 Good evening, everybody. Welcome to modern day debate. We're going to be debating flat versus glow. And to get us started, we have 10 minutes on the floor for Flatsoid. So thank you so much for being here, everybody. And the floor is yours. Thank you, Nathan, for letting me sit in for this. I don't even need 10 minutes to be honest. But it's good to be here. And I really appreciate that Craig's giving the time for this. I will first start off with saying, yes, I'm a biblical earth. So that means the cosmology is actually still biblical earth, even though Craig doesn't like debating biblical earth. So I just have to give that a shout out. So yeah, and one thing I will bring up tonight, which is a given, which Craig will have to demonstrate is how you can violate gas laws. Because the claim for the globe is always, you do not need containment to have gas pressure. So I'm going to expect a demonstration where you can actually go and violate this, not point to the sky demonstrated. The second point I would be putting up is that we always get is the horizon is a physical place for a sphere, which is false by definition. A horizon is an apparent optical position where the sky and the earth appear to meet. So if you want to claim it is a physical earth blockage, you will have to demonstrate and substantiate that with evidence. We will also bring in with the horizon rises relative to eye level, because I figured that globies don't understand what the word relative means. If you are going to rise relative to eye level, it means no matter your altitude, the horizon will always be in your eyesight line of view. Is the horizon physically above eye level? No, the water is physically below you. But due to perspective, it rises relative to eye level. What else would I bring up? Coriolis effect, not really much to talk about as it's just very simply. If you're going to say earth has Coriolis effect, you can't claim conservation of angular momentum, because then there is no effect to observe. If you claim Coriolis and have no conservation of momentum, then we would actually see the deviations, but we do not do so. So I think that's all I really need to bring up now, because we will just hinge on Craig trying to demonstrate anything for his claims of the globe. Thank you. All right. So we have 10 minutes on the floor going over to FTFE. So thank you so much, Flatzoid. It was a little quicker than I was expecting, but that's cool. We're always having fun. And if you're having fun and you're excited for what we're about to discuss, hit the like button, and we're going to hand it over to FTFE. Thank you for being here again. That was interesting for strawmans of the globe plane. Brilliant. I mean, I don't really need to address any of them, because none of them were evidence for the flat earth. So I did write down the things that Flatzoid said there, but well, I'll move that out of the way for now. All right. So yeah, we've got a horizon. Thank you, Globe. The horizon is literally an effect of the curve of the earth. I do appreciate you bringing up the horizon, debunking the flat earth, because it's something that can exist on the flat earth due to, you know, anger, things being possible. Yeah, we have an atmospheric pressure gradient, which is not only an example of, but a prediction of gravity acting on gas. I can look at the sky, all I want. I don't care if you tell me that I can't. The sky can show things happening in reality. So if you tell me I'm not allowed to use reality and nature and natural things, then you're just saying I can't do science, which is kind of something I disagree with. So yeah, gravity, which is something that specifically acts with a, you know, over the squared, which means it, as it moves away in distance, it decreases in the amount of attractive force, which gives the prediction of one earth being a sphere when it reaches a certain mass and two, that there will be a different attractive force acting on the gas of the atmosphere, the higher you rise in altitude, which means that as you raise an altitude is going to be less attractive force pulling down, which means that there's less pressure at that point. We see this demonstrated in reality. I don't care if flat soil says that I can't use the sky in reality. I'll just use Mount Everest as an example of this. At the base of Mount Everest, the air pressure is 14.7 psi. As you go up to the summit of Mount Everest, it's about 6 psi. There is no container in between those levels of gas. So the claim that gas needs a container is just something that flat earthers say. Pressure is just forced over area, nowhere there, does it say, but gas needs a container. But if flat soil wants to talk about containers, cool, gravity acts as a container. And here's the killer for the flat earths container argument. All of the pressure that exists anywhere, be it on earth, out in space, in the vacuum of flat soil head, any of those areas, they're all contained within the universe. So yeah, there's two containers for you. Stop asking for containers because there's containers. The universe contains everything that is in the universe. It's kind of the nature of the thing. And obviously, on earth, the atmospheric gradient is created by gravity. It's simple examples, right? We want to talk about how science works. Science is very, very, very simple. You observe something, you make a guess about why that thing is happening, and as Richard Feynman says, you compute the consequences of that guess, which is a