 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to modern day debate. Tonight's debate. Flat versus globe. Tonight we've got Mark Reid, Leo Philius, Kyle and Mercedes to debate that exact topic. Going first tonight will be the globe side. Mark, the floor is all yours. Thank you so much, Justin. I'll just share my screen to get my presentation. Just let me know when I am good to go. Thank you, Justin, for moderating my partner, the amazing Leo Philius, and thank you to the people in the audience for giving me your time. Thanks to our interlocutors, Kyle and Mercedes for being here. So, Flat Earth is a relatively new conspiracy theory. Layed an idea that doesn't fit with the observations that people have made about the observable constellations and physics that we see around us. Since ancient Greek days, we have known that Earth was spherical due to the experiments they performed. And the more observations we have and the more physics we learn, it reinforces the knowledge that the Earth is not a flat stationary plane, but a rather a rotating oblate spirit with a radius of about 6,371 km. Now, the reason, one of the reasons we know this is we have two different models and only one of them holds to reality. And Flat Earth is a model even though it's very, very unformed and sort of very, very vague in its assertions. The crux of the Southern Cross in particular is a massive problem for Flat Earth and I'll be challenging my opponents to see how they explain how this works. Why can people in Australia look south as you can see from here and see the Southern Cross like this and people simultaneously can look south from South Africa and see the Southern Cross. Now, this is simultaneous. This is at the same time. This is also true for people in South America. They look south and see the Southern Cross as well. There's been no explanation of it as to how it's solved this conundrum and my opponents need to explain how this would work. Now, this is how it would work on the globe works perfectly fine. This is on the Flat Earth does not work. This is a time lapse taken from the circumpolar stars in the northern hemisphere. It's in the United Kingdom. Note they're moving counterclockwise if I can just start that. Yeah, they're counterclockwise as you move farther and farther north the stars get higher in the sky and this is really important. So this is from Alaska at Beluga Lake Observatory. As you can see it's higher in the sky as you approach the North Pole the center of this apparently flat at this. The circumpolar stars rotate directly above you. Now, this is the Southern Hemisphere. Notice it's going clockwise as you move further south again they get higher in the sky. And this is a shot from Patrick Kullis at a research station in the Antarctic. Note you see a LiDAR being there that measures atmospheric conditions. Now the stars are directly overhead and that's important. Why doesn't the circumpolar stars appear this? Why do they appear this way? This is how it works on a globe. There's Northern Hemisphere, equator, Southern Hemisphere. And this is how it works. So as you look north and that's why they get higher the further north you go because of the curvature of the Earth. And this is looking south and notice how they're going in different directions. And as you move south they get higher in the sky. Now here's the problem for the Flat Earth model. When you actually get to the North Pole the stars should be above you. But that's not what we see from the Southern Hemisphere. We see them out here instead. So really there should be three sets of circumpolar stars. But for some reason when you go north those stars go down and those ones are not present even on the Southern. So it just does not work on a Flat Earth and there's nothing you can do to make it work. This is a flight once from LAX to Tel Aviv. The other is Sydney to Johannesburg. They're approximately the same travel time and approximately the same distance. Note the curve especially the LAX to Tel Aviv thing. Why are they flying in a big curve? They're not. It's a straight line. They're flying and they're actually flying in a straight line when you spread out flat. It looks like the lines are curving but in reality the pilots are just following a direct line over the curvature of the Earth. Now note very almost exactly the same distance, roughly the same distance, roughly the same time. But on a Flat Earth we've got a problem. One is significantly longer than the other. So I will be asking my opponents how these planes fly twice the speed without referring to any magic or miracles to make them fly twice as fast. And I'll be looking forward to the response of the explanation of how this actually happens. So I've got three major questions out of this. How can the crux constellation be seen at the same time south of both Africa and south of Australia? Explain why circumpolar stars are rotating in the wrong direction of looking south at different places on the Earth. Explain why the circumpolar stars in the northern hemisphere are directly over you when up in the north pole. Explain why flights deviate so far from a straight line on a flat map, but why the flight time is half the distance for about the same time. So I'll look forward for the questions and thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mark. Leo, you may continue from there. So I don't really have much to say. I think Mark, despite not citing all of the evidence because there's just so much of it, cited enough and that's all you ever really need to do to show that obviously the Flat Earth, it doesn't work. This does not align with anything that we understand about our reality. Also, I don't even know what to say anymore. So many people have done so much to show how this is wrong in so many ways that I probably couldn't even fathom attempting that at this point these kinds of debates are really just a game that we play and sometimes it's kind of fun to play it and that's why I'm here. I'm not really expecting to hear or see anything that even remotely comes close to showing that the Earth is flat. For me specifically, because I study physics, physics is kind of particularly cosmology, the thing that I'm very much interested in. I'm not going to say I do it because I don't. I'm not a professional, unfortunately. The big thing for me is just general relativity. You'd have to overturn general relativity if you wanted the Earth to be flat because when you get enough mass contained in enough space, its gravitation is going to pull inward equally at every point on its surface and then anybody should know that that's going to give rise to a particular shape. And this is why stars and planets in large enough asteroids are spheroidal because of their gravity. So the big thing for me is that one of the most consistently confirmed models that we have ever developed for describing reality that does so almost perfectly would have to be overturned for the Earth to be flat. Now, I just don't fathom that happening. Is it possible? Perhaps. But is it likely? I don't think so. And I'll just leave my thoughts there. Alright, great. So right before I give the floor over to Kyle and Mercedes, I'll just remind everybody to go ahead, hit that like and subscribe button for me. We've got over 250 people watching live right now, which is fantastic and we love your support. But 18 likes makes me feel we're doing something wrong. So let's feel some love over here for our debaters. Kyle, Mercedes, the floor is yours. Whoever would like to? Yeah, I can go first because he has an awesome presentation that he's putting together. I just wanted to quickly reply to Leo really quick that Nikola Tesla was actually one of the first people to challenge and pretty much overturn the theory of relativity. So that's just an interesting tidbit there. I'm Mercedes Piat. I'm new to the channel. I'm also known as the Great Awakening and to give some insight to people. I've always kind of been curious and interested in conspiracies since I was pretty young. But I grew up on Stargate SG-1. I grew up on Atlantis. I grew up on Sliders. I grew up on sci-fi. I was really huge into just basically sci-fi and science and space travel and aliens. But in 2020, I had a friend go flat earth and I didn't take it super serious when I was sent the documentary to watch it until my dad turned flat earth. And he's my sci-fi buddy. So once he went flat earth, I took the CS Lewis approach I called it and I tried really hard to disprove the flat earth. And by that way, I mean I went and I started watching all the flat earth stuff from people like Eric DeBay, ODD TV, and a lot of the well-known flat earthers that are out there. I was hoping to dismantle every single argument I found. And one of the first things I found that really struck me was the CEO of YouTube basically saying that she's not going to allow the flat earth stuff to be at the top. She was going to push it all to the bottom. And only the debunk videos were going to be allowed to the top like Professor Dave, for example, who's not actually a professor, by the way. And so I built my knowledge on flat earth from 2020 to 2023. I became a flat earther in 2020. No one really can really even become it because we're all flat earthers anyways that I think I've heard that said many times now. But one of the biggest red flags to me was NASA. I think that's one of the biggest red flags to anyone. I went to their website first. I went to their FOIAs back when they were a little bit more reachable. And I found probably about over 40 documents saying about the earth being flat and non-rotating. And that was a big red flag to me because they were based off of missiles, flight plans, and I've actually got some of them here today. And one of the biggest proofs to both me and my husband who also joined me on this and wanted to be an astronaut when he was a kid. So like I said, every flat earther that you're going to find was once really big on space in the globe was the seven mile bridge in the Florida Keys and the Seuss canal, because the seven mile bridge should you should see it's 32 there should be 32 feet of noticeable curvature curvature because of the seven mile radius of the bridge. So there's no noticeable drop and curve at all. When you see the seven mile bridge. And it's the same thing with the Seuss canal. It was not built with any curvature in mind because it was built a long time ago. And it combines both both the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. And it's a continuation of two seas put together and completely disproves any potentiality for there to be a globe for the earth. When people say they don't understand how like flat earth can have level water. We're not talking about under the water where there's obviously hills and valleys because that's normal where what we're talking about is when you pour like a bunch of water onto a floor. And if your floor is like slanted, it's going to go straight towards the slants and try to flat now. It's going to go to where the level is of that room. It's not going to stay up on a slant. It's not going to try to stay up here. If it was a drip it would why because it's more oxygenated. So when you have tons and tons of water in one area, it's not so much. And that's why we have things like lakes and rivers and they're always flat when you measure across them and around them and through them. One great example of this was the concave earth documentary. Everyone from that documentary disappeared, which is kind of strange, but they did a laser test over large distances to prove the fact that they were trying to actually prove the globe, which is interesting. And they actually did distances between buildings and found that they were equivalent to each other across the lake between Michigan, Michigan and Chicago, a building from Michigan to Chicago. And they were exactly the same across instead of being different. So completely disproved what they were talking about. So their logic has been wrong from time to time about the globe. And another thing that I like really wanted to point out was he was saying, I think it was Mark. Yes, Mark was saying that there hasn't really been like a big thing for flat earth before and this is all new. Well, the Gleason map came out in 1892. And before that, or actually after that to the CBS CBS is air map came out in 1943, and both of those are based on a flat earth, not a globe. And before that you had every civilization across this earth that believed in a flat earth from the Mayans to the Japanese. They all have I can even show it to but I'm sure Kyle's got a presentation I'm sure he might have a picture that comes up about it. Every single civilization across the earth, literally had a depiction of what they perceived to be as a flat not rotating earth. And all the only Greeks that believed that the earth was round were heliocentrists. They were the ones that were following a religion of the mystery religions. And the Greeks at the other Greeks at the time, and other people at the time, thought them foolish. That's we were even taught that in school. They were the outcasts. We're not someone that everyone just agreed with. That's why flat earth lived on for so long. That's why we have so many maps of the flat earth model going way into the future, all the way up to the 1900s. Because people believed the earth to be flat for such a long time until NASA came along. And what's funny is a lot of people say, Oh, well, how can it be all these people? Well, my funny thing is is that just look at the other space stations, because the Chinese space station they're funny to watch like they use stop motion. They do not have good CGI like NASA does. So when you see you can see the green green screen glitch is so much better. They just they can't keep up. So when people say that, well, what about the other countries? Yeah, go look at the other countries. You'll believe then really you will. And the other thing. Okay, cool. The other thing I just want to quickly wrap up then is people always ask why the lie. That's the biggest one, right? Well, I have a kind of different answer than what most flat earthers give. I mean, we should know that they do lie. You look at the UN with one World Government Summit that just happened in 2020. I watched their videos pretty extensively, even their newer ones. And they don't just say by 2030 you'll own nothing and be happy. They also openly talk about like depopulating all of us. So they have an obvious agenda that's pretty well known now it's pretty viral across the internet. I think everybody has seen those videos now. It's like we know that they want to get rid of us and every. Okay, I'm almost done. Everyone thinks money is king. But I would just say that it's actually the product or benefit of power and control. So their main thing is power and control. That's what they need to maintain for the systems they've put in place today, which is stuff like consumerism, factory farming, mega corporation, because if nothing means anything and you're just on a spinning ball floating in outer space, then it's easier to consume. It's easier to convince people that they're not where they're at, that they're not connected with who they are, and that nothing means anything. So just bye-bye-bye. And that's what they've sold us. And the more disconnected you are, the more you're going to, you know, just do whatever the leaders say, which is what they want. And people like George Orwellian and Huxley pointed out that this was the way it was going to go. So I think those are just some good points to look at, and I will hand it over to Kyle. All right, Kyle, she ate a couple seconds of your time there, so... That's okay. Turn that playback speed up to 1.25 and let's go. Well, I really enjoy hearing from different Flutterers. I've never met Mercedes yet, and I'm like, a new Flutterer that I'm not aware of. Yes, I'm pretty excited about that. You've very well spoken, so I really look forward to hearing more about you and in the future. Anyways, I really liked your description of proofs. Flutterers were all about scientific proof. That's what we do. That's our bread and butter. And last time I checked over here with Mark Reed and Leo, neither of them believe science proves anything, unless something's changed since last time I talked to them. And so I think it's kind of odd that they're coming to a debate when they don't believe they have any kind of scientific proof for a globe whatsoever. But for me, when it comes to Flutterers, some of the really, really big ones that really opened the eyes to a lot of people was something as basic as the Bedford level experiment. It's rather than looking at the lights in our ceiling. Oh my goodness. Rather than looking at the lights in the ceiling, we like to actually look at the earth itself. And some of the biggest ways that Flutterer gets straw manned out there immediately is when you look at a Flutterer model, the globe erthers, they like to straw man it by eliminating the atmosphere. Act like there is no atmosphere on the earth whatsoever. And also act like there is no firmament over the earth whatsoever. And so you'll see that time and time again. And so with Mark Reed's one of his opening slides, he's over there claiming that you should be able to see Polaris from all places on earth at a single time. But that's obviously not true because we have clouds and atmosphere. And I call atmospheric opacity where the atmosphere can block your view of how far things you can see. But that's kind of going to do another thing. I'll say that for a little bit sooner or for the open discussion. But my whole thing on proof is just kind of with observations like the Bedford level experiment. And we do this time and time again with things like the black swan of being able to see too far on the globe. We should have a limited range of vision because the earth is going to curve away from us. And now with both flat earthers and a lot of the globe erthers out there that will acknowledge the atmosphere, we can know that there's it comes down to like two major claims with things like the Chicago skyline observation. Flat earthers will say, yes, we can see that very clearly. And that proves this observation of being able to see too far proves that the earth is flat. But then the rivaling claim is, oh, well, we can only see that because of refraction, refraction in there. That's one of the times that they actually acknowledge that we live in an atmospheric environment. And the globe earth claim is that refraction is extending our range of view. The flat earth claim is that refraction is limiting our range of view. And so when we actually put that to the test right there, that's our key observation. Is refraction extending our range of view or is it limiting our range of view? And when we go out in there and test it, we do our test, our laser experiments in the dead of winter and the cold of night when we can get the least amount of refraction. And that's what makes those so significant is going out there and doing that. And it's these kind of observations that really prove it. They prove it. But I've got a share screen if I have time. OK, I got 90 seconds to share screen. Let's try it. OK, so this is the, this right here is the skunk bay where there are observations. And you see it in the very beginning. It tells you the time early in the morning. It's nice and cold. And you can see pretty far with these skunk bay observations. But as the weather starts to warm up over time, you can visually see the refraction limiting your range of view, which is exactly what the flat earth predicted. Refraction limits your range of view rather than extending it. So that's my, I think my biggest proof right there. Thank you. All right, thank you very much, Kyle. Yeah, so we're about to head into the open discussion. Before we do that, I'm going to remind everyone once again, hit that like, hit that subscribe button. Modern day debate hitting 162,000 subscribers before the end of the year, which I happen to know is about 22,000 subscribers more than we expected. So thank you everyone for all that support. It's frankly just crazy and fantastic. I am creating a database of super chats right now as I speak to you. So if you guys have questions for our debaters at the end, make sure you get those super chats in. And we're going to open up the floor to open discussion for 50 minutes, setting the timer by all means folks have fun. I guess we should start open since you finished first. So I heard a lot of conspiracy theories from new Mercedes that that one particular that sort of says you will own nothing and be happy. That was never endorsed by the World Economic Forum. It was actually a in a summit. It was a talk done, but it wasn't something being endorsed. So you've sort of got hold of a conspiracy theory there, not understanding what the actual talk and the originating essay was about. What if scenario a hypothetical if we had complete socialism and nobody owned anything or communism, I guess. What would they put it on their Twitter? They put it on their Twitter page. They announced they announced the talk right though they announced that their talk beginning. They never endorsed the contents of that talk as something worth doing. So you've sort of you're sort of pointing to a hypothetical that was brought up in a World Economic Forum based upon a essay that was given that wasn't actually what they were doing. It was a hypothetical because the World Economic Forum is a whole bunch of different interests that come together and talk about hypotheticals and things. So this is actually I think I said this, but I actually based it off the fact that I you can watch their channel on YouTube. They have their own channels. So if you let me finish, if you let me finish the whole problem is that's not what the discussion is about. So I just want to point out these conspiracies and not what this discussion is. It's about flat earth and sort of that's just true. But what I'm saying is that most people ask why would they lie about flat earth because those organizations would have to be involved in order for that to be the case because they fund and help back a lot of those organizations. So my whole point was that, you know, I sit I sit there and listen to the World Economic Forum, the UN and even the government summit of 2020. I'm not sure if you sat through that. But if you listen to them when they were talking about owning nothing and being happy, they did elaborate on what they were talking about. They did say what kind of system they do want for the future. That's what I was referring to. So I'm not talking about just some article. They actually spell out for 2030. This isn't what the debate is about. If we could get back on subject, it isn't it isn't the World Economic Forum that people say why are they lying about all of this. What they're talking about is all the space agencies throughout the world. You're pushing it and trying to make the thing about it. Excuse me, Kyle, if you could let me finish. They're talking about all of the different space agencies throughout the world, like NASA, the Indian Space Agency, the Australian Space Agency, Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency, the World Economic Forum, all the UN does not actually give any information on, you know, the shape of the earth or what what sort of space missions are doing. That would be the space agencies, including private space agencies like SpaceX and Virgin. Who gives funding to them? Who gives funding to them? Well, the World Economic Forum? Governments, not NASA. Yeah, there we go. That's the point. Governments. Well, this debate isn't about governments, it's about the shape of life. Governments funded the Internet too and the Internet works just fine. At least here in the United States, the government funded the building of the US Interstate Highway System, which I'm pretty sure everybody has made use of in their lives. I haven't. You're not cool like us. But so you drawing out of the fact that NASA is funded by the government, of course it is. It's a government agency means nothing. The fact that the government funds it literally means nothing. To go from there to therefore we can't trust NASA is just an explicit non-sequitur. You'd have to make the argument for why NASA being funded by the government would somehow mean that we can't trust NASA and you haven't done it. Right. Well, first, actually I did. I did say that NASA, when you go and you watch their videos and you look at their documents, they base everything off of flat non-rotating Earth. When you go and watch their videos, you actually see them glitching out like because they're using a green screen. You see them glitching out. You see their harnesses. I've gone and watched these videos myself. I've gone to their actual website instead of just watching the documentaries that Flat Earthers put out there because I wanted to see for myself if those were actually legit because I was literally at that point. How do you know these videos came from NASA? Because you can go to NASA websites. They're from NASA. You can go. So how do you know they're from NASA? Just repeating that they're from NASA isn't answering how you know that. Because it's from, so it's specifically from their website. I went to their website. How do you know that it's their website and not like a spoof? It's right. Do you know how easy it is to spoof a government website and make it look really official? Right. But if it's .gov, if it's .gov and there's nothing else after, because I'm an IT, so I know how this works. You would have to make an alternative copy of the website and it would have to be slightly altered. It could not be the same, especially Can you show me these videos? if it's .gov. I could show you these videos. Yeah. And NASA has their own YouTube channel. Because I would like to see those. A lot of those are over there. Well, what we've got to also keep in mind is we can use a flat earth model. What we also have to keep in mind that there is artifacting in some of these videos and that's a conversation I have with Nathan Thompson that you can point to artifacting within the videos. In fact, he demanded to see another video with artifacting and when I showed one someone actually sent to me a copy of the debate we had where he artifacted his eyes sort of flickered on and off like it was a glitch in the system because what you've got to remember is these are being sent from our space through atmosphere. So a lot of glitches and artifacting can happen in video. And experts that look at them say, hey, that is artifacting. So unless you are a video expert and I don't know what branch of IT you work in that's a very vague field because it's so broad. So, I mean, you work in IT. How are we communicating right now? What does backhaul use? The craziest artifact I've ever even heard of. What does backhaul use? Backhaul. What does it use? Well, first I wanted to answer your first question how we're communicating right now. 99% of international lines is actually in the ocean. It's not in satellites. 