 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating Flat Earth versus Globe Earth, and we're starting right now. With our Flat Earth Teams opening statement, gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Okay, thank you very much. Pleasure to be here. I'm Bev, try thinking. I'd say I'm not necessarily a flat earth, because I'm a geometrically accurate realist. And Flat is a two-dimensional surface, and we know from reality that elevations are measured from a horizontal base on a vertical datum. I'm here mainly because Troll-induced have brought me into this arena from just stating reality facts. And so, I mean, that's why we're here. Forced to try and prove to myself that level is horizontal, and stating that the drop of the horizon is a geometric fact. So having to prove that level is horizontal, we ended up going back to first principles right back to the basics and the basic understanding of where we're at. We found out that it's a logical base, logic and geometry, and what put me here in the first place. So, yeah, basically it's a proof, a geometric proof in reality, using 3D Euclidean space. To prove that level is horizontal, which a lot of people get freaked out about, but most people know it as a reality. So we've devised a test, and I'm not going to go into the test today, but I mean, anybody's willing to come round and view it if they want to. But the principles, the basic principles are this, I'll give this. On the board, we've got a water level, and there is a water level here, but this is the depiction of it. So in reality, you've got your water and it levels out, it's called a horizontal. One of the globe models is the hump and the drop. You've got two different models. You have to decide if you have a globe model in your head. You've got the constant drop from the point you're at, which we call the nutsack drop, we call that. And then we've got this one, which is the raise in the center from one side to the other. That's basically where we're going to be going, or where I'll be going. Just basic logic and the contradictions within this. I just, I personally, just deal with the reality model and what is. So I'll be staying firmly grounded in mathematics and geometry and logic. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'll pass it over to who's next. No, I can, I can go hear me good. Really good. So yeah, basically I'm right the hand, Chris. I've been in the debate for a while and yeah, I'm not here to debate here, right? Like I did that. I know you guys might be here to the debate and you might have been expecting no gravity, this gravity, that, you know, all this and that. But what if you're true to finding out the truth and getting down to what is real, you know, which one or neither? Because I don't consider myself a flat earth, right? Like flat and ball is like Democrat or Republican, right? I'm like, I'm not the politics, right? I'm not it. And that's how I see it. It's a, it's a political realm of people that are like, you're at that. I'm right because I'm at this and you're wrong because you're that. And you know, I was okay with that when, you know, because of course you argue from your side and you're like, oh, these are the facts that I have. And they'll be like, oh, these are the facts I have. So now it's just like, how do we both agree? Like what is going to determine whether what anything is, right? Like if you, I have a great fruit, right? Now, how do we know this is not a square? Well, geometrically, right? Geometrically, there's aspects physically, there's physical aspects to round objects, right? Now, again, I'm with Bev on the horizontal. Like if you put, you got the glass of water, right? Look at the line of the water would let you know that this object is not straight. So there you go. And that, that we start working from there. You start working from things that are demonstrable. And then those demonstrable things like how this water is in that line, right? We can't quite describe it with words perfectly, but that's where geometry and geometric values come in, right? Like if you have a circle, 3.141, you have the diameter will go around a certain amount of times always. That's how it works in the real world. And we just switched that real world working into a language that we can talk back and forth with and prove stuff with, right? Like if I wanted to know if this was going to roll down a hill, like because round objects will roll down a hill, right? And you can prove how the behavioral aspects of the hill is off the horizontal, right? So in water, we'll tell you if you have a horizontal. So they're just logical proofs that are based on the reality. So if you, if your logic is not based on reality, I don't, you don't have logic. So I'll, I'll concede the rest of my time and yeah, thanks for having a chance. Flat Earth Rossi. The floor is all yours. The final speaker for the Flat Earth sides opening. Oh, yeah. Thanks, James. Hope you can hear me fine. Obviously my camera's not working. Is that correct? Okay. No dramas. It's good to be here again. And I've been pretty busy, but obviously I've been a strong flat earth supporter for quite some time now. And one thing that most people are always hammering on about is to show us a flat earth model. And this is always a huge problem for flat earth is because basically the model only works at full scale. And, you know, the globe is the same tiny little models like the things you hang above your baby's crib that they can't sort of understand reality any other way. So it happens at true scale. And I think the best comparison that I can give to help people to understand how the nature of the model works is to think about a fish underneath the layer of a frozen lake. So the fish under the water, under the ice, when he looks up and sees a hot spot apparition of the sun on the ice, for him, for all intents and purposes, that's his source of light and warmth. And it sort of sends out this glowing light under water. And it's the equivalent of daylight, for example. And but then we've got another fish say a few hundred meters away. When he looks up through the ice to see the sun, he sees a completely different hot spot apparition of the sun on a completely different part of the ice. And, you know, if it's a huge lake or you've got hundreds of different fish or looking up at hundreds of different variations of different parts of the ice, seeing their own version of a hot spot sun. So now if we expand that to the flat earth model, where we have the equivalent of a layer of ice, the firmament, some estimates say at least a good 70 miles above the surface of the earth. So every time we look up through it towards the actual sun, now the actual sun might be 100, might be a thousand, could be 50,000. We don't know how high the real true sun actually is. But however high it is, as we look up through this lens of the firmament, that is where we will see our personal hot spot apparition of the sun. So a person a thousand miles away looking up through the firmament to the sun sees a completely different hot spot apparition of the sun in a completely different spot. And yet everybody believes that that is the one and only true and actual sun. So that is where we have this huge problem where people of science try to measure things and try to say, well, if we triangulate it all, we calculate it's 93 million miles away, which is completely inaccurate. Everything is where it actually appears to be. So we send up hot air or helium balloons with cameras attached to them. We can get up to about 130,000 feet is about the maximum we can get to. And that gives us a lot of information. That works out to be about 23 miles off the top of my head. The sun never appears to be all that much higher. So if it is 70 miles, well, that's a bit of an overestimate. Might only be 50 miles for all we know. Might only be 40, might only be 30. But distance is very relative when it comes to you got nothing to focus upon or to compare it to. There's nothing else visual to be able to take an estimate from. So we just take a rough estimate and we look at what we can see. So the sun is not much higher than our 23 mile range. The earth down below, the horizon is always at eye level, of course. We see a thin blue layer, which is for all intents and purposes, our blue sky. So when we're on the ground looking up through the blue light, that is all we see. We think we're just, we think we're looking into infinity. But really, we're not, we're only looking up about 10 to 15 miles maximum. That's where the blue sky limit is. And then, of course, the sun itself is merely an apparition much higher. And in between that is a huge black zone. So we have a lot to understand or to comprehend about the nature of light itself. It's not what we think it is. It is actually that blue layer is electrostimulated by the sun and causes it to glow much like an open air neon light bulb. And that is what gives us daylight. And it's, it works the same even if you believe in a globe. Because otherwise, in the globe model, you've got the sun 93 million miles away, but it's streaming sunlight throughout the entire universe, obviously. And yet we still get night. So how can we have night if there's only a tiny shadow of the earth blocking all this sunlight? So obviously, light itself doesn't exist, even until it actually stimulates something or reflects off of it. And our atmosphere is what gives us daylight, which is not exactly sunlight. Sunlight will give a distinct true shadow. Whereas daylight just gives a gentle warm glow to light up an entire room without any direct sunlight entering it. So once we comprehend our personal view of the sun is unique to us. So there's like eight billion different suns at any given moment, depending on the time of day, I guess. And the nature of light is also unique to each and every viewer, like crepuscular rays, for example. No two people will see the same two crepuscular rays. So I think I'm sort of trying to get ahead of myself a bit here. But if we go back to the analogy of the fish looking up at the personal hotspot of the apparition of the sun on the ice, that is virtually how we are looking at the sun, which isn't actually the sun. The true sun is well above that. And so in the Flat Earth model, as the sun goes around us, a huge circumference of about 25,000 miles, which is the same as the equator, it actually gets higher to create the seasons. As it gets higher, it appears to go in a smaller circle, simply because it's further away. And that will give some summer in the northern hemisphere, simply because the direct sunlight through the firmament is what creates the most direct light. And most direct light causes the most heat. And then as the sun gets nearer to us, it appears to make a bigger circle. And so it appears to go south or outwards. And that's why we get summer on the outside, on the south side. And the diluted light coming in at an angle then isn't as strong. So therefore the inner side gets the winter. So that's our basic model with the seasons and sunlight explained. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. So those are the openings from our Flat Earth team. And folks, we will kick it up to the top row, which is our Globe Earth team. And want to let you know, folks, we are thrilled you are here. Modern Day Debate is a neutral platform, hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And we are fully neutral. So we only host debates at this channel. So hit that subscribe button and that notification bell as well for a lot more juicy debates coming up in the future. And so with that, Globe team, thanks so much for being here as well. The floor is all yours. Thanks, James. Right, tonight I'm not going to bore you all, like I did last time, with a 10-minute PowerPoint on navigations. My opening is going to be very simple. The evidence points that the Earth is a globe. Navigation, satellites, GPS, shipping, airlines, detections of earthquakes, locations, the moon phases, and so on. My main one is navigation without going further for PowerPoint. That is the globe. On the globe, we've got longitudinal lines and latitude lines. When we take a navigation chart and compare the navigation chart with the globe, the lines on this all match up to this. Therefore, this is a two-dimensional representation of this. And it works. If you were to put all the navigational charts out flat, you would get that shape. And when you fold all these corners back in, it gives you a globe, proving that this is a globe. Or we live on a star-shaped flat Earth. And that's basically my opening, just a short one this time. All right, well, I guess that means I am up. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Dapper Dino. I have a channel. Feel free to just hop on by. And I, of course, I'm coming to you from the actual flat Earth, the one that is, in fact, centered on Antarctica. Because one of the curious things about the flat Earth model is that it fails increasingly as you go farther and farther away from the alleged center being the North Pole. And so it's very curious to me that we have southern hemisphere flat Earthers who don't have this model, but who stick with the northern hemisphere centered model, which actually doesn't work at all. Because one of the earliest reasons that humans thought and eventually knew that the Earth was round is actually because of navigation, as Paul was saying. But not modern navigation necessarily, even very ancient navigation. Early sailors used things like theodolites to measure the angle between where they were, where the stars were on the horizon, and things like the northern pole star Polaris or the equator, the ecliptic of the celestial sphere. But also when you get to the southern hemisphere, there's also the southern celestial pole, which rotates in the opposite direction, if you're looking at it, to the northern celestial pole. None of this actually geometrically works out in terms of angles if you're on a flat plane. You have to be on something that curves as you move over it to any significant difference. Now, the fight Earth model itself fails to account for anything with any actual predicted ability. The best that we get are these post hoc explanations that don't actually allow us to predict anything, especially not better than the globe Earth model. One of the most important things that science lets us do is find out what we should expect to happen in the future based on our scientific understanding. So for instance, in chemistry, if you have a good understanding of chemistry, you'll know not to mix chemicals A and B because there will be an explosion, where you will know that if you undergo process C with these petroleum products, you'll get nylon, a very handy artificial fabric out at the other end. Flight Earth has yet to be able to do this. No flight Earther is out there telling me exactly when the next solar eclipse is going to be and where, and why. Flight Earth can't even tell me where the planets are going to be if I look up in the sky. But the globe Earth model with the heliocentric solar system has been doing this with extreme precision for hundreds of years. And the globe Earth model with a modified geocentric was doing it with less precision, but still very high precision for thousands of years. The only way that the flat Earth can work to make predictions about what is going to happen in the heavens is if you assume that the whole firmament, if you will, itself actually rotates and part of it goes under the ground and comes back up, which is why all the ancient civilizations that believed in the flat Earth actually believed that the sun came up out of some part of the Earth, went up through the sky and then back down underground. But of course that problem, which would solve the problem of predictions in the sky, comes up with a problem that doesn't allow for time zones. But all you have to do is look at this panel where we have people in the UK and Australia and in North America to know that time zones invalidate that option. Literally the only thing you have to do to invalidate the flat Earth is pay attention to how it looks when you're outside at night in two significantly different locations on Earth. That's it. The entire thing fails. And what flat Earth Earth have, like I said, is a bunch of post hoc rationalizations coupled with a near total incomprehension of all of modern science and the actual model that they purport to be attacking. There is actually no understanding. This is one of the reasons why when you actually ask people who know about the scientific aspects that flat Earth tends to talk about, things like weather, astronomy, geography, even just basic math, the people who know about those things have trouble even comprehending what the flat Earth is trying to get across because the flat Earth model, it's not even wrong. It's not coherent. It is self-contradictory. It can't predict weather patterns. It can't predict anything. So all I would like really for the flat Earth is just to do a couple of things. Actually explain and predict observations in the real world to at least the degree of accuracy that the standard model would allow. And then also maybe for bonus points, explain things like spiritual access or the fact that lines of longitude continue to get closer together after crossing the equator. So if you're going from north to south, they start getting bigger and bigger. But then they get smaller and smaller again. And you don't have to be a NASA scientist or a fancy navigator to do this. All you need to do is to be able to use a astrolabe and sight the sun on various stars, be in the southern hemisphere, just be in Australia, say, we have someone here who could do it, drive 100 miles in one direction. You don't even have to trust your car's odometer. You can take your own little mile marker and see what happens to both the time of day as well as the stars. And you can check all of these things, latitude and longitude on your own. You don't need to trust anyone. Get flat Earth, there's only ever seem to do it in the northern hemisphere if they do it at all. So I don't really think I have anything else. It's just the entirety of the flat Earth contradicts everything we see about reality. It fails to make any predictions and flat Earthers themselves either are unable or unwilling to do any of the experiments that could either confirm or disconfirm their ideas. That's it for me. Alrighty, well, I am Leo Philius, otherwise known as Leo Philius. Most people just call me Leo. I do have a YouTube channel. I tend to focus more on astrophysics, cosmology and quantum mechanics, but when I got the opportunity to engage in a panel discussion, three versus three on the flat Earth, I just, I had to do it. While this might sound rather boastful, I'm going to be quite honest. I don't feel that this is going to be a debate. I feel that myself and Paul and Dapper are going to spend the next roughly hour and a half to two hours educating three people who either A, are so illiterate and so incompetent that they can't actually understand all of the evidence for the Earth being a sphere or they know that it's a sphere. They know that they're wrong, but they'd rather be a Poe and troll on the internet for attention. The thing is, is I could go on about all the evidence and all the reasons we know that the Earth is a sphere, but instead of doing that, I would just say to anyone who thinks that the Earth isn't a sphere or a spheroid, you don't have to pay attention to all the evidence that's out there. You can just do the experiments yourself. You don't have to pay attention that roughly what 1,300 years ago, Aristotle's discovered that the Earth has some form of curvature on its surface, because when he observed an obelisk in two different cities on the surface of the Earth, he noticed that at the same time of the day, the shadow that they cast was different, indicating that at two points on the surface of something with curvature would give that result. He actually paid somebody, I believe, to walk out what that distance would be and utilize that distance and the difference in the shadow to calculate with, and I believe it was like 15 or 20% accuracy what the curvature of the Earth was. But you can ignore that. We could ignore all of the people, all of the sailors that have been sailing this planet for thousands of years and all of the methods they had to use to accurately navigate across the planet that involved with the planet being spheroidal rather than flat. We could ignore all of that. We could ignore all of the pilots that have navigated this planet that have to utilize the same exact data that