prediction, and then you test that against reality. That's what the globe does every single time. The empirical evidence of gravity, which is the main backbone of all the arguments around this, exists everywhere. Experiments have done all of the time, the Cavendish experiment which I've done. I don't need to show it because I've done that hundreds and hundreds of times on my channel. Gravity is an empirical fact that exists. Everything that flat soil brought up in his introduction was, and let me be clear here, not something I even need to address because they were all strawmans of the globe claim. I don't really need to go with my intro because I'm kind of just waffling, to be honest. I didn't prepare any for this debate. So let's just get into an open discussion and have Flatsoid display his ignorance of actual physics and science. All right. Well, that's both of our speakers' introductions. So thank you to both of you for your introductory statements. I want to remind everybody, if you're just hanging out for the first time at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion. We do hope you feel welcome. We try to welcome everybody here into this space. And yeah, once again, we are going to do a Q&A as per usual at the end of the discussion. So if you have a question, Superchats will be read with priority. And I'm trying to understand that we may have limited time as well. So get them in early and they'll be asked early. So open discussion, floor is all yours, guys. Great. What's this nonsense about gas pressure? How are you guys still not getting this? Seriously? Okay. Can I quickly rebut your openings? Is that fine? We can start at gas pressure because that's the one I really wanted you to talk about. First of all, I'm going to educate you. You're not. You're going to say things that I am. Well, let's give him at least a minute here to clarify his response to what he just heard. We'll not interrupt anymore. I do apologize. Over to you, Flatsoid. This is okay. This is going to be easy. Mount Everest. Is it part of Earth's mess? Yes. Yes, it is. So should it attract the gas the same through Earth's mess? The attractive force of Mount Everest is slightly more at that point, but the overall mass of Earth is way bigger than Mount Everest. But you say it's part of Earth's mess, correct? Yes. Yes. But the air isn't being attracted by Mount Everest. It's being attracted by the entire mass of Earth. Do we see gas attracted to Mount Everest? There's a pressure gradient at the bottom. So yeah, we do. No, you don't see gas attracted to Mount Everest. Well, I just said that we do and told you how we do. You going not to use that from being a fact. Okay. You literally just conceded Mount Everest is part of Earth's mess. Then you conceded that the gas is at the bottom, not at the top, correct? There's gases at the bottom and the top, yeah. Well, more at the bottom, correct? Absolutely. Because of the entire mass of Earth is the thing that is mainly attracting the gas and the mass of Mount Everest compared to the mass of Earth is tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny. So the influence, I'm in the middle of saying a thing. I do apologize. The amount of attractive force by Mount Everest is tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny and will not affect the air in the same way that the Earth will because the Earth's mass is much more creating a much, much larger attractive force. But Mount Everest is part of the same mass? Correct, yes. Okay, let's put it this way in a similar, let's say you got a boat on the ocean. You would say that boat has a mass. Correct. And I go and put containers on that boat. Does it change the overall mass of that boat? Yes. The Mount Everest? Well, okay, to be clear, no, the mass of the boat hasn't changed. You've added extra mass onto the boat, creating a sum of total mass of the boat and the container. Great. But would that boat now with the sum of total mass have more attraction because the mass has increased? More attraction to what? You say mass attracts mass. So would it have more attraction because there's more mass? Specifically. Does the boat with the containers have more mass? Yes, yes, it does. We went through that. So will the attraction be greater? The attraction to what? To the mass, the boat. To what mass? You're asking will the attraction of the boat be greater to the boat? If it is has a greater mass, will the attraction be greater, Craig? Will the attraction be greater towards what? Can you clarify? Boat. Will the boat's attraction towards the boat be greater? No, we're talking about gas pressure, yeah. This is what we're talking about. So will the gas pressure be attracted to the boat because the boat has more mass now? Each individual molecule of gas will have a slightly stronger attractive force to the overall sum of the boat and the containers than just the boat on its own. However, that force created by the overall sum of forces of the boat and the container is so small as to basically be considered negligible compared to the entire mass of the earth. Great, so Cavendish then null and void? Not at all, no. You've just displayed that you do not understand the Cavendish experiment. Sorry, did you not just say Mount Everest or the boat would have such a minuscule effect that it will override the overridden by earth's gravity? Just to let you know, Boat, so what I'm going to do is every time you interrupt me, I'm going to just stop. Sorry, Ryan, can I can I ask you to