99% specifically. I never said it was. It uses light. Light is what we use. We understand how light works and light doesn't work on a flat earth. It basically, you have the sun and the sky and your climate. Excuse me, Kyle. I have not finished speaking, Kyle. Try to have some decorum. Okay. Try to have some class and stop interrupting people because basically in order for the sun on a flat earth to work the light would have to attenuate significantly over the center of the earth and expand on the sides in order to not be seen by people in the darkness on the southern hemisphere or the other hemisphere of the flat earth or the other segment of the flat earth. It does not work because light does not attenuate in that way. And we know that because we use light in order to transmit internet signals through fiber optic cables. We know this to be true. So if you shine a flashlight on a disk, you're telling me that a flash shouldn't be seen. I'm saying that the sun isn't a flashlight. It's not one directional. But if you have a camera in the darkened portion, you may not be in the main focus of light, of the flashlight, but you will still see the light. You will still see the origin point of that bulb. Try it yourself. See yourself if you can still see the bulb from the darkened section of a disk. You still can. Well, you still can if I have a small disk and a big flashlight. Now, if I have a tiny flashlight, like one of those, you know, those little tiny clip-on ones that are just really small, and I put it on a disk, it'll light an area, but at a certain point, it'll stop because there's a theory, and I wish I had it written down right now, but there's a theory about light that the further you get away, the further you get away from light, the darker it becomes. Inverse square law of light. Thank you, yes. No, no. Light doesn't become dark. Don't believe in the inverse square law of light. It doesn't become dark. It doesn't. That's not what I said. That's not what I said. But I also wanted to say to Mercedes if you can. Try it yourself. You can still see the origin point. You can still see the origin point even of a tiny little light on a round disk. Because the size of the light doesn't matter here. It's going to be the luminosity of the source. Correct. So it doesn't matter if this thing is the size of a marble on your view. We already know what its luminosity is because I can look at it during the day. Again, that much light is not just going to disappear. And you're ignoring the permanent light. The biggest problem with that. Yeah, the light won't disappear, but the biggest problem with that is it even says online, like you can Google this and it'll be on Harvard and everything else. Our line of perception, how far we as humans can see, is only about three miles. And that's about it. So if you are trying to look at an object that's a little bit small, it's going to look like it's not there to you. If it's far enough away. That's why when you're on a straight road, and I've been on a straight road in Texas before, and a car is three or more miles away from you, it starts getting smaller and smaller and smaller, and it disappears from the bottom up until you can't see it anymore, but it's still on that straight road. And if you took a zoom camera, you could actually zoom that whole car back in from top to bottom. It's easy. You can do that with boats. We've already created that as well. Yeah, it's got nothing to do with what he said. You sort of mentioned the Fermanet car. I'd like to basically focus on that. What have you done to prove this Fermanet actually exists? What is it composed of? What are your calculations done on its effect on light? What information can you offer us to in any way believe that this Fermanet is real at all? Okay. The existence of the Fermanet can come down to a lot of different things. I've done multiple videos on the Fermanet. I really like... So what is it? Like Operation Fishbowl. Operation Fishbowl is a great example of that. And so there's different things that confirm the existence of the Fermanet. One thing is like, okay, we have windows, right? And so we can detect a window is there without being able to... when we can see through it, right? NASA just recently did one, didn't they? Didn't they just do one? Have you touched the Fermanet? Wasn't there just a recent one? I can't touch the Fermanet. It's kind of pretty high up in the sky. I can touch my window and I can sort of do tests and make sure that a window is there. But you haven't actually said how you determined this is actually there. You've just claimed it's there again. Like you're sort of comparing it to a window, which I can give you a breakdown of how we can tell a window is there. We mentioned here Operation Fishbowl where they tried to nuke the Fermanet. And throwing... So one thing we can detect a window here is by throwing things at it. What? Who tried to nuke the Fermanet? I did. Who tried Operation Fishbowl? Seriously, who did? Who's got a nuke and shot it? Because the thing is that they just lost a nuke. It's just gone in space now. Which the funny thing is is that... Do you know how many missiles they've shot off for fun? They were high altitude nuclear tests. They weren't trying to nuke the Fermanet. They were just testing high altitude explosions of nuclear devices. That's all, Kyle. Yeah, and... That does not in any way... That does not in any way prove... Hang on, Kyle. That does not in any way prove that the Fermanet is real. That they carried out high altitude nuclear test is not in any way. Like, the reason that they said they were doing that was to test the effect of a nuclear device detonated in high altitude. That does not show that a Fermanet is real. It just shows that you think that a Fermanet is real. So I'm not really surprised that you say that. Yeah, I don't think that's a very good... Yeah, I don't think that's a very good argument at all. It's basically a dodge because you can't actually answer what I'm asking. Well, I can prove, but if you can't agree that cat's eat food, you can't even say that. Yeah, so, Kyle, I'm not interested in the synantics. I can say a lot of these are proofs that are really basic and observable, but you just didn't say anything... Most of what you believe you can't prove. You can't even prove to me that everything happening right now isn't just a treatment of your imagination because you're a brain in a back and your brain is being stimulated by an agent outside of reality that it's creating for you. And then that's why you interrupt because you don't want people to make salient points against what you're saying. Most of what you believe you receive through induction, not deduction, if you know the difference between those. So, proof is a term... You don't read mine, you don't know, like... Usually... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I wasn't... I actually was not done speaking. You already know your point. You have no proof. That's your own admission. I see, I can't even make that one. All right, all right, all right. So if you can be quiet and wait till I'm done you'll get your turn. Hold on a second. Okay, so to be fair Kyle hasn't really had much floor to speak of. However, Leo was in the middle of a statement. So if we'll let Leo finish, Kyle and then I would love for you to answer. So what I'm trying to say is proof is a term usually reserved for mathematics and logic. That's not science. That's mathematics and logic. So proofs are things sort of consequence that necessarily follow from some set of axioms or some premises. If those axioms or premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. That's a proof. But the fact that we can observe the lensing of light and gravitational waves and all this stuff it does not necessarily follow that general relativity is true. Just that general relativity said we'd see those things if its description is true and we do see those things so we have good evidence for the theory. And I was using it colloquially. I was using it colloquially. If we can see gravitation I would love to hear Kyle speak to you. Thank you. So notice how Leo over here mentioned the word fact and said there's no proof fact is proof. And so yeah. Anyways this whole thing on there's no proof it's just knowing every definitive statement he's got every time he uses the word fact no void. Yeah. Someone who does not believe in any kind of scientific proof has no business coming to a debate whatsoever because yeah they automatically forfeit. That's it. They have no points to make all they can say is I think this might be the case I think that might be the case but they have nothing to stand on whatsoever. So what do you think? Yeah. So this is the Kyle dodge. This is the Kyle dodge. He doesn't want to actually discuss the points that are being brought up. So instead he goes to hey anything you say is null and void because I don't want to address the points that are actually being brought up. So from there Carl we can falsify things and some of the things that I brought up do falsify the flat out. So I had a number of questions. I had three questions. So maybe start on the circumpolar stars. Really quick. Hang on. I'm still talking. Thank you. The circumpolar stars. Can you please demonstrate how that works on a flat earth and explain to us how why we see what we see on a flat earth. Go for it. I don't understand the lights on my ceiling. Oh my goodness. All the lights on my ceiling the shape of my ceiling that proves what the shape of my floor is. That's your argument. Yeah. So that argument that you've just used is like saying hey you can't drive by looking at the road. You've got to look at your car because that's what you're in. That is basically the argument. No, no, no, no. I haven't finished talking Kyle. Kyle. Look at the road with you. Why can't I talk? I let you talk. Why can't I talk? The idea that we can tell what situation we are observing the things that are happening around us is very clear in science. We do this all the time just like you drive and look at the road to tell what position you are in relative to the road. We can tell what position and what shape the earth is relative to the stars and how they move around us. We've been doing this for ages. So just sort of dodging and go well don't look at the sky. Don't look at that evidence. Don't look at it. Just shows you can't explain it. I brought proof. I brought proof. I came to this thing with proof. You didn't. What do you mean by proof? What do I mean by proof? Observable proof. And so yeah. You just used the word again. So observable was a word that wasn't proof. Observable? Yeah. Proof is observable. So. Finish that for me. When it comes to proof it's talking about fact-based evidence. And so this is something that's more. Yeah. Then science does prove things. If that's what we mean by science does prove things. What? I said you believe science proves things now. Under that definition. Yeah. It really depends on what you mean. But I have a question for Kyle about the firmament. Just a really simple one. Is the firmament made of? Yes. So what is it made of? What constitutes the firmament? I don't know what it's made out of. It's transparent. Yeah. Why couldn't we go do you think theoretically we could go up and measure it and figure out what it's made of by taking samples and then studying them? Like we do. I don't know. I don't know. Perhaps so. Well if people have done that then why don't like physicists say oh yeah. The firmament's real and here's how it works and here's what it's made of. It's in the encyclopedia. Yeah. It would be like the first to want to know what the physical thing is that we've never seen before and we've never observed before and figure it out. Isn't that kind of their jobs? It comes to like launching rockets and stuff. That would be NASA. NASA is a proven liar. SpaceX does that. Yeah. They're the ones trying to cover this. China does it. Sweden does it. The United Kingdom does it. There's a lot of They all work together. They all work together. They're on the same man. May I just quickly point out one thing that it is in the encyclopedia in the old encyclopedia. I actually have the video where it shows the encyclopedia. I believe it's in the encyclopedia. 1800s and it says how high up the dome is. Yeah. The 1800s. The firmament in the encyclopedia is always scary and unicorns and big foot is in the encyclopedia as well. Why would they why would they put up how high the dome is? How would they Because that's what they thought at the time. We're talking like over 200 years ago. Why would we take that as scientific, like current scientific understanding They also thought about medicine that we had for humans and that you could cure people by, you know, exhaling smoke in their face. They say that. They say that. But how how much research have you guys done into the world fairs? Because you don't say doctors. If you look back in the 1800s, for some reason, the technology looks extremely advanced and they try to say that it was time travelers. But if you look at things, if you look at things, wait a second. If you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, wait a second. If you look at things like World Fairs, they had technology that things like moving sidewalks. They had lights that were working without wires. They had advanced technology. They were even talking about babies and incubators this is proofable. You're even watching the Jetsons or something. Technology back then. I don't need to my point is they talked about AI in the 1800s and then just became a thing. No, I don't know where you get this information Mercedes could you give me some sort of references that show that they had these Look up the world fairs before they destroyed all the world technology What the world fairs were what the world fairs were where they were an exhibition of the most Amazing scientific discoveries of the age one was held at ice palace in the United Kingdom Where they showed off it was an expo or what would modern Lee be called an expo to show off the best technology at the time Now they didn't have anything like what you're describing like sort of they may have been able to sort of do Things that were not can you say that without looking excuse me? Excuse me they might not be they might have been able to do things that weren't normal for the average person at Time, but they certainly didn't even come close to today's technology. That's just false. That's just a hundred percent false Dismissal hand web dismissal No, it's not because if they did have all this technology We would have found it and all of the Bruins and archaeological sites dating back to the 1800s and we don't like there's no records of them Having airplanes. They weren't spending flights from fucking New York to London. That's not how you got from New York You sailed in fact it was sailing all the way up into the like early mid-19 You are definitely right about From that technology in that pier yeah from that technology in that period if they have that technology in that period We find even even how we know that the Egyptians didn't have magical horns They could float rucks and stuff like that like we hear from crazy hair alien guy and other people like yeah Because if they did we would have found stuff like that because they would have made a lot of them because that's really cool Even your modern even your modern archaeology is saying things like they had the Egyptians were Giving things like vaccines and had needles and different things that they said shouldn't have existed back then They are finding the emulations did exist back then and that's not actually surprising the About the pipe that knew about what we know as the pythagoree Could I please share my screen Justin? Absolutely, can I please share my screen? Okay, so this is an example of one of the Whoops. Yeah, they're the most technological things. That's a fax machine That's not one of the most technological things actually something better Okay, go for it. I would love to see that's 1851 and that's a fax machine basically a telegraph signal that would print out what it recorded so Telegraph if you're familiar with sort of dots and dashes like like morse. So that's a chemical telegraph Pre-cursor actually that's the level of technology that we're actually dealing with Yeah, I don't know what you mean by proof if you just mean I've got a definition, but excuse me Kyle No, I did not ask a question Seriously, he's just jumping in over the top of people And I love that but Kyle go or sorry mark go ahead and finish so what I said was I don't know what you mean by proof That is not a question What I said is I don't know what you mean by proof because under the definition you gave for proofs Scientific science does give fax supported by evidence so it does give proofs under your or your definition It does and I was using proofing in roughly the same way colloquially. So yes, it does. I Can share my screen now, too. If you guys are I'd love to say it. Yeah. Yeah. I'd love to see Okay, let me just pull this up. I think that's the right one. Yes Okay, so this is an example of The Chicago World Fairs right here And so this whole structure that you guys see they try to say was built in just about 20 or so years And this is this is like made out of almost complete gold and I'm gonna tell you right now They destroyed This entire thing this was this was in Chicago. This was in st. Louis This was all across the earth these exact same structures that we cannot rebuild today These were all there and they literally destroyed them. Let me ask you one question. Why would they destroy that? I just I have a question to ask Where's the technological? Technologically advanced stuff because you said it was technologically advanced and that is proves it. Excuse me. I'm talking I'm answering you So well, I have a clarifying thing because people been able to build buildings since Before time we can build way bigger buildings. Look at those skyscraper and Dubai it is way bigger and way more sophisticated than anything you're showing here I can show you some of the technology and the baby incubators too, but it would take me a minute to pull it up I believe we may have gone off point slightly Yeah, that's where I'd like to kind of go back and focus in on this whole observation of Being able to see too far and about refraction and how refraction limits our range of you not extends it Sure If you could after that if you could explain how circumpolar stars work as I've asked would be great. Thank you All right. Well, Carly Sunshine did a great example of that on demonstrating how we can see one rotating light and they went to a big There's a fish tank they went to they went inside this big fish tank in South Carolina And they had a just a phone light and they're just kind of rotating that around But if you look around on this circular fish tank, you can see that same rotating light all the way around the thing Like different versions of it. So there's you can see it over to the right. It's the left You can see the back and I think I counted like 10 different Are you claiming that some of the stars that we see in the southern hemisphere are reflections? Is that what you're claiming? It's a possibility. I don't claim to know everything You what it is not what possibly could be because that doesn't Could be magic lights that To make you I make you think you don't know you have no idea What the firmament was made out of The answer to everything I don't claim didn't know the answer to everything. I'm not NASA's who demands These things are real and these things exist, but we know nothing about it Nobody knows anything about them or how they work. Then that's not nothing that maybe you're just Throwing things in there to rescue some idea that you have that's clearly false Yeah, yeah, you just say I mean it does seem like a rescue device to me Like you have this firmament to say why light behaves in a strange way That you're just throwing in there and now that you know when we say hey, what's it made out of you? You don't know because you've just made it up I would say I would say I would argue that NASA does the same thing because when they came out with a theory of gravity How long did they keep it a theory of gravity? The theory of gravity Universities that have nothing to do with NASA so what does that matter? I Really think Leo was going to drive this conversation forward I'd like to hear what he had to say and then Mercedes if you want to reply to it. I'm fine with that Yeah, I'm just wondering so first off the theory of relativity There's there's two parts of it one part came before the other part because the second part Einstein didn't have Quite the mathematical aptitude for it And that's why he had to work with other people like Ricci and Riemann to help develop the math That is used to describe curvature and spacetime, which is what gravity is That has nothing to do with NASA I don't care that NASA Uses it because literally every cosmologist an astrophysicist on the planet is also using it I Speak on behalf of every cosmologist. Yeah, well, I can't speak on behalf of them General relativity is like one of the most important tools in the cosmologists to a belt and not Recorders of what we understand about cosmology if we didn't have general relativity So I can speak on behalf of all cosmologists because Until you've actually I understand how I understand how prolific cosmology or rather general relativity is in cosmology Well, perhaps you could find an example of a cosmologist that doesn't use it Kyle So can you give us a cosmologist that doesn't use it? I would like to reply to Leo really fast. All right, let's let Mercedes reply and then I believe Mark had a really good question This was my main point My main point is that you guys are saying that everything that we're talking about is based off of theory When I am saying that just because everyone uses your theory. It's still a theory When you say theory, what do you mean by that? What idea do you have in your head? It's usually based off of a hypothesis Hypothesis is what you have before the observations have confirmed that the predictions There is no prediction that general relativity has made that has come false not one yes I would like to hear the question Mark had Yeah, so I was saying to Kyle But I'd like to comment on that first that a theory is the graduation of a hypothesis after headers have been robustly tested and found to be Not able to be falsified by scientists So it is the highest graduation of any idea within science. It is like the germ theory of disease Right, it is has been Vigorously tested and shown to be true that is what a theory is in science So it doesn't mean sort of like we say hey, I have a theory about this movie star cheating on a husband That's not what it means. It means the highest graduation There is no higher thing that we have a confidence in than a theory in science It is the highest status that an idea can get to now my question for Kyle is maybe you could find a cosmologist that Doesn't use these theories in their work Oh Okay I think what comes down to though I can name like different cosmologists, but I'm afraid you're gonna just move the goalposts and do a no-true Scotsman on the matter and say that oh, that's not really a cosmologist. And so But you're gonna say Cosmologist and just no no true Scotsman are you I mean somebody I'm not a When Leo's talking about cosmologists. He's talking about people with a Degree in cosmology or astronomy like Okay, okay, just just one second Yeah, so if I could just if I could just finish Kyle you're being very disruptive and interrupting all the time. I think it's because you're really afraid to Well, I I'm trying to you know, it's just I don't I think about So it's not a no-true Scotsman because this is what Leo was referring to in the first place that you misunderstand What he means by a cosmologist is not his problem and it's not a fallacy. He's committing Big big attack right there. Wow. Okay, so my big point is I don't have to know everything in order to know something exists I don't know how many different blood types an elephant has and and I can still know that an elephant exists I don't know how many chromosomes an elephant has but I can still know that elephants exist Okay, and so there's a lot of different little things about elephants How do you show the elephant exist? I still know they exist and the same thing can apply for the firmament I don't know exactly what it's made out of but I can still observe it being there But I'll actually watch the explosions that hit against it like water balloons and they kept this big That's one of things and then the other thing is throwing water balloons at the firm I really got into on the firmament and the existence of the firmament Are going to go into sky wave technology and being able to bounce radar off of it and being able to bounce No, that's off the ionosphere Really strong thing and then the further proof on that is going to be The vacuum effect mark sergeant's big proof of the firmament was the vacuum effect And so yeah outer space is kind of sounds curious. What's that? Yeah, the vacuum effect is a really interesting one just how Outer space is an impossibility because it would end up just launching everything up How would it launch things? How does it create that force? How does it create that first? Okay? Gas expands in a vacuum. Do you agree in a vacuum under no other influences? Yes Gas expands in a vacuum right under no under influences. Yes, okay, so Yeah The whole outer space vacuum thing is just like extreme extreme vacuum like no no man has ever created a vacuum that Hydrogen particles per square in my that's according to yeah The the extreme intensity of that would just cause the gas to expand and overcome gravity and so that gas isn't under Is under other influences like grass? Yeah, but if you put like a vacuum chamber above your head and then you pop the seal on it that that the gas is still gonna rush right in there Yeah, there's a difference of pressure in earth's atmosphere. Yeah, there's a difference of pressure. Yeah, but though Okay, and so earth's atmosphere is going to not a vacuum Earth's atmosphere is not a vacuum. Yes. Thank you. Okay, but that gas is going to expand outward And so yeah, it kind of gets into a lot more than just that yeah We could get into a whole stars and what what happens when the gas goes into that container that you're talking about a vacuum What what happens to the gas? What happens to the gas? Yeah, in the container when you pump it out when I don't know when you you said you have a vacuum You hold it above your head you open it all the gas goes into it What happens to the gas in that container when you let it into it the gas expands into the container And what does it do? It fills the container Yeah, it equalizes it a pressure equalizes throughout the container correct? Is the pressure equalized throughout earth? Is the pressure equalized earth? Well, we have weather patterns and the whole reason why the wind blows is because of unequal weather Because when you go up in in altitude the the gas pressure becomes or the atmospheric pressure more accurately to say becomes lower Meaning that it's not equalizing It's we still have you not heard of jet streams. Do you agree that jet? Heard of jet streams. Yes, I've got no idea what that's got to do. Are you claiming that jet streams make jet? Excuse me, excuse me. Are you claiming that jet streams are making the air thinner and less sort of Dense up the top and and denser down at sea level always and in a gradient Is that what you're claiming jet streams are doing that is that right? I don't claim jet streams are doing that. I'm just pointing out. Why did you bring up jet streams then pressure up high? It's not this is what we say Hey, it sounds like you've just made something up because this this is sort of you will bring up an answer to a question of say Why is there a pressure gradient going up? And then you say you've never heard of jet streams and we say I was a question I was asking you if you've never heard of jet streams because you're acting like it's all equal at high altitudes But jet streams are wind factors at high altitude because of an imbalance of forces. It's not balanced But there is a atmospheric pressure gradient going up. Correct There is an atmospheric pressure gradient going up. Yes, right So what is the reason for that? Because if your your example was if you open it up in a vacuum and what should happen? And we agreed what should happen is that the pressure should equalize through that container now The pressure isn't equalizing through the container that you claim is earth Right. So there's a pressure gradient. So we're asking you what the reason is for that and you seem to be saying jet streams That is not what I said at all. And so I just so explain okay, I only brought up jet streams because jet streams are an example of non equalized atmosphere at high altitude, which you did not believe they're not equalized We have a firmament right that the earth is almost kind of like a sort of a snow globe All of the weather shouldn't even be wind because it should all be equalized because it's