you would expect to observe if you existed on a planet that was a sphere and not some flat plane. We can ignore all of that. We can ignore time zones which indicate that we are on a planet that orbits a star and that only one half of the planet roughly is receiving sunlight at any given time. We can ignore all of this data and just go out and do the experiments yourself. Try to sail from one point on the planet to another. Try to sail from Australia to Japan. And you will notice that the only way you could accurately do it is if you assumed that you were on a sphere. Try to fly from London to New York and you will realize that when you want to plot out your path you're going to have to assume that you were on a sphere. You can even ignore the fact that Einstein's general theory of relativity, one of the most accurate and most predictive models that humans have ever developed, tells us that the Earth is a sphere for the same reason every other planet humans have ever observed and every other star or black hole or neutron star or other sub-galactic object that we have observed is a sphere or a spheroidal because of the result of hydrostatic equilibrium between gravity pushing inward equally on every point on that object's surface and the resistive force of the matter that makes up that object pushing back outward thus resulting in a sphere or a spheroidal object. We can ignore all of that. We can ignore all of the mathematical, the observational, and the experimental data and you can just try to live in the real world utilizing a flat Earth model and you will find that every single time you will fail and you will fail miserably. So I don't see this as being a debate. I see this as being you can either admit that it's not that you don't have a model it's that any model that you could bring that would substantiate your position is going to be wrong or you can engage in what I would consider to be dishonest and or disingenuous interlocution trying to defend an obviously wrong worldview. Very interesting gentlemen. We are excited to go into the open discussion portion. Want to let you know folks our guests are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more you can hear more from our guests. We really appreciate them and so they're linked in the description whether you were or listening via YouTube or Twitch. We also put the links in the Twitch panels now for our guests and also if you're listening to modern day debate via podcast you can find the guest links in the description box for the podcast episode. So we are really excited to jump into this open discussion portion and so gentlemen we assume you'll be a regular polite and respectful selves and so thanks gentlemen I'm sure this will be high energy the floor is all yours. I think we should start with the flight directors who didn't go most recently so You're saying we can have a come back then Yeah I would like you guys to go first since we just spoke Okay well me personally have put wrote down three bits I think it was you Dapper that said about an explanation of was it spherical excess? The spherical excess I said would be a nice bonus students that match the accuracy of our standard models for almost anything to do with geography or astronomy Okay so can I take that spherical excess the explanation of it? Go ahead I would love to hear an explanation Spherical excess as you understand it would be an excess to the angles of a triangle Correct i.e. a triangle having more than 180 degrees Yes Right now in Euclidean geometry there is a proof in mathematics a lot of people will know that that a triangle has 180 degrees also it's the basis of trigonometry as used practically for measurements of things so when they are measuring just really quickly everybody in the chat is saying that the stream is buffering and it's buffering on my laptop Oh yeah I'm seeing it buffering too Okay Okay it did come back a little bit It'll definitely improve what I found out just recently I just found out that I can't tweak zoom too much or it does this so it will go back to normal about 10 seconds if not already sorry about that guys That's good That's all good That's all good Alright so I'm sorry Ben what were you saying? So the triangles there is a mathematical proof within mathematics geometry stay in the triangles only have 180 degrees and now when you are out and realistically at the top of a mountain triangulate in positions you are measuring angles sighted angles from point to point thus making straight sided just an angle like any angle measured angle has straight side so triangles have 180 degrees so I would say to you spherical access is a triangle with more than 180 degrees and that is impossible because there's a proof it's routinely measured in land-surfing sorry it's routinely measured in land-surfing so if you say it's they measure triangles with more than 180 degrees in land surveying you think that actually happens yes because they report their results so if you want to say it doesn't happen it doesn't happen then you're going to have a mathematical proof dapper the other one is making the claim there's a proof for Euclidean space but Euclidean space is not the way that surface geometry is going to be calculated on a non-flat surface these sighted angles dapper can I can I make just a really quick statement most physics especially once you start getting into advanced classical mechanics and certainly once you're into relativity and quantum mechanics you're not using Euclidean space times when you're surveying in land surveying yeah you do you use Euclidean geometry absolutely yes you do that's why I specified what I said I just wanted to make that clear that's what we're doing we're sighting triangles right as in surveying but when large-scale land surveying is done and the results are put into tabulated tables there is in fact actual spherical excess reported in all large-scale land surveying it's impossible that's great that it's impossible but that's what's reported so what you need to do now is explain why it's reported not repeat that it's impossible because it's happening you can say all day that it's impossible but if you actually look at the results of large-scale land surveys triangles only have 180 degrees okay so I'm just going to assume you don't have an explanation which is great does anyone else I do have a proof in mathematics that triangles have 180 degrees you have a proof that in Euclidean space that works we're not working on Euclidean space and you don't have an explanation can you show me then can you show me this please yeah I'll tell you what I will pull up some reports with spherical excess no come on show me please I did also want to say really quickly that you're saying that it sounds like you're saying that spherical excess is something that's mathematically impossible under traditional assumptions in a flat Euclidean space yes but and I'm reading this from Wolfram math world there's there's a theorem here that that's an equation that defines spherical excess yeah it is talking literally talking about cited triangles in in surveying you go to the top of the mountain and you cite two points with the theodolite and you measure the angle you then go to the other point and do the same and you do that three times that's triangulation you measure in three angles for a triangle those are cited lines they're straight lines that that's a triangle with 180 degrees of course we can say real zero so that's that's how I'd explain that yeah we'll try and it's just to say that if you're using triangulation right the only reason it will work is if the line could be now if you try to triangulate three points right and you do this and you curve these two points in any capacity the triangulation will not work and you will not know where you are because of how triangulation works so when you're saying oh we've got spherical excess which is impossible because if the method you're using is to make a triangle and you make a triangle it won't have spherical excess wait hold on when you say it's impossible what what do you mean what kind of impossibility are you referring to exactly in reality like physical impossibility metaphysical impossibility logical impossibility because I I can give you literally the equation for it so obviously it's not an equation is not reality um hold on hold on really quickly can you tell me what an equation is it's not can you hold being can you hold an equation in your hand that's not that doesn't answer my question well hold on hold on hold on can you tell me what an equation is hold on hold on reality now when you say triangulation now triangulation is not something you can hold what you can hold is physical objects that are straight and then when you measure those physical objects they will adhere to certain laws right like an equilateral triangle they will all be the same size as you make one side bigger they don't work like that okay so when you start making shapes that aren't shapes the laws in which reality works don't apply you know what I you know what 100% you're correct I'm not even gonna try to disagree or get into things like Ramani and geometry but yeah you 100% you're correct I was wrong thank you for correcting me I don't want to get caught up in in in in that discussion I don't think it's relevant to the point I mean if you don't have the geometry to tell a shape right so if you don't know what a straight line is and you can't establish a straight line then you can't say that another line is curved and the line you're the the thing you're on is curved so the first thing that comes is the establishment of the proofs in which we will use the determinacy we're not 100% we're not just going to go back and forth flattered baller show me why show tell me explain we're gonna be like look 100% reality and let's use the reality to determine yeah 100% you're 100% correct yep anybody else yeah a triangle on a globe the sum of the angles of a triangle on a sphere is 108 degrees plus f where f is the fraction of the sphere surface that is enclosed by the triangle for a positive value while f this exceeds 180 degrees so it does take into account that the the earth is curved not sited okay so here are some cited cited examples are we ready so in 2011 the USGS conducted some surveys of US area and observed in numerous cases this is the United States Geological Survey correct the US United States Geological Survey who periodically go around the United States measuring distances between various points to keep maps and geological survey well actually you know what's in the rocks accurate for the entire United States because it's important for lots of things in science as well as industry so they measured actual spherical excess in this measurement in 2011 ranging from about half a degree to just over two degrees why did they do that are they lying what is the reason that when the USGS surveyors went around in 2011 in this report and actually went around getting spherical excess numbers that are always positive at 0.76 degrees 0.78 why is that are you suggesting that a triangle drawn on the surface of the ground will have more than 180 degrees USGS surveyors who are identified as Elk, Taylor, Browning and Dick I'm just going off my measure of that so why is it that using high precision theodolites which is what the USGS does for their land survey that are accurate to within very small small fractions of an angle why is it if it's impossible that it happened you have to have an explanation I haven't got a clue like it's geometrically impossible I haven't got a clue how it happened well it's not geometrically impossible if the Earth is actually a globe because that's actually a requirement no triangles only have 180 degrees that's a pretty simple but top my head no well you do that you do that I can't see the second thing you're holding up you measure the straight sides on the inside but that those don't form a triangle those not the triangle no those straight sides that you're talking about aren't forming a triangle they're forming two or three different angles that's how you measure the angle though okay but that's not how you do it with your land surveying because you can't look through the Earth yeah yeah exactly that's why I said straight line line of sight straight line triangle not curved so then why is it that the USGS is reporting spherical excess if the USGS if they reported that Santa Claus was real we wouldn't we could care less okay so if your entire interesting but they're not wait wait wait come on don't interrupt if your entire argument is that somebody told me spherical excess I believe the Earth is a ball and we're sitting here with logic and demonstrations of how triangles have 180 degrees and are two-dimensional shapes right and when you bend them down you move into the third dimension and are no longer using the rules in which they apply to so all of your information will be wrong because they're based on not reality you guys don't understand higher order geometry do you you'll also remember that when I finished my opening I said that would be bonus points in fact none of my opening was really based on that it was just something extra that I would really like would be an explanation for spherical excess it's just the first what point I always wanted to bring up but again I have yet to hear an actual explanation as to why spherical excess is always reported other than conspiracy which is not an explanation that can simply stand on its own you have to demonstrate that I've never reported triangles having more than 180 degrees I've never seen your paper reporting your work in serving but I would be very curious to see when you do in fact get a team of Flat Earth surveyors out and go do some proper controls to actually go see what you guys measure surveyors I've said at the beginning just reality right I just come from reality I will use surveying techniques and methods because it is reality okay well when you guys get together do your surveying and write up a paper that'll be really interesting and I will make sure to read it and I'm sure that there will be plenty of people who go out and reproduce the experiments and see if they get the same numbers it's just surveying dude until then it'll be science is what it'll be yeah until you actually do that experiment geometry all the measurements we have of any significant distance on the earth include measurements of spherical excess now you guys don't have an explanation that's fine go come back and get one distance are these distances are you taking a straight line in between these two distances they're cited so unless there is significant atmospheric problems which they will account for and usually not measure on those days yes they are within that margin of error straight line from one to the other hold on bro hunt we're gonna have a little bit of if I have a distance like if we're talking the distance between two points are you going to use anything but a straight line and the sort of distance between them to get a distance can wait hold on really quickly can I ask you a question well this is a crazy point here man this is a good point yeah and that's why I want to ask a question what um what kind of manifold are these two points to find on what do you mean man up with there in 3D he's asking that for me in 3D space but what kind of manifold are we talking about 3D space is the manifold up down left yeah but what's you have something more than that manifold I do all right I'll tell you because that's what we use I just wanted to make sure that Flat Earth Rossi got a chance to speak now that we finally got him back so go ahead Flat Earth Rossi the floor is all yours thanks James I was just trying to add my two cents in to the actual discussion quite a bit there because they're talking about navigation which as we all know was traditionally done with compasses and the observation of Polaris which Polaris happens to align with the North Pole Star and everything in navigation was related to Polaris because it's the only fixed star as we notice all the other stars revolve around it and so these navigators that's what the latitude line is on a map is a circle it's drawn with a compass and it's measured with a magnetic compass that's how you draw a circle so anybody trying to draw a circle based on navigation they're they're using a compass that's what the east west line is it's a circle but if you're trying to do a triangle then how are you going to measure a straight line in any distance apart from exactly north south north south is the only straight lines you'll get using a compass using any form of navigation that they've known traditionally so anytime they try and make a triangle the only way they're going to know a straight line is by going at a big curve so when you make a triangle from three distinct points using one straight line and two curved ones all the angles won't add up to 180 degrees that's what I'm trying to say right from the beginning well we're agreeing the what add up to 180 degrees because of the curvature and other than the equator other than the equator no line of latitude is something you can follow without turning this was the point I was trying to bring up with right the hand is that you can have two points on a manifold but the minute there's curvature in that manifold you no longer use a line to define the shortest path between those two points to use what's called a geodesic and these are used all the time in Ramanian geometry where a triangle can certainly have three angles to add up that add up to more than 180 degrees wouldn't the straight line go through the ball no okay hawn I gotta I gotta I gotta ball here now I could build a bridge over it right now that bridge would be curved right yeah and I can I would drill a tunnel through it that'd be a straight line right yes it would okay so when you say a straight line on a sphere is following the surface of the sphere you're wrong the straight line would be like the radius or the diameter right that's not what I said okay so wait so you can't go you can't have a straight line on the surface of a sphere that was my point okay so wait wait hold on what you can't have a straight line you had a straight line wouldn't it go off the sphere if the line were tangent yes yes it would no if it was curved but not straight if if the line was curved well wouldn't it have to curve to follow the ball to follow the surface geometry yes okay so then it's not straight depends on the geometry so what I'm getting here is it I think we have a group that doesn't actually understand topology in the mathematical sense but maybe I'm wrong so I would like to I'd like to find out so I get the basic facts then just just a quick one well I want to find out if we know enough about about topology for we want to do the basics I want I want to make sure we have this this is a direct understanding of the very basics of it I've been talking about the basics and I don't think anybody's been following so an angle can we can we get an angle is between two straight lines what the angle is between yes an angle is the measurement in between two straight lines well wait what can you say that one more time please I'm sorry angle is the inclination between two straight lines imagine a circle no I mean I know what an angle is divide it into 360 and each one of the angles would be a division between two radius lines what are you talking about an angle is right wait you're talking about radians I'm talking about an angle yeah right like radians like two straight lines never never never mind never mind I guess I'm out of my day I don't know what no we're talking about the angle dude not the circumference yeah maybe we can address another part that Daffodil has brought up about navigation yeah because he's saying that you know they've been navigating for thousands of years using what they call planar geometry planetary geometry whereas that doesn't work that way at all as I said if you're drawing latitude lines in every increasing circles around a center point the north pole then that's why they keep going expanding but this is why when they say they get to the equator things go pear shaped because they no longer match the expectations and the reason for that is because they've lost their focal point which is Polaris the Polaris was always their focal point when you say you say pear shape what do you mean? yeah well as soon as you get so far away from Polaris like anything else that disappears due to distance and perspective is it the further you get away from something the lower it gets it doesn't mean you're going over a curve it just means that visually it appears