymore We're at the bottom of the list Daniel subner $5 at william. I have seen more evidence That we see the same sunspots Are we tightly locked to the sun also? No, the sun The sun spins you can observe the sun spinning look up the observation of the sun spinning You can see all sides of the sun as we rotate around it orbit around it. Sorry um John malea five dollars flattered thieve not want to debate mc tune. Why not austin? uh because He's proven himself to be I hate to have to do this, but kind of bad faith I'll just be I'll be polite about it right and he asked that Dave's perspective is that he isn't and he isn't debating this in good faith And so he's decided to not debate people that kind of like make a living off of hating on alternative cosmology and ridiculing people Are you talking about professor Dave? No, no, uh like flat earth. Dave Dave wise Yeah, he won't debate but tune which is like an anti flat earth guy. He won't debate mc tune Um, oh, yeah, Dave just doesn't want to do that anymore He doesn't want to get in toxic debates where he thinks the other person's bad faith So that's his own prerogative. I don't blame him. I don't debate I don't debate mc tune anymore not because of that as much that I debated him plenty of times It's over. So anyway to each their own Yeah, I agree Run boston bear 499 last super chat. Thanks everyone last chance for likes and subs Um, I'll be heading over to at matters now for the after show you all should as well William and wits it you would be welcomed over there with open arms People would get kicked out of the kicked out to allow space for you too. I can promise it So, um, William and wits it Oh crap. I should have just Ended it when I had a chance we had under super chat while I said that William and wits it What prompted albert einstein to derive special relativity? William go ahead first different observations he made such as the bending of light around massive objects And wits it that's That's incorrect. That's arthur eddington experiment and that is general relativity the bending right where there is no curvature of space time and special relativity But in 1905 you proposed that because of the 1887 mc simorley experiment you had to say the apparatus contracted Uh to compensate just a sufficient amount for the missing time difference that would have been predicted This is going to be faster based on the assumed orbital speed of the earth and that wasn't observed So very simply new tony mechanics says objects going to move in a straight path unless an outside force acts upon it So if the earth's curving around the sun there must be an outside force acting upon the earth curving it But the we didn't detect the circular motion with interferometry Which you would probably be able to do so einstein saved the day came up with a new theory to keep the orbit claim By saying we're actually going straight in our orbit and we're not curving and we're free falling And that's why you weren't able to detect it and he had to contract the apparatus And then say time slows down and all this other stuff So einstein himself said that the reason he came up with special relativity was because of the megal somorley experiment And like experiments proving that the earth doesn't orbit unless we change physics All right last question. Even if one comes in We're we're gonna we're gonna bug her out of here um Yadin ten dollars So this was the earlier san francisco question san francisco is between those two apparently on a flat earth But can't see the southern cross But they do And can't see polaris due to distance Even though they are the most far on flat earth what Hey, um so If we I can't recall perfectly the other question But it was something from san diego to hawaii. Can we see hawaii from san diego with a telescope? um No, this was the southern cross thing with san francisco in someone in australia, but then tasmania seeing the southern cross Uh, this person is reacting here that san francisco is between those two apparently on a flat earth Um, so they're supposing you have a flat earth map So they're saying that san francisco is between those two apparently on a flat earth, but they can't see the southern cross But they both do and can't see polaris due to their distance even though they are the most far apart on flatter Okay, I'm just I've already like they can't see polaris when you get a certain Distant south right when you get far enough south you can start to see the southern cross, right? I don't I don't actually understand what the uh question is even asking to be honest, so yeah I would need to hear it all in coherently. It's whatever but I guarantee you it's not it's not like some death blow Maybe it's the one dude email it to me. Maybe it's the one maybe look this this is uh objectively In the top two of all modern-day debates for 2024 That's a fact. There's no just this art that's just proving that Um, but for me personally, I think this sets a bar for the year I think if uh 2024 if we could have debates like this all the time it'd be amazing So I want to thank you both so much Uh for the great time and for hanging out with me For over three hours. Good grief. That's my charlie brown of the day. So uh, what's it gets it? Thank you William Harris. Thank you. I'm heading over to that matters now Thank you everyone for hanging out with us and watching us. You've got one more chance to hit like and subscribe Have a great night