contained and there aren't any forces adding into it Because according to you the earth the sun isn't a star delivering massive sums of electromagnetic radiation to the earth and that the earth Is it rotating? So then what forces are continuing to create the dis-equalization if we're contained Perfectly equalized already and should have been long ago, but it's not Getting into it that could dis-equalize it. So that's a layer of the earth and now to explain cosmology times it's the entire earth isn't heated up at the exact same time and so because of this Change in temperature around the earth that ends up causing an expansion of gas and a contraction of gas and that this ends up creating imbalances which ends up creating wind and yeah, it ends up creating What's what's doing the heating up? What does the heating up? What does the heating up some way heats up the gases and sunlight is that's one thing. That's not the only thing But yeah, but sunlight is What is sunlight is sunlight is the electromagnetic radiation? What's emitting this electromagnetic radiation and what processes create the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted? What does that have to do with anything? Well when you're claiming that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the Sun is heating things up and I would agree with you But on your model the Sun isn't actually a star and so it doesn't actually have nuclear processes occurring in its core that Sorry, I haven't finished that produced the electromagnetic radiation that would be delivered to the earth that heats it up So on your model, what's heating it up? Where does the electromagnetic radiation come from and what processes are producing it again? You're just asking me something the question like well, how many chromosomes is an elephant asking you how the Sun works on your model That's effectively what I'm I don't know details about your I don't know once again. Oh, there's there's a son Oh With that I will I will jump in That was a great exchange. Look, we got about 10 minutes left of open discussion So I'm going to take two seconds of that right now once again to thank everyone for coming out over 500 viewers watching us right now. So thanks everyone for your support. Let's hit that like button subscribe We also have a patreon and a discord channel as well We're we're we've got all the services. We got you guys covered all over the place. Feel free to Reach out and participate. So we've got 10 minutes left of open discussion With that Leo has a question for Mercedes In your opening statement, you mentioned you mentioned they a lot. I was just curious. Who is day? That's kind of off topic a little Well, but you hear that from Flat Earthers. They're lying to you and they're covering it up. So I'll give it a few seconds Yeah, it's no, it's a good question I did mention it one time and I mentioned it by saying some people have asked Why would they lie because that's like a typical question and a lot of times what they meant by day Was like NASA or world leaders or people that would be of high influence that would know the truth So that's why I brought that up because that is something that is commonly asked to Flat Earthers by non Flat Earthers As something a question that I had for you Mercedes is that you sort of brought up the seven-mile bridge And sort of quickly looking up because I was familiar with this one that the towers. They're both vertical They're 36 millimeters, which is 1.4 inches further apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth Because they have to be So how are we talking about the one in Florida keys? Is it the one in Florida keys? It's the Humber Bridge apparently. I Don't think that's the same one Well, I'm talking about is that big do the one that I'm talking about was specifically the Florida keys bridge And it's a seven-mile bridge in Florida, which should have a 32 foot drop of noticeable curvature And it doesn't I don't think you're using the right calculations there Well Pythagorean theory is how you calculate a hypotenuse it's not it's not used for calculations of curvature Also Pythagorean theorem It takes on an entirely different form when you're in spherical geometry as you would be when describing the surface of the earth Which is a sphere so if you're using calculations in cartesian space where everything is flat Sure, that would be right, but the earth Isn't flat so you have to use spherical geometry. So yeah, that's why your calculations are off Okay, well then can you show me what your geometry says? No, I don't do geometry on the earth You should go talk to like a survey or somebody who's made a profession out of this because it isn't me Okay, so when Kyle doesn't answer a pointed question like that It's like oh all hats off to him, but when you guys can't answer a simple question about the model It's like oh, but we show we don't know that go ask an S expert aren't you guys Yeah, well both of his one does a really good curve Calculator that you can use and that takes into account all of the variables So I can certainly give you the the website for that because he's actually done a lot of good stuff on on earth curvature and and so we sort of can point to where you can get the the information for this Okay, and I can give you Lord of Bizlon's thing in the chat I didn't want to say quickly though that when Kyle says that he doesn't know It's because there isn't anyone that knows because the thing that he's saying we don't know in reference to Like his version of the Sun and the firmament aren't real Nobody knows what it's made out of because there isn't the thing called the firmament. It's not real But when I say I don't know it's not that there just is no answer like there is with Kyle There is an answer. I'm just not the one who has it. So that's the difference there I just wanted to define as it knows everything I just don't know everything that they know Well, he is he is being very modest Are you to It's not It's become very big. It's become very big, but I will say this I will say this though The thing is is that this was something that was believed for thousands of years. So arguably this From the back of the spine That what it doesn't there's a lot of things that were believed for thousands of Lightning but it's a Muslim thing. They believe that sperm comes from the back of the like the spinal cord or something Doesn't matter the what matters is it's a counter to your point when you said well people believe that the earth is What for thousands of years humans have believed a lot of very ridiculous and obviously But the thing is is that that was based off of a religion Whereas this is all the earth agreed. They had different religions. They had different beliefs. They came from different backgrounds. Yeah, they did What I'm trying to say Excuse me, there was a claim that that the Greeks all believed that the earth was flattened. That's demonstratively That's not what I said. That's not what I said at all. I said the majority I said the majority That is called an ad popular fallacy It's sort of saying hey, if the majority believes something then it's necessarily true So my counter to that would be hey, well the majority now believes that the earth is round So therefore it must be true under your own definition of popularity. I wasn't using that as a popularity argument I wasn't using that as a popular I was pointing out it is I was pointing out that it was specifically the heliocentrism the people that believe in Scientology In masonry, they were the specific ones that were the Greeks that believe that Oh, I definitely do I definitely do. Oh, yeah, who in your family was a member and what was their degree? Are you saying that you have to be a member to know anything about it? No, I That's a fallacy in itself, but I didn't make a statement No, I didn't I asked you a question. Those are different things because yeah, you you asked a question You don't have anybody in your family that was a mason very Exactly. So you're using that as your point to say that and what was their degree? I've spoken to someone that has a 30 degree mason Okay, and what did they say they told you that we hide all those conspiracy secrets that everybody thinks is false and science is No, that's how they say They actually did tell me that there was a lot of things that they couldn't say In other conspiracies cite the masons They didn't know fucking nothing about free masonry and what it really is Have you have you never studied albert pike dude? How do you know that when I was religious? I wasn't in the masons. You don't know that I could have been So I'm actually not a mason. I was very close to joining but didn't I might explain but no free masons have nothing to do with like global conspiracies and all this other stuff To stop they would disagree with you by their they would disagree with you by the albert pike Go go read his book and see if Can we get back to the subject of the debate because this is really What I what I'd like to sort of say is The the problem that I have with with what kyle's doing is and and you know Feel free to weigh in on this subject when I point out things like the circumpolar stars The the answer is well, I don't know how I explain that so what what i'm putting across is that I can explain it If you want me to do you want me to explain it? Please? Yes? Okay? If you have the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, I'm going to use something really silly as an example But I don't care because it's next to me There's a little dog, right? If this is high enough up and big enough and someone's looking at it from the back side They're going to see the dog's tail and the dog's butt. They're not going to see the dog's head They're not going to see the dog's belly if someone's looking at it from this corner They're going to see the dog and not the dog's back or the dog's butt or the dog's tail They're just going to see his head and his belly and maybe his feet potentially depending on where they're at So the point is is that if you draw a smiley face on the ceiling and one person's on one side of the room And the other person's standing on the other side of the room facing the opposite direction One's going to see a smiley face and the other one's going to see a frowny face Okay, so why is the dog you see different? Why is the dog rotating? Count a clockwise for one person and counterclockwise for the other person has to do with the direction that you're facing If you spin a chain, I did this with my daughter You spin a chain and you see it going right to left one way and then you go stand in back ever and all of a sudden It appears to be going the opposite direction This is basic optical illusion So people stand on this is a basic thing There's people on the bottom of the earth like on the underside is what you're saying on the side of the earth No Okay, so then what you're saying is in irrelevant because you're talking about if you were looking down at the earth And there was some sort of pattern and you stood at different places on the earth looking down at that pattern You would see a different pattern. That's entirely true Anything down here I said look up. I said I did talk about this guy. I did are you talking to me or kyle? Because I said The problem with that kyle is you would have to be on the other side of the thing rotating Right, so that's going anti clockwise for me. And when you turn it around it's going clockwise, right? That would mean that the person underneath looking up is seeing going in one direction And the person above it looking down is seeing it go. Who is the person above this this this rotating stars? No, we're talking about some we're talking about like no, no, no, that's what you just demonstrated There is no person above. There is no person above. Okay, you've got to understand this thing called the atmosphere Okay, when you when you talk about the the flat earth model you have to include the atmosphere which refracts Okay, you also have to include the firmament which also refracts like okay And so when you have you just you just demonstrated it kyle. I'm talking mark. Hey, let me talk kip the further south you go Yes further it's going to get refracted. And so instead of being like this refracted Tilt downward the further south you go. Hey, if you're right at the north pole It's going to be directly above your head for the further south you go The more it's going to start to tilt on its side because of refraction So why is it rotating in the opposite direction? I just explained that okay once no no no what you explained what you explained If you're rotating it anti clockwise to one person, right? Okay, and that's above you And you you go to the other side of it and it's rotating in the opposite direction That means when you're seeing it above you rotating in one direction The person who sees it going in the other direction would have to be on the other side of it, right? So you're saying that the stars rotating someone is looking at it from the other side No, you just demonstrated that you just spun it and it was going in one direction Turned around so it was on the other side and it was going in the other direction So what that shows me is that if the stars are rotating in one direction above me The person seeing it going in the other direction has to be according to your own demonstration on the other side of it Okay, so what you're kind of looking down is a tube like this, okay? And it's rotating okay, and so you're looking at the stars If you're if you're heading further and further south you're still going to be looking the same direction the entire time You're looking south, right? Yes, and so you're not going to be seeing the north star by looking south And that's kind of what you're describing No, that's not what I'm describing. That is exactly what I'm describing. No, no, no Let me clarify for you because you seem to have misunderstood All right, all right folks, um Mark go ahead and make your point and then we're going to super chat So it's not that you're seeing a star The whole point is that you're seeing the rotation of the circumpolar stars the and I put I put this in my presentation You obviously didn't pay attention that in the northern hemisphere. They go in one direction They go anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. They go the other direction clockwise But what you just demonstrated when you did it anti-clockwise for me Reversed it and then did it clockwise swinging it in the same direction. Let me finish swinging it in the same direction Means that the person has to be on the other side of that star pattern to see it align in the opposite rotational direction Can I talk now? Well, I wanted to end the open discussion We're all going the same direction. Sorry. I could I could see your face was going to explode and I was going to allow you But instead of letting me give you permission to say it. You just set it over top of me anyways, which is fine It's not going on down another discussion hole I'm not going to do that I just want to ask the question if I can be so interested in the lights on the ceiling rather than the shape of the floor itself Go ahead. Ask your question, but it's it's for kyle. Um, you said that the firmament Refracts light, correct. That's right. Okay. How? How uh, how does it refract light? Well, it's got density to it. And so it's called snel's law If you look at it has density to it. You said it when you don't know what it's made of I don't know what it's made of but I we can throw objects at it and watch and smack against it We can throw radio and that confirms that it's a solid object and so When we can bounce things off of it that confirms it's a solid object Well, I don't know. I don't have to know exactly what it's made of in order to you know to to bounce Objects on it bounce project. How far up is it? How dense is this this medium that again? I don't know I just know then how do you know the refractive properties of it? If you don't know how dense it is, how do you know the refractive properties of it? Okay? I can I I've got I've got a little glass. Okay. I can I can point okay. I got my glasses here I don't know how dense my glasses are Okay, I don't know that but I know that they can refract light. Do you get that? Okay, I somebody knows Yeah, yeah, so So a density of glasses 2.5 kilograms per meter square per millimeter of thickness is the I don't need to know that in order to know that they can refract light But that's how we tell how they refer. Yeah, that's how I believe the question was asked and now answered. I'm sorry So I think we're going to Close the open discussion part and lead way into the Superchats we still have time anyone wants to add some super chats by all means Send over some super chats also after this Um Myself and anyone here who wants to join. I will be heading over to matters now for a post-debate discussion little after-show if you will and uh Yeah, I hope all of you guys here debating right now hit that like button Did you did you guys all remember to hit the like button? I am guilty of Yeah, I knew it. There's always one. I do apologize. I didn't just hit them like I'm terrible I made its favorite meal and then ate it in front of it I refracted the light button That's what I did. I refracted it. There we go Okay So here we go our first super chat Uh from doc dyno for two dollars asks. How does flat earth account for plate tectonics? Flat earth account for plate tectonics. We acknowledge that they are there And you know, if we don't have to explain every little thing about so I've Interesting thing for me as uh In the bible, they've got the commandment to not make any kind of graven images about things that are in the earth beneath Especially things that we have no way of actually observing And so I think that's kind of a commandment not to draw those things for a reason because Yeah, we can't confirm it all we have is speculation. And so yeah I think that's what i'm going to say when it comes to plate tectonics We haven't even added to that. I think exactly what causes them I'm not going to give a definitive answer on that because I simply don't know and I'm open-ended on that I don't know if you got a different answer Mercedes Um, there's a lot of theories in flat earth about what can cause plate tectonics So definitely look into it. There's a lot of stuff from odd tv They usually take the more scientific approach versus the christian approach. I myself am kind of like kyle I also take the christian approach as well But I do acknowledge that a lot of the science makes sense on the plate technologies plate tectonics technologies of how it kind of works And it's usually described as the electrostatic and the The way that the well, these guys are probably going to laugh at it But the ether and the way that it works Across the exactly across the earth So there's a lot of different theories that obviously flat earth gets into because of that And the ether was also presented by tesla. So even though they laugh I mean some of the most brilliant minds on the earth have believed in the earth or so that doesn't make them right Doesn't make them wrong. We have a model. We have a model But we can't explain and we don't have to explain how any of it works at all You guys can't explain yours either. It's all theories except that's what we did and we also explain what theories are I guess that went Yeah, all right next super chat from lj Says mark why you start your presentation with a cgi glow pick Oh, just because uh, that's that's the one I could find it's just a just a presentation, dude. Don't get that so hung up I mean, there are there are um Satellites taking images all the time. There's a epic that takes images. I can't remember what the camera is called If anyone can remember what that camera is called But the epic satellite takes like real-time pictures picks up things like bushfires and things like that discover Yeah, so discover it basically is a satellite taking pictures and just because an image is digital doesn't mean it's cgi So, you know, I wonder about the radio signal on that thing and how much juice it's got to power that thing So I just think about the inverse square law when it comes to radio waves radio waves or low wave low What do you mean by power it's got to have all this power but radio waves are low wave They're low frequency and radiation Which means we don't need that much power So you're you're misunderstanding how electromagnetic radiation works and how how it um sort of there's there's low frequency signals and high Frequency signals and we can transmit sort of low frequency signals a lot easier and and you know, it also depends on the wavelength as well So if you want something like a laser, right that that's um High high energy, then yeah, you need a lot of power if you want to send a ham radio signal You don't need that much power. You just don't All right next super chat osin talks Sends five dollars Said tesla believed in gravity, but he had his own theory. He also believed in earth. He also believed earth The earth was a globe and space was real quoted people Quote people correctly Mercedes. I guess that was a comment to you Okay, um, there's definitely comments from him that would argue otherwise There was later work found from tesla supposedly after he died by the fbi that stated that he Believed in other things that completely contradicted his early work So it's really hard to know if you know if he changed his mind later or if that was just pseudo work But originally he stated stuff about like stars being attached to the firmament And he argued against relativity and all but all of those Like his quotes and things he actually said in newspaper articles are very easy to find Anything else that said is all just hearsay After that can I comment on the whole nicola tesla thing? You can't I would like her to have the final word. So that's fine. Go ahead. Um, so number one Nicola tesla was not a theoretical physicist number two He made no contributions or at least any major contributions to the field of theoretical physics And number three, this is just an appeal to authority going off of what some famous person said who wasn't actually an expert in the field There's a lot of people almost all of them are either deeply religious or they're flat earthers that or they're like, uh, robertson jenis and they're like, you know Geocentrists of some sort all reject relativity, but anybody who understands it and like how it works doesn't I I find that interesting Siding somebody because they reject relativity as an argument that relativity is false is just a non sequitur It doesn't follow that because somebody disagrees with the scientific theory Regardless of how popular they are that therefore it's false Neil to rock and paul steinhart disagree with inflationary theory, but 99.9998 of cosmologists don't Okay, so the final word I'd have to say on that is that he pioneered the generation transmission and use of alternating current ac electricity Which can be transmitted over much greater distances than a direct current And he patented a device to induce an electric current in In a piece of iron or rotor that spun between two electrified coils of wire It's also known as the tesla coil And it's one of the like biggest discoveries of our time. So no it's not Well, so that's that's And none of those are theoretical physical advancements. I just needed to let them have the last word leo because that's that's the format main It's fine. It's not super hard to the rule But it was leaned that question or comment rather was leaned towards Her so she should be the last one heard on it But the next one from john For five dollars says Mercedes if google is telling us they manipulate search results How is that evidence that the earth is flat globe earth theory predates google Um, even though I was saying that you can google things to find certain things out It wasn't about flight earth Most of what you can find is not by flat earth most of what I found was not by going through flat earth through google to Find about flat earth. I had to go through like nasa.gov and I looked up fo yas I had to dig to find a lot of that stuff because it's pushed down And most of the stuff that shows up on google Is all debunked videos you can't really find it. I had to use duck that go For like the very first two years So now sometimes it does cater to me because it knows that I am a flat earth earther So every now and then if I get to the second or third page, I can find something on flat earth on google, but it's very rare It's evidence of a war that's going on an intellectual war that's going on with they feel the need to censor it Yeah, and so that's what it's evidence of Yeah, I just like would like to address that that there isn't like there may be sort of a war going on inside the minds of flat Earth is that somehow they're You know making headway or doing this kind of stuff out there in the real world that there's there's no war going on Flat earth is sort of just a fringe idea that hasn't gained much traction with any notable businesses The problem is that they can't actually give any kind of mathematical or any kind of Model to account for the phenomenon that we see every day So without being able to do that We naturally use the the model that does in fact work and allows us to predict all kinds of things In in various different sciences, I would like to say that we do use math We just don't use theoretical math, which is a lot of times what the globers go to is theoretical. What's the difference? What's the difference? There's a huge difference because what is theoretical math Theoretical math is when you create certain variables that could equal just about anything and you can make it say whatever you want So all of the foundations of mathematics itself is theoretical math because that's exactly what it does. No, no That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that globers use theoretical math and yeah, what do you mean by math? Like what's the difference? The difference is you guys plug things in like gravity when it's still a theory and use it a part of your theorems and say Oh, because gravity's in here, then it's correct. No, well, that doesn't mean it's circular reasoning Actually, how it through math. Yes, it is. No, it's not because but then how come they're not proven How come they're not what's not proven? How come what's not how come gravity's not proven how come gravity's not proven because you can't prove gravity Yeah, because proofs don't exist Use them in your math. You don't know. You don't know what a proof is But you use them in your math The foundation of mathematics is where you find proof. It's not like everyday math that physicists Yeah, I was going back earlier. I have no proof of anything because proof doesn't exist and nullifying your definitive statements Thank you. Well, it exists in math and logic. All right If I may because I feel the next two for super chat. Well, maybe Add to this discord that's taking place, which I'm fine with But the same person john sends another five dollars To say to say to Mercedes you claim that water finds its level explain why you think that is the case What force is acting on the water to make it level? I mean, there's just density and mass but the The density of the water is more water's denser than air So it's going to go towards Like away from that and towards the center of anything that's level just naturally Electrostatic force There is an electromagnetic current coming down from there from from the firmament And it's coming straight down and uh, it's traveling through us and that is very observable This electromagnetic magnet force is a lot stronger than Anything to claim gravity to be I can't get into it as much as uh, as my fellow globe buster austin witz it does. He does a fantastic job of it I asked him the same questions and he also couldn't answer them I think I think it's almost kind of like it should be common sense question because if you pour water down a hill It's not just going to hang on to the hill and stay there. It's going to flow downhill. Yeah. Why right? Because it