to get lower and lower which is how the sunset is getting further away so you're getting further away from Polaris till you reach the equator which is the point they've drawn on their charts a big circle around the north pole which is where Polaris disappears from view so that's why measurements get pear shaped because they've lost their point of reference they have to start using something else and as a result of that as a result of Polaris disappearing that is when they believe they disappear over a curve this is ancient superstitious people thinking that convergence of perspective means curvature because it's gone below the horizon hasn't gone below it's still disappearing into it so Ross why don't you use navigation tools from antiquity which are available you can simply get them we're on Australia and I can't see Polaris and I'm not into oh wait you can see the southern celestial pole but that is a good question you can't see Polaris there is no southern celestial pole why can't why can you not see Polaris yeah what those are both questions as I explained to you once you get a certain distance it's away from anything even if it's a a poll star it's going to disappear from view that's not necessarily true that is not necessarily true I think the stars do the same thing no they don't everything about laws of perspective of course they do what are the laws they do obey the law of what are the hold on what are the laws of perspective the laws of perspective means if you get further away from something it appears to get lower if it's really high up above you otherwise that's a description what's the law the law well it's all a visual law isn't it no no like for instance if I gave a law of motion I might say force equals mass times acceleration and then I could measure each of those with units what is the actual law of perspective not a physical measurement of a force we're talking just about a visual not a law yeah about being able to see we're talking about science here and science laws are equations if you don't have an equation you don't have a law no equations are just wizardry we don't need wizardry hold on what do you mean equations are wizardry wait hold on okay really quickly can I ask you a question just a very very simple question hold on is is 2 plus 2 equals 4 a true statement or not 2 plus 2 what does 2 plus 2 2 plus 2 equals 4 2 plus 2 is 2 plus 2 equals 4 you're talking abstract why are you not answering the question because 2 plus 2 what why does that matter you're confusing him with your sorcerers ways no you're talking abstract stuff wait do you think that you think math is not abstract I'm saying it is abstract yeah it's very abstract of course that doesn't mean it doesn't work if you've got two lemons plus two oranges you don't have four yeah but you still have four right you still have four objects yeah you still have four objects so two things plus two things will give you four things right correct okay so 2 plus 2 equals 4 you could just say you don't have four things you have one individual unit one individual unit one individual unit and one individual unit now which is why that we've changed 2 plus 2 to 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 but it still ends up when you're saying math right now when you say one is a description of like a a would be an algebra a would be a unique thing okay one would if you're describing coefficient right and describing another unique thing and add them together and don't get a new thing you can't label it a new thing so when you say 1 plus 1 equals 2 one pile of sand and one pile of sand equals one pile of sand so you're just talking an abstract number theory you're not proving anything of the world but if this makes you feel better then then go for it we're trying to establish the shape of the earth can I try to conceptually describe how many great fruits I have on my table can I can I ask you a good question do you know what mathematical logic is do you know what is the definition of mathematics what is that that's not what I asked you do you know what how am I supposed to know what the logic of what you said mathematical logic that means the logic of what I asked you what mathematical logic is you're asking you have the logic of what I don't well you're saying logic logic doesn't need something behind it logical so you have logic and you have illogical so when you so wait logic doesn't require atoms a logic doesn't need what are you going to say you have uh sixperion logic right no there's right right the hand and then there's illogic right the hand I have a question I have a question to respond and then what I want to do as well is Paul has been patiently waiting and so uh given especially Paul's interesting background as a pilot after Leo has a response here I'm hoping to hear from Paul if you have anything Paul on your mind go ahead Leo um so right the hand just a really quick question do you know what the difference between classical and non classical logic is you're just making stuff up right now okay now I'm literally not like the the you can actually take graduate level courses in like classical and non classical logic at universities that's great you think there's two logics there's logic which is based on reality and then there's illogic which means it's not reality I don't I don't I don't know what to say at this point the statement is either logical or it's illogical there's not degrees of logic depending on your bias or graduate degree sorry man but no but there are different types of logic Paul what have you got if you have anything Paul I don't want to force it yeah I'm just going to address what Ross was saying about the north star yes once you get below the equator you can't see the north star but sailors back about the 1700s the you see was the southern star which is Polara Polaris Australaris or something along them lines so they used to navigate by that you're living Australia you are in the perfect position to test whether the navigational charts follow the globe because if you get a navigational charts your long your longitudinal lines will get narrower narrower as they go south our longitudinal lines get narrower as they go north so if you get the navigational charts for Australia and check that out that will follow exactly what is on the globe and then lines will match up exactly where they are on in Australia well that sounds reasonable by way of ancient superstitious navigation of things but no that's a navigational it's used today in reality there is no southern pole star that you call it that's actually called Sigma Octantis and it's not reasonable to make an eye and it's allegedly supposed to line up in some fashion with the Southern Cross now I say the Southern Cross every night of the year all year round in roughly the same position its angle does change but what doesn't change is that by the morning when I see it in the southeast when it first comes into view at at dusk is that by morning when it starts to come bright enough the stars disappear it's over to the far west now on the Flat Earth model that works perfectly well because all the stars rotating around Polaris means that because we had time zones and time zones are ruled over by the Sun wherever the Sun is directly overhead is your local 12 p.m. and so as it takes 24-hour segments to go right around the whole world the other half of the world is in night and so as the stars are basically working in unison with the Sun that means that the other Southern continents will see the same stars that we see during their local night time so for me to see it going to the west is exactly what you'd expect to see of all the stars rotating around Polaris above the stationary plane of Earth the only reason they appear to be going in opposite direction is because in the south we have our back to Polaris and we're looking at them in the different directions so when you look at anything rotating around above you if you turn around and look the other way it will appear to be going in the opposite direction but they're all still going the same way they'll have an additional rotational pull unless you're looking at a 3D object with more sides that then would be available to a hemisphere which is all a dome over a flat Earth can be you need to have an entire sphere over the Earth in order to have two rotational poles otherwise what you would see as you would see if you look at my animation here where I'm centered on the south pole if you were standing far north in Alaska and looking at the stars you would simply see them sweep across the sky with no rotational pull other than the north star or actually in this case it would actually be signal of octentus because I have this centered in a way that actually makes sense for the southern hemisphere on Antarctica but you've got the sun going the right no I don't it is actually still going east to west but if you actually look at the rotation on the actual sky and the objects in it from the southern hemisphere they rotate to your vision the opposite direction which is what I've got going but that's not the way I say them I say them going from east to west as well I might have an x-mirrored because of my software let me fix that sorry that might be the case I might have an x-mirrored I don't know but um yeah no it's yeah that's what I was saying it's just got them going from right to left whereas I see them going as I'm looking south from left to right but you're looking up you're looking up in real life you're currently looking down to my map so yeah it is going to be the worst yeah so we the thing is it's not hard to figure out geometry that works with the sky it's really not very hard the sky is a what's called a celestial sphere it's called that because celestial means heavenly and the things in the sky are you know according to lots of concessions from the ancient world the heavens that's what you call them and it's a sphere because you can map every fixed star to a particular location on the sphere and they all rotate together in a particular nine-lighter every nine qualities you can call it a sphere it's not just it's not named arbitrarily it's named because every single object on that sphere has a particular location on the sphere that always appears on in the same relation angrily to all the other stars on the sphere these are not the planets you're the sun or the moon well that makes a mockery of the globe model though doesn't it because you're saying that no it depends on the globe the earth is racing around the sun yeah it goes about 1.6 million miles every day as the sun is moving itself half a million miles per hour so all the angles of all these stars means that you are saying that every single visible star is moving exactly the right amount right speed right angle so no wonder that's not happening that's not happening Ross so let's say the earth moves 1.6 million miles in a day right how far is it to Proxima Centauri which according to the standard model is the closest star that's about 70 miles the same place every star appears because that's where every no I said according to the standard model I don't I don't it's great that you have a different answer but according to the standard model how far away is it I really wouldn't know because I've grown up from childish fantasies you tell me how many 25 trillion miles hold on right so if you want to hear a response so just to be sure that we're not cutting out each other well the response was I don't know well oh yeah it's 25 trillion miles we do I listen I don't like that so just if I if I say we need to hear a response from somebody we need to hear them finish and they'll do the same for you and I'll make sure that that's our case so 25 trillion miles who measured that with what tape measure what what laser measurement device how did they actually measure this you know this is what I'd like to know you tell me who came up with this measurement and how they did it okay well Ross that's a separate question right now we're trying to get at why it is that the lack of the relative lack of a parent change in the location of the stars throughout the year relative to each other is in fact not a problem for the standard model now we can figure out how to engineer this standard model of billions and trillions of miles to explain the lack of visual parallax which doesn't need to be made up if you understand that all the stars move as one body around Filaris maybe but we are still at the point where we're explaining the actual model as it exists because here's the thing this is to all the flatterers out here not just on this panel if you want to attack a scientific model you have to first understand it and it is evident that Ross here does not I understand your model perfectly mate that's why do you think that there should be a difference in visual angle between us and Proxima Centauri after one day traveling 1.6 million miles when the actual distance to it according to the model is over a trillion miles well over according to the model so that means you have to make up this fantastic belief in order to explain a way even if that's what we're doing even if that's what happened Ross even if that's what happened even if what happened was we just made it up 1.6 million miles a day even if it were made up sorry all right let's hear from Dapper and then I promise we'll come right back to you Ross go ahead Dapper and we'll let you finish and then we'll come over the point here is even if it were made up even if someone just pulled these numbers out of nothing because they helped the model work it still means that your supposed objection to it fails because the model predicts what we actually see now if you want to have a separate discussion as to how this distance to celestial objects are measured that's great but what it still means is your objection that the night sky doesn't sufficiently change based on the heliocentric model is incorrect the heliocentric model accurately predicts the location from day to day of every star and planet in the sky that's all I have well there you go though you're saying that it actually predicts it but you're based upon a false notion which you refuse to acknowledge is the most important reason why you have this belief in the first place because you can't tell me who did it and how they did it did what you just believe they did it and you have to have a belief blind faith in this model for it to actually work for you whereas we can see with our own eyes we can't see trillions and trillions and miles away we can only see your distance we can see maybe 100 miles if we're lucky with the naked eye I routinely see many trillions of miles no you don't you believe you did it because that's what you've been told to believe but you cannot see that far yes we can if that light was transversing that much distance then the entire night sky would be absolutely super illuminated by all the light of all the different stars why at all the different moments why would you just see tiny dots then the light the whole night sky would you believe in them miles away they vanished into nothingness it would be pure blackness or you'd be pure white bright lit Ross are you are you unaware of the inverse square law as well as the fact that there's a cosmic horizon the inverse square law would render them into invisibility I'm sorry say that again I didn't hear it I'm sorry the inverse square law would render them into invisibility immediately it's too far which is why things that are too far away are in fact dim but things that are extremely bright and not too far away are visible and not too far away given how bright some of these objects are turns out to be many trillions of miles well you brought up the inverse square law you tell me how it works does this mean that if I've got a right torch one foot away from me and I move it two feet away from me it's only half as bright where does this inverse square law no it'll be about a quarter as bright at what distance it's a quarter as bright two feet away yeah because you're if you're doubling the distance and then you have doubled squared for the brightness so or sorry for the sorry for the difference in brightness I just want to tell you if I move it 20 feet away it should be completely black and yet you can see it no the torno that's not a place to go so if you move it 20 feet you move it 20 times right so what is 20 squared 400 what's the point so if it's 400 times as dim is that zero pretty much no it's not it's measurable yeah it's definitely measurable it appears to be the tiniest little dim spark as opposed to the bright that's wait do you understand do you understand how bright objects in space time are if you could rank stars on a scale from one to seven with seven hold on with seven being the brightest and one being the dimmest the sun would be a three look at how bright the sun is during the day take an object that's 1500 times as bright as that and put it 2000 times further and you will still be able to pick up that object in the night sky are you saying that is the sun not the brightest thing we know are you are you going to say there's something the brightest object the brightest object that we've ever measured no that would be a quasar that's like 900 trillion times as bright as the sun that lights up i'm asking you billion light years away who's the you there i'm sorry i'm leo phyllis you yourself you've seen something million uh tens or 20 times brighter than the sun or is this just a story somebody told you when you're believing no no i've seen it i've seen the pictures ever but what is you've seen with your own eyes oh you've seen a picture of it was the picture brighter than that hold on was the picture that you saw so bright it burned your eyes or was it not as bright as the sun wait is that how you think pictures work no no well hold how do you think brightness works you told me you saw something but you think the way the brightness works in reality transforms the picture let me get this out let me get this out you said i've seen something 100 times brighter than the sun much brighter and then you said look at this picture on this piece of paper which is not nearly as bright as the sun and i'm going it's well so then you didn't see something brighter than the sun you saw yeah we did and then you believe you believe that picture somewhere out in your imagination land there's something brighter than the sun so the universe is imagined where are we now well the sun is in reality the thing yeah the sun is in the universe yes hold on as is the earth and yeah and that thing you've said you've seen is a quasar that's also in the universe and it's brighter than the sun yes it is we can measure it that's why i see the sun measure its intrinsic luminosity and the amount of electromagnetic radiation that it emits is 900 trillion times more than what the sun emits yes so what you're telling me what you're telling me is that some some little speck in the night sky is brighter than that gigantic illumination ball that comes during the daytime that's your argument and how are you it's a good one though yeah yes but obviously given that it's 13 billion light years away it's not going to appear in the night sky as bright as the sun but if the earth if the earth we're the same distance away from that object that it is from the sun that object would be 900 trillion times brighter than the sun is yeah and if it but in reality so without the ifs no in reality because we've seen it and we've measured it okay wait wait so we're we're measuring brightness okay now i measure the brightness of the sun it's off the freaking charts now we go at night time really not yeah it's not at all off the charts wait wait wait wait let me get this out come on guys guys come on oh i can be the only excited one we got too many people excited it goes crazy so i measure the sun right and the reading is off the chart right then at night time there's this little speck and we get a reading and it's barely it's it's it's a it's a dimple and you're going you see that dimple that's nine trillion times the sun and i'm going bro i think you've been sold some some magic beans can i can i ask you do you know what the term intrinsic luminosity is bro do you know what reality luminosity is doesn't answer my question no do you know do you know what the term intrinsic luminosity means you're creating brightness that isn't there in your imagination i'm only going to try it one more time and more for the audience than anybody to just pay attention to this he's not answering the question i'm going to try one more time do you know what intrinsic luminosity is okay you're kind of doing