moderate? Well, I can actually answer my questions when I ask instead of in trying to say, instead of interrupting me like a little child, just answer the question because you're supposed to be grown up. Well, I was going to say at any time you guys can ask me to either go into muted rounds, we can go into a cross examination. Like I said, I don't mind. I'm just explaining what I'm going to do to the audience upon a debate. Every time Flatsoid interrupts me, I will just stop talking, point out that he's interrupted me. And then once he's finished what he's saying, continue what I was saying whilst ignoring the interruption just so everybody is aware. So back to the Cavendish experiment. The Cavendish experiment is set up that the entire apparatus is under the attractive force of the earth, allowing you to measure the very small attractive force that is sideways, sideways compared to the attractive force of earth pulling the entire apparatus downwards. More than one force can exist at the same time. Again, to be absolutely clear, the entire apparatus of the Cavendish is under the same downward acceleration due to gravity. That means that we can then measure the attractive force sideways because everything is being pulled down the same amount. We can then say, oh, there's also this measurement sideways. We can measure the attractive force sideways by changing the distance between the masses, which is the IV in the experiment, which will increase or decrease the attractive force between the masses, which is the DV in the experiment. There we go. We do have to give them a chance to respond to some of that there. Okay. No, it's fine. You brought up a few points there. First of all, you just conceded then you would have an attractive force sideways to Mount Everest, which debunks your claim. Secondly, sorry, an IV for Cavendish. What is the IV supposed to be? The cause is supposed to be gravity. Why are you saying distances between masses? What is gravity? Would you please define for us what gravity is, Craig? Well, I'll respond to each thing that you said first because you said three things. The first thing was, yeah, you said something about the attractive force of Everest. Well, the Everest is not an experiment set up to measure attractive forces. Nobody is denying that the mass of Everest will have a very, very, very small attractive force on the things around it, very, very, very small, just like in the Cavendish experiment. The attractive force between the two masses is very, very, very, very, very, very small, which is why the apparatus is so precise and set up in that way. Also why it's very hard to measure it as accurately as we would like. You can't just debunk it by saying, well, the mountain should attract air. It does. We just don't have the apparatus to measure it. But we can measure the attractive force between the masses in the Cavendish experiment. In an experiment, the IV is something that changes the DV. The DV is the attractive force. The IV is the distance between the masses that changes the attractive force. That matches the predictions of gravity. Now, what was the next thing that you said? Oh, yeah, no, that was that. Actually, each one of your points, actually. No, it wasn't. Define gravity. Gravity is an attractive force between masses created by the curvature of spacetime. Nope. Sorry, that's false. Okay. First of all, I'm going to correct you again. Based on you just said that the gas would be attracted to Mount Everest. We just don't have the apparatus to measure it. In other words, you're conceding then it's a belief and you have no empirical evidence for it. So, therefore, in null and void, it's null and void to say you can use Everest as your demonstration. Just like I said, pointing to the sky is not a demonstration. Secondly, your IV is supposed to be the cause for the effect observed. You are claiming gravity is the cause for Cavendish, correct? No, Cavendish measures the gravitational force. It's not the cause for Cavendish. Ah, so Cavendish cannot be used then to claim gravity is the force for the acceleration of masses. Well done. So, you have a null and void conceded. You cannot use Cavendish to claim gravity is a force. Congratulations. I'd just like to point out to the audience what Flatsoy does here. He constantly says that I've conceded when I've done no such thing. What Flatsoy has done is misunderstand things and then claim that I've conceded something that I clearly haven't. It's not my fault that he doesn't understand. There's a hypothesis that mass is attracted to mass. That's what this is. And that means that the hypothesis is that all mass attracts mass. But we need to figure out a way to measure it. So the measurement is the prediction that there would be an attractive force that's proportional to the product of two or more masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That's a prediction. How do we test that prediction? We create an experiment to test if there is that attractive force at the ratios that I just said. We set up a Cavendish experiment because the Cavendish experiment is able to test if there is an attractive force between masses, which is a prediction, which is, as Feynman said, the computation of the assumption. That is the prediction that Cavendish will do this thing if our claim about gravity is correct. Cavendish is just the verification of an assumption and a prediction. It's the experiment for that. And I can absolutely use the base and summit of Mount Everest. Let's