needs a force to do that doesn't it down hill. Yeah, but why why does downhill a lot of things move downhill? What force acts on them to push them down the hill? Don't deny a downward force being there. It's brand Brand cox who claims that the downward force is not there. That's brand cox. That's not us It can be explained easily with density That's like why when people do this like why my phone dropped it's actually because my why do dense things denser than the air Yeah, but why does that make it mean it's going to fall? Why does something being more dense mean it's going to fall through something that's less dense There's and how do you count? That's how density works No, you can have two things that are of different densities and still everything is fine like when meteors move through Clouds of gas and dust in space meteors are way more dense than that cloud But it's not like all of a sudden, you know, something pulls them down. That's no so that that isn't actually why do more dense things fall Okay, you can't Because We have like a big battleship and that's really dense, but it's still floating on top of the ocean So it's not buoyancy. Do you know what the equation for buoyancy is? I'm aware of what buoyancy is. I don't know what the do you know what the equation is I don't know what the equation is. I'm sorry. I don't you know, that's really funny Because um in the equation for buoyancy the equation is fb the force of buoyancy is equal to negative p g capital v What does the g there represent? Kyle? It's talking about a downward force again. It's talking about what That's not really an argument. I don't We're just arguing against it either being gravity or it being like an electrostatic natural downward force That's just there. Those are the and we can prove electrostatics They're present in nature, but gravity is not present in nature. They can't even prove that it's made out of 90% dark matter Which they haven't even proven that either. So, well, no, it's dark and it's 90% dark energy. So you don't But forces of rice from fields are not just there that literally makes no sense. Anyway, all right, okay So far I've gone this whole debate without having to mute someone leo you came like that, but Having said that the next super chat is from Lost my spot from john again $2 wants to know kyle does atmosphere have sphere in it Atmosphere has the word sphere in it. Yes All right next question. Yeah, because there's a hemisphere Because of the which is winner has multiple definitions What does hemisphere mean? because there's a firm Hemisphere Snow globes are globes also. Oh my goodness. I'm a global lever because I believe we live in a snow and a snow globe like environment Really? So you think it's a all a snow globe that's like three quarters of a sphere. It's rarium That's right. Yeah, like it's rarium or like the biosphere that they create a biosphere to look it up Oh, okay. Yeah, sure Okay, just like that next super chat um lost my place one second Uh lj for dollar 99 What's the proof of jupiter's size slash mass and gravity? I assume that's to our globe friends here. Yeah. Yeah, good. We got one now. Isn't that mass spectroscopy that they they measure the um composition of jupiter with I believe it is. Um, I think so Spectroscopy can't Mass spectrum mass spectrometry Is the analytical tool used for measuring the mass to charge ratio m ratio? Excuse me m over z of one or more molecules present in the sample It can't get past any kind of filter in front of it since I was told just google things if I want to know the truth How do we measure the mass of jupiter? Yes, we can compute jupiter's mass relative to the mass of earth with jupiter's moon callisto All we need to know is callisto's mean distance from jupiter or semi a major axis in lunar distances and callisto's orbital period relative to the moon's orbital period Or the sidereal one spectroscopy I'm just kind of like looking at like Pointing uh spectroscopy. I think he meant like in terms of like composition of planets. Yeah, am I right there mark? Yeah Yeah, so if you point a spectroscope right up the floor It's not going to tell you what the entire earth is made out of just by you know one portion of the floor All right. Yeah Wow Wow, I don't That's such Yeah, so that there are ways we can determine this and you know, we can look up the answers Notice that we're not saying well, I don't know. We just know that it is so Which is sort of more of a faith Excuse me. Kyle. Please Can we please have this guy be quiet while I'm answering which like Kyle is just a faith based position He doesn't know how he knows. He just believes that he knows Um, so, you know, this is the kind of sort of answer that you would expect Kyle, could you please refrain from being a two year old at this point? Thank you. Um I totally lost my chain of thought. Yeah, just just You know, I'll just basically doesn't know why he knows that it's true. He's got no epistemology for his beliefs at all I only had one more thing to add and that's that, um, we know the masses of our planets So well that and we can calculate them so easily that it's offered as problems on problem sets for a fucking astronomy students Because we know it that well Okay, so in the time that's just theoretical math, which is this math. That's not the math That that best helps me All right, so in the time since we've started to super chats Um, we have more now than when we began So So in the interest of That's great. That's great. But yeah, it just means that we got more work to do so Um, let's turn on the speed around a little bit. Shall we next question from robin webster $2 Explain the round impact on flat earth Is that too? Act on flatter. Is that to us or to them? It sounds like it is It probably is to the flat earth side. I would imagine No, I'm Robin. I think maybe they're talking about the warfare the the actual warfare going on So my youtube channel just recently got deleted. So I'd call that a round impact on on the flatter. That's not what he means That's not a He was not very specific and so I don't think you really get well me and mark We're trying to clarify it for you and you just keep interrupting. So how about you let us clarify what we think he meant And then we can go from there She what she did. Oh my bad. So I do want to explain it mark. I think you were Yeah, so so basically the the Plus what why is it rounded and where do these impacts come from? How did the majorites get through the thermo? She never mentioned meteorites at all And we don't even really suck it inference, don't you? Well, you're a flatter. Well, I I think that's what she means by by impacts. I could be wrong. So I apologize robin if i'm wrong That's what I thought I know she was real excited to get her super chats read. So at robin if you want to Target might like Send it to my name and I'll keep an eye out for you there I actually I have something to add that might help to like the round impact that's had on flat earth I mean, it's been huge because everyone across the earth used to know and believe that the earth was flat and over time that has been debated and I'd say the biggest the biggest time it really started was in the 1800s And you had people refute this too. You had people come up like ebb and as a breach Gilbert johnson Lady blout William carpenter who actually wrote that the earth is not a globe So there were definitely scientists of that time that came out that started having to refute the claim of the globe because it was becoming more widespread and Charles morse. That's another good one But a lot of these guys were scientists and they were kicked out of the science community Because there was a bunch of heliocentrists. It's running it so Robin did send me a message. I don't know if this clarifies for anybody, but she says Coriolis effect Oh Coriolis effect Explaining the round impact on flat earth she says Coriolis effect She also has another question right after we can just go right to her next one then First of two dollars from Robin Webster again. She wants Flat earth to explain time zones on the flat earth model Oh, she just wants us to explain both time zones and the Coriolis effect Well, the Coriolis effect has been debunked because in the water if you look um, and you've got like Those little swirling. I forget what they're called But like the little water spiral things they can be right next to each other and going completely different directions Um, and then there's also the other thing of where they say oh when your sink goes down the water It spins one way but on the other side of the earth it goes the other way But I've tested it and if you take your your sink nozzle and you put it on one side So everyone can test this tonight you put it on one side to turn on the sink It'll spin down the drain the one way But if you turn it and you face it the other way and you turn the water on it'll spin down the opposite way So it has nothing to do with what side of the earth you're on or any of that kind of stuff Uh, so the Coriolis effect is completely debunked. Um Sniper None of them use it to Funny all the ones I do I was gonna say tornadoes It's a really popular globe earth claim for some reason a lot of the goal But there's out there believe that all tornadoes and north of the equator go in the same direction But that's not true and I did a great video debunking that claim and showing anti They're called anti cyclone or anti-cyclonic patterns and We're coming not just from a flat earth perspective saying that but this is coming from different globe Earthers out there who are acknowledging the existence of these anti-cyclonic Weather systems That don't believe in the the Coriolis effect either and like I said most of them are snipers How come all hurricanes that form in the uh, southern Atlantic Ocean always deflect upward When coming into the United States over Florida in Georgia and Alabama They never go straight over to like Mexico Or something or they don't go like straight up and then over and hit the united kingdom They just they they go up like that. Why is that how come how come like they always do that? They don't Hey, okay, you haven't presented every single one to be able to make that big So you're saying that some hurricane I would say I would say that that's actually not You know, I would say that there's been times they've they've said that it would hit one one part of the state or that would hit Yeah, but that doesn't mean the general trend of the direction that it's going in because cities are so small compared to the hurricane And it's general direction. It can still be going in that general direction But miss a couple cities that thought they were going to get hit So that doesn't actually defeat the point that I'm right Well, we could definitely test it but that could also be due to tides. It could be due to the wind It could be due to the atmosphere. There's a lot of factors. How would those cause it? well, we have a lot of normal weather patterns that come from just the sun and so uh, just kind of the sun the movement of the sun is a big factor that can lead to repetitive observations and There are other patterns. There's a lot of different factors that really get into it But the sun the repetitive nature of the sun is going to be the first the biggest contributing factor Uh, what you mean by the repetitive nature of the sun that Are you are you trying to ask why do hurricanes exist in the first place? That is not what I am That's good. I'm that's good. Let's get on ladies. I'll just I'll just add one thing When you do the the Coriolis test in your sink It has to sort of just be water that you pull out the plug and watch which way it goes down Like yeah, if you change the variables, you might be able to get it to go another way But it really the the proof is in like if you do that same thing in the southern hemisphere, it will go the other direction That that's the test. I literally just said how it didn't but hey, James. What was the other question or the other Yeah, and I explained how the test was was when you had still water like fill up your sink Then just remove the plug and see which way spirals. That's the test. Um, all right, so Justin, I know that the the zoom says james, but that's okay. Um, and uh, yeah Let's just move on because in that discussion I recorded like six new super chats So, oh Sorry, we couldn't get to that. No, it's it's fine. It's fine. I think perhaps just and we should just have the people It was directed to us. Yep. Let's let's let's get this rapid fire. I would agree with that Um, I love the discussions and stuff, but We'll be here until monday Um, or tuesday depending on where you live Um, so john for five dollars Uh, Mercedes you cannot accuse google of participating in the globe conspiracy and then say you can google it To support your argument So, okay, so my my problem there is that I actually I've said this once or twice now I never said that you could google flat earth And get a viable result. I didn't tell people to google flat earth I told people to google certain things that could help the flat earth arguments and so many people trust Google and so many results pop up about certain things on google that they might accept But I never said flat earth specifically I said I'd have to go to duck.go or some other place as far as google Not, uh suppressing the information. All you have to do is look up the youtube CEO And you you can also look up statements made by the google CEO because I believe both of them made statements about the fact that they try to suppress Specifically tried to suppress Flat earth content and a lot of times it will even say on there that You know, like the site's been removed Or suspended and a lot of times it's by conglomerates like youtube and google So yes, there is there is something going on. It's the open the admit it Yeah, they do Um, so Mercedes being the new face here You're clearly drawing attention because I got another one with your name in it. It was in talks five dollars Mercedes you say we can only see three miles How far away is the moon to you and why don't you fly up there if it's three miles or less? Okay, so good question So, uh, what I said is that if you look up how far it says that we can see it says about three miles And that can also depend on the atmosphere and a bunch of other different things Um, but yeah, we believe that the earth like the moon and the sun are both small and local Um, so we don't believe that the the moon is Like 95 millions miles away like the sun is and we don't believe that it's even further than that away So, um, if you if it was you would not be able to see it Just like how we tried to use the example of the car going far away from you and becoming small and then you can't see it That's that's the kind of thing that i'm talking about is eventually it would just disappear and you wouldn't see it So if those things were really that far away, we shouldn't be able to see it at all Okay, next question war boss five dollars Uh for the flat earth side Um until flat earth have an accurate map and model no one should take anything they say seriously Can you interlocutors provide an accurate map and model? Okay, um the most accurate kind of map is a picture And so if you go up in in a plane and take a picture of the earth down below Of the city that is a working map It's very very accurate and so and yeah So we can also go into I can also describe that as a model a model is a like a demonstration of something Even just me describing something. Okay me describing the earth as a flat plane That is a model. Okay. And so a lot of people like to oh, no true scotsmen They're trying to dismiss it, but that's just by definition what a model is it's just a description of something I would argue too kind of like how austin did that if we're talking about like Uh models and maps the way that the glovers want it to be they also have fallacies Like it's on both sides because they had to literally flatten out the globe to put it the way that they did on the map And they talk about that they talk about how they had to take like a flat earth and wrap it around the ball on the computer too, so there's definitely Um on both sides they have issues with both model and both with map But at least we admit on our side that the reason we have trouble creating like A model that they they deem necessary is because we can't go past the firmament Just like they say they can't go past the van allen belt But for some reason I guess they tried to say that we did even though it's pretty much impossible and it would be on the globe Um, there's no way for us to go outside of it and actually turn around and see what it would look like for either the globe earth Or the flat earth so We can make models like little little tiny structures for you to see and and base it off of and like we said That's probably the best description would be a dome or a terrarium or like the biosphere too I Was in the army for eight years and we did We're just gonna go to the next question. You had a chance to answer. We want to answer this question But you did get a chance Didn't didn't you didn't you get a chance first and then was Shady's answered and now I'm gonna go to the next Okay, I'll just save it for later. Okay Robin Webster for two dollars Uh, why is the earth flat and other planets are globes Just because the lights in your house are Spherical often that doesn't mean the floor in your house should be spherical also The the lights are completely different Then then the floor in your house is Also, we don't believe that they're planets if you zoom in with a telescope you can see them And it also it kind of looks more like plasma balls and a lot of times what we see them as is wandering stars Which is what they were called all throughout history They've doctored images of what like Jupiter and Saturn looks like so if you go and you look at An image of what it actually looks like through a telescope versus what it looks like through NASA's telescope or someone else's telescope that's been a part of one of these programs It's a doctored image and they admit that So it's not what you're actually seeing when you do go out with the telescope and a lot of people have And they've posted videos of it It literally looks like there's some kind of water and then there's some sort of plasma energy ball That's up there. So it's something completely different from what we are Next question from osentox two dollars For kyle prove all the governments hide the earth Prove that all the governments hide the earth Do you want me to prove that right now? Just just like that jimmy man's shape of the earth, right? I can just point to my opening statement and about and I can point to Neil Tyson and michelle thowler and Bill knight of science guy and all these people who are always constantly saying that Boats appear to sink on the horizon Because the earth is curved and that's their big statement But my opening argument here was about refraction and about how refraction Ends up limiting a range of you not extending it and the whole boats appearing to sink on the horizon thing Is caused by this refraction effect. That's my whole proof right there And so if you want proof that all these people are lying about it that's that Them saying that is the proof and my direct observations is further proof I would say the Antarctic treaty too. We can't go past the 66 north latitude unless you're accompanied by a government entity or whatnot And they all sign this agreement all the countries of the world sign that agreement And then everything that I pretty much stated in my opening was Partially about that about why they would lie and all that stuff too. So There's there's definitely motive There's definitely motive more land more resources, whatever you want to think might else be out there too. That could also be a reason All right, uh forgive me if I get your name wrong Vara two dollars two euros maybe One piece of evidence that would change your mind. I guess we'll just go around and ask everybody Let's start with Mercedes Um if they spun around Something and showed us 24 seven video footage of the entire earth Unedited no photoshop What what piece of evidence would change your mind? Okay, my opening statement was about how refraction ends up limiting your range of view and that's kind of one of those big foundational point points in my model now if you want to claim that refraction extends Your range of view allowing you to see farther than you should That would be a really big step in towards changing my mind Yo Show me the ice wall mark um, I think if the flat earthers could come out with a Model that is consistent with the observations that we have a phenomenon around us And if it was detailed enough to give sort of some sort of explanation of why these phenomenon actually occur and explain them That would go somewhat to to convince me especially if it was more accurate than the upload model All right. Thank you lj 499. It's almost 2024. Why don't we have a non cgi video shot from space? Turning back and zooming into the spinning ball showing people and oceans upside down Well upside down has no Yeah upside down has no relation in space. There's no upside down. There's no right side up There is towards the earth and there is a way from the earth And that's what we commonly think of as right side up and upside down But that will vary as you go around the earth because gravity goes towards the center of mass Now there is the epic discover camera as I mentioned earlier and that captured bushfires that you know They couldn't they couldn't do otherwise. So Or that captures everything every couple of days It is very expensive to get satellites up there and certainly very expensive to stream anything so Well, yeah, there is a continuous live stream and it's on youtube you can just go and watch it That's on the international space station. It's pointed toward the earth and you can tell that the earth is clearly a globe We have pictures of it. We have video of it the only Response to that from flat earthers as well. They're faked and they can never show how they're faked how they know They're faked how like the structure of the image shows that it's fake They just claim that it's faked because it is it's it's the simplest response because it's the simplest demonstration of how they're So very clearly wrong All right, thank you. Our next question comes from christopher custom for five dollars Um, they've split their super chat into questions for everybody starting with flat earth what is the mass of helium And what is the acceleration of gravity on earth? To anyone on the flat side who has an answer I think it's a question for everyone Uh, well, they specifically said flat side What's the mass of helium next? What's the acceleration of gravity on earth? They then have a separate section for globe I've never observed That exactly all I can go with all I can point to that is what a textbook says And i'm not really I don't like to make claims like that This is so because a textbook says so I specifically go out and try to find Uh proof for my my statements like that. So i'm not going to tell you what the exact mass of helium is Just like that when I haven't observed that for myself Um, I was able to look it up. So I it says that it's a helium for adam is a stable isotope That is relative atomic mass is four I'm not sure why that matters but for what? For you What is you? I actually don't know what you is. What is you? Uh, it's it on here. It says four units. Um, that's all Unit that's all that I think it's atomic units because it's talking about the the amount of protons and neutrons in the arm Yeah, and did you guys answer the second half of what the acceleration of gravity is on earth? Uh, I've got it written down somewhere. I should have it memorized, but I don't sorry Yeah, I don't have it memorized either. I can look it up nine point eight meters per second squared Depending on where you're out. Exactly. Apparently it's not really locations. It varies by such a small amount that it's irrelevant Yeah, nine nine point eight meters per second squared is what it says online, too Yeah, okay, so the next part of the same super chat is for the glow side Explain the correct answer plus container Explain the correct answer plus container. Who's that for sir? So this is that same questioner. They say flat side. What is the mass of helium next? What is the acceleration of gravity on earth and they say globe side explain the correct answer plus container? So I think what they were trying to do is set up the globe side to Okay, correct the flat earth side Well, we gate the answer The answer anyway, so okay explain Yeah, at least that's how I think they're trying to form their question And if they're getting at the whole container thing, oh, well guess any container Is that that's if there's no acting forces on that gas and with earth There is earth retains an atmosphere because earth has gravity and earth has gravity because earth has mass a lot of it And so does the atmosphere the the gas is in the atmosphere. I think maybe that's the link to Helium that they're pointing out it still has some sort of mass And is pulled down like everything is on earth that has mass and and it isn't Density that is the deciding factor and how much pseudo forces applied to that that Adams it's it's actually that the mass and that's why it was linked into atomic units And I also want to just because the flat earth response is oh, but if I let go of a helium balloon it rises And yeah, that that has to do with the density of the gases different gases have different densities And so within earth's atmosphere will settle in different places and some might be higher than others But they will settle specifically in those places because that is where the stable gravitational forces on that gas And that gravitational force is going to be different for different gases of different masses We say it's density too. Just by the way All right Yeah, but you can't explain what that then that the density is or why it's the way that it is because you would have to use gravity I say i'm gonna read the next question now displace gamer It's been a member for 22 months Says flat earth never needs to have answers globe earth always needs to have proof Yeah, that's I'm assuming that's kind of for all of us Unless you don't justin sounded more like a comment even though it was phrased as a question Because I was gonna say it's the same reason why like from creationists you get the same thing when you ask them specific like Somebody saw a well, no, you know a biogenesis is is bunk god created life And then I say so how did god create life and then they say well, I don't know how but he did and it's insane that They don't actually have any specifics To their model and how it works particularly at a more fundamental level Which is what you need to have a successful model But then they demand every last little detail for how every last little thing works from their opponent And it's this I've seen it. I see it for flat earthers. I see it from creationists I see it even from like vaccine deniers and stuff like that It's just a way that the conspiracist brain works Everybody I see the opposite maximum evidence for everything that they say But I don't really need to know all that much about my model to know that it's true Yeah, I thought it was just a record of flat earthers to be honest with you because you know I thought that was saying that hey, you know, they demand complete proofs and absolute statements from us But they give nothing themselves Presented proof in the very beginning, but let's yeah, we're are we starting a new debate here or going back to that? No, no, we're going to um to the next question. I'm just recording more super chats here Um robin webster two dollars by 240 bc most greeks accepted a globe earth history motherfuckers That's that's a question or that's not a question. It's a statement, but yeah, I agree with that It's a statement earlier. He said that the greeks all believed were heliocentrous globus But who's atlas whose idea was atlas and what was atlas carrying because atlas was not