don't interrupt please let me i'll answer you you're doing that thing again that you did with logic luminosity or brightness doesn't need anything in front of it okay hold on hold on when you're saying this thing is bright okay that's how we measure how bright it is now you say well it's further away it's well you know when we're talking about the brightness which is a visual aspect okay visually the sun is brighter than anything we've ever seen now you're converting brightness into a formula and then making the sun the least bright thing in the in the sky that's insanity that's the wizardry of mathematics what the least bright thing first of all not only do you not know what intrinsic brightness is you seem to think that we think the sun is the least bright thing in the sky it's not even close i'm see this this is what i i meant when i said about distance i said nothing about distance i said brightness this is what i said this is what i meant this is related to distance yeah but here's the thing you're going to try and convince me that it's something that is barely visible in the night sky is brighter than the sun and just because it's far away but you okay when you say but it's far away that is you saying this thing is not as bright as the sun but i believe it is no but it's further away no you do you do realize exactly so in reality i'm going to say the sun is the brightest do you know how we measure if you look at if you look at the sun and i'll break the sun is now and then move it trillions and trillions and miles away it's going to look dimmer but it's still going to be the same brightness as it was when it was close to us it's to do with the distance yeah can you move the sun can you move the sun the sun is moving right now if you could move the sun that distance it would be dimmer but it would still be the same amount of luminosity can you do that to confirm yes we can we already have done it astronomers do it you're telling me you can move the sun and confirm confirm what the sun will look like seven trillion miles away are you just using imagination because we're smaller and dimmer because we can look at stars we can look at stars that are of the same relative brightness and measure their distance and learn what the sun would look like since it would have the same relative brightness as the stars is we can then figure out what the sun would look like if it were that distance away this is how we measure objects in spacetime okay do you know what we can also do when you say figure out that means I'm going to look at the sun then I'm going to take a piece of paper and I'm going to take a piece of pen and I'm going to I'm going to do this and then after about a minute I'm going to say that thing in the sky that isn't as bright as the sun is brighter than the sun well you're being a bit hyperbolic with how no I'm being re-truthful excuse me please don't know what you're talking about that's what you do you're being a bit hyperbolic with how simple you think the mathematics is done it's not done that simply but essentially yes that's what's done most objects that we measure in terms of their brightness in spacetime we measure against the sun it's the sun is the standard for our our conventional system excuse me can I just say something here this is a flat earth debate is it not and yet here we are talking about the lights in the ceiling like we don't look at the lights in the ceiling to determine the shape of the floor we're standing on do we so we can look at the stars and the sun and there's all the discussants brightness as much as we like but this is really getting off topic actually I can look at the lights in the ceiling even in a room even a room I can use the lights in the ceiling without ever looking down to determine the shape of the room as long as I'm able to measure the angles to them and notice how they change as I move across the room it's actually not very hard to use yeah it's not very hard to use just you need to need calculus all you need to do is you're moving around to different locations if you have if you have a ceiling and you move to different locations and you measure the angles you can get a actual in 3d map of the ceiling and then based on that you can backtrack to where you are in the room and measure the shape of the room without ever having reference to that and determine that the floor curves is that what you're saying that by measuring the floor does curve come on guys please yeah the floor does curve you can determine that yes on a desk and trying to a lamp above them and get keeps the different angles of shadows and I can use a mathematical formula proof how spherical my desk is it doesn't move now if you have a curved desk and you actually move the camera I have a flat desk and I have a fixed lamp above it and I line up a pile of just say batteries stand them up end to end end on that on their end from one side of the table to the other and I'll measure all the different angles of the shadows I can use a mathematical formula to prove that that desk is spherical I encourage you to do so I think your monographs so it doesn't prove anything it just proves that you've got a little light source and ask different angles of shadows on different things so here's the thing you say that you could do this I say you can't but the simplest thing to do would simply be to do it get a desk get a lamp get a camera get something you can use to help measure angles and do the experiment and then publish your results and then let other people check one you can do that with a simple work like that you can use a simple protracted and measure the angles okay why haven't you what do I because it's ridiculous you know I understand but you're saying it proves your point so why would you not have done that experiment that you're claiming proves the point that you're trying to make because it's only going to do that and he proved that we have a near local sun he didn't prove that the sun was a million miles away Aristothanes proved that the surface of the earth is curved that it's convex no he proved that it's a different place he did different dimensions will have different angles of the sun on the same day because it's not near bottom the surface of the earth is curved yes you're correct no different angles because you're really because the angle of incidence changes yes yeah so you're saying the desk is curved to give different angles from each different battery from a fixed light source at the same time no it's different on a curved surface you are saying that no Leo can I just can I just sorry can I just ask Leo how did Aristothanes come up with spherical geometry when it didn't exist I don't think spherical geometry was invented by Aristothanes he used simple trigonometry that's what triangles with 180 degrees like I keep saying Euclidean geometry of course curve those lines in triangles you don't need to to determine that the earth is curved okay well can but then we're trigonometry has straight edges we go back to that base okay hold on the next point I wanted to go to so no really quick your bed because this will help make my point you you see the the curve in the second image you have there in green where it says hump you see that curved line that you have can you can you draw a secant line through that for me please it's there the bit where it says hump no no the the line wait see that little bit there is where it says hump that's the that's the bit above the horizontal is set by the water level I'm trying I'm trying to make a point static equilibrium I'm trying to make a point here the curved line under which the word hump is written yeah see that little line it's already there yeah okay I'm not asking about it I'm asking questions can you draw can you draw a secant line through that through through that curved line drawing there is uh highly captive can you draw a secant line for me line there already you understand what I'm asking you do you want to do it I I I can but it's going to take a second do is a quick drawing then um it's going to take a second so somebody else can go while I get it set up okay well that's what I wanted to go to was the uh because you said something earlier about hydrostatic equilibrium yes I did in a curve or something but that's um the water level is established a horizontal plane of reference right that's a horizontal straight line right no it's it's level with the surface of the earth yes whatever the shape of the earth that is the shape of level so saying that water is level provides you with no help you still have to go out and actually measure that what I said was a water level is a tool for establishing a horizontal plane of reference as is all tools that are called level they establish a horizontal plane there is parallel to that of the plane of the horizon all horizontals are parallel to the plane of the horizon that is how they're defined and your look your horizontal on different locations will depend on the shape of the earth if the earth is in fact flat then yes all horizontals will be parallel if it isn't water level just proves that wrong water level just proves that level is universally level that's why we use the term of course it's universally level but the question is whether or not level earth is horizontal it doesn't care that's brilliant why not kind of kind of it's a horizontal plane of reference it's easily provable as is it's not every time any surveyors never do a job that's what they use except you don't believe surveyors because when I report to you the actual finding of surveyors you just tell me that it's wrong and don't give me an explanation so please you did just say those surveyors let me finish please don't come to me with surveyors when you think that either they're just making stuff up or they're lying or I don't know but you apparently think that surveying is just nonsense so I don't know why you're trying to use it on me but the fact is that whether or not level is curved depends on the shape of the earth so saying that it's level doesn't do anything it's agnostic to the shape of the earth pointing out that level exists helps neither you nor me you have to actually do some actual out in the real world measurements which is fine can I answer that now or are you just going yeah sorry level is horizontal right that's it's not something you have to prove it is an established fact is it because definitions of level don't actually prove that or demonstrate that fact really quickly how would you level a circle could you level a circle could you level in a sense yes I am sharing my screen I don't know if James can see it or not but and I can explain how how you can do that yeah yeah you can be a level above a circle in relation to a wall to level how can we do this so you can't level a circle because level is an orientation and being straight between two points right so this is straight but not level a curve cannot be level so to level something is to make it straight not to make it round okay no you could be level to the surface of the earth so you could follow the curvature of the earth and stay at that level so just like an airplane when it flies across the surface of the earth it stays at a set level to the surface of the earth really quick right the hand do you know what a tangent line is line to a circle well no line to a circle that's part of it that's really rudimentary but so straight line it touches a curve at one point only here on my screen we have a curve I've got say a point on that curve and what I can do and this is going to be a little bit is I can draw a line like that is that line level no the well first off to find define what I would need to do to make that line level make it horizontal but it is horizontal relative not no that's not you didn't let me finish you didn't let me finish it is horizontal relative to that reference frame if we were to zoom in on that so that we could look at it here we would see a straight red line would we not it's not horizontal that's not what I asked you if we zoomed in on that we could see a straight red line correct but yeah it's it's a tangent okay so there is a there is a there is a way it's not horizontal there is a way to make it horizontal is what you're saying okay so this is what we do this is what we do on the surface of the earth this is what happens on the surface of the earth water is going to be level along any given tangent line on the surface of the earth don't intersect well I think you should probably learn a little bit of advanced mathematics because yeah it just does not seem that you understand precisely what you're talking about this may be a chance to give you guys a warning that we'll go into the Q and A fairly soon here so if you guys have any concluding points things that you for sure wanted to bring up and you were like oh man this would be interesting to get the take of the other side on please do and then in a several minutes we'll go into it I actually did I got one too and it's on what we're just talking about but you how do how do we explain how every other planet and star and black hole and neutron star that we've ever observed is spherical but the earth somehow isn't how do you know they are going to any of them have you ever we've seen them we've seen them you can see them yeah okay but you can see a lot of things if you could see a truck in the far distance you see a singular light as it gets nearer as it starts to break up in the two headlights the whole body of light so that at a far distance it appears to be just one orb of light so you don't really know what you're looking at until you get my place but you've already told us that they're trillions of miles away just from the nearest wait do you think that electromagnetic radiation is the only way that we detect these objects I mean is the primary method yes but it's not the only method and why is it why is it that all the different methods that we utilize for observing these objects comport with each other just because they look like orbs of light does not mean that we're standing on a singular of a similar type of orb for one second so then how come every other planet we've looked at and even think smaller than the planet like the moon are round well the only thing we've seen that we know is round is the moon anything else it's not all the sun Jupiter Venus I've seen with my own eye Pluto Mercury Mercury yes orbs of gas gaseous light the meaning light like how can you have a they have shadows they have shadows you cannot you just make a hold on what did you just say an orb of gas in a vacuum it's impossible because everything in a vacuum hold on can you what does a vacuum mean in physics can you tell me what that term means when we're talking in terms of like there's nothing in this no no that's not what vacuum means there's nothing in this what's the domain name it means lowest energy state means the ground energy state it is a field in a ground energy state is that that would be a vacuum state of that field and for matter and energy fields in the vacuum of space there is a very very very small amount of particles present in these fields so we say they're in vacuum state they're at a vacuum that is the vacuum of space you can curve that manifold and that is why planets and stars and black holes neutron stars and all the sub-galactic objects that we observe are round given their mass so you can manufacture anything out of nothing so long as it fits your agenda that you want to believe in whereas in actual reality if we create a vacuum state in on earth we need to use powerful pumps strongly seal valves and solid walls to create a vacuum state in the minute that sealed with track the splinters everything instantly wants to equalize pressure of course and so even though itself could not exist within this vacuum of state and still have an atmosphere unless it had a strong physical barrier protecting us from the external pressure it does that's called gravity yes it does it's called gravity hey it took us over an hour and a half to get to gravity that's a that's I think that might be a record of the finder's debate exactly in the multiple of them to go to the planet how can that be an experience isn't gravity the molten core in the interior of the planet how can that be an experience gravity is gravity gravity is curvature in the geometry of space time by the presence of mass energy so things that get less and less effective like gravity because of the lack of lack of density as they get further and further away from the field of gravity get held by this decimal container because of gravity with the least density has nothing to do with that's the most correct that's everything to do with no mass mass is what is what we're is what we're mass is defined by density per volume not in relativity no mass no no mass is a fundamental property that elementary reports us well i'm talking about reality not relativity you know relativity is reality we use it to observe and study and define our physical models in reality look you're bros you're welcome to overturn relativity when you come up with a model that works better for the things that relativity is used for but we use relative density and that easily overcomes your relativity made up thing to say that no it doesn't things because relative density requires a force of gravity in order to actually cause the emergent by force that would counter the actual downward force of gravity yeah relative density is determined by the density of the medium within it's in and how much resistant force it has by tell you what ross you come up with a better version you come up with a better version of the buoyant force equation that doesn't use gravity as a term and get back to you know gravity what what is gravity in your explanations except for it's just a measurement of distance I've I literally told you what gravity was gravity is curvature in the geometry of spacetime by the presence of mass or energy the earth is a massive object what does that mean so it curves what that means things like that is that you're talking about the space in between hold on are you saying that you can curve the area of space in between my hand okay if you can hold on if you can do that tell me what shape the area between my hands is and what shape you're going to curve it into are you curving it up it would it would depend on the the mass energy stresses present on the spacetime in between no no the the stuff in between the stuff in between how how are you curving that it depends on the stress from um the mass energy load observable reality says then finding it can put it to give resistance hold onύ sufficient resistance due to its density to stop it from falling any further that's all you know you don't need to bend space and time and make up all sorts and nonsense things outcomes razor says the simplest explanation is generally the most correct one the most correct one says if you got sufficient resistance from that's not when it's yeah marry buoyancy if you have� in sufficient resistance from the amount of density then it will continue to drop until a place of sufficient resistance due to the density of the medium. That's all you need. Nothing complicated, no bendy spacetime or anything above that, just resistance from relative density. What you said is not correct. Can you bend the space? If you make the distance between my hands, can you bend that distance and make it shorter and longer? Yes, I can, but it depends on these things. You keep asking the question, but then you keep interrupting the answer I'm trying to give you. Because it's just so ridiculous. Well, no, how can you know that it's ridiculous when you haven't even heard the full answer because you keep interrupting me every time I try to give it? Because if you're going to tell me there's six inches of space, and you can change that six inches to four inches, you're saying six inches equals four inches. That's ridiculous. That's not what I meant. You're not even based in logic right now. I am sharing my screen because it shows a useful animation of what gravity is in terms of what it does. Gravity is a useful animation. Yes. So if you can see this animation, that object would be a massive body like the earth and the coordinate plane that you see would represent the curvature, the warping of the geometry of that plane we feel as gravity. Any object present in that curvature, like if you put a bowling ball on a trampoline and then set a marble on that trampoline, the marble will roll toward the bowling ball. It does so because the geometry of the trampoline is curved inward toward the bowling ball. Well, gravity curves the geometry of space