remove Mount Everest from it because I was just using that as an example of elevation. Let's just go anywhere on Earth. At the sea level, it's 14.7 psi. Sorry, I have to stop him. He's obfuscating from the point. Now he's trying to run away. Let's give him 10 seconds. We'll hand it back to you. Just like to point out to everyone where flatsoil interrupted me there, as I was in the middle of saying something. Yeah, because you're obfuscating. I had to stop you from obfuscating. Give him as 10 seconds and then you can respond. Everybody in my chat could just, like, five and keep pointing out. So, yeah, the atmospheric pressure gradient is my example of gas pressure without a containment because everywhere on Earth, the gradient is such that there is no container between each layer of the atmosphere at a different pressure gradient. All right. I'll let you respond there, flatsoil. Awesome. Okay. Like I said, I had to educate you on this. First of all, there's no one says this containment between the gradients. The gradient is in the same system. The universe is a hypothetical isolated system known as the boundary. There is no such thing as an actual isolated system. It's a hypothetical. So therefore given to the universe. Now Earth is considered a open system. This open system would be acquainted to an open fish tank, sorry, if open fish tank inside another vacuum chamber. If that fish tank was opened to gas and you had a vacuum chamber around it, which would be the isolated universe, the gas inside that fish tank will disperse into the available volume. This is called entropy. Why is it that your gravity that is not seen as a force for 109 years, which is just an optical effect, by the way, based in fourth dimension mathematics, is not actually observable in reality? All right, I think you've seen it before. It is observable in reality. We can measure it in reality. The pressure gradient is, let's be clear, a prediction of gravity, right? And here's the thing, right? You asked for a container. The universe is the container, right? You can say it's hypothetical as you like, but so is your magic dome. So, right, can I actually just a screen share for a second? Can I say anything about a dome, guys? Oh, well, you sure can, but if you want to address. Yeah, I just want to address him first before he moves on. Craig. Okay, just one second. So, if you can be quiet while I do this, that'd be wonderful. Yeah, but what are you doing that before you move on? I'll let you know when I'm done. Sorry, this is how unfair this bias is to go towards me. I am literally asking not to obfuscate from the point. I'm sorry, you have been talking a lot more than me. As I say, we'll give you a chance to inject here. I know you want to just a screen share there. We were going to go into something. So, I do apologize. Flatoid, if you got something you want to pull back into before we move on, go for it. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah, you can screen share now. I just want to find out, Craig. Remember I asked you specifically for demonstration. You have not pointed to the sky, and I know what he's going to screen share now, and notice those results show different every single time because it's inconsistent. Now, anyway, we're going to get to that. Where does it say I need to have containment between every pressure gradient? Because the argument is the pressure gradient is already in a contained system because we live in a dynamic system. You pointing to the sky and saying, look, pressure gradient is literally you ignoring the need for the antecedent, which would be containment to have that pressure gradient. That's my point. All right. Yeah, just to point to that universe as a container, I've debunked what you've just said. But anyway, to show that there is an attractive force even from mountains, do you see my screen? I don't need to screen share. I'm just showing it from my camera. Charles Hutton theoretically chopped the mountain into what's become known as contour lines. It's the first time they were used. From this, they could work out the weight of Shehalian, but it was a big step to go from that to working out the weight of the world. Nevertheless, Masculine had a go. This is what he did. He dangled a long plumb line on a platform, two-thirds of the way up the mountain. He knew two gravitational forces would act upon it. The main gravity would obviously be coming from the mass of the earth, pulling it down. But the mass of the mountain itself would pull the plumb line towards it, slightly off vertical. We've exaggerated it here. That gravitational effect is what he measured. From the angle the plumb line was deflected, Masculine could calculate the mass of the earth relative to the mountain. What this video goes on to say, I won't play the whole thing, but what it goes on to say is that they redid the experiment and managed to get the same results. It's been repeated with more and more precision over and over and over. Every time an experiment like this is done, it matches the predictions of gravity. If we have the right tools, we actually can measure the attractive force of a mountain pulling mass towards it as well. That debunks everything you've said. We're going to let them respond. Okay. Contradiction alert. First of all, you said we can't use Everest because it doesn't attract it because earth overrides it. Now, you're literally making my point when you're saying the mountain is causing the attraction. Oh boy, so it can attract a pendulum