lifting a ball He was lifting up the firmament All right Lee con the great two dollars Everyone hit the like Why is the globe so angry? Why is the globe so angry? I didn't know it's the planet. I don't think it has emotions as such I think he meant to say why are the globes you two are the globe? Why are you? I'm not angry. I I'm a little disappointed, but not angry Yeah, I mean I kind of expected to have my questions answered that I that I had which you know sort of all I got was a ignorance and and sort of platitudes and dodging and all of this kind of really Deceptive stuff. So um, yeah, I suppose I'm a little disappointed, but then again I didn't really expect, you know them to be able to answer them. So like I said, this is more of a game than Than a debate. Well, always. Yeah, I I don't think this debate is going to decide the future of you know, how nasa operates and stuff. I really don't um, yeah, so It's it's really kind of irrelevant. It's fine So not I know I guess as man's original win productions two dollars Kyle doesn't halaman two five twelve fifteen contradict flattery He's referring to helaman out of the book of mormon and the book of mormon if he reads the full context of that He said if god said move then it should move. Okay, and so that's a hypothetical situation there It's not saying. Yeah, if god were to command Yeah, the earth and say move then it will move, but that's if it's an if then situation And so he's anytime you refer to that you've you've got to acknowledge the full context And it's growing up around someone who have been mormons just to say even though that was pointed at kyle I will say that a lot of times they read the holy scriptures as well And there's over like six or seven verses that says that the earth is firm and immovable. So yeah we're The the firmament shows up a lot of times in our scriptures. So, you know, yes, it does just the bible Oh, yeah, not karan all like all of them like it's yeah, it's in the karan. It's in Uh, judaism even to um in their talmud. Yep. It's in lots of books So I see spin dollar 99 asks the flatter flat earth side Are all space scientists lying? I don't speak on behalf of all space scientists And so, uh, I think lying is when you know something and you say something wrong anyway And so I know the truth, but I'm going to tell you something that I know is not true That's a lie But I think a lot of space scientists out there they say things when they don't really know and so they're just kind of uh Describing the world according to their knowledge and so they a lot of them don't know that they're wrong Because they never question it. That's the way I was growing up It was until after I graduated college and got my bachelor's degree in science that I became a flat earther And so yeah, if I were to be telling my daughter back then when I was a globe earther That's not lying. It's just describing the world according to what I knew But I know better now. It's why I teach my my children better now I agree. It's not all um, if anything it's it's a lot of them at the top That no information like this that would have to know information like this, but it's it's by no means all I would say it's a very handful people that actually know the truth on this that are that are doing it intentionally to deceive people All right displace gamers ten dollars Why can't super high altitude balloons observe the firmament given the atmosphere is very thin at such elevations Because it's inside the firmament and not outside. So if you want to observe the firmament, you'd have to be on the outside of it to actually see it That's just common sense All right kingdom within five dollars This one's just support from Mercedes Apologizing for their tardiness, but they're here Nice there you go I see spin dollar 99 are telecom companies faking satellite signals The faking satellite signals they Say it's from a satellite, but if it's from a balloon Balloons they considered to be satellites echo one for example is a really famous old time balloon That is described as a satellite. And so yeah, it really comes down to how they're describing things or kind of what they mean But I would also I would also say with the underwater communications that I was talking about earlier I mean that that's what they say too that they use most of Even though they they make commercials about satellites and stuff. They don't come out and tell you Oh, yeah, we're doing this from a satellite all the time like it's it's implied so people just assume That's what it is. But that's not what it actually is. It's it's underwater Fiber optic network cables. Are you kidding me, man? No, it is not It's towers. It's towers and it's and it's underwater sea cables It that was even that was the internet why find the internet aren't the same thing Right, but how do you think how do you think those signals are transferred? To the country to country to the satellite No, no towers because the satellite plays into that. So do towers. That's that's a mobile internet That's actually mobile internet satellite internet is a signal in australia, which I have worked on Their base stations are in broken hill and calvuli in western australia They use satellite to send signals to the most remote parts of australia where there are no mobile towers anywhere within distance We do believe in satellites We do believe in satellites and nasa nasa admits that they have satellites So it's whether they fill up a helium balloon and they send a satellite It looks exactly like a satellite except for it's attached to a balloon and they literally put that in the air There's a whole documentary over. They're the number one buyers of helium. So yes Yeah, so the satellite network has only been one and it actually didn't work properly Didn't wasn't very efficient and actually collapsed. I can't remember the name The thing is that I've worked on For the two biggest internet companies in australia and I've had to send coordinates for the satellites to technicians to align the dishes and even if you look at the the Elon musk satellite network can't remember the name of it sky something Skyline That's the thing from I think that's what you are thinking of because it's star link. It's no no. It's sky star link. Yeah, that's the one Yeah, you see the orientation of the dishes are not sort of in a position that would hit balloons They're they're straight up to satellite connections and that's the coordinates that we use when we do use satellite connections So again the most remote parts of australia where there are no balloons are no Um towers. There's nothing to hit but sky All right, we're we're making good headway guys. Let's keep going. I see spend $1.99 Do airline companies mislead with flight pla flight paths Is that to us? I assume so. Yeah um Again, this is like people at the top. I would say there's a lot of people that are to see there's I mean a lot of people that have come out that have been Airliners specifically airline companies Right. Yeah, because the I mean there's pilots have come out and change their mind later So the airline companies may not know unless they're like the ceo of the board something I wouldn't imagine that the company like as a local locale company would know but that's just my take kyle Yeah, uh, I don't speak on behalf of all of them. I imagine some of them do but yeah, that's just how it is All right, and uh, I see spin again another dial dollar 99. Do ISS crew members get trained to lie? Yes, they do because they have to be in the underwater Uh facility, which is where they're actually at it's been it's been almost proven in a sense because one astronaut almost Kind of drowning in space. Oh that made me laugh when I saw nasa put that out I'm like, are you guys serious? You might as well just tell people that flat earth is real at this point Um, but yeah, that's mine kyle Oh, no, I think you sound perfectly Wonder where all that's in $2 All caps the earth is flat point blank period Phenomenal argument. I'm convinced Yeah We haven't really gotten a decent argument and and again I'll just have to sort of say that sort of I had three questions and none of them were answered in any way shape or form That's because you're looking at it. Excuse me. I did answer it. You didn't accept it. Excuse me. Mercedes Mercedes Upon asking for the reasons as to why we see the phenomenon We will see people just throw their hands up and say well, I don't know the specifics Which isn't an answer to the question when you're looking at questions You're really looking for explanatory scope that it is narrow enough to Focus on the phenomenon that you're looking at an explanatory power how detailed and how expressive can the explanation be Having explanatory scope of you can explain anything like with this firmament and no explanatory power Like you don't know how it does it. That's not an explanation. It's an excuse Justin, can I Can I add just just one thing about this astronaut who drowned in space? Uh, I I guess Mercedes doesn't know that space is extremely cold. It's like negative 170 something to So what this means is that we have to you well, it varies from point to point. So there is like one set There is that's okay. No, there's not. Um So the the thing is is that we have to use we have to use we have to use we have to use methods For keeping humans alive because humans obviously need heat you put a human in negative 200 degrees fahrenheit They're going to die very quickly. So there are water. There's water that's circulated through spacesuits And there was a leak in one as reasonable of a contamination. Um, and what this did is this caused the um the astronaut I can't remember his name But when he was on a spacewalk it caused his helmet to start filling up with water and he did almost drown So yeah, that's how you can drown in space. Yeah, and so yeah almost he didn't actually drown Yeah, and so what's really grim about this is somebody almost died and these people are laughing at that I'm laughing at the whole negative 250 degrees and my little space heater on my back is going to keep me warm Oh, that's what you think it is. Okay, that says everything about what you know about space and people going into it And I don't think I don't think anyone here can fathom how cold negative 237.4 degrees is and if you really think you can survive that with a little heat suit You got a problem and if you think you can survive I always felt radiation If you think you can survive the van allen's belt radiation, which they supposedly went through to get to the boot shielding With shielding. Yes. Wish shielding. What is this star? Yeah shielding no, it's just shielding Faces of aluminium That is the real world radiation goes through things Um, there's no shield Everyone please we made great headway now we're losing headway I see spin is gonna add some spice to this Salty conversation. Why did russia agree the us moon landings happened? I had to they had to because they participated in it They not only signed the treaty, but they also faked going to space as well might I add Go watch russia's because it's funny how fake it looks it is it's freaking hilarious how fake it looks when they sent theirs of Russia is currently doubting the moon landing get what the news Actually, yeah, they are they are starting to but that's I think that's because the whole political realm of what they're trying to do right now So, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Putin like came out and said something If he drops the Yeah They're funding the iss. That's kind of weird I'm pretty sure it's russia that launches most of the astronauts up to the iss too in the oh god. What are they called? Yeah, so yeah capsules. Yeah, that shows that they are in cahoots with each other. Yep. They work together International Yeah, so it's funny if they they are for it. They're they're lying and if they're against it. They're telling the truth This is kind of the confirmation bias that you have to show when you are in the conspiracy theory You know if the one source says oh, I'm bored you have to believe it But mega corporations say they're against it then at that point they're lying because you're using confirmation Mega corporations have always changed their mind based on how the money flows That's that's been proven russia is not a corporation. Yeah, that's got capital to you misadies All right next question squeaky eyes Squeaky eyes Together at a later date if you want because I'm a model I'm not for capitalism. Just FYI. Oh, well good. Then we don't need to debate it. Sorry Justin That was potential debate. I didn't know where that would go. I'm sorry. That's fine. That's what aftershows are for Let's go hang out after We found calling around in the meantime our audience is Really active and enjoying every million minute of this So let's continue squeaky eyes five dollars Theories explain things evidence should be compatible with a theory Stop using this as your argument with gravity Is just a theory I believe okay, so I think it's mostly Yeah, so basically the problem is that I see what the globe is At first it started out with everyone believing in the flat earth And then they started having to come up with theories and models to explain how it could be a globe And none of those held up in fact When albert einstein Made his theory of relativity. He admitted That all of the experiments that were to test the motion of the earth Failed I have the uh, I have I actually have his quote I'd have to take a second to bring it up And I probably don't have time in the question But I post it later in the chat But he did say it he did say that they all failed And that was part of why he had to create the theory of relativity in the first place Which also I think has been completely debunked as well. Um, just on the the data that I've seen so yeah Can I clarify for the audience sake justin after kyle goes? Go ahead kyle What do I get to go out about? Oh, I was just saying do you want to add anything at all about either what I said or what the question was I'm just kind of watching leo squirm. That's it. I'm He's like oh, he's no way. He actually said that and I'm just gonna Yeah, he did say it. I mean go look up. Go look up the quote. It's it's there I know where the quote comes from. That's not what he said comes from Do you want to look up the relativity the special in general theory because I've read it because I I know einstein What he said is that with respect to special relativity There is no experiment that could differentiate between say like the motion of the earth or It being everything else moving in the way that it is around the earth and the earth the stationary because in special Relativity it's an important word there. You there there is mathematically. There's no difference between a car Going past the light post at 100 kilometers an hour Or the light post and the light post being stationary Or the light post moving past the car in the opposite direction at 100 kilometers an hour and the car is stationary Mathematically there is zero difference between those but that doesn't mean light posts move past cars at 100 kilometers an hour So that's what he said. He did not say that the experiments failed He said there's a relativity to the experiments because it's the special theory of relativity Just just to end this just to end this really quick here then Justin I'm just going to read the quote really quick to the question whether or not the motion of the earth and space can Be made perceptible and terrestrial experiments We have already remarked in section five that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result Before the theory of relativity relativity was put forward It was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result. Albert Einstein relativity the special and general theory 1920 page 61 Yeah, we couldn't detect motion of the earth till we had special relativity in the mathematics It gave us to be able to know that the earth is moving you are like to mathematically show that you're correct Then we did yeah just because 2 plus 2 plus 4 does not mean a yardstick is four feet long I have no fucking clue what that even means. I know what no no no I don't need somebody to explain what he said. I'm just gonna respond there with my own state I'm too drunk to taste this chicken. Oh no. All right Um, okay, let me find my place here because while all of that's going on. I'm still actively recording new super chats Uh, which means I lose my place every time the last question was about the evidence, right? John two dollars kyle define what down is in specific terms Towards the earth Looking towards the ground that is down I think you meant the downers motion about mass and real force about this demonstration I think you meant the downward force Mercedes it was a question for kyle No, I know I'm I'm telling kyle. He wasn't sure what the guy was asking I'm saying I think the guy meant down what you met by downward force Oh, and not just the direction of down because it was it's the global earthers You don't know which way down it up because they don't believe down enough that it actually exists Okay, so the relative concepts, yes And uh, so displaced gamer five dollars when someone asks why What do you think they are asking? What is the difference between what happens and why it happens? Not it's a general question It doesn't really get to anyone Well, I mean I've got some comments on that so When people ask why At least in my mind, there's two possible ways we can look at this mechanism or intention So say and this this is hypothetical. I'm not referring to any real person But say you come downstairs and your wife has the pot on the stove and the water is boiling And you ask your wife why why is there water boiling in the pot on the stove and she says Oh, well because the thermal energy created by the electric coil as the electricity moves through it The electricity creates resistance that creates thermal energy and then that thermal energy is transmitted into the pot And from the pot into the water it excites the water molecules And is thereby creating a phase transition whereby water is actively going from liquid to steam And that is what boiling is But I think most people would recognize that that's while that is an answer of why There is water boiling in the pot on the stove. It's a mechanistic answer. It's not wrong But it's probably not the answer you were looking for So say you come downstairs and you ask your wife the same question and she responds with oh, I'm making some tea Would you like some? So that's an intentional Response to the why question. So I think there's two ways whys can go and I think that and When a lot of people are asking why in relation to like where me and mark we're asking why we're we want mechanisms What are the underlying mechanisms giving rise to these processes such that we would see the world in the way that you're describing it That we do not see it as I think that's an excellent answer Um this next question. I see Mercedes had to mute there for a minute. So hopefully everything's all right over there But this one's for the globe side anyways, and I know this because the person asking the question's name is lj for $1.99 Why don't we have the remain of any asteroids? But we do they call meteorites when they hit the atmosphere Yes, also Yeah, so like we do but uh, even then We do need to understand that a lot of them are I mean you can get some decently sized ones It really just depends on the size of the asteroid entering our satin sphere But even the six kilometer six mile wide schichelube impactor that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago This thing was not six miles by the time it like got to the earth because it's going to burn up in the atmosphere Now i'm not saying it was only two miles or something it would have shrunk relatively by a small amount but These things burn up in the atmosphere and they break apart in the atmosphere And that's what mark was referring to is they break apart and some of these pieces land in places and those are leftovers you're never going to get a whole one because Even if it was whole all the way toward hitting the earth Once it hits the earth Moving at you know 27,000 miles per hour. It's going to just it's going to practically vaporize Yeah, but you still do find partial fragments of meteorites all over the place We have tons of them and we know that they're they're not from earth because of the chemical sort of signature of me and Yeah, so and a better question is sort of Why are these people lying about satellites coming down in their backyard in australia kind of thing? I've searched on random person. I don't know why they're in on the conspiracy as well Also just really quickly. I wanted to add I oh, who was it? Was it to comment? I can't remember but there was Some leader in the ancient world who had a knife that it was made from from meteorite from iron that was found in a meteorite And I think that experts knew that from the particular isotope of iron that that was traced in in the blade So we've made stuff from the remnants of asteroid impacts or asteroids rather All right, I see spin dollar 99. Can the dome be detected by scientific instruments? Yes, I assume they're referring to the firmament Yeah, that's why I pointed out the encyclopedia reference that I made Because obviously if they can measure how high up the dome goes and they can shoot things at the dome from the 15 000 feet 25 000 feet How high did they measure it to be? You said they measured how high it was. What number did they get? Um, I'd have to I'd have to go back and look how high they said it was to be up I used to know it off the top of my head like two years ago Yes, I did used to know it off the top of my head, but I think it I I believe that in the center It is like what you said close to like the 20 000 range, but I can't quite remember because it's been a while So planes just don't work or they passed a firmament because the average um flight level for a commercial flight is 350 35 000 feet Some can go as high as 42 000 feet, particularly military jets So are they just passing the firmament or maybe there isn't one? Or maybe it's just taller Because every time we go that high what's it's just it's just up further than I guess because that's totally not ad hoc And what is it the concord goes higher? That's the flight between france and the america I believe All right, I don't make any claims as to exactly how high it is because I Haven't personally measured it or anything like that. And so they like nasa and the uh The people who went and did the the fishbowl experiments they make claims about that But I'm not 100 confident in their claims How would you go about measuring the height like what methods would you use to do that? Would you just get in a plane and go up or get in a balloon and go up until you hit something or how would you I mean if If it refracts electromagnetic radiation theoretically we could send radio waves up like we do with planes and stuff primary radar And it would bounce off because you said the firmament is physical Uh, and it can be measured, but we don't get that We do get they bounce off satellites, but otherwise they the signals just keep going We get it. It's called skyline technology. Thank you. Let's go on to the next question Okay, before we before we do go on to the next question. Justin, is it okay just for it'll only take a second Can I just share my screen for just a second? Yeah, okay, cool This is from my thing so Um, so this right here is from it. I can back it up because he actually opens up the book So you can see that it's from the actual encyclopedia Um, Britannica. So 13,000 feet high But look at where it's at. It's in relevance to new zealand so It's new zealand all the way across the earth So that was the 1958 encyclopedia that said it was the 13,000 feet by new zealand Um, and it said the degrees of latitude, right? So it said, um The myrtle sound on december 22nd 1955 and made exploratory fights flights over unknown parts of the continent until January 18th 1956 when they returned To new zealand these flights proved the inland areas to be featureless and character with a dome 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80 degrees south longitude 90 degrees east um And new mountain ranges were located at about latitude I can't see what he's his fingers covering it up and 50 west So the dome since it's a dome right if you're closer to the outer skirt to the dome Obviously that dome is going to be closer to you Then it is if you're at the center of the dome and how high it is up at the center So and planes don't fly over there. They won't fly over that way No, I'm not talking about in new zealand I'm not talking about in new zealand. I'm talking about where the dome is that low They won't fly on places where it's that low Which is usually over like the parts of ianardica that people aren't allowed to go to anyway Because as we believe on the flat earth We believe that there's the wall as you guys know We believe that there's the wall of antartica That covers the earth and that you're not allowed to go to antartica unless this is 66 degree latitude, which is in the antartic treaty All right. Well, since you've got the floor real quick Mercedes our next super chat is for you from john for five dollars And they ask you if you saw water flow uphill Describe what you would do to figure out the best explanation based on the evidence in front of you If I saw water flow uphill Um, I guess I would observe what could be causing the anomaly. Um I would check to see if there was any electrostatic or any kind of Weird sort of magnetic field around it that could be causing it to act different than what water should be acting uh weather differences Just it's just anything that could be an anomaly. I guess that would be causing it to flow uphill instead of downhill Is it the same thing affecting A ball if I drop a ball is that ball going to start rolling uphill? Is it just the water? And so yeah kind of Push the limits Yeah, it would be like someone asking me if I had a basketball in my hand And when I dropped it if it would go up instead of down like I would have to assess what anomaly is occurring for that to be happening Is it really water we're looking at and so yeah, we're gonna ask a lot of questions. We're gonna really try to investigate it Yeah, the con exactly explore the contents of the water. What's in the water? Is it just water? Is there something added to the water? um Can go 44 uh five and z I'm not sure if that's what that currency is but um Their question is I have I have to take gravity on I have to take gravity and earth curve into account for my day job Am I part of the Illuminati lizard people conspiracy? I wonder what is I don't even know who this guy is. So this is just gonna matter person claiming this and so I have no way I mean, it kind of does matter because you guys are dodging the question Am I a part of the conspiracy? So you don't know the guy it doesn't matter He's claiming he has to take these into account for his day job. Is he a part of this grand lie? Is he lying? I'm not gonna judge but leo. I'm not gonna judge him. I don't know him That's the whole point if you don't know someone how can you judge if they're in on something or not? He has to take earth curvature into account and you guys would say there is none. So why does he have to do that then? For his job I don't know of any job that would make you do that But I I mean that that doesn't mean he's part of anything or that he is But I can't comment on that because I don't know which job it actually is if he said which job it was I might be able to to say something to that Yeah, we don't have enough information to really make a full assessment a good assessment on that If we're not nasa we don't claim to be um, uh, omniscient We don't claim to be omniscient like let's let's let's be theoretical Let's say he's working for nasa if he's working for nasa and he has to take that to account every day for his job Then he probably is just someone being intentionally deceived by the people at the top What if he works for a shipping company? And