time inward toward that massive body so that any other body's what's gravity is not strong enough to overcome that field will fall toward that. It doesn't even have to be that strong. The sun is consistently affected by all of the planets that orbit it. The sun consistently wobbles and precesses in its position due to the gravitational pull from all of the planets that orbit it. This, this animation you're seeing here, this is what gravity is. This is what massive objects do in space time. This is why gases are held to the surface of the object because the space time in which those gases exist is curved inward toward that object, forcing the gases onto its surface. This force is also the reason that objects are spherical because it pushes inward with equal force on every infinitesimal point on the surface, but the resistive force pushing back outward gives rise to a state called hydrostacy or hydrostatic equilibrium, and that is best served in a spherical form due to conservation laws like energy and momentum. Except for Earth, which is oblate, but your description of gravity just then destroys itself because you said with the bowling ball and a marble on a trampoline that would describe the moon being attracted to the Earth and smashing the Earth and being stuck to the Earth permanently. No, no, no, no, thousands and thousands of years as we hurdle through the space. Can I ask you a question? It's in an orbit. It's falling around the Earth. It's in an orbit. No, it just debunks your whole argument because if we're moving in one second, it's a bowling ball that's going through space on the trampoline while the marble goes around it because that marble would then also have to be accelerated upwards with the bowling ball, which is what you're saying the moon is doing. As the Earth travels multiple different directions, the moon therefore must be accelerating and decelerating the entire time that it is chasing us as we're chasing the sun, which that is impossible. Can I respond to that really quickly? Just because we haven't heard from Paul for a while. I do want to get to hear from Paul before we go into the Q&A. Well, I'm no expert on this, but my explanation for that would be the moon is a satellite. It is orbiting the Earth. It is falling around the Earth. Because of the speed that it's traveling at, it never hits the Earth. It keeps missing, so it keeps going around the Earth. That's what's going on. And what Leophilia has just showed us there with that demonstration. I've never seen anything like that before. And that perfectly explains what is going on. And if you couldn't see what that model was telling you, then I'd give up. This is absolutely crazy. But look, if the moon moves as it's just set at one time, it's going to keep on going in a straight line. It's no reason. No, it's not because the gravitational pull of the Earth is going to pull it forward. It's just falling to respond to what Ross said. I can make it like 15 seconds. We do want to jump into the Q&A, guys, just because we do have a lot of questions already. So I do want to get through these. I promise you'll get a chance to potentially, we have so many questions, this topic may come up again, in which you'd be able to get to jump in. Because I know that also, right the hand, pronouncing it right, also had his hand up and so sorry to jump into it. But I want to say thank you for your questions, folks. Our guests are linked in the description. That's no matter whether you're listening via YouTube, Twitch, or the Modern Databate podcast. And by the way, if you haven't found us yet, pull out your phone. Find your favorite podcast app and find Modern Databate, as we have been excited that people apparently found it useful. So, Sigma, any thanks so much for your super chat says, predict James will be on time, huh, very funny. Bumpy Earth 420 says, globe's getting wrecked tonight, especially when the moderation isn't biased. The horizon is not the curve. I don't know what that means. Are you going to take that? I don't know what that means. I don't know what they're trying to say. Not entirely sure what that is. Yeah, I think that is to do with the horizon, is to do with your perspective. So the apparent horizon isn't the same as the geological horizon due to atmospheric refraction. So you never actually see the curve. You see the apparent curve. Got you. And Cider Report, thanks. I hate to do this, but just because we have so many, Cider Report says, how does the flat earth side explain time zones? It's 1.20 in the morning here as I write this. So how do time zones work on a flat earth surface? I already explained that earlier by saying that the sun is the hour hand of a 24-hour clock. And so wherever it is locally, that's our local midday, where it is 90 degrees to that one side would be 6 a.m. on one side and 6 p.m. on the other. And the direct opposite spot of it would be 12 midnight. So as it moves around, that creates the time zones, which more or less match geographically. They are done to match nations and for political reasons and so on. Like China only has one time zone. But time zones are easily explained by the flat earth's surface basically being the face of a 24-hour clock. Got you, K.O.24. I hate to do this, but we have so many questions. It says, question for the flat earth people, please make a novel prediction using your understanding of the flat earth model that can be used in real world scenarios to figure something or anything out. Timeanddate.com is a flat earth map, square, flat. It'll give you sunrise, sunset for the next 30 years. It's flat. There you go. Juicy. Sigmanee, thank you for your question, said. Ross, did you get a chance to Google fiatolite since our pre-debate debate? Some research into professional measurement tools is in order before claiming to understand more about measurement than a geospatial engineer. I'd already explained how the fiatolite works to him. It's simply a basic way of overcoming the limits of our human vision when we're looking into the far distance. When we look into the far distance, everything converges at eye level, which is what horizontal is all about. The video I uploaded due to that discussion before this debate started on my channel shows perfectly how it works. The fiatolite simply shows how your elevation would actually appear at that distance where the convergence point is, because we know we're higher than the water level beneath us. It just appears to come to eye level. The fiatolite overcomes that visual limitation and shows you what your actual level would appear to be. Everything he said was wrong, completely wrong. But I have to jump to the next one because we have so many questions. Cider in port says Ross sounds like an Aussie, even if he isn't, my question is, Australia has their summer during the winter months. How is this possible on a flat earth? Okay, well I've also tried to explain that briefly in my introduction and that's simply because the sun moves in a spiral around us, around the equator, and it moves upwards until June 22nd, that's the highest point, and so when it's furthest away from us, it appears to make a much smaller circle. So when it's further from us then, it's direct light coming through the angle of our atmosphere after the filming, and means that the light is diluted a lot more so we get less heat. So that's why we're having winter, while the inner side has the direct light straight through to it, so it has summer, and as it spirals back down again, it appears to make a much bigger circle, which goes out to the tropic of Capricorn, and then the light is coming through less atmosphere directly to us, so it appears to summer, and you'll notice that in the southern side, we have much longer and hotter summers than the inner side, because they have a much shorter, moderate ones. Next up, Kango24, thank you for your question, said, watching a quote-unquote adult man pouring water over a little ball and shaking his head is quite possibly one of the saddest things I have witnessed. I can't remember who did that, did anybody do that, I don't remember seeing that. It's right at the hand, but I want to say to be fair, I believe it was a fruit and not a ball, so let's get our criticism correct. It was a fruit. Right there. I'm so sorry buddy, teasing is a love language, you know, Kango24, Sigmani says, Bev, are you the same Bev in parentheses on the level, Bev, that attempted to challenge land surveyors on Reddit about how to make common measurements such as level? I asked them about my test, well, it's a straight line proof test, using water levels, in reality, using practical geometry, yeah, and the trolls, the trolls hit us really hard. What you have on your board is incorrect, by the way. This one from Kango24 says, oh, got that. Chris Gammond, good to see you, it says, flat earthers, fast jet with unlimited fuel flying straight at the sun will take you around the globe to where you began. The plane didn't turn, explain that. The plane did turn, because if it's following the sun, the sun is going around the equator the whole time, you might see it through a different angle through the firmament, but you're still going westwards in a great circle, so you might think you're not turning, but if you're following the sun or you're following a compass, you are making a very slow gradual turn, which will bring you back to where you started. Gotcha, this one coming in from Kango24 says, the sun does not change angular size to an observer as it sets, so it's not moving away. Question for the flat earth people, please explain a sunset. Well, that's quite easy as well, because we are seeing the sun as a hotspot apparition through the firmament. Now, as I described, the firmament is like a big sheet of ice above us. Once it hits that sheet of ice, it's still going to create the same size apparition, regardless of how far away you are from it. It's just that as it gets further away, it's going to get lower and lower until it converges and subscures it from your point of view, and then the light itself will no longer reach us, and so it goes dark, and that's what we call sunset. We have long drawn out twilight as well, which you cannot possibly have on a globe earth, because if the globe was spinning, as they say, at over 1,000 miles per hour going opposite direction away from the sun, the shadow of the earth would instantly render you into darkness, and you would not have a long drawn out twilight. You'd be instantly in the shadow. Question for Bev. They're coming after you, Bev. This is from Kango24 who says, are you familiar with non-rational B splines? They are geometrical primitives used for making lots and lots of real world things. Things. Yeah, and just all I do is the real basic stuff, just talking about basic horizontal and water levels. Gotcha, and Mark Reed says, Ross, you are Australian. Why can you not see the star Polaris from Australia? Why can't anyone in the UK or North America see the Southern Cross? As I was already explained, distance makes things disappear. As you get further away from things, they appear to get lower and lower. The stars are not immune to that actual law of perspective. It's the same as if you move away from a mountain, that mountain will appear to get lower and lower until it's actually obscured by the convergence point. The stars do the same thing, and basically the equator is the cutoff point for you. What is that distance? Well, the equator is a distance where Polaris disappears from you. What is that 4,000 miles from the North Pole? That's not a large distance. 5,500 because it's not the radius of the Earth, is it? It's greater. Okay, so what you have is a post hoc justification that doesn't match observations. Okay, that's fine. Anyway, continue, continue. I'm sorry to interrupt. Next one coming in from BeBall4Life says, Bev, why do surveyors manuals say geodetic surveys of large areas are affected by and must take into account the curvature of the Earth, location on the Earth, surface, and elevation above sea level? The elevation is measured from a horizontal base, from the datum on a vertical datum, and I think what he's talking about, they say over 100 square miles, I think. Any project over 100 square miles is where they take into geodetic. Anything under that would be classed as plain as surveying, as are all the tools of plain as surveyor tools. No, they take it into account when making bridges. Don't have to be over 100 miles. This one comes in, Decepticons Forever, who says, how do tides work on a flat Earth right the hand? Oh yeah, that's an easy one. So my flat Earth is the Pac-Man, right? I've heard of it, Pac-Man Earth. Things just go from one side to the other. I'm working on the portal, whatever why. So picture a wave. If you had a wave that just went across, the down part of the wave is your low tide, and then as the wave comes up, that's your high tide. So if you had a wave slowly moving across the flat Earth, or the flat plain Earth, you would have high tide where the crest is, and low tide where the valley is. What causes the waves? Bro, you're asking me what causes the sun? I don't know. I can tell you what causes the sun actually. Gravity and gaseous clouds. But what causes those waves? Gravity and gaseous clouds. Where did those waves come from? Did they just magically appear? Did something create them? And if so, what? Maybe the wave has something to do with the sun moving over How would the sun cross the waves? How does space-time bending change the difference between the hands? High tide and gaseous, I'm playing that. Let's hear from Ross. I have a very real explanation for why the tides exist from the plain Earth, and they are linked exactly to the Moon. The Moon is held alive above it by a weak diamagnetic force, which as it evolves in the numbers, it's a repelling force. You cannot pull water, but you can push water. Try using a straw above the water, and try to suck water in with the straw above the water, but then try blowing on it. You can easily repel water. So what the Moon is doing by this weak force is actually pushing the oceans around in front of it. Now as it goes around on the circuit, of course, it hits the coastline of a continent, and the water can go no further. That's the high tide, and then the water starts receding and going back. Water has a backwash effect. It's part of fluid dynamics. And so as the water goes back again, it creates a secondary high tide back on the opposite shore from which it came. By which time the Moon has made a full circle, 24 hours, 50 minutes later, and starts repelling it forward again to create the next high tide back the other way again. So that's why we can get two high tides and two low tides every single day on the stationary plain Earth, but you cannot have two high tides and two low tides on the globe with one Moon pulling the oceans in one direction, to get one massive high tide and one massive low tide every 24 hours. Any thoughts, Paul? We haven't heard from you for a while, Paul. No, I haven't got any thoughts. This is the muddiest thing I've ever taken part in. Dapper, are you still there? I am, sorry. I was muted because there was a dog barking. So I will give Ross this. He at least actually answered the question, but again demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the standard model which he's seeking to criticize which in fact does account for the two, well, just over twice daily tide cycle because the tide cycle doesn't take quite 24 hours. So yeah, it's just another example of the flat Earth side just failing to actually understand... Oh, sorry. Yeah, you're right. So it's just another example of the flat Earth side failing to actually understand the model they claim to be criticizing. So it's very... But do you have no explanation for the secondary high tide? I should jump into the next one. Maybe I can find that the Earth is pulled through the ocean for the second one. Gentlemen, we should jump into the next one. Can I give a response? They can make it quick, really quick. I hate to say no, but we have a lot of questions. Do want to say, we appreciate your question, especially for... It is for you, Leo. Cider in port says, for Leo, in your opinion, why is there a correlation between someone's opinion on the flatness of the Earth and this... Okay, gosh, looking for more serious questions. Leo will give you a chance to respond since this wasn't a serious question. What did you want to say? So the reason that tides exist is because of the gravitational force that the Moon exerts on the Earth. So I believe Ross is the name. He is right when he says that it is the Moon and as a result of the Moon, orbits the Earth slightly faster than the Earth rotates. And as the Moon comes around the Earth, the ocean tides, and obviously I'm exaggerating, will move upward toward it due to the gravitational pull and that results in what we call tides. And this is why other gravitational forces that can even actually physically stretch and move moons or other planets, like we see with some moons of Jupiter, this is why we call them tidal forces or tidal effects because they result from gravity. You've got a few moons in the one day, two tides, but there's only one Moon. Where's the second high tide come from? It's emergent from the fact that when water is pulled in one direction, it has to come from the sides and that lateral motion is differential to the opposite side of the bulge, which means that relative to the low tide, there is a less high but still high tide opposite the Moon, which the tide itself is offset due to the rotation of both the Moon and the Earth. No, that would be the light tide. I know that's what you think, but that's not what the model is. We must go to the next one. John W says, I love this channel. Respect to you friends. Even if I do not agree, I love hearing ideas and knowledge. John W, thanks for your support and you can find all of our desks, links in the description. And Titanicus Andronicus, thanks for your question said, if equations are wizardry, then algebra is black magic. Great show. Thanks for that. And John W says, globe Earth, but I may be ignorant. It just makes more sense. Love the debate. Thanks so much. Appreciate it, John W, for your support. The craw daddy says, I like flat earthers. Let's see. If I quickly address that first comment you made about the black magic. Go ahead. Because it's quite ironic is that the globe depends 100% entirely upon this black magic, which they call the dark force or dark energy, dark matter. And I say that it's 70% stronger than gravity itself. So first they invent gravity to make the world possible, but then to make the universe possible, stop it all floating into singularity. They use this dark force or dark matter, which has never been speaking, but they can tell that it exists because of the wizardry and formulas. Next up, B-Ball for life says, the stars are 70 miles away. Wow. So the stars are closer to me than California. And I, and I'm Hawaii. I don't, I think they're saying I'm in Hawaii. I don't know. But they say, are the stars closer to B-Ball for life than California is? What I was saying is the apparition of the stars are 70 miles away. The true star might be any given distance above that that we would never know because the firmament is the place where we get the first reaction of the electrostimulation of these various things that create the energies that create light in the firmament. Then with the sun, of course, being the greatest of them all and the stars. But they all appear in the firmament, which is why the ancients have always said that the stars and the sun are in the firmament because that's to all intents and purposes where they appear to us in it. Whereas there could be any massive distance above it. John W. says, I am more interested in the awesome work of the middle guy on the whiteboard. Well, so it's very interesting to see the different gadgets and things on screen there. Mr. Wilford says, for the Flat Earthers, explain in particular right the hand and Bev why standard candles don't allow us to stay or to say starts our million slash billions of light years away. So is this guy's argument because there's candles that a star is a billion miles away? Wait, you don't know what the term standard candle means, even. Oh, wow. Candle light luminosity. Okay, things have really harsh. Bro, because I didn't hear what he said, bro, chill out. So because something has a candle-watt hour and we call the brightness candle-watt, that means something can be a trillion miles away. No, that's not what that is. All right, yeah. Let's hear briefly, Dapper, if you're willing to share