which is anyway substituated by Bernoulli's principle. Do you know how Bernoulli's principle works, Craig? Yeah. Tell me, tell me, please. Tell me how Bernoulli's principle affects a pendulum, Bob. Please. The movement of the gas through a tighter space causes a low pressure area, which causes the greater, yes, which causes the greater pressure to push the pendulum in, which means that's why it's attracted to the mountain. It's called wind. It's kind of a contained system. This is the best the gloves got, guys. It's a kind of a contained thing. And it gives inconsistent results. No, it doesn't. Oh, really? Yeah. You even said it keeps getting changed over and over to get it more consistent. So would that be different results? No, I didn't. I said the measurement has become more and more accurate. So it's inconsistent then? Oh, that's, no. Seven, guys, seven. I was saying something that's uninterrupted to me there. So getting more and more accurate results is not getting inconsistent results. It's just being able to measure things more accurately. But no, you lied about what I said because in this very conversation I said that, yes, Everest would have an attractive force on the air around it. We just don't really have a way to measure that. But I said I brought up this experiment, which is with Sahelion, which is actually easier to measure the attractive force because Sahelion is literally the most symmetrical mountain in the world, allowing us to make a lot more accurate measurements of things. So I didn't say the thing that you said. I did not say that Everest wouldn't do it. I just said we have no way of measuring it. Please do not put words in my mouth. Okay, now I've got another question. If they did Sahelion on top of the mountain, would it give the same result as to the bottom of the mountain? Sorry, I asked the question again. If they did Sahelion on top of the mountain, compared to the bottom of the mountain, would it give the same results? Sahelion, if they did it at the top of the mountain, they would have slightly less of an attractive force pulling sideways. So they would get a slightly different result. But actually the experiments were done at multiple points up the mountain. And they all had different results. Oh, 11, apparently that's 11. So that'd be 12 then. Sorry, Craig. Can we ask this guy to actually stay with the debate instead of talking to his people in his chat all the time? Because I can't actually talk with someone who can't concentrate more than two words I'm saying. I know it's difficult, Craig. But you can't concentrate to what's actually being said because you're contradicting yourself every time you speak. Okay, back to what I was saying before you interrupted for the 13th time. I didn't contradict anything that I've said. I just said we have no way of measuring the air being attracted to Everest. That's it. There's no contradiction there. But I just showed an experiment that shows that there is an attractive force by mountains pulling things sideways. And that experiment has been done multiple times at different areas of the mountain, matching predictions of the attractive force at each point. Great, you've finished. So, you admit it, you cannot measure gas attraction then. I said you cannot measure the air being attracted towards Everest. Yes. Okay, concession. So please show us how you can empirically show us how gas is attracted to Earth, please. Easy. Put gas in a container. That container now weighs more than beforehand. What is gas? Define gas force, please. Well, you could define gas as your question. Sorry, didn't I just ask you the question? I don't want to play the game of you asking me to define... Don't you know what gas force is? Don't you know how to define gas? Go ahead and define it for yourself. No, no, I asked you a question. Moderator, would you ask me to answer that question, please? Instead of pushing it back to me. Please go ahead and define it for us all. We're all listening, eager to hear your definition of what gas is. I asked you, Craig. Well, I was going to say, if we can, as long as, if you can frame it and pull it into why it's relevant to what you're talking about right now, just so that our audience is all up to speed. Okay. The reason I'm asking to define gas pressure, because the definition alone already debunks his assertion that gas has weight down. But you said define gas, not define gas pressure. Which one do you want? Gas or gas pressure? Are you not sure? Do you have pressure without gas? Yeah, you can have pressure without gas. Let me redefine this. Will you have gas pressure without gas? No. Okay, great. So define gas, please. The state of matter between solid and plasma. Okay. That's very rudimentary. Anyway, do you know how gas behaves? Yes. And how does gas behave? You tell me. Go ahead. Why are you reversing the burden onto me? I thought you this expert. I'm asking you simple question. How does gas behave? If you don't know, that's fine, but... Oh, I know. Yeah, well, tell us then. If you... I'm not going to sit here and just tell you how things work on the globe, because I know how things work on the globe. If you want to define... It's just nothing to do with the globe. This has got to do with gas behavior. Do you know how gas behaves, Craig? Yes, I do, absolutely. So can you tell us, please? No, you can tell us. Is this how this is going to happen? MDD, is this guy just going to not answer my questions the whole night? I mean, for the sake of pushing the