he he's the one that sets like helps develop and update the shipping lanes or something like that And in order to do that because the shipping lanes are on a globe a planet that orbits to start And planets are around because of their gravity He has to take the fact that the planet is round because if it's gravity into account when he sets those shipping lanes And I'm not sure that this is how it works. It doesn't matter But what if that were his day job instead of working at nasa? If the earth is a globe, then why does he have to take this into account if the earth is a globe? That's the whole underlying globe assumption that you've got built into your question. It's a loaded question It's really more a question about Um, if somebody in their their work has to use principles that require the earth to be a globe Like as I said when I used to work in satellite communications, right or help out satellite techno technicians Um, does that mean I'm part of a conspiracy? I think is what he's asking Not intentionally no You're not intentionally being a part of it. So you can't be held responsible for it because you don't know Why does it work? Why does shipping lanes work? Okay? Actually, we should move on because that's a completely Oh, because I you finally asked me a question about maps and I'm ready to just nail it It's up to just I think we should let yeah, I think we should let him All right, let's go. Okay I'm perfectly fine with it. We do have a million more like super chats still coming in All I'm concerned about is that our 500 plus viewers get their super chats read as long as I've got the four of you with me We'll do this as long as we got to do this Till the end till the end I was in the army for eight years and we'd learned land navigation and all the maps we used in land navigation were flat maps Right now we learned about how we need to take magnetic declination into account Were you going halfway? This is what happens when you take a flat map Are you crossing oceans? You go around a ball you get all these like overlaps, right? When you take a flat map and put it around a ball you get a ton of these overlaps, right? in land nav We never had to take any kind of overlap into account. I'm sorry. We're the earth is actually a globe and we need to Adjust for the overlap Because were you guys navigating across oceans a flat map? You don't there's no overlapping process Where are you guys navigating? That's why they work because there is no overlap Were you guys navigating across oceans? Were you going 6200 miles in your journey? There is no overlap That's not what I asked you. What I asked you is what are the maximum distances that you guys were tracking over that you had your maps for I was in the army miles maybe Yeah, you you've said that I'm asking you these maps that you used they led you across whole-ass oceans I didn't claim to let let me across okay So shipping lanes do Cross oceans so where you may have been traveling where you don't need to use geodesics to understand The terrain that you're on because it's a small enough region if you zoomed in on a basketball close enough it would look flat Because it's you're at looking at such a small point on the sphere that to you it looks flat That's what it looks like to us on the earth, but that's not the way it is That's why shipping lanes have to use geodesics when there's sex you could shoot I was artillery. I was artillery and we could shoot a garbage can from 20 miles away dead on and there is no account for Yeah Try 2000 miles It's why in surveying there's there's two types of surveying there's sort of normal land surveying which done done over short distances And there's geodesic surveying which is done over very very long distances And when they do geodesics surveying they've got to take the curvature of the earth into account I will say this just as a quick tidbit My dad was in the navy for 10 years and part of the reason why he Also went to flat earth especially is because he was in he was one of those guys that was in charge of telling I'm like where to navigate the missiles and everything else. He was in operation desert storm and all that Um No navigate the missiles like where where to where to shoot. Yeah Um So he was in desert storm and things like that and the distance that they were able to shoot through the water Should not have been possible on the globe And they did not account for any curvature at all and this was across oceans of missiles that can basically altered trajectory probably Yeah, well, it's a missile and all the curvature into account And they weren't shooting missiles across oceans missiles can't travel for 4500 miles But we can't say but but we can't get bombs to go very large distances But we first have to send them up into space I didn't say you shot the missile across the ocean They just they traveled across different oceans and where they ended up It was all it was all by a flat earth map too just the same way as kyle was saying But he still believed in the globe at the time But if you look up the navigational uh map the aviation map like all of them are flat earth maps Sorry mesades you sort of seem to be saying that he was in charge of Like firing where the missiles were headed to but then you say hey, he traveled across oceans I'm not sure what one has got to do with the other Because the guy firing the missiles or deciding where to fire the missiles because we'll just let me finish He's not going to be doing the navigation for the boats over a large distance He's just going to be firing the missiles. That's all right, right But leo was concerned last time about what kyle said is if he had to go over ocean So I was just stating that yes my dad did have to go over ocean. So he saw those But he wasn't doing the navigation Yeah, but that's the maps that the navigators were using were those Well, that would have been using maps based upon a globe earth that would be flattened out and coordinates There is no overlap I watched a documentary literally from the official us navy youtube about uh supercarriers And they were talking about maps and the word geodesics came up when the navigator was explaining his job So maybe they didn't back then when your dad was in the navy, but hey, he do now So People from the navy he should talk to the navigators about they how they navigate He should probably talk to them because they will know how to navigate over extreme distances And they will have to take in curvature of the earth and their calculations of the most efficient routes over sea lanes And the other thing is when we navigated by stars They had to account for not only curvature of the earth But the rotation of the earth because then stars might be at different positions in the sky Based on where you are on the curved surface of the earth So you can know where to look and you can judge based on where you're at Relative to that constellation or those stars on the curved earth and you can navigate properly Somebody who would have been sailing from scotland like down to south america is not gonna have See the sky the same way as somebody sailing from china around To south america like it Yeah, we have jps. We don't use but I was just saying Back when they had to account for those factors, you know the curvature of the earth and um even probably its rotation Maybe maybe not its rotation, but certainly it's curvature Star maps Did you know that star maps were different depending on the hemisphere that you were in? But we explained that later that that's based on where you're at So there's the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. So if one person's looking one way together What does that mean? We've almost practically gone over the definition of the word hemisphere at this point Kyle Holding on so tight To his words the question I believe was technically meant for flat sides of kyle. Yeah, you're right. All right. Yeah a couple seconds and let's move on There's a new question. What's a new question There's a you were gonna say something you look like I gave the demonstration of the overlap and about how maps don't overlap. All right Then with that the next question is from kingdom within ten dollars. I believe the bible says the earth is flat It is he that sit upon the circle of the earth Now define the word circle if anyone can Case closed the earth is flat So a circle is gonna be a sort of geometric object where though the curved line making the circle Is equidistant from the center of it So you can draw the radius and the radius is invariant all the way around that curved line. That would be a circle Well, there's also Yeah, well, it's also a contributing myself. I'll let you finish mark. We'll just let flat reply to leo real quick. Okay I was just gonna say there's also a verse that kind of displays that this is a circle and not a not a ball And also in that same isaia, uh, that's in the book of isaia He does say ball later In a different verse. So there is two different huber words for circle and ball So he knew the difference and then also in job It says job 38 14 it is like a clay under the seal and his features stand out like a garment So, yeah Okay, so this is just one interpretation of the bible are the christians that vehemently disagree that that's what it means It also means that the word also says that the world has corners Meaning that it would have to if you're taking that completely literally it would have to have like physical Right angles somewhere in it, which we know isn't the case and not even flat earthers believe that The only person I've talked to about that that has even claimed that has been with certainly sort of I believe he said Um, oh, we don't know what's beyond the ice wall. So possibly there could be corners Who knows but a lot of these things aren't taken literally by um by any christian So it's just one interpretation. I also want to add that that Earlier super chat under the uh Hellermann or out of the book of Mormon it says and thus according to the world the earth goes back and it appears Unto man that the sun standeth still. Yay and behold. So for surely excuse me. I'm talking Um, for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun Already addressed that whoops Yeah, so I just want to point out the book of Mormon says that and the the bible It never really says that the earth is flat and stationary Oh I have actually have a rebuttal there like can I actually take my time to talk about I wanted mark to Kyle I wanted mark to close out the topic actually so we could get to the next question Um, so I appreciate Mercedes that you have a rebuttal and that kyle It gets you excited, but Mark finish your statement. Let's let me finish. Um, so It is only one interpretation and a lot of people disagree it does not literally describe the shape of the earth It has to be taken as either a an interpretive thing or metaphor of of because the the bible does give a lot of metaphors So it really it could go easy when it does though It tells you when it does it tells you when it's being literal and genesis was pretty literal It also says in one chronicle 16 30. He has fixed the earth firm and immovable Psalm 93 1 thou has fixed the earth earth immovable and firm 96 10 Psalm 96 10 he has fixed the earth firm and immovable Psalm 1045 thou did fix the earth on its foundation so that it can never be shaken Isaiah 45 18 who made the earth and fashioned it and himself fixed it fast There are tons of verses more I could go into especially joshua and books. They removed like jasher and enoch Um, but it is definitely a biblical cosmology and also if you guys look in older bibles Um around the 1500s especially they actually had pick tations pictures Of the flat earth model in old hebrou books the logos company for christianity actually made the ancient concept You guys have probably seen that one a million times But they actually came out with that because they said that that is what christians believe So no we do not take it Non-letter literally and metaphorically that is the skull field New age sort of doctrine that has infiltrated the churches and jesuit form Um through religious ambiguous, uh, notions. Do you speak hebrou changed it? Um, I study hebrou, but I don't speak it. No, okay How how well do you understand written hebrou? particularly from thousands of years ago I have to look up people that either have studied hebrou for Okay, so you're not a hebrou scholar. You're not you're not an expert in the language. Correct I'm not an expert in the language. Okay, but the reason I'm asking this is because all the experts in it Don't agree with a lot of what you just said relative. Actually, they do I can point to them I cite their names, but I don't want to be disrespectful to them I do want to respond. Oh, but that there are a lot of lot of christians that do believe the earth is a globe This is again another conspiracy theory that all these christians are somehow not christian Like a no true scotsman kind of thing things like psalms were obviously poetry that well, wait, I do want to make Excuse me I'm actually going to close this out. I want more to have to ask Right. The thing was to us not to you. Okay. This is how it works The people who the question is directed or the statement is directed to get to close out And that's what I've been allowing you to do. So please allow me to do the same. So let's be fair Okay So a lot of this kind of stuff is up to interpretation the corners of the earth is up to interpretation They all have different opinions on what that means and how it gets interpreted Some do believe that it should be literally interpreted The majority of christians disagree because the majority of christians do believe in a globe earth and that's just a fact I'm sorry if that upsets you it's just a fact and I anyway I don't know why we would believe the bible for any kind of cosmology or science at all It's not a science book doesn't have anything to add on science. It's basically useless for science So I don't know why we get this into a little thank you Thank you. All right next question congo 44 is back with another five dollars Can the flat earth folks? Please explain us sunset? Please don't say perspective the angular size of the sun does not change during the sunset The angular size of the sun does change during the sunset if you've ever seen the kind of They're getting warped out. You don't believe I can I can show you some examples like right now Through telescopes. I'll tell you we live in an atmospheric environment And I can show you examples of the sun kind of widening out and kind of flattening out as it's setting And that's because of this whole refraction because of refraction But it's angular size doesn't change. That's what was mentioned not refraction And it's angular size doesn't change watch a sunset Then get a solar filter Okay, I've seen multiple times this whole flattening out. That is not changing an angular size. Yes Nope, it's refraction. It's the light from the sun being changed as it enters earth's atmosphere the sun The thing that's actually setting it does not change an angular size Use a solar filter so you're not getting the light around the sun But rather just the the image of the sun itself. Have you have you tried that? Okay, so you're saying that solar filters can magically see through refraction I didn't I didn't say that I'm saying that when you use a solar filter the size of the sun doesn't change Okay, so if I use a if I use a solar filter, then I should be able to magically see around the refraction That's causing the the sun to appear warped and and uh elongated at sun sunset. It's not it's not magic It's just filtering out the light that's coming in so you're seeing the sun not the light I would love for you to Demonstrate that that the solar filter is eliminating this elongated effect of refraction Because I'm totally cold BS on that one. Yes, you may and this will be the the last word on the question Uh, just to the commenter, uh, if you're interested in it look up, um Sunsets with flat earth where they have zoomed in the sunsets and they can bring the sunset back up So it looks like it's setting, but you can take a zoom camera to the beach. I've seen it done a few times now And it's pretty cool You can take a zoom camera to the beach like a p 900 And you can zoom the sun back and it'll actually look appear like it's coming back up instead of setting Because they try to tell you it's disappearing over the curve of the earth, but it's actually not so Uh, when you zoom in it actually brings the sun back up as if it weren't setting because it's actually just getting further away from you It's not actually like setting the way you think it would be Um, and I think there is examples of that on odi tv's channel And there's uh, just like like random people that i've gone out and done it at the beaches I'm sorry. He keeps writing a flat earth youtuber as if that's some source It's not well before you got here Before you got here, I was just responding to someone that was asking a question about the sunsets I was just telling them where they could go to see that and I was saying you could go there Or you could just look at just any any amateur person that's taken a p 900 camera and zoomed it in because there are A lot of examples of people that have been able to zoom back the entire sunset and pull the sun back up From where the ocean is instead of disappearing under the ocean Yep, yep. So i'm already sharing your screen. So mark looks like he's got something he wants to share And I did say Mercedes could close the question Um, but uh, I believe what mark is going to show is in response to kyle So kyle, I will let you close the question after mark. Go ahead. That's for the solar filter That's with the solar filter. Okay, so let's see that refracted sunset changing kind of getting squished out like you see kind of is it in line king where you see that Sunset getting all warped out what you mean from there I'm talking about like a warped sunset That's that's with the solar you asked for for a solar filter where it doesn't get warped out And that's exactly where I showed you no I want to see the the warping effect without the solar filter and then you add the filter and then All of a sudden it's a It's put on the camera kyle. What are you talking about? Okay, so if you watch the solar filter and the the sun becomes elongated Okay, the sun gets elongated by the refraction and then I'm saying you'll ask for footage of the sun setting with a solar filter On it where it's not elongated and I just showed it to you. So you've got what you asked for I'm I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for With the solar hang on. Let me finish kyle. Let me finish. Let me finish You seem to be wanting to say hey show me something with the solar filter on Where it does elongate and I'm like that that's not what it shows Go ahead kyle respond and we're moving on So I like this here where you can see the the the sun is Really, I don't care what you like. I don't care what you like or filter on that and let's see it turn into a perfect circle again I can't put a filter on it. Let you realize that the filter is put on The filters put on the device kyle. Not it is an after effect Are you saying that it's the physical sun that is changing? Are you just saying it's because of refraction that it looks like it appears like it's changing It's because of refraction that it appears to change and adding a solar filter isn't going to make that refraction go away Um, can you guys see my screen share or not? Yes, okay And the only reason I asked is because I think this is what kyle was talking about like you can kind of see How the sun looks wavy Um, and that that's just atmospheric effects. It is literally nothing to do with the sun I agree that is that is atmospheric effects and the atmosphere Atmospheric effects, excuse me autism brain. Um, have nothing to do with the size of the sun So the the atmospheric effects of the refraction of the electromagnetic radiation from the sun as it enters There's atmosphere has nothing to do with the size of the sun. So that's not going to change Because the sun doesn't change Oh, I I'm saying that the parent size that's all I'm talking about here Yeah, but a parent size and true size are two completely different things Just like a parent distance and actual distance are two different things in physics as well But you claim that the size of the sun changes as the sun sets and I just said appears I was the key word it appears to change size, but it doesn't actually actually But it doesn't actually change size. I never claimed to actually change his size I just thought your motto would have to appear multiple times. It would have to Why would it have to happen because the sun isn't setting behind the horizon? It's getting further away That's that's the reason why so if it is getting further away It has to be changing size Because nothing that gets further away stays the same size in somebody's vision. It just it just doesn't I've got a really good demonstration of this exact thing. Okay, if you take a yard stick Okay, and I I used a I made a video of this where I took a whiffle ball on a yard stick And it's down here at eye level if that whiffle ball gets dragged across the yard stick a certain distance That whiffle ball is going to appear to shrink Uh because of perspective, right? But if I put that yard stick on the ceiling and drag that that whiffle ball Across the exact same distance That whiffle ball does not appear to shrink like it does down at eye level The sun doesn't it's not down at eye level and we have this refraction effect Which causes that yard stick to appear to to drop down on both sides of us in real life Does the whiffle ball set behind horizon? My point is that it travels the exact same distance. No, it doesn't it's just like the whiffle ball It's just like the whiffle ball on the ceiling It's not yeah, the question was to explain a sunset and make it go away Question was to explain a sunset. I believe Kyle has um done his best to answer the question And moving on to the next one since we've spent probably a good five or so minutes on that one Nominal five dollars. How much imaginary matter does relativity require to explain the observations of our universe? 85 percent 95 percent. How is dark matter slash energy scientific? at all because we've observed that galaxies Galaxy should be flinging themselves apart because the baryonic matter that's there does not produce enough mass For galaxies to stay held together despite the rapidity of their rotation We've also observed the galaxy I'm sorry. I haven't finished. I haven't finished. Um, we've also observed that galaxies Um lens light more than they should which means that there's more gravity there because it's gravity that lenses light um, but Baryonic matter is not enough to produce the Still for a minute buddy. You're frozen. It's requisite for the amount of gravitational lensing on top of that We can see in galaxy we What? You're frozen cutting out leo your videos frozen, but we can hear you Turn off the video. We can still hear you mate. No. No. I'll just close out you to tube and that'll be fine Look, so must be a green screen Must be all fake Thirdly, we can observe in galaxy clusters That that when they collide because galaxy clusters can collide We notice that the baryonic matter by the way, I should explain baryonic matters like the matter all the stuff You can see planets and stars and galaxies and all that fancy stuff and what you're made of in the periodic table That's baryonic matter. I'm not going to get into why it's called that uh, because there's like two people on the panel probably won't understand um, but That that matter shocks and slows as it interacts through friction But most of the mass Contained in these galaxy clusters doesn't Passes right through on top of that. We can see in galaxy clusters There's little in in uh mass density variation charts that there's little spikes where all the galaxies sit But most of these spikes sit in one big massive pump Where does that hump come from? What is the mass that does not shock and slow? Why do galaxies lens light more than they should and why are they held together despite the rapid rotations? What explains this is um, well, there's two ways that this could be explained There's dark matter and then there's modified gravity Dark matter posits that there's some tangible form of matter that does not interact via electromagnetism May only interact via gravity. It might interact via weak weak force But we don't really know we've run tests to try to see if it does. We haven't found anything yet modified gravity says Although there's no extra matter there. We just have to modify our gravitational equations on those massive scales And we will be able to account for these effects now modified gravity really struggles with some of these things like the The most of the mass and colliding galaxy clusters not shocking and slowing but passing right through How does modifying gravity saw that that that sounds like there's a type of matter there that doesn't interact And it can just kind of whoosh move through So dark matter is scientific because there's anomalies that we've observed that something like that thoroughly explains We just haven't observed the particle that makes it up yet And that's what pisses off some of the physicists So dark matter is not necessary for either special relativity or general relativity It's just that through what general relativity tells us about what we see We're seeing a little bit more Than what it tells us. So there must be something making extra mass And we know matter is something that can make mass So the concept of a matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic radiation Meaning that practically none of our telescopes are going to be able to see it could be out there Also dark matter makes up 27 percent of the mass energy density of the universe Our original matter normal matter baryonic matter makes up 4 percent and dark energy makes up 69 percent People who have actually studied actual real world cosmology that studies the real world know this Thank you, Leo Next question Next question is from x dronen $5 Why is nearly noon in japan right now? And yet we cannot see the sun from japan Is that directed at globers for us? I think what they're trying to suggest here is why is nearly noon in japan right now? And yet we cannot see the sun from japan. I think they're Assuming we're all in the same place. Let's say north america. Sorry mark and It's noon in japan the sun's in japan. Why can't we see it? Okay We live in an atmospheric environment. We have an atmosphere and that atmosphere has this thing called I don't know you can say that the sun's out here atmospheric opacity Prevents the light from reaching from reaching you. Okay, that's one thing There's three things three reasons why night is caused on the flat earth One is atmospheric capacity the the atmosphere's ability to block your view to atmospheric refraction Okay, where the light gets bent downward even neil tyson acknowledges that the sun gets refracted every single night Okay, uh downward and when that light can't reach you you can't see it Okay, so that's two is downward is refraction and number three is the the Divergence of light. Okay the inverse square lock light gets dimmer and dimmer over distance I just have one question kyle. Are we able to measure whatever the sun is? I'm not saying anything about what it is or how far away it is All i'm asking is are we capable of measuring how much light it gives off? Doesn't matter how it produces it, but can we measure how much light it gives off the sun? Yes Not that i'm aware of I mean, so what about a light bulb? Can we measure how much light a light bulb gives off? Maybe like in a specific place You know what lumens are lumens are a measure of luminosity how bright something is so we can measure how bright things are So I would think then that you would know exactly how far away it is. I'm not saying anything about that I'm asking. I'm asking a question. I'm not making any claims Do you think that we can measure the luminosity