what a standard candle is and then we can give a chance to from right the hand. So a standard candle is an object of a known absolute luminosity. So we know exactly how bright it is from a given distance. And then when we see that particular object, we can measure its apparent luminosity and then use the inverse square law to calculate its distance. Because if you have its apparent luminosity in the inverse square law, you only have one unknown variable in that distance. You just rearrange it with algebra, you get the distance. Yeah, so have you ever like gotten right next to the sun and then walked 10 feet away from it and know what the brightness is? There's nothing to deal with. Hold on, hold on, let me just say. Or are you saying because a candle behaves like this, the sun which doesn't sit on a desk burning wick should behave like the candle? That's ridiculous. We don't shoot the candle or any type of candle light. I'm so sorry. Moving in the sky above me, then I'll believe that stars are millions of miles away, man. You're a poem. I'll tell you what, you have to be a poem. Right the hand, when you figure out a way for the sun to work differently that doesn't involve special cleaning, let me know. You're saying every day we wake up and see a sunrise and a sunset and you're going, how does that work? No, I know how it works. How things work, you just see that they work. So when you, hold on, so when you ask me, how does the sun work, you're somehow thinking that you can see why something happens and the thing that happens. No, you see the sunrise and the sunset, that's it. Now, if you want to believe that's because the ground you stand on is spinning, that's fine. I'm going to cut in. You did that as well, yes. But Sigma, any thanks for your question. Said human beings are intriguingly diverse critters. Thanks for that. Kango24 says for Bev, do you understand the difference between objects that are small and objects that are far away? You have some father Ted here. He's between you. Yeah, of course. Bev. We're all intents and purposes. It's the same thing, isn't it? Did he give you a lot of money for that? I'm sorry, I need to mute myself. The large thing will look very small. Further away, whereas a small thing will look quite large up close, but it's all perspective. Wait, wait, hold on. Just really, really quickly. Can I ask you a question? It will be even smaller when it's further away. This could be really, really quick. This is really, really quick. Ten seconds, Leo. Yes. Ross, so does that mean that a sphere can look flat really, really close, but far away it can look spherical? Because that would follow from what you just said. You'd still see curvature, because any sphere, by definition, has sphere. So you're conceding. All right. You can continue, James. The sphere is the surface of constant curvature. You got a little response. I don't know if he's done. Go ahead, Ross. I was just telling you, sphere, by definition, has sphericity or curvature in all directions. It doesn't just exist in the far distance where it's out of sight, out of mind. You must be seeing it lecturized as well for it to be spherical. Yeah, he's conceding. It's what you will see on the sphere. He will say that. Oh, yeah. A little bit impulsive, buddy. I hate to call you out for that, but jeez. All right. John W., thanks for your question, says, I am driven to drink because this is my life the way it is, but flat earth versus globe. Thank you for that. T. Fish says, saying anything is over a trillion miles away is a maniacal fantasy. I don't understand how this is even a debate anymore. I'm sorry that big numbers confuse you. That's all I got. Decepticons forever. We must jump to the next one. Decepticons forever says, Emil from Robocop doesn't understand distance. Sad. Who's Emil from Robocop? Next up, Chris says, question for Globers. Which unis did you guys learn this mysterious math wizardry? I've heard so much about Hogwarts. The University of Massachusetts in Lowell. Gotcha. And two seconds. Want to remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description. We've got more questions right now. The page is just loading. Very embarrassing. But thank you guys so much for your questions. This next one coming in from ENDOXD who says, do you not know Einstein's theory of general relativity? Gravity is the curvature of space time. Saying that's ridiculous is an argument from incredulity. That's an argument from actual observation of reality. We don't see anything called space and time curving. Yes, we do. So when we watch gravitational lensing happen, which we see all the time. The observations that Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington made in 1917 that confirmed general relativity were observing stars further out from the sun than what they should be because their light was being curved by the sun's gravity. This is how general relativity was confirmed. Yes, we have literally observed the lensing of light due to the results of gravitational fields. Utilize this every day in calculations. This is well accepted amongst all astrophysicists and cosmologists. Anybody denying it straightforwardly just does not understand the mathematics. Or it does not. Because it should be. It should look like this, but it doesn't. Bro, how do you know what something should look like? The only way it looks like it looks. If you think it should look like something else, that's irrelevant to how it looks, bro. So your whole argument was it should look like this. It doesn't. It looks like it does. Therefore, we're right. So you don't know how predictions work in science. That's fine. This next one coming in from do appreciate your question. This one is from the craw daddy 029 says, How does the flat earth explain how distances on the globe earth work out correctly to scale? But the flat earth map does not. I take that one. All of the measure distances are either measured are vertical for elevation or horizontal for distance in between points. They're the only two frames of reference that we have horizontal and vertical navigation on the flat earth model would be almost impossible. Next up, man. Well, you can't measure distance across water there. Can you? That's the problem. Yes, you can. You can activate it by by average. Anyways, continue. We're talking about actual measurements. And you just anyway. Yeah, I wasn't able to definitely measure your distance. An odometer in the water because you've got water currents. You've got all sorts of different things that can affect it. You can work at average speed. Estimate how far you've gone or knots of miles, which is a rate of knots of a road leaving the boat. Not at all miles. Nots because it's not a roll. And that will tell you speed by how fast the rate comes out the back of the boat if we have to wind it back in and start again. Yeah, nautical miles are done by latitude as opposed to real miles, which is based on a globe. Based on using circular geometry around the center point to use for navigation. You use latitude lines in ever increasing circles around the middle point, which naturally then a nautical mile gets bigger and bigger the further outward you go. Because we haven't heard a ton from Paul. Paul, what were your thoughts on that? And then I'm going to jump to the next question. I have no idea what he was talking about on the last bit. But yes, you can measure distance over water, of course you can. Next up, Matthew Steele says, why has no flat earth ever taken just a single video from the edge of the earth? That's a reasonable question because there is no edge of the earth. We believe it's infinite, it goes forever. But the limits of where we can reach is Antarctica and there are thousands of videos about Antarctica showing a massive ice wall surrounding us. Juicy, Mark Reid, thank you for your question says, so if we set up a vacuum chamber, Ross, and drop objects, they still drop to the floor at the same speed, why would that happen? Because the vacuum is the absolute lack of resistance. Whereas, you know, if you drop the feather in air, a feather has some amount of air resistance. So that's why it gets resisted on its way down. Whereas, if you drop to the floor. Why does it fall down on that floor? Yeah, but why do they fall down at the same speed? Yeah, exactly. Why does it go down on that floor? They both lack resistance from the medium they're in. Yeah, but why do they fall down at the same speed? Well, they stop when they get to the floor. Without the resistance, what's dictating they fall down at the same speed? Could it be Newton's universal gravitational constant? You can call it whatever you like, but it's still the lack of resistance. An absolute lack of resistance. Which is defined by what? It falls by the fact of having mass in a in a place that has no mass to resist. Space time? Yeah. Yeah, curvature. Thank you. No, in a vacuum. Nothing to do with this curvature. It just falls straight down. Yeah, but why does it go down? If it's to do with density, and you've taken everything out of the chain, but apart from the object, why does the object fall down and not go up? How does it go up? Good question. Where the resistance force always comes from beneath. That's what that's university being. How do we determine that? What experiments determine that? Mathematics defines it. We don't need mathematics. You just need logical observation. Yes, you do. Look that everything comes to rest when something of sufficient density resisted from falling any further. How do you define your observations if you're not using mathematics? Do you realize how dependent physics is on math? Relative density, mate. Like, relative density says... How do you mathematically define that? It's sufficiently... Well, you can measure it by how much volume it takes up and how much of weight. What's the equation? You really need to do it mathematically, but the mathematics is irrelevant to the reality of what's actually happening. Would you put it on a vertical scale? Wait, you guys are saying mathematics is irrelevant in your physics? I mean, I'm not surprised by that. But if you understand what physics is, you'll know why mathematics is so important. The mathematical explanation for it. The mathematical explanation is irrelevant to why it does it. The mathematical explanation just explains what happens and the amount it happens. Of course, why it happens is because there's no resistance beneath it to prevent it from happening. So why does it fall down and not up? It's a vertical change, isn't it? So why is it vertical in one direction and not the other? Vertically, that's your geometry. That's your mathematics. Why is it vertical in one direction but not the other? Why is it going one direction but not the other? Vertical is up and down, isn't it? Yes, but so why does it go down and not up? Because it's not a gas and it's not lighter than what we're using. Okay, yeah, look, we pull the gas out. How does it go down? I appreciate your guys' gusto. Just that we have more questions. Sleepy Dan says my glass of ice doesn't get heavier as it melts into a more dense liquid. Relative density is bunk and easily proven wrong. Well, that's ridiculous as well because when the ice freezes, it expands. So it takes up more space, which is why it floats in water. But as it melts and becomes back to a liquid state of water, it's still water. It doesn't increase in weight. It's still the exact same amount of water it began with. Next up, the Craw Daddy 029. This is a two-parter. He says that's not oceans razor, but it's weird. I think they must have meant Occam's. That's not Occam's razor, but it's weird for you to say the simplest answer is the most likely correct. What's more likely that there is a major world conspiracy? A project managers nightmare of people keeping the Flat Earth a secret or that the world is just a sphere? Well, the sphere is the manufacturing thing which we're all brought up from childhood to believe. So you've got no reason to disbelieve the adults who taught you as you grew up. It's only as you grow up and start to think for yourself that you start to question the dominant paradigm of what we're told is reality. As soon as you realize, hang on a second, it takes many of us many years before we start to question what we're told to believe in. We think we live on evolve. Of course we believe it because all authorities say so, but all of these authorities have been indoctrinated with the same stuff from their childhood as well. They've got no reason to question it. They never did. And if they did, they would become the laughing stock of their school or their college or whatever. And they get laughed out of society. They get treated as a prior as Flat Earth is often due. And so most people just go along to get along. They don't want to rock the boat. They want to keep their cruisy jobs or whatever it is, their happy income. Most politicians, they never considered it one way or the other. They just think, of course it's a global issue, so that's what everybody believes. Everybody wants to be popular and for what, to say the popular thing. You don't want to go against the grain. You just simply want to... Next. So this lie has been going for 2,000 years. It hasn't. It hasn't. Yes, it has. You've been told it has. It's only been going for like 50 years, really. Sure. So 100 years ago they didn't know that the Earth was a globe. So you're saying 100 years ago they didn't know the Earth was a globe. It takes us a few more times in the early 1900s of the Flat Earth with the Ice Wall. Do you think that the globe Earth has only existed for the last 50 years? How tall is the Ice Wall? Who cares about how tall it is? Well, I mean, if it exists, obviously we've been there by now. The question is, how long has this been going for? The debate has been raging since the beginning of time, really. It's been only going on for 50 years. But since Hollywood took off... There hasn't been a debate. ...and Universal Studios has started showing this image of the globe. And that same image is the same one that NASA showed us in the 70s or late 60s, whenever they took their first Blue Moon image. It matches the one that the Universal Studios has shown us since 1927. So they've known about it. Let's follow through with one quick thing, though. There is not a debate. There hasn't been a debate for over 2,000 years. What there is is a fun little entertainment where people clearly don't actually know the actual science or anything that they would need to criticize anything about science, come on and pretend that they know things that are flatly contradicted by obvious observations. That's what we have here. This is theater. This is the debate. There hasn't been a debate for over 2,000 years. Like I said, at the beginning I'm not actually convinced that you believe it's flat. I'm not convinced you believe it's flat. We'll give you a really short response, Ross, because I don't want to gang up on you, but then we got to go to the next one. So I'm just saying that nobody was there 2,000 years ago to know whether or not there was a debate raging. We know there was a debate. Except the people that were there. All the people writing histories. All right. And so we know that people were debating it. You've got Henry Rowe Bottoms and so forth who were doing experiments that proving it's flat. And so this debate was raging. And the only reason it was ever considered settled was because NASA started faking images through a round window of a high-altitude vehicle in the late 60s and said this is a picture of Earth from space. That was when it settled that we live on a blue ball in space. Mikey Riot says, James, you've got to host Leo again. He's brilliant. He's good. That's nice. Your mom's in the chat, Leo. But seriously, I want to let you know Leo and all of our guests are linked to the description. So folks do encourage you to check them out. We appreciate our guests. We're really glad to have them here. And so Mr. Wilford, thanks for your questions. Says, why do you profit-based airlines will plot their flight paths in fuel inefficient ways like they're accounting for the curvature of the Earth? Why waste fuel on millions of flights versus just flying in a straight line? Very good question. Why do profit-based airlines fly as if there is curvature in the Earth when they could save a heck of a lot of money by not flying that way? Exactly. Just plot it on the flat Earth map and you'll see they go in the straightest line possible without matching the globe whatsoever. Yeah, but the lines are curved. Yeah, when you put it on a navigational chart, it's good. Yeah, they're curved. They're geobethics. This isn't even hard to do. You can watch in many straight planes, you can watch where you are on a map of the Earth that is usually some kind of like mercator-like projection and you can watch your flight path curve and you can also look out the window and notice that what you see out the window matches what you should be seeing based on your flight path and it still works over land. If it were all over water, it would be hard to check, but it all lines up. So really, all you need to do to prove the Earth is a globe is take a flight of any great distance over land. Watch the television screen in front of you. No, watch that and then also look outside and then double check the map. You can also even have people stationed on the ground if you want to coordinate to spot your actual plane because they're plane tracking apps. You can say, hey, look, that's actually the plane. I think we should let the pilot in the plane. Oh, yeah, sorry. Give a comment. We do have a pilot. Let us know what's up. Yeah, along distance flights, if you plot it on a flat map, you will put a curve into it to account for the curvature of the Earth. On a short distance that I fly, I don't bother with that because I'm only doing 60 miles. But if any great distance, you include the curve for exactly what was said in the question to save on fuel and to save on distance. Yes. So if you fly like 2,000 miles, you're going to start here and then you're going to be directly under yourself. Yes. Because the Earth is much bigger than 2,000 miles in circumference. How many miles do you have to go before you're completely under yourself? Half the circumference. Yeah. And you feel that orientation change, right? Of course. No. Well, would you feel the orientation change? Would you say it's almost like you're flying over orientation-wise? You never feel the... So it's almost like you're just going... No, because it's the same center of gravity. I'm just saying how it feels. It feels like you're going flat. Yeah. It feels different. Because the center of gravity... That's a concession. I'll take your... Can I just ask? Of course you are horizontal to the globe. Horizontal. Okay. Yeah, you're always horizontal with the center of gravity. Is the amount of air curvature altitude dependent? What do you mean? Is the what? What's the amount of air curvature? In the atmosphere? Yeah, is the altitude dependent? Yeah. I mean, the higher up you go, the larger the diameter is going to be. What about the spin of the Earth beneath you? How do you account for that if it goes twice the speed of the airplane? Because the atmosphere is traveling with the globe at the same time. Exactly. It's all moving at the same time. Remember your whole thing about how you can't measure distance because of relative motion of the Earth? Yeah, we're doing that a thousand miles per hour. So... So what's... We'll do it... You pick it up. I'm going to hit it. It's going to be a thousand miles per hour. No. No, no, no, no. The atmosphere is having a turn at a thousand miles per hour. It turns relative to the speed given your position on the surface of the Earth. Because the closer to the pole as you go from the equator, the lower the surface velocity of the rotation of the Earth is. This is why when we talk about the rotation of the Earth, the Earth, the most accurate measurement is to say that it rotates at a rate of three degrees per hour, or 15 degrees per hour. Well, what is wind? Wind is a local motion. Yeah, it's a local motion of the wind relative to the surface of that area that is generally driven by differences in pressure, by pressure gradients and energy from the Sun. Yes, caused by the warm air currents. Yeah. But you just said the whole atmosphere is moving with the Earth. And the atmosphere is moving with the wind relative to the Earth. Wait, hold on. But inside that, it's fluid. Ross, have you ever been looking at a river or a creek flowing? And you'll notice that there are places where the river might start to