conversation, it would be nice if we had... How gas behaves, then bring it up. I'm not going to sit here and give you definitions of things. I've no intention of doing that. If you have a point about how gas behaves, make the point. I need you to define it so I can show you how it debunks your argument. What's your definition? I'm not... I know my definition. So you give us your definition. What is it, Craig? I'll tell you later. I don't want to right now. If you don't know... Okay, fine, guys. You define it. If Craig doesn't know gas behavior, I'll define it for you because... There we go. Good point. The initial told. Yeah, because the nuclear physicist doesn't know how gas behavior works. I never said that. I said I do know. Yes. Okay, let's try to keep moving here. Gas, yeah. Gas is a substance that moves around in all directions constantly, which has elastic collisions, which only changes direction with a collision. Temperature, pressure, volume, all those things cause differences in this gas pressure. In other words, gas doesn't go down. It goes in all directions. So when you take a container and you flip with gas, that gas is bouncing around in all directions inside that container. So therefore, gas not going down. And when you said, let's put the gas in the container, you conceded then, to have the gas pressure, we require containment. We've gone through that. Universe contains the gas. You don't need to keep saying the same thing. But yeah, here's the thing. Gas only moves when it's got energy. Gas just doesn't move for no reason. Gas. So show me gas not having energy. 18, 18 times guys, as I'm in the middle of saying things. So yeah, good job there, flatsoid, being a perfect flatterer if they're well done. Right. So gas, energy doesn't just come out of nowhere. Kinetic energy exists because of something happening. So let's take a balloon, right? You take that balloon and put air inside it. That air is under pressure. Excuse me, apologies. Right. And because that gas is under pressure in that balloon, it has kinetic energy. You pop that balloon, the kinetic energy makes the gas molecules move. But the only move until that kinetic energy is gone, because they have other things to be pressed against, other bits of atmosphere, right? But even in a container on earth, there is a gradient of pressure in this room that I'm in right now. There is a gradient of pressure. So showing that gas doesn't move in all directions freely, it shows that gas settles more towards the bottom than the top once the kinetic energy has gone. You're welcome for the free physics lesson, by the way. I normally charge my students £75 an hour. Can I share my screen quickly? Sure thing. Let's see. Ready when you are. And by the way, again, gas pressure comes off the containment. Greg, and then gas pressure gradients comes off to that. Yeah, universe, gravity, both containers, no worries. You keep saying the same thing. It doesn't change my answer. It doesn't change your answer. How does it not change your answer while I'm looking for giving this on screen? Well, you can keep saying you need a container, and I will keep telling you that both gravity and the universe contain all of the gas. Great. Okay, can you see on screen? Yeah, we got you. Okay, now this is a container for Craig. One second. I don't see it right now. Just give me one second to bring it up on my screen to bear with me. Yeah, okay. We're ready for that, I think. Sorry. Okay, so this would be space on the outside. So in other words, a vacuum chamber on the other side, your universe, Craig. And then this would be a closed container, okay, which we would say as Earth. But now we're going to play it as closed. I'm going to pump some dense gas into there. Let's maybe pump some less dense gas into this. You see the less dense gas is moving faster than the denser gas, correct? Great. Okay. And it's moving in all directions. Okay, what happens when I heat that up? They move faster, correct? Because of more kinetic energy. Giving it more energy, yeah. Okay, and what happens when I cool it down? Yep, no one's denying this. And then slow. Okay. Cool. Are they ever going to stop moving, Craig? If you were able to get it to absolute zero, they would, yeah. Do you get absolute zero in reality, Craig? We don't know. No, you don't. It's an impossibility. Well, we don't know that. You've just said something. No, it's literally an impossibility to get gas to go down to zero. Okay. Now, we're going to make Earth. You said a very big claim. So before we continue, can you back up the claim that it's correct? I apologize. Can you back up the claim that it would be completely impossible to have absolute zero? Yes. Gas behavior by itself. It has what we call elastic collisions. It has perfect elastic collisions. Do you know what that means, Craig? Okay. That doesn't prove that you can have absolute zero. Do you know what perfect elastic conditions, elastic collisions means, Craig? Tell us what it means, Batsoid. Instead of just asking me, just tell us what things mean. I am asking you because you seem to be very ignorant to gas pressure, to what gas is, how it behaves. Gas pressure is none of this is debunking gravity. Okay. Show me where is gas pulling down at the bottom, yeah, Craig? Well, you don't have gravity included in this simulation. Sorry. This is a physics, actual physics simulation. Yeah. And it's a physics simulation that isn't taking gravity into account. You know why they don't take gravity into account? For