of the sun? I don't know how far away the sun is I didn't ask you how far away it was. I asked let me let me Let me clarify What he's saying is can we measure how bright the sun is Where we are not doesn't matter like sort of how far it could be really close and dimmer Or it could be really far away and brighter But can we measure how bright the sun is where we are now? As opposed to you know, how bright it is for a 40 watt bulb or as you know, 60 watt bulb or a 90 watt bulb I think what kyle's trying to say is that because of the inverse law of light Because we don't know like exactly how far away the sun is We can't accurately say what an accurate lumen It would actually be actually you can't because we don't know how how much dimmer it's getting from us to the sun Because we don't know for sure the actual distance We can make assumptions and we can make a guesstimate, but it wouldn't be a hundred percent accurate based on that Well, it would because of the math what you can do is just do it backwards And since we can measure its luminosity we can thereby determine its distance We don't need to know its distance to know its luminosity though You could determine that and equally you can know its luminosity and determine its distance It's that's that's how that's how it works for me long If this side of the equation equals this side then you can do some like e equals mc squared I can turn that into m is equal to c. What would it be c over c or um, uh e over c squared Yeah, m is equal to e over c squared because you can manipulate in mathematics And who was trying to lecture me on math earlier? You got it one final word there kyle You were trying to comment over top of leo and I don't think anybody heard you So I'll let you repeat your comment and we'll do the next question 2 plus 2 equals 4 does not mean a yardstick is 4 feet long So it you can do the math and just say I've got math But that math requires physical observation to verify it And without that visible that physical observation to verify it Your numbers mean nothing All right, can't go 44 $10 Water tanks to test boat hulls have have to be built very precisely To make sure the water is level all the way along the tank They have to take the earth curve into account Flats, please explain why I haven't I think it's kind of a loaded question that's saying that they do take earth curve into account and Yeah, I I haven't seen that verified I don't know that a lot of times they work in that industry So maybe they work in that industry. Maybe they know that they do that So I can well or they could be guessing I mean, we don't know for sure But I will say that what's interesting is oftentimes when I was studying a lot of the nasa documents And they would always have something similar to that pop up for The curvature of the gravity or whatever it would always equal zero Every single time it would equal zero And if I if I get a chance to ever debate with you again mark and leo because this was my first time I will definitely include those documents next time so you guys can see them for yourselves That are Yeah, so a lot of them I couldn't hear you mark Well, a lot of them are training documents They'll say assume that the the curvature or gravity is zero for the ease of making calculations It's sort of like how you when you teach someone to drive you don't take them on a crowded freeway for their first time So a lot of these training documents will say hey assume that you're on a flat stationary plane for the purposes of this exercise But that that that doesn't mean Just like the ideal gas law is wonderful in physics and it helps us out a lot, but no gas is ideal That's not how gases work because they're constantly moving their stochastic process physicists kind of jokingly I I can't fully remember the story, but it had to do with somebody saying like picture a cow except It's a perfect sphere and so they call these kind of scenarios where they start with like really basic or ideal Conditions before perturbing the equations with complexities that make the solutions More accurate They call these spherical cow scenarios So like if you've ever taken a course in just like classical physics You've done this all the time you've taken scenarios that don't really map to the real world Their ideal situations, but they still help you understand the concepts and how to apply them To the real world so the ideal gas law can help us in understanding how actual gases Actually behave in the actual world So the fact that ideal scenarios are used in physics and chemistry and a variety engineering a variety of areas of science Isn't an argument against the accuracy of what we really use when we describe a physical reality I'd say my only problem with that is that The pilots that I do know that have come out have all said that they were always taught from that perspective of assuming a flattened on Rotating earth it never got changed for them So the documents never changed as the trainings went on and got higher and also it wasn't just trainings It was also based on gyroscopes. I have one on gyroscopes I have one on uh missiles and how they launch and they're all also assuming a flattened on rotating earth So it's not just unique to training documentation that I will show an upcoming one Next question from squeaky eyes $5 Mercedes your sink test doesn't work The force of the tap makes the water go whichever direction Try pulling a plug as mark said Sink test okay, so you have to put it all the way to one side or all the way to the other side It will work definitely Yeah, but what they're saying is that the position of the tap is causing the water to change its Like where it's going The the test that should be done is you fill it up and then you pull the plug and see which way it naturally It sort of rotates down and the the whole point is that in the other hemisphere in this like southern hemisphere Where I am it will go the upper direction that that's the whole point The only problem is is that in natural situations a lot of water naturally flows Especially in the places where we're talking about the Coriolis effect So like the ocean and rivers and all those kind of things has moving flowing water. It's not water That's just stationary like you're talking about Yes, why are I told that? That would be getting all the way back into the whole density thing and the downward force Yeah, I think that's a kind of gravity. Yeah Yeah, but really I'm talking about the the test and and why the reason why we explain Why if you do that exact same test you have the the container of water You pull the plug and it will rotate in a certain direction in the northern hemisphere every time Why that happens the opposite way in the southern hemisphere that that's what he's getting at when you're asking the question Try it with still water and see what happens So I just pull the plug and see what happens We we can see it toilets flush in both directions here in the united states. We don't have to go to australia to see that I was just about to say that Well, I mean, there's no harm in providing doing the test as I've stated it, right? There's no no harm in that Oh, I did do it because like I said, I was trying to prove the flat earth wrong. That was one of the first tests I did so you did still water you filled it up turned off the tap. No, no, I did the toilet I did the toilet yes So what is the harm in doing it the way that I've stated which is filling it up turning off the tap Then pulling the plug and seeing how the water naturally flows down Then maybe contact someone in the southern hemisphere get them to do the same thing and then think about why that's happening What what's the harm in that? No one said there was harm in that. Yeah, well, you seem very reluctant to do it. That's not Oh, I'm not I'm not reluctant It's just I feel like I've already done the experiment because how is it different from it flushing down a toilet versus how it's going down a sink Because the position of how that water is coming out as opposed to a still body Affects the direction that it will be pushed in because there are other forces acting upon it So eliminating some of those forces will get you a much better test and that's a toilet purposefully angles the water If you watch the water drain out of the sides, it's always at an angle It purposefully swirls it and so that could be why toilets all swirl the same way All across the globe is because there's forces acting on them. The water is coming out angled. That's how toilets work I'm not a hundred percent how sure how toilets work. I've got that water that comes in the mold doesn't come straight in It's angled All right, so Aiden Casaro sends their first ever super chat just a dollar so they weren't able to ask a question But I just wanted to make sure it was known that I'm grateful for their super chat And then the next question Is from Icy spin Mercedes. What kind of telescope do you have? I never claimed to have a telescope. I used to have a telescope when I was a kid But I don't have one now Okay John two dollars Mercedes. Do you have a high school and college degree? They always ask that question high school. Yes college. No I went straight into it from high school I learned a SharePoint and a website design and software development. So I went straight into that HTML All right No, I'm not really much on the coding side. I like the web design type stuff So SharePoint and all that kind of stuff. Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah Icy spin with another two dollars. It's almost 2024. Why doesn't flat earth have a model? We have a model. We have a lot of models actually, but yeah I think they need to understand what a model is and if I pull out the definition of model and describe it to you I'm pretty certain by the way they're insert Insisting that we have no model that they're just no true scotsmaning way every model that they've ever every flat earth model Or description they've ever seen or heard of Yeah, because a model a model I would oh, sorry, you're fine I was just going to say a model on on here on the dictionary It says a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing of a proposed structure Typically on a smaller scale than the original. That's what a model is and yeah, we've had that around since Yeah, that's a bit of a different definition But I actually have to speak up in support of Carl. I think they do have a model My problem with that model is it's very vague and it doesn't fit the phenomenon that we see but even a very very vague And and an inaccurate model is still a model You know it the fact that it's vague is the problem the fact that it doesn't explain anything as the problem But I would still call it a model. So I have to back Kyle up on that one. Thank you Coming ground next question for both sides Issa kebber Kaber I'm gonna have to ask them how to say their name properly Issa $2 for both sides. What is your most simple convincing argument? My most the shape of the earth. I'm assuming Is what they're asking for versus the big topic. Yeah. Yeah Go ahead. No on your favorite movie. This leo. That's what we're asking on your favorite movie Hi, I'm just making sure okay Yeah, no, I'm sorry. Let's start with globe. What's your simplest most convincing argument? General relativity and how high the hydrostatic equilibrium between the material that makes up an object and the gravitational force on its every point of its surface Forces objects of a significant enough mass to be spheres and that's exactly why stars and planets in large enough Uh, planetesimals are spherical or spheroidal Park, that's the simplest. Okay. No, I got you buddy. Um, yeah, look, I think the simplest is circumpolar star rotation It works perfectly well on a on a globe earth like it it shown the exact things that we see in the world Represented perfectly on a globe earth and it just does not work on a flat earth If you understand that you cannot sit on the other side of the stars and and watch the backwards rotation But if you watched my presentation and do if you're watching this afterwards Do rewind and see it that how that graphic showed how that circumpolar star rotation works on a spinning planet It's it's beautiful. It explains everything perfectly while the flat earth cannot address it file We can see too far when there is we can see farther than we should when there is less refraction in the atmosphere not more of it Mercedes I would break it down to oakum's razor. He put simply the simplest solution is always the best and I would say that knock his razor says Well, let let her finish just letter. Yeah. Oh, shit. I thought I was I'm so sorry Um, I would just just say that uh flat earth is the simplest reasoning And they had to over complicated and add a lot of mathematical Theoretics nothing that's actually been proven to answer for a lot of things at the globe had Um, so that's that's one of the best ways to know that flat earth is likely the more reasonable explanation because also too you can't have a vacuum next to A atmosphere without a container and gravity is not a container So you can't use gravity to explain that away every single time Because they even say there's there's holes in the ozone layer if anyone remembers the 90s and that was all going to kill us It didn't happen. Okay. This is more than one simple proof Yeah, that was yeah, sorry to be fair. Um leo's also was not very simple But it was only one explanation. That's a thing He just talked faster than I did he just talked faster Um, all right. Yeah next question squeaky eyes two dollars says calculate your weight with no g right now please I could calculate my mass But not my weight. Yeah All right. I think that was not really even a question. It was Just a shot um All right, we're I can almost see the end Um, displaced gamer five dollars when someone asks why What do you think they are asking? What is oh? Hold on. I clearly read that one already. Here we go. Um angel slayer 169 for five dollars says Why won't DHL or other international freight companies use a flat earth model? Can you provide a commercially? Reliable model for the flat earth All right question Was that yes, it is a loaded question. What's it loaded with? A presumption saying that they all don't take they all presume a glober and I know the question was the question The question was can you provide an accurate map for the Flat earth to these companies that was the question Oh Can we provide an accurate? Yeah, well if they're using any kind of normal map It's flat. They don't point to a globe as far as I'm aware of you told me one of the Actually points to a globe and yeah, then we'll talk but right now. They're already using flat maps is my point Waypoints that we usually find on geodesics Bob for five dollars Says the ice wall is the only testable prediction of flat earth They must lie about the treaty to avoid testing it read the the treaty fully Every hypothesis is a prediction What I mean every hypothesis makes predictions I I would agree with that Every hypothesis is a prediction Yeah, I don't agree with that Yeah, but some some things that people throw out as hypothesis shouldn't be considered so because they're Unfalsifiable like if you sort of say hey, I have a hypothesis that may be a teapot around jupiter That's an unforceifiable prediction kind of thing. We can't test it in any way So it's not really you might not be able to verify it But it's still a prediction nonetheless I predict that there is a hypothesis because there's no way to falsify What what the person is saying is that the only thing that we can actually go to test is the antarctic treaty And the ice wall and a lot of flat earthers won't actually take The time or effort to go to Antarctica to actually test it and I wonder why that is as well Also predictions can't be un-falsifiable a prediction has to be able to just go to Antarctica and to be a Prediction. Yeah, they got turned around by people with guns. They they did a live live feed of you No, you said you've been to Antarctica. You said no, I said they actually have they actually say who's day When you said that flat earthers you wonder why flat earthers won't go to Antarctica I said they actually have they got turned around by people with guns I doubt that I I sincerely doubt that Um, they may since Roach yeah, okay the next question from uh For Mercedes technically but since we're like talking about ice walls and things of that sort John sends ten dollars the same Mercedes. How far away is the firmament from the ground? How far away is the farthest thing that you can see on a clear day? And is the firmament closer to the ground when it's nearest the ice wall? Uh to the last question. Yes to the second question three miles Was what I said that you can be generally see but that changes based on the atmosphere the haze all that kind of stuff Uh to the first question. What was that one one more time? How far away is the firmament from the ground? How far away is the farthest thing you can see on a clear day? And then if the firmament closer at the ice wall I think they have measured from the center down. I don't have that measurement in front of me And I don't know how accurate it is because I haven't done it myself. So I don't want to say for sure um but Yeah, I mean, it's it's recorded in the Britannica like I showed and like I said, yeah, that would be where the The firmament is at its lower point I love this notion that you have to do an experiment yourself in order to like trust it and that's just totally not how science works That's how science works completely. No, it's not. No, why would you just believe someone? That's a religion That's not what science is Yeah, that isn't what science is we just don't believe people that there's a process that is followed There's a methodology that people follow. I mean, well, you could do scientific experiment right, right? If you watch someone conduct that that scientific experiment, then it's verifiable because you're a witness But if you didn't witness it then you're just going off of what somebody says Well, no, what they do is they write a paper which outlines their methodology which outlines all of the things that they did Well, yeah. Yeah, so listen will be hear me out. Hear me out. Hear me out Kyle Kyle Kyle Kyle They write a paper outlining their methodology all the steps that they took and all the things that they did to get to the result And then other people come and they replicate that methodology They do the same thing and see if they come up with the same answer That's called replication and that's a hallmark of science. So all these people are trying to Disprove one another they're trying to find each other wrong so they can say hey actually They're not right. I've got the answer. The answer is this so in actual fact They're all checking one another because they have motivation for that person to be wrong and them to be right That's why we do so many laser experiments and go and test to see that if we can see too far when there's less refraction in the air That's Yeah, I know a physicist that works with lasers. What are you talking about? We do tons of laser tests To measure the to measure the seed how curvy oh no, I mean Yeah, I mean some people do laser ranging experiments and things but you know the Shape of the earth has been settled for ages. Like nobody's really taking that seriously On the topic of experiments Alex sends five dollars Was the mark sergeant documentary a hit piece after all the experiments he ran proved the earth was a globe What was it called? I forget what it was called, but the mark sergeant documentary I think they're talking behind the curve. I think yeah behind the curve So so jarenism came up with that that experiment that proved himself wrong bob had the um and rest in peace bob had the um Ring laser gyroscope that showed the 15 degrees per hour drift Sort of a lot of the things that showed in there were kind of yeah Yeah, there's a lot more to that story and I really really recommend actually hearing it from Like the survivors of who were who are actually involved in there go talk to jaren about it He's got a lot on it. Uh, there's a lot. He has a documentary on it. Kyle Oh, yeah Yeah, about the the true like what the real story behind everything because yeah They they cut so many things out of context there and they they didn't tell the full story But the they cut so much out I'm going to blow up by the way and yeah, the full story is there with them. Yeah, karen b is really good Great information on that. Okay doc dyno sends two dollars to invite kyle to join him on an after show for a geology question Uh, I mean he just asked i've got a debate board. He can come talk to me on my debate board anytime It's just he's a geologist So he's you know like plate tectonics out of the plates Convection currents that all that kind of thing, you know I'd love to see him defend the textbook that i've been reading and destroying Uh, I'd love to see you go to his after show and ask him But the next super chat here is I see spin for $1.99 the average cost of an astronaut's suit 100 million us Why Because of the technology that's in it like do you know it what's what it takes to go to put a human It physically in the vacuum I believe Based on ic spin's previous questions He's trying to ask the flat earth side to justify Okay, the hundred million dollar price tag I'm just looking at the coffee cups and about NASA's It was at nasa or the air force about like the like the five I don't know just ridiculously expensive coffee cups. I thought that was pretty funny So he didn't ask about coffee cups I know but it's kind of a similar thing is you can put a price tag and charge whatever. Oh, no, it is Also, also nasa doesn't at nasa doesn't make the space suits for nasa They have a lot of independent contractors. Yeah, can you name can you name the one that supplies them the space suits? No, that's I was agreeing with you, dude. I just said Dude, Leo, how drunk are you? I agreed with you man. I agreed with you You did earlier. I mean, I understand you have to come at my character because you haven't really been capable of making reasonable responses to anything I agree with you. So that's in the crack of your career That's fine. I don't care. I get it. You're drunk. I get it Okay, I did agree with you, dude. I was I was on your side I think that's great. Um, and then you both attacked me for being drunk And that's fine. You can think that I am if that makes you feel better about only because you attacked me for some reason I didn't hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You were the one who said you were drunk to taste the Do you not understand jokes? That's a quote from a fucking dude To be fair, you commented or spoke about being a tipsy earlier Yes, Mercedes and Kyle, let's leave it alone, but in any case That's a really bad segue to my next super chat Um Can't go 44 20 dollars for the globes Do you think platforms like facebook and youtube should take some responsibility for the delusional state? Uh, these people exhibit It's sad to see the level of brainwashing That memes can produce Uh, sorry, could you repeat the question? Leo dropped out. I think I think he lost connection. Sorry But what was the what was the first part of that question? Do you think the basic like social media question and regarding Things such as flat earth for example. So do you think platforms like facebook and youtube should take some responsibility? Yeah, I mean, but the the flat earth has been around since before it was Even a thing so in some way this these kind of ideas get around without it The more widespread it is perhaps it did contribute to that But I think that's just one of the drawbacks of having such a Well communicated society now Um, a lot of information is shared around that we wouldn't normally have access to but a lot of misinformation is shared around That that is not true So I think it's sort of a double-edged sword that we have and I think that the The the good science being able to be communicated and people to understand our universe in our world is worth the sort of You know, there's this sort of mean ideas that come up So, yeah, I I I don't blame Um, the the internet for bad ideas. It may be responsible for spreading them far wider than they probably should So, yeah, uh, what are your thoughts there? Um take responsibility for what would be my question Spreading around bad ideas basically Well, I live here in the United States of America and like bad ideas it sucks But uh, I don't think flat earth is harm like really that harmful Um, I don't think most people believe it I don't think that literally 99.9 going out 48 times of people on the planet believe it And if they saw people spouting it would just ignore them because clearly these people are insane and don't know what they're talking about Or they understand how reality works and they're just lying for cloud on the internet. But yeah, um I think that like some what youtube does youtube doesn't really take their stuff down. It just puts The thing the little thing underneath the video that says hey this idea is dumb and archaic And nobody believes it anymore for good reasons here that they are like that I think if that that's that's good enough There are things I do think that should actively be taken down because they are harmful like calling for the genocide of jewish people All right. Yes, john $2 Mercedes quantify the heat loss rate of a space suit Quantify the heat loss rate of the space suit Um, I'm not in space. So how would I quantify that? What what do you exist in if you're not in space? I'm not in outer space. Okay So you do think space exists. Okay, that's good I think that within the firmament, which is where we can't go where the sun moon and stars are I think that is an outer outer space that we cannot go to. Yes Well, I think it's because um, you sort of said that you can't um Sort of maintain temperature within this insulated sort of warm suit by its equipment And so I think they're asking you to quantify that statement. Why doesn't it work? Oh Oh, okay. Um, that's actually just more of a common sense answer If a fireman went into a burning building Even though he might be wearing a flame retardant suit suit It doesn't mean that he wouldn't die from like lack of oxygen or the amount of heat that's touching his body Despite the flame retardant suit He can still die from that and from just the toxins in the atmosphere and although Although an astronaut suit might have Like a helmet and everything else and they're they're getting the oxygen pumped into them and everything else Like it shows he's still being subjected to the heat. It doesn't matter You can still die from that it may if your suit may not catch on fire Your suit may not catch in fire if you're a firefighter But you can still die from the heat because your body is being exposed to it We're very fragile very fragile creatures. That's all great. But space Spacewalks don't expose you to intense heat. They expose you to intense cold. So you'd have to handle that differently, wouldn't you? You would have a fireman suit You would have to handle it differently, but it still works because it's extreme weather And extreme weather can affect Extreme weather can affect you whether it's heat or whether it's extreme cold. You're not exposed to weather Ozen talks sends five dollars to add to this by staying a spacesuits External exposed to the sun can reach plus 120c or plus 248 And that's actually because there is no atmosphere to the radiation vacuum is a thermal insulator And here's a fun fact, you know who came up with those um thermal retardant suits for firemen and the oxygen systems for firemen NASA Is that what you're gonna say? Yeah, I figure because of the funding they got from the government to be able to pursue those kinds of developments You know why they pursued those developments They needed to regulate temperature. I wonder why Maybe to fake things under the water or to go to Antarctica or Water to extreme weather conditions to fake that they were walking on mars when really it was just somewhere in the desert They needed to deal with extreme