circle or swirl or anything. There's backward motion in there in that river, but the river is still generally flowing in one direction. Same basic principle. The atmosphere of the Earth is very turbulent. It generally moves with the Earth, but there are points in it and areas in it where it's still rotating with the Earth, but that atmosphere is moving relative to the gradients in the pressure. The ground beneath the river isn't moving with the river. You know, the river is moving independent of the ground. The ground isn't moving with the river. I wasn't talking about the ground. I want to give Leo a chance to respond. And then we got to go to the next one. The ground is moving with the atmosphere. And so you're comparing the atmosphere to a river above a stationary ground and saying that the ground... You were using the river to explain what was going on. It wasn't comparing the two together. It was using the river to explain what you can see. I was using the concept of a river flowing, and then, like, if you put a rock in the middle of the river and get my grasp swirling to occur, but the river is still moving in the same general direction. It's the same thing with the river. There's turbulence. Let's let Leo finish. I promise I'll come right back to you, Rock. Just a little bit of your hand is stationary. There's... I'm not talking about the... The ground is not relevant here. It is relevant. What I'm... Not the example I gave you. I don't know how often you float in the river, but I've done it a lot. There's rocks and differences and everything like that that can cause the river, although it's flowing in one direction, there can be points where it swirls or points where it flows backward and then comes back around. That's called turbulence. We have that in Earth's atmosphere, despite the fact that it rotates because the friction of the surface of the Earth on the atmosphere over the billions of years that the Earth has been rotating will begin to drag on the atmosphere and cause the atmosphere to rotate with it. We have to bring in the billions of years, don't you, to say that this is why the atmosphere is with the Earth? We know that the Earth has existed for billions of years. So, I mean... The water is flowing through the river banks and so the wind is moving independent of the Earth it's not moving with the Earth. The Earth is like the river banks. The wind is moving independently. Because you're saying that the wind is also moving at 1,000 miles per hour with the Earth. Can I just get a quick one in there, Ross, please? Leo, would that make the... cause the air's curvature? Would that mean the curvature of the water level would also be elevation dependent? I want to let Leo answer, then we have to go to the next question. I mean, if you're talking about the relative angle on a sphere, when you move from the center out to the full circumference, the angle of two lines finding those points will increase. So, you could say that theta, your angle, will increase. If that's what you mean, then yes. So, you just have to go further into it. The amount of curvature of the water... We must go to the next one. I hate to do that. But the Crodetti 029 says, how does the Flat Earther side explain that when you go south and get to Antarctica and turn left to follow it, you make all right turns around it? Are the only person confused by that? I would like to know if he's done that. Has he done that traveling trip to confirm that's what happens, or is he just going on his model in his head? Next up, Magellan says, Flat Earthers, why does celestial navigation require spherical trigonometry to get a position fix? It doesn't. It does. Yes, it does. It requires that it has to be done through a triangle. If you don't use a triangle, you can't triangulate. So, you don't know what spherical geometry is. You have to have a spherical angle. Leo, that's been pretty clear for a while. Let's do your navigation. I mean, it has. That's not celestial navigation. Magellan. Magellan. That's our navigation via GPS. You've got two or more towers. You can pinpoint his position because the towers are fixed. While you're moving, it will tell you where you are. Paul, is this true? GPS are on towers. So, explain how you can get GPS signal in the middle of the ocean. Exactly. It's radio signals. Radio signals propagate for hundreds, if not thousands of miles. Man, if only radar horizons weren't a thing, so many lives could have been saved in World War II because it would have been impossible to ambush fleets on the ocean. And yet it still happens. Tell me if somebody was able to talk to for life with a normal ham radio, even though he had illegal crystals in it, which gave him channels that you're not supposed to have here. With the radios, you bounce off the atmosphere to go across the canal. I used to do that myself. Tony, you can't always do that because it's dependent on atmospheric conditions. Exactly. It's dependent on what the atmosphere is doing at the time. You get the AL sphere, which you can bounce the radio signal off it so you can go a further distance. And that's decreasing density of anything. There's more nothingness than anything. Your gravity works in the first place. The stronger the gravity pull is, then the more dense the air gets lower down, hence being the air pressure gradient according to gravity, where we just call it the volume of it and the amount of it pressing down on you. But if you're getting up to the ionosphere, you're talking about nothing. But if it was an actual phone, then you could actually bounce something off it like radio waves. You do bounce stuff off the ionosphere. Ross doesn't know how electromagnetic radiation works. Clary says, thanks for your question. Can Bev explain how right-line geometry defines the Euclidean three-space of our world? Yeah, easily. Thanks, Clary. The right lines are the two right lines that make a right angle. They are a horizontal plane and a vertical. Those two reference frames are the reference frames that we use in reality all the time. We use a tool called a level to establish a horizontal and then we measure vertical change. That vertical change from that horizontal is an elevation change. I mean, that's how it works in reality. Gotcha. Next up, this one's horizontal. I can't see. I can't. Oh, there it is. Now we can. What? The right line. Circle I've done is horizontal. Put a level on it. Yeah. Yeah. Is that horizontal? Nah, that looks vertical. If you're on the globe. It's not. It isn't the center of gravity. It's the center of gravity. Horizontals don't turn into verticals. They just don't. The horizontal to the globe. We must jump into the next one. Matthew Steele says, Leo, are you familiar with cat earth theory? If the earth were flat, cats would push everything off of it. That's funny. Yes, I am familiar with that. Cats don't like water, so they're not going to swim all the way to Antarctica. It's a little bit too cold. Cats would become icicles in no time at all. Anyway, I was going to also say, Leo, I'm sincerely sorry I was so rude to you earlier. I feel seriously. You were rude to me? I was, yes. And I'm sorry for that. So I seriously, I do apologize for getting a little snippy. And I was a little. That's not good. I don't remember that, but it's okay. Thanks for your short memory. Yes, thank you. But yes, we do appreciate our guest folks. And so if I remember a little bit cranky as a moderator, forgive me, we do appreciate them a lot. And they are linked to the description. Also, DapperDino has an after show, which is pinned to the top of the chat as well. And I will be sending the link to join that in the same email chain that we're all in. So any of the panel members are able to, if they want to, I realize it's very late in some places. So I get it. If you might not want to, but it will be an option. And the crawdaddy. The crawdaddy029 says, how do flat earthers explain that there are flat earthers all around the globe? That meme, I'm curious. They need to do a global too. Even, I mean, Flat Earth Aussie, Kent Hovind, he loves this meme. I don't know if you know this, but Kent Hovind, he's not a flat earther, and he loves showing this meme of some, apparently a flat earther who posted on Facebook, join the Flat Earth Club. But we've got clubs all around the globe. James, that's who you need to get to be the the globe defender on your next Flat Earth Globe debate, is Kent Hovind? Yes. I've asked him. And Kent Hovind versus Nathan Thompson. We've asked for it many times, but he won't do it. I mean, I'll ask again, but thank you for your question, this one coming in from the Crod Daddy 029 says, why are Flat Earthers sofa? Oh, let's see. So wrong at what science concludes. Let's see, we haven't heard from the right hand. What are your thoughts? They agree, disagree? Science is the new religion, right? It's like, we all see the same effect and then science will try and get more from it, right? They'll tell you the why. So we, I can stand what a scientist can see the effect that he sees. Then he's going to be like, well, before we saw what we saw, I made a hypothesis. So now I know more about what we saw than you, and I can tell you why it happened. And I'm going to be like, well, if you saw the same thing I do, you can tell me why it happened. Then I should be able to say why it happened. So can I ask one really quick question to that? No, I was just a scientist. Do you know, right the hand, the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? There's no difference. They're both mental. Okay, yeah. That answers everything I needed. We can continue. Technicalities, Minda. I like Flat Earth Rossi, or Rossi. Are you having a brusque out there? It looks comfy, buddy. Buddy, I'm fine. An excellent question. Sigma N, he says, for the Flat Earthers, what would happen if we clip the string that tethers the sun to the great central axis? You don't believe that, do you? I did fly off into space. Okay, Brian Williamson says, I'll fight anybody here. Thank you, Brian. Did I miss any? Let me just check if there are any last ones. We do have another one. This one comes in from Mr. Wilford. Thanks for your questions. Why did the, we can't say this word on stream. NAZIS. All the national socialists. That's right. Have to account for the curve of the earth when using the Gustav Railway gun. Right the hand? I mean, you're at your risk. So because the Nazis might have used the gun. Oh, there it goes. So weird. That's all right. Just answer that question. Because Nazis are liars, bro. You know, they'll lie about something to get what they want, which is power and. So they were lying to each other about how to aim their gun so that they could lose the war so they could get power. Did they win the war? Check out. Did they win the war? That checks out. Is it because they were lying to themselves about how to fire their guns? Is that really the claim you're going with? The Germans hated everything, including themselves so much that they lied to themselves about how to aim a gun. From a train. They thought the earth was a spear. They lost the war because they couldn't aim right. So all the Allied artillery men were not taking it into account. Is that what we're going with? They would have won the war if they would have taken this into account and they wouldn't have been missing and they wouldn't have lost. So maybe if they knew the earth was flat and they didn't account for curvature, they would have had more direct hit. In the inevitable flat, this is Globe Earth Civil War. Good luck with the aiming tables for your artillery, guys. Yes. The Germans actually found the escape route underneath their tactical with their U-boats and so after they had won, they decided to just concede an escape and leave it to the evil Allies who think they won when they actually lost. I said too much. Next up, this one coming in from Chris says, no radio is bounced off the firmament. No, that's a good point. No, no. No, Leo, we just lost. Let's pack it up. Yeah. Oh, shit. I don't know what to say to that. On a serious note, learn how electromagnetic radiation works. Brian Williamson says, should I buy Bitcoin, gentlemen? I'm going to go ahead and say, if you have money that you don't actually really need right now, then sure, fine, spend some of it on Bitcoin. But never put more into something as volatile as Bitcoin than you can afford to lose. Treat it like a casino with, granted, slightly better, well, a lot better odds than most casinos, but still treat it like you're going to the casino. If you have an extra 20 bucks to spare, sure, put it in Bitcoin. I don't care. Silver has won $18 an ounce to $28 an ounce. Juicy. And Azean says, Kallel is God, and he told me the world was a cat and not flat. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. See, he told me it was a dodecahedron, so now I think we have a schism coming. Uh-oh. I'm going to take over the world. It's always fun, folks, and do want to remind you, yes, we appreciate our guests, and they're linked in the description. You can hear plenty more where all of these answers came from. We do want to encourage you to check out their links below. And so, thank you, all of our guests. It's been a true pleasure to have you, and especially thank you, Paul, for staying up super late with us. Paul, what time is it there? It is 20 to 4 in the morning, but this is one of the best and maddest things I've taken part in. Cheers to you, Paul. That is some dedication to us. I probably wouldn't be doing it if it were 4 in the morning. It's all right, because I'm going to go downstairs in a minute. I get myself a Jack Daniels. I'm going to log on to your aftershock. Well, thank you very much. That link will be forthcoming right after we go off here. So... Okay, no worries. So, thank you, guys. It's been a true pleasure. Leo, Paul, Dapper, write the hand, as well as Bev and Ross. Thank you for hanging out with us. It's been a true pleasure. Always enjoyable, James. Thanks for having me. And thanks, everybody. Yeah, a little bit. It's been a... Yeah, this has been a really fun one, you guys. I love this format. Like, this has just been really high in energy. And so, thank you, guys. It was honestly a blast. And also, want to let you know, folks, I'll be back in just a minute with a post-credits scene on upcoming debates. We do have one tomorrow night. You won't want to miss it. We have a lot of other ones coming up that are juicy. So, stick around for that. I'll be right back. Thanks, everybody. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Ladies and gentlemen, that was a blast. Thank you, guys, so much. I really enjoyed that. You guys, that was seriously really fun. Thanks for hanging out with us at Modern Day Debate. We appreciate you guys. Thanks so much. I love getting to get to say hello and just hang out with you guys at the end here. This is always fun for me. So, saying hello to you in chat. Planet X, glad you made it. Fernando, we're glad you were here. Freddie Fastfinger, thanks for coming by. Who says, invest in gold. It's the only true currency. Thanks for coming by. And third finger from the right. Good to see you again. Megan Saitanis, good to see you again. Epricot Sloth, glad you're back. What, glad you're back. And Kemet Kemet, good to see you again. Mark Reed, glad you made it. Thanks for being with us and Mind Onion. Thanks for coming by again. Long time viewer, Mind Onion. You've been hanging out here a long time. I was like, were you all the way back when we used to be called Modern Day Hysteria? But yeah, Spretchen C. Globetardia. Thank you for hanging out with us. We're glad you're here. And Nate Cross, glad you're here. Fox Sushi, hello my friend. Jokers wild, good to see you again. Kirk Welsen, thanks for coming by. Trolling for truth, glad you're here. John Pelosi, glad you're back friend. Albert Bitcoin, Robert Page, and John Skizidik. Thank you for being with us. We are glad you came by. Sleepy Dan, thanks for being here. Marion Gran Burheim, good to have you. And Patrick Vaughn, thanks for coming by. Hey you, glad you came by. Joe the Toe, good to see you again, man. General Balzac, good to see you again. Hoping to get you on here in maybe the next several weeks for a possible tag team debate on capitalism versus socialism. Should be fun. And Mariko Mud, glad you're here. Helioskeptic, thanks for coming by. I said, it went better than I thought. Oh, I'm glad to hear that. Lambie, it went, I was awesome. I loved it. It was a great event. Lambie, good to see you, BV. Thanks for coming by. Fox Sushi, John W., thanks for being with us. And let's see here. I'm catching up with chat. Thank you guys. It's always fun though. Known Universe, we're glad you're here. And Billy Blue Heron, good to see you again. He says, personally, I love this channel. I'm sorry for trolling the comment section so often, but seriously, I think the elevated debates are the best. Flat Earth, eh, not so much. Well, we're glad you're here. And Human Girl, good to see you. And question the answers. Glad you're here. I said, James, thank you for an awesome show, my brother. Thank you. And man, we see Ross Thatcher in the live chat. We can't thank the guests enough. They're the lifeblood of the channel, and they make it fun. And so thanks for coming to party with us. Dapper Dino, Leo, and Paul, as well as Ross, Bev, and right the hand. It was a blast. And Mike W. 777-220 says, thanks for the forum. My pleasure, Mike. Thanks for being with us. Bond says, howdy, James. Good to see you, my dear friend. Hope you're well. And then, yeah, I just love getting your feedback, folks. Nomadteacher says, hi, James. How are you? I hope you're doing well. Thanks for being with us, Nomadteacher. And then Third Finger of the Rite says, don't forget about Twitch. Oh, you're right. Sorry, Twitch fam. Loose Seal. Is it pronounced Loose Seal? Thank you for being with us. Ozzie, and thanks for your Twitch subscriptions, by the way. Seriously, thanks so much. And Toppatsul, thanks for making those emo. They look great in the chat. Move37, thanks. I agree. Much love to you, my friend. And, yeah, those emo's look legit. I love them. So MysticWarrior1137, thanks for coming by. He says, flat Earth debates are always the best, great show, James. Thanks so much. That means a lot. I'm glad you liked it. Kai, Reason says, races are plagued with the same ego struggles as flat Earthers. Sorry, I didn't mean to take a side. I try not to read those. But I just sometimes I read something without processing what it's actually saying. So, but yes, B, badass says, sorry I never got to chat much, but I always listen. My job is caretaking an elderly client. Oh, that's cool. Well, that's a noble job. That's really cool. So good for you. And Billy, whoa, glad you're here. And yeah, you guys, I am excited though that the funny thing is the podcast, the flat Earth debates, when we upload those onto podcast, they do really well. So it's like it's funny that the people who listen to the Modern Day Debate podcast, they also love flat Earth debates. And that makes sense because most of the people that listen to our podcast learned about it through the YouTube channel, right? So like I usually mention, which I will mention you guys, we uploaded a really good one today. It was Dr. Josh and Sirus Skeptic. They debated praise, and I'm trying to remember who else it was, but two Christians on biblical slavery in the Old Testament. I just uploaded that to the podcast this morning. Folks, you don't want to miss that one. That's a, it was a really fun one. I was there that night. I got to moderate it. It was a blast. And so I would encourage you folks. Yeah, it's like, if you're already on your phone, well, how convenient is that? You'd pull up your favorite podcast app right now and you can find Modern Day Debate. I guarantee it. We are, I've worked really hard to get us on virtually every app there is. Like Apple podcasts. What are the other ones? Let me think two seconds here. I'm going to pull this up because I love this little, this little deal here. Oh wait, I'm gone. Here, let me see. I know where it is. Hold on. There it is. Oh, here we go. Yeah. Stoked. You guys, as we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics, and pretty much every topic you can think of. If you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button, folks, as we are really excited about upcoming debates, which I told you I'd tell you about, and I'm going to right now. Tomorrow is anti-theism rational. It's going to be Amy and Raging Atheist against Sal and John Maddox. So that should be a juicy one. And here they are. Here are those podcasts. So right over here, check us out in your favorite podcast app. Stitcher, we're on, we're on Apple podcasts, we're on iTunes, Spotify, podcast addict, which that's the one I actually use. I use podcast addict. That's just the first one I ever used and I stuck with it. But yeah, we're also on Google podcasts. I'm curious. Well, let me know, chat. What podcasts do you guys mostly use? I asked this once before, but I'm trying to remember because we want to be sure that we're on your favorite podcast. And so if we somehow aren't, let me know because we really do try to work hard. And so I've been so encouraged, though, like I said, people are like, oh, it's great for when I'm cleaning. I'm like, you know, doing workouts. You know, I'm taking a walk. Sometimes people listen to it on their commute to work. And so that's encouraging. And it's nice. Like long form content. One nice thing about it is you don't have to like constantly, like, you know, click down to the, you know, play the next video or the next song or whatever because it's long. So it'll last you an hour and a half if we have to click on the screen again. But anyway, Albert Bitcoin, good to see you. And Brenda, good to see you again. As well as question the answers. Got to say hello. Thanks for being with us. General Bosak says, be glad to do so. Partner seems up and down on it. I'll hit him up again tonight. Good to know that. Crawdaddy029 says, you didn't read my two part question. Oh, I'm 99% sure that I did. I'm like, I'm not joking. I really do remember reading that one because I remember I said, I was like, this is a two parter. So unless you had two two parters, but I'm telling you, I really did read it. Let me know if you did, but I only saw one that said like part one. And then you wrote it out. And then the next super chat, it said part two. And then I had the, like the remainder of the question. Unless did I not read the second part? Maybe that was the mistake. I don't know. Let me know. But let's see here. Brooke Chavis, thanks for your support. Said thank you for another amazing debate. It was amazing. And but yeah, let's see here. The other, let's see. Oh, okay. So Brian Williamson says, Apple podcast, Saffron listens to more than once. A Spotify and iTunes equally. Oh, that's interesting. And let's see. But yeah, I am super excited. You guys, as the podcast is, it's exciting that it's, like I said, I, when I first started it, I was like, is people are people going to use this? And I was like, is I am I wasting my time? And oh, baby, it's grown. Like people are really finding us on their favorite podcast app. And if you want to support the channel, I would say, rating us. If you give us a rating on your favorite podcast app, that helps too. And so we do appreciate that. So let's see. Third finger from the right says, don't forget about Twitch. Oh, you're right. Let me jump back over there again. But yeah, Ozzy and thanks again for all of your support and to Potsail again, those dank emotes and Twitch. If you guys haven't seen it, I do want to share that with you. Let me put the Twitch, our Twitch. So I'm putting the link to our Twitch, you guys. If you are listening via YouTube, I'm putting that in the chat right now. And then I will, what's the word I'm looking for? I will pin it to the top of the chat. So that way you, if you have not checked out our Twitch yet, you can. And also want to remind you if you use an Amazon Prime subscription for Twitch, which we appreciate. If you do that, thanks for doing that. Want to remind you that you have to, I think it's like every 30 days, Twitch will ask you to like reset it. You'll have to like go back in and like reset it. And so thanks again, if you're willing to do that for us, we appreciate that support. And it's, yeah, if you have Amazon Prime, a lot of people don't know, you have a free Twitch subscription that you can use. You can give to any streamer you want. And so we do appreciate when people do that for us. It helps a lot. And so thank you guys. And then let's see, the crowd at 0 to 9 says you didn't, oh, sorry, I read that one. But yeah, let's see here. That's funny. Amazing, matter form. Thanks for being with us. This question, I would like to collab to make your some motion graphic versus VS intros. What is the best way to get ahold of you guys? Thanks matter form. I appreciate that. That's really nice of you. Matter form, I am going to right now, I'm tagging you in the live chat with my email, which is moderndaydebate at gmail.com. So thank you for being willing to help. And let's see. Bal Diablo, thanks for being with us. And S Ibn, no, S Ibn, Henry Abdullah, thanks for being with us. G Cash, good to see you. Glad you're here. And I'm almost caught up on the chat. Be badass as I try the email on your YouTube channel, but it says it doesn't exist. That's wrong. It definitely exists. Trust me. You might, I think you, if you did try it, I know it's the right one because I get emails from it. So it might just have been a typo. Sogna Metal, Windier, thanks for being with us. We're glad you're here. Resoad of Gores says, great debate today. Do you think the uptick in audience for Flat Earth Debates is something akin to the old circus? That's funny, your buddy. It's always fun. We do enjoy a good Flat Earth Debate. We've had a lot of them. I think we're going to take a short break where it might be, I don't know, maybe a week, at least a week, until we have another Flat Earth Debate. Maybe even two. I mean, we might go crazy. We love doing them. It's a lot of fun. Steve Coates says, thanks again for creating this channel. Thanks, Steve, for your encouragement. That seriously means a lot. I really do appreciate it. So thanks so much for your support because it's, I do love it. It's fun. And that's our whole gig. As we've always said, hey, we want to really encourage people and just say, hey, no matter what position you have, we want to be open to letting everybody make their case. And hopefully we do it in a way that's fair to everybody. And so John, excuse the dillick, says, thanks, James. And then Bbata says, would you consider nutrition and fitness a scientific debate? I would love to see people debate different health related topics. I'm kind of a health nut. We're open to it, especially on related to veganism. That would be, it would ideally be like bigger, you know, I can't remember his name. I think it's like Lane. But if it was like Lane and Vegan Gaines, like that would be a cool debate. Prodigy 029 says, is this possible? I just didn't hear you read it. That might be. I don't know. Let me know. If I missed it, I'm really sorry and shoot me an email and I can send, I can Venmo it back. But I'm, I think I got it. I read them out of order though. I do remember that crawdaddy because sometimes the page doesn't load. And I just read whatever Super Chat shows on the screen. So that might have been why you missed it too. So Chris Gammon says, hey James, I had to come and go tonight, but I really enjoyed the debate. Good to see you Chris. Thanks for coming by buddy. And Chris, I'm trying to remember, you're in Texas, right? Is it the Dallas area? Do I remember right? I'm, I know it's you're in a warm Southern climate. It's either Texas or Florida, but I think it's Texas. And that's why I envy you. I used to live in Texas and it was great. It was very warm. The winters were tremendous. You have, you guys believe me. But yeah, thank you guys so much. What says modern day Flat Earth awakening? And Wayne Templar, good to see you again. It's been a while man. But yeah, I am excited about the future. And so thank you guys so much for your support. We are excited about the future. Oh, let me let me tell you guys about other debates. This is not for sure. I've still got to ask. I've got to confirm it, but we're going to invite Destiny back on for this Sunday. Whether I can get ahold of him on time, that I'm figuring out. But we, we do enjoy a good old debate on it'll be capitalism versus. It'll be capitalism versus Marxism potentially if we get to host that. And so also though, you guys, I think it's next Monday. We might have Kent Hoven back on. I'm waiting on a secretary. I think she still didn't get back to me today. So I've got to respond. I've got to say, Hey, are you, did you forget about me? Like, what's going on? But basically, we are hoping to host another debate with Kent Hoven. So that should be a juicy one. You don't want to miss it folks. And that should be on Monday. And it should be with Maddie. So that should be a cool one. We're excited for it. And still confirming the deets on that, but also, you might be like, Well, what other debates James? Well, Tuesday, we're setting up one that is almost complete with JF versus socialism done left. So that should be a really fun one as well. And for some reason on my YouTube. Let me find this, you guys. This is super interesting. Oh, there, there's the Twitch chat. I can see the Twitch chat. Thank you, Sephir and said, I should watch here more often instead of YouTube. Yeah, the Twitch chat is fun. It's easy going. People are friendly in there. Kai reason says, I'm in Texas. I'd rather be in Washington personally to dry here. Hey, I know what you mean. Are you and you must be, I'm guessing you're West Texas. I lived in Lubbock and I loved it. I love the dry heat. Couldn't complain about that. Now I lost the chat. Oh, there it is. Here it is. Thanks for your patience game. Two seconds. But I think, yeah, I think Dylan, Dylan has an epic show. So we're going to raid his debate, his stream in just a minute. Because I think Dylan is live right now. So raid Dylan Burns TV. So slash a hype train is close. One more person needs to sub, gift or use bits. That's what Twitch says. What is a hype train? Oh, it actually answers it. It says a hype train starts when multiple people subscribe, use bits or gift subscriptions to the community. Once a hype train is underway, the community fills up the hype meter with more subs, gifts or bits. Everyone who contributes receives one unique emote based on the highest level completed. So, well, that's cool. I don't understand it, but I'm new to this Twitch thing. But we are learning it and I'm glad that the Twitch has been enjoyable for people. Okay, I'm going to raid. So if you're in the Twitch chat, I want to let you know we are about to raid Dylan Burns' channel. So let's see here. So I am about to jump over there. Dylan Burns has an epic debate tonight. And so it'll have Bosch and the crew they're debating and they've got a lot of people over there. So you guys, you don't want to miss it. It's going to be epic. And so I am doing that right now. You ready? Here we go. It's going to be epic, you guys. Eight viewers are ready. Seven viewers are ready. Eight viewers are ready. Nine viewers. Raid right now. So yeah, we are pumped. We hope it's fun over there as we always enjoy good old Dylan. We get along well with Dylan. We've enjoyed Dylan. And if you guys didn't see last Friday's debate, which Dylan graciously invited us into, it was absolutely awesome. And so we are really excited about that. And so yeah, I'm pumped, you guys. And so that debate last Friday was 100% epic. It was really, really fun. And so we enjoyed it. And I hope you did it. It did as well if you enjoyed it. And Lyric Edge, thanks for being with us. And let's see. Heat shield. Good to see you. Glad you were here. And so thanks everybody. I love you guys. Seriously, it's always fun. Human girl. Thanks for those hearts. Always so kind. And but yeah, you guys, seriously, we love you guys. Is there anything I can do to make your day better? Let me know. We really do. We hope that this is a fun time here. We hope it's a fun community. And also, yeah, it's like, I hope that it's just like, it's fun, you know? So let me know. General Balzac says, I must have missed that. I actually remember someone making that argument back on the non-sex show. Let's see, Before the Dark Times. Before the Dark Times. For the Empire. I remember. It's crazy. General Balzac says, is James expanding borders? We are expanding borders in a lot of ways. We are trying new stuff. Believe me, guys, it's honestly, we're excited about this summer especially. We're going to try some cool stuff, like in-person debates. We're going to get back into it. I'm excited that I've got my, I'm scheduled to get my first vaccine shot on Monday. And so it's exciting that hopefully in June, maybe even May. Yeah, I'm going to push for May. We'll be, you know, out and about and we'll be hosting debates and all that good stuff. So it's, yeah, it's going to be epic. So we are really excited about that to do some in-person debates. And those have always been fun in the past. And so I'm excited for it. And yeah, but yeah, I do love you guys. Thanks so much for making this fun. Like it's honestly, it's always a blast. So thank you guys. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. We hope you have a great rest of your night. Top hot too. Thanks for your super chat. So the hype train has won lots of people on a channel. Subscribe or give bits in a short time. You can then get special things from Twitch for adding more. Oh, well, that's okay. Gotcha. Well, that's cool. I'm excited that we're close to getting one today. And so someday it's cool. And so yeah, we are pumped though for the future, you guys. It's how I do. I'm just optimistic and you guys make me optimistic. You make me excited about the future and just about where everything is going. And so thank you guys for that. Brooke Chavez says, you all have a wonderful night and hit that like. Yeah, thanks. Totally appreciate it, you guys. Please do hit that like. And I am excited that, yes, we have plenty of flat earth debates on the podcast though, which is really cool. And so hopefully that's useful. We hope you enjoy it. And yeah, like I said, I'm like, I would say the debates that do best in terms of like people enjoy them the most or download them the most on the podcast are one, Matt Dill Huntie debates always do well. I just put a Matt Dill Huntie debate up. I think it was two days ago. So that was our most recent debate that we hosted with Matt. And so you don't want to miss that. Like it's, that's a good one too. And so that's the second most recent episode on the podcast that we uploaded. And then like I said, yeah, yeah, there's a lot of cool stuff. So Harold, see you in the live chat. Glad you made it, Harold. Hope you're doing well. And so yeah, I don't know. Guys, I don't want to say goodbye. I just like hanging out here. So I don't know. I'm just going to kind of drink my seltzer water and just kind of maybe just lurk, you know, just read the chat and not say anything. And, you know, John Smith, glad you made it, man. Thanks for coming by. And yeah, I'm excited though. You guys, it's seriously, it's fun. You guys get it. You guys make me laugh. Let me pull up. I'm going to try to find the calendar. I'll tell you about other events that we're working on setting up. So where is this Google calendar? There we go. Not month. I'm a little tired. I got like the worst sleep of my like, this is one of the worst weeks for sleep that I've had in a while. It was brutal. Yeah, so tomorrow tag team debate on whether or not anti-theism is reasonable. Then maybe on Sunday, if I get a hold of Destiny on time, maybe a debate between Destiny and Pogan, then Kent versus Maddie on Monday, that is still being confirmed. But I think it'll happen. Well, we might have a new debate. So and then I said, I mentioned JF and socialism done left. That will be on Tuesday. That'll be a cool one, political one. And then another political one on Wednesday. It'll be between Mouthy Infidel and a new fellow. I forgot his name. I got to find his name. But that should be, it'll be a juicy one on whether or not there should be welfare. So controversial political one. Then Friday the 16th, Tom Jump versus Arjuna, who's a Harry Krishna fellow. I can't remember what they're debating. I think it's like, do we need God for ethics? Sphincter of Doom. Let's see. And that might be it. Sphincter of Doom and Balzac, General Balzac versus Cider and Leo, might happen next Saturday. I've got to confirm that. Then Vegan Gains, we might have on on the 18th. Good old veganism debate. That would be cool. T-Jump, we might have on not too long after that. We're going to ask Demon Mama, the YouTuber and Twitch streamer, if they'd be interested in debating T-Jump. And so that would be on whether or not de-platforming is good. So that could be epic. Rose and Alex may tag team on whether or not there are two sons. Serious. That should be a juicy one. And then, yeah, we've got, oh, the book of Daniel, prophecy or forgery. That's on the 23rd. We're going to try to get Sargon versus Mouthy and Fidel on the 24th. No promises, but I am going to reach out to Sargon finally. And then also on the 24th, so we might have two debates in one day. Would be Standing for Truth and Nephilim Free versus Amy and Randolph. That should be a cool one. Yeah, it's already been like kind of a hot minute since we've had Randolph. Heat Shield says, Mars helicopter ingenuity, first flight, April 12th, 2.30 a.m. Eastern. Make plans to stay up late in two nights. Well, that sounds juicy. Thanks for letting me know about that. And Perfect One said, So when do we get Matt DeLente debating a flat earther? That would be epic. For real, I don't know if you go for it. I can ask him, but I agree. It would actually be cool. And Marca Ragnos, thanks for being with us in the chat, recognized I like to lurk. Dr. Guido Gildo says, Say goodbye and get it uploaded. We're glad you're here. Master Optics, good to see you again. Stripper Liquor, glad to see you. It says, Make me feel like a natural woman, James. I'm so glad to know that. Stripper Liquor, we all know, Stripper Liquor is actually like, Earl the postman. He's like 65 years old from Alabama, but we, you know, we love him. So, but yeah, you, we are excited. You guys, let's see. General Balzac says, Thanks for the heads up. That's right. Yeah, that's the hopeful date. I didn't, that's what I'm hoping for it. So I've got to reach out to you guys. It doesn't have to be that date. We're open to different dates. VBata says, My Chromebook screen slightly glitchy. Should I just restart my computer? Hopefully a fluke. It's brand new. Yeah. I mean, I would try restarting it. If anything's, I would, well, I don't know. I'm not, I wish I was a computer person. I'm actually not very good at computers. John Smith says, Have you considered either of the following debate topics, STEM versus STEAM, putting arts in STEM, and does the Abrahamic devil exist? Never heard of those or considered them, but I'm open, depending on who is in the debate. So thanks for asking with that. That's interesting for sure. And then top pot two says, Might have to be on your toes for demon mama. Yes, it could be a juicy controversial one. We'll see how it goes. And Joker's Wild said, Sargon of a cod, good luck with that James. Well, we have had Sargon on like three or four times. So we had Sargon versus Brenton, Sargon versus Bosch. I think we had him on one other time maybe. Um, so yeah, we are like, it's possible. I frankly though, I think it is, I'm not sure. I don't know. I feel like I asked him once before, but I don't know if I did. I can't remember. But yes, we are excited. And so thanks everybody. Sigma says I'm back for the last bit. Did I miss story time? We didn't tell any stories. I was just talking about future debates. So I should go though. I need to get some sleep. So thank you guys. Thanks for all your love and support. Seriously, you guys make this channel fun. You guys make it epic. Thanks for all your ideas. Thanks for all the support, like the likes and the shares and all that just the grassroots stuff. Like that really does help. And so thank you guys so much for everything. I'm pumped about the future because of you. So thank you guys. And I hope that you really do have a great rest of your night. I love you guys. And general Bosch says no, that's fine. Much more time than the 24 hours I had the last few times. I know you're busy as I have been next week and work straight for me. Thanks general Bosch for your willingness, your cooperativeness, and it'd be exciting and fun. So thank you guys for everything. I love you. Seriously, have a great night. We'll be back tomorrow night. It'll be a blast. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. And also deeds of legend. Glad you made it. I see you there in the live chat friend. And so thanks for hanging out with us. It's always fun. Take care, folks.