temperatures like you know Extreme heat like osium was talking about there or extreme cold like you know Would ordinarily be in space when you aren't subjected to the radio Radio waves from the sun Yeah, they're in water with that big bright star that you can see when they're out in space that totally doesn't exist in the water I did want I did want to ask leo How you think radioactivity works because do you think that radiation radioactivity is Interactions Damn it. Okay. Well, I can just answer it's really quick radioactivity as a result of weak interactions Now I can get further into that but I don't think justin's down for that I'm down for it. I just I just we're able to do that honestly. Yeah um But the next couple super chats here are kind of random From nominals five dollars asking can go 44. Tell us you're authoritarian without telling us you're authoritarian And then john sends two dollars to say justin. Please feature more of your adorable adorable doggo She guys didn't notice I know 120 pound great dane And uh, she was basically trying to say what are you doing? I miss you And you don't say no to 120 pound great dane but moving on Kevin brown says five dollars. Why wouldn't russians during cold war have just said hey We just sent our guys to mars and here's the video proof I think it's similar to the other question that was asked earlier Okay, fair enough john five dollars mercedes um, do you understand that? I'm getting jealous The new blood always gets all the attention. Ah, yeah, it's rough. It's rough. So mercedes. Do you understand That an encyclopedia is not a primary source. Do you know what a primary source is? kyle same question to you That's why we go out and do our own experiments because we need we are the primary sources and so we need to have That ability to say we went out and tested it for ourselves We don't want to just say my textbook says so therefore it is so we don't want to say My encyclopedia says so therefore it is so but yeah, it's tested for yourself And I threw it out there because I thought it was kind of a cool facet that they had that in the encyclopedia at the time I do think that there are still there's still obviously reliable sources within encyclopedias Because we've been using them for a long time way before the internet came about that was like our google back in the day And while it's not 100 trust worthy like kyle said, that's why we got to go out and do the experiments ourselves as well so I would argue phone books were our google back in the day, but that's true Um john Nope, that was john's questions alex two dollars. What altitude do planes fly to scott base Does that mean something to anybody what altitude to planes fly to scott base scott base Yeah, um, I feel like there's a couple titles. Maybe an autocorrect. Scott base is Oh, is it? Okay. Yes So then the question must be to the flat earthers Asking what altitude would that plane fly to get to scott base? I don't know So new zealand uh research station in Antarctica actually I thought I'd look it up. Yeah, good questions Okay, uh, so I don't know is the answer. I see spin two dollars flat earth without smiling Is the earth flat? The earth is flat Yes The earth is flat Bob sends two dollars. Oh, damn it. I was gonna do the same thing He didn't even make it to stop me Bob sends two dollars, why would the sun get wider at set on flat earth model? So I think they're just gonna save some letters there. Why would the sun get wider on Sunset on flat earth model. Didn't we talk about that for like 15 minutes? Well, that's how long ago that super chat was sent in. You were in the middle of talking about it So it instigated a question. Do you see how it works? That's why we end up here for answering questions so Bob if you're still here, and if you're not satisfied with the answer to that question yet You can just directly message yahool again in the chat and we'll ask for a reiteration Aiden afnan Casero The person who sent their first ever super chat earlier has now sent their second ever super chat for two dollars Why do more dense things? Don't make a loopity loop I assure you I read that. Why do more dense things don't make a loopity loop Because density doesn't cause things to go in a loop. I don't Oh, wait, are they trying? Okay, wait, wait, maybe I might be able to to destroy Your guess is as good as ours. So go ahead. Are they trying to say that this is Uh, they're they trying to equate density to like the motion of what planets would do potentially like the rotation We we can only we can only guess again if you can clarify your question Aiden just direct to yahool again and and I'll I'll see if I can Fix that. Um, oh, we're on the last page. Here we go John Michael B five dollars. How does seasons work on a flat earth? Refraction we've got a lot of demonstrations of this where, uh where if you I've got there's a large glass uh Or acrylic kind of magnifying glass And if you put the sun if you put your light source on one side of it It can cause a downward refraction. So it only lights up half of of the map not the whole map I would say too that if you look up the flat earth model The sun and moon had different rotations through the tropic of cancer And then capricorn. So throughout the summer seasons to the winter seasons It'll make smaller rotations enter towards the summer and then when it gets towards winter it starts moving outward Um, so that's why we see the changes in season So it's actually very similar in some ways to the globe earth as far as like rotation stuff goes Uh, but it's just instead it's the moon and the sun and the way that they're rotating Then they're going like this instead of like that. What causes that variance? I'm sorry. Theo what would you say? What causes that variance? The the sun what causes the sun to move from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn? No, no, no what causes the the diameter of their orbits to go go from smaller to bigger to smaller. What causes that variance? I didn't say their their size changed I just said that their rotations Yeah, it sounds like what you're saying is that the the radius of their orbits gets bigger in smaller Is that what you're saying? I'm saying that when the sun is in the summertime It will make smaller circles. Yes, you're saying it's radius is smaller than it is in the winter It sounds like you're saying the the how far out it makes the circle how big of the circle of its Orbital radius or whatever the orbit. Yeah orbit. Okay. Yes, or what causes the variance in the orbital radius Why is the orbital radius changing? What force is causing that? I don't know And there's another thing about the flat earth model that we don't know Okay, um, so I'm going to go back real quick to bob because he did send me the message Um about the sun getting wider at the sunset. He says that Um, they flattered did not explain why it does. They just said that it does So unless refraction was their answer If the sun is further away it should get smaller Oh, we I wouldn't explain that in depth that the whole widening effect. It's from refraction. That's what's causing the compression Yeah, we did kind of get into that. I feel like I also talked about the the the shape of the sun and about how The sun doesn't always appear to shrink at sunset and I did cover that with the yardstick on the ceiling versus yardstick on the floor Okay, john ten dollars Mercedes What is your best estimate for how close to the ice wall you need to be in order to see the firm in it? i.e. How close to the ice wall is the firm less than three miles away Probably sure. Why not? I mean, I I can't go there. We can't go there because we can only go to the 66 for a south latitude And that's with government approval Uh to a designated part of Antarctica. So Yeah, there's no way to there's no way for me to physically go there and do that myself to estimate Eric Erpolding Eric Erpolding five dollars gps satellites are not balloons. How does gps work on a flat earth? That's a loaded question What's it loaded with? What a presumption that they are not balloons. Okay. They're not balloons They sit 14,500 miles above sea level. They're not balloons. They're satellites Say what you want I would I would say that uh gps doesn't always work I come from montana originally and sometimes it goes out when you're in the mountains. So yeah, that's you losing signal to it Not it being inaccurate. You're just it would be like the the internet if your internet cuts out That doesn't mean that like all of the internet somehow failed. It just means that you are no longer connected to it That's the exact same thing of it failing No The gps systems works just fine. You're just no longer connected to it Then that's not working Well, no, it's working and you're just not connected to it Your device is not strong enough to pick it up at whatever place that you're at But that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the system. It means Why is it wrong with your it means there's something I'm about to explain why if I could get there. It has to do with your device that's trying to pick it up But why is it strong enough to pick it up sometimes and not other times Because it depends on our satellite star Because if you go up to the base of a mountain or you have a pillar It's it's going to block the signal whereas if the satellite's directly over you then it can just go straight up It all depends on sight lines So places like mountains and things you might have to wait until the satellite actually comes over you in order to Connect to that satellite because it works as a direct line of sighting But you can go out to the middle of the australian outback in the middle of the desert with like literally nobody for Kilometers around thousands kilometers. It will work perfectly I also wanted to add that Our gps satellites because they're so far outside of earth's gravitational field We actually and this is how we know that at least special relays Relativity in general is true is um the clocks on our gps satellites Because they're further outside of earth's gravitational field and so experience less gravitational time valuation um The clocks on our gps satellites have to be consistently readjusted to the atomic clocks We have here on earth if we did not do this The gps on your phone would be in a 24 hour period in a mere 24 hour period would be off by seven miles Okay, um, so going Oh, we lost leo I think that was a mic drop Aiden replied to me earlier. He was asking about the density of things and loop-de-loops He clarifies Why do more dense things always go down? Why not make a loop-de-loop or go sideways? Is that directed at us? Yes, I would imagine so, yeah I feel like kyle and I already explained that. I don't know how more simple it can be Yeah There's a natural downward force. There's a natural down and up. They think it's relative. We don't we think there is an actual up and down We're not like brian cox over there claiming that the earth is actually rising upward No, yeah, we're not the flatter society. That's government run provably okay Wait, can I just ask one quick clarifying question on that? Yeah. Yeah, we have two more questions left Okay, so you're saying that there's there is some force that makes more dense things go down But it's it's just there and we don't know what it is and we can't explain it Is that what you're saying that when you say like natural force or that it's like naturally there Whatever it was that you said are you just saying that it's there and we don't know anything about it and I guess that's that I don't understand at all. No, there's there's a natural magnetic force to the ground So there's a negative and positive in nature. That's why when you take two magnets together You can stick a positive but not everything is naturally attract each other If you take a compass if you get a compass out it will always point north Yeah, that's because that's because of her magnetic field which does nothing to force things down Yeah, because you'd have to account for neutral objects that still fall and they're not charged They don't experience the electromagnetic force then so what would be forcing them down? Do you have an example of something neutrally charged? Yeah, most things Most things are not Most things can be electrically charged We just have to align the poles of the electrons that make them up neutrons are electrically neutral Shit quarks have Fractionally electric charge like the up quark is a plus two-thirds electric charge So electric charge is very interesting. It can come in fractions Um, you can have positive negative and you can also have neutral in which case you will not experience electromagnetic forces I think maybe you're young for me to understand what you're talking about No, I'm just I understand physics and you don't that's what according to harvard The earth surface is negatively charged relative to the lower edge of the ionis ionosphere The ionosphere is way up there at least except except in one place I'm sweet. I wanted to make one point. I wanted to make one point water Which is the best conductor of electricity is considered to be positively charged So that means that water will be drawn more to the negative force That actually sometimes in rare occasion or actually it happens quite frequently The earth becomes positively charged and that's when a lightning strike occurs Yeah, I can happen. Why don't things fly up? Why if the charge is reversed and that's what's causing things to go down Why don't things fly up just before they hit it does like When you when you rob a balloon on your hair and you hold it up here, it makes your your hair fall when that's when lightning Exactly Static is different. Yeah, that's different static electricity is different from It is a feature of there's electro statics, which is a feature of electromagnetism This study specifically static, which means like stationary not moving static electricity But static electricity is one Out of I probably close to a dozen different instances of electromagnetism. We got electromagnetic induction. You got electrostatics magnetostatics. I mean, there's A lot out there actually so many of them But my point is that if it is the negative charge of the earth that is is causing us to Go downwards then why is when it is reversed to be a positive charge that we don't go upwards? That's that's my whole point or at least be unaffected by gravity I was I was under the impression that leo was saying that not everything is electromagnetic and no not everything carries an electric charge That's what I said, which is yeah, he changed. He clarified. I'm predicting pbs's nova when they said I don't care what pbs's nova says. I care what physicists and electromagnetism say We'll care about how I'll understand the electromagnetism as a fundamental interaction in nature That's what I care about They think neutrons Hold on hold on mark. You just asked leo Let kyle finish Got kyle go ahead. Okay. I was just saying it's totally okay for you to disagree with Pbs when they claim that electromagnetism is the glute of the universe and the whole reason why it's not They're wrong because of electromagnetism. That's their claim and so if you want to disagree with them That's totally electrostatic repulsion more specifically. Yes But electromagnetism is not the glue of the universe that would either be the strong interactions because that's what holds protons and neutrons together And subsequently what holds atomic nuclei together or it's gravity which holds literally like everything in the universe together Not at a small scale like Those are strong nuclear forces probably the the main one in yeah, you know, yeah I applaud your that's why we have matter All right. Oh, this is this basic standard model physics. Anyways, I'm okay Uh displacement gamer ten dollars. What is the exact radius of the ice wall? Additionally what methods or strategies are in place to prevent unauthorized access to any and all parts of that huge area The Antarctica treaty that was signed by over 150 nations And I feel like we already answered the first question because we said that we can't go there. That's the whole point We can only go to the 66 Southern latitude so Also that the Antarctic treaty is just an agreement between countries to not station any military operations there and not to conduct any mining operations There that would sort of upset the balance. That's not all it says go read it I'm reading it right now. Actually and mark's right part one And part one freezes part one freezes, yeah And that's what so you write when you said part one then you froze Oh No, it says art periods. I'm assuming article one Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only Article two freedom of scientific investigation and Antarctica and cooperation towards that end shall continue And article three scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and freely available That's all it does that that's it. Those are the articles of the agreement of the treaty Yeah, how much does nothing about ha ha you cannot go past this particular latitude Yeah, it doesn't say that I'm sorry How much does it cost to get a permit? Look the fact that we have capitalism does not mean anything I'm sorry. Well, it depends on what kind of like trip you want to take there If you're just doing tourism and you want to go to Antarctica You don't need a scientific permit if you want to conduct scientific We don't want to do we don't want to do a cruise. We want to just get it there and go and travel As we please I mean the prop the problem is that they don't want people running or because like I said It's a delicate ecosystem. If they let anybody do any kind of testing in Antarctica They might do something to you know cause an ice sheet to break off or cause some kind of climate They they will do sort of um tours where you can go to specific places. Yeah, sure that they'll do that um, you know and I'm not gonna let you wander around Antarctica unmonitored with no permits for anything like You just don't need to be there then at that point So there's actually you can get a scientific permit to say that you're gonna go find the wall and show everybody Here's the wall and let's look oh we we found a way to climb it and look over. There's the edge There's the edge of the earth, but nobody will ever find that because it doesn't exist Walk all the way across Antarctica. See what's on the other side How much is the permit? Cross Antarctica trips to like the south pole and stuff Well, I don't know. I haven't looked it up, but they have to be in physical Prime physical condition because it's really dangerous. It's it's absolutely freezing down there Why and the permit to go to a designated wilderness area in the here in the united states like they're around here Oh my goodness. There might be mountain lines. They don't care the mountain line comes and eats me out in the designated parks Antarctica isn't getting designated as a park Antarctica isn't designated as a park designated wilderness area. That's not a national park But so wilderness areas are out there. They would be a form of a park. Um, yes, uh They would be handed by parks in rec is a national park I didn't I never once said national park. I just said park. There's state parks. There's county parks There's community parks. There's a lot of different kind of parks and Antarctica isn't any of them Okay, I just wanted to quickly bring this up really fast because I have Okay, I'll be quick. There's the 14 articles of the treaty obvious and I'm reading them all I'm just reading the two that matter and articles shall be used for people peaceful purposes any military measures with the exception of use of military assets for scientific research or any other Peaceful purpose are prohibited. So that was the one that you were talking about But the 60th south degree latitude that you said did not exist does it's the sixth one It says the provision of the treaty applies to the area south of the 60th Of south of the 60th south degree latitude Yes, that's so it is it is in there. Yeah Yeah, it applies to that region but nothing in the treaty says that people can't go there In fact, I'm just looking here for us australian and british citizens No visa is required for argentina if you go through argentina if you stay for less than 90 days However, a reciprocal fee is charged to us and australian citizens for us citizens. The fee is 160 dollars and per australian. It's a hundred Australian dollars you said It says that the freedom of scientific investigation in an anarchy and cooperation as applied during igy shall continue So everything everything it talks about between Expeditions all are talking about scientific programs that they have to approve It's not it's not just what we're saying is that it's not just anybody like I can't just go No, you can get a permit you can apply for a permit from the government because the region past the 60th latitude Is designated as a and what is it an environmental protection area if you do read that treaty? That's what it's designated is it's not designated as a no-go zone It isn't designated as some kind of off-limits Environmental protection so you can apply for a visa you can apply for a permit you probably will have to In some way why you're going there Why would they have to protect it if it's just because the ecosystem of it's it's not just nice It's a very delicate ecosystem where a lot of damage can be done by people doing very minor things like breaking off ice Putting cracks in the ice it can it can disrupt the balance of that ecosystem very easily and we understand this It's it's it's most of it. It's just ice. It's not land There's conservation here To the next question from john for two dollars Kyle does the down electrostatic force act on gas? Yeah Richie constitution five dollars says I work on an icbm and we tested often using a globe model and it works flat earthers How do you explain that? I'm not he tests. What he tests. What can I just hear that again? I think that's an intercontinental ballistic missile. Yeah I'm not sure Age of Empires cheat code icbm All the icbms I saw on uh nasa.gov said that they based it off a flat and I'm rotating earth so I don't know. I have a feeling that NASA is probably actually not saying anything about icbms That would be the department. Yeah, that's saying that correct. You'd be surprised how much nasa actually deals with missiles Um, yeah, I'm familiar with that. I understand how their connections used to be naka after all I don't know if that's true. Well naka was a national. Yeah, it did it did it was a national aeronautic committee of America, I think or something like that It was was an aerodynamics Place before that doesn't I don't know what that's supposed to change though Well, that's when they were openly talking about missiles Well, usually the missiles more associated with jpl these days and jet propulsion laboratories Which is adjacent to nasa, but it's not the same thing and because nasa does use rockets a lot of those fields do overlap But if you're talking about icbms, which are designed to be fired up Use the rotation of the earth and then come back down in like a massive arc using the rotation of the earth to do their parabola Then you're probably talking, you know, not nasa because that's not what they're doing They're firing things up and they're not supposed to come hurtling down on somebody ideally yeah All right, ideally Our last super chat of the night john for two dollars says kyle You definitely need permits to go to some us parks Mm-hmm. That is true Dio national park You need to get and there are places I think where you can't go because they're considered conservation areas and they don't want humans there because it could disturb the ecosystem It's not because they're trying to hide a secret base under yellow stone that has aliens in it It's because they don't want you to disturb the delicate ecosystems that exist in these areas Let's let nature be nature and let's regulate these areas keep them safe and keep humans out of them Zion national park which is not too far from where I live Uh, that's totally different from designated wilderness area that i'm talking about Well, when I went for making designated wilderness area, it's an environmental protection area covered by a treaty of 60 something countries, I think All right. Well, that brings us to the end of an incredibly epic Flat versus globe debate. Thanks. Well, first, let me thank the four of you That was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed that Yeah, thanks, just and then thanks to the interlocutors. That was that was hugely fun. I had a great time So thank you so much. I want to point out quick Mercedes told us the start of the debate that her headset was broke. So she's been holding on to that side of her head Uh for almost four hours. So props Um, oh Here's my little dog aria by the way for anyone who's wanted to see her again Don't punch any with anybody with your left arm Mercedes because you're probably going to send them through the wall And tell us where we are. Let's get a kick start up for a Mercedes headset. Please. Let's raise some money to get her a working headset Please. Okay aria sweetie All right. Um, yeah, don't forget to like subscribe Uh, and I'm going to be heading over to matters now to do an aftershow and discuss how this debate went and Explore some topics even further everyone in the audience is welcome to come on over to at matters now and and join us It's an open stage. Um, I believe doc dino also hosting an aftershow and Yeah, where can we find any one of you at any given day mark? Let's start with you I'm at mark read atheism on youtube. I do kind of debate reviews. I do counter apologetics I do all kinds of fun stuff have good time And I I love doing debate So if you like debate come over to my channel if you are interested in sort of counter apologetics and calling out Really bad ideas. So thank you Leo, how about you? People can find me at leo filias. I I also do debates and post them to my channel or Talk some talks with people on my channel Um, I I mostly focus on a lot of topics in physics and the philosophy of physics With an emphasis more in areas of cosmology and quantum mechanics I also focus on the philosophy of science with the specialty in the metaphysics specifically of science Um, I recently did a review of a video that appeared about a year ago on capturing christianity's channel Where he had dr. Thomas burgardis on talking about Presenting a novel argument that that dr. Burgardis has with regard to naturalism and the the successes of scientific explanation Where he argues that if naturalism is true then scientific explanations cannot succeed So if you're interested in those kinds of things, uh, you can head on over don't subscribe. It's a terrible channel. Don't do it I beg you, please Kyle, how about you? Where can people find you any given day? I'm on youtube with abolished nasa just abolished nasa. Kyle Adams. There I am All right, and mercedes your first time here in modern day debate hope to see you again soon But in the meantime if anybody was interested, where would they go to find you? Um on telegram. I'm known as the outcast researcher and then on youtube. I just had to change channels recently because of the Uh getting kicked off. So now I'm the th ee great awakening Um, don't have much on there right now. Um after getting kicked off But yeah, the telegram channel is definitely a viable one and we'll see if I can never get youtube to agree with me All right, and uh, I'm just saying I was the moderator tonight And I'm with modern day debate and it's 162 000 subscribers strong super proud of that and that's all because of you guys Thank you so much for hanging out with us. Thanks for your thank you to our moderator who did this for four and a half hour Thank you It's it's the real plane is on aria because the poor girl probably desperately needs to go outside and play in some snow and relieve herself So as I go do that real quick before I go join uh matters now That's what I'm gonna do. Have a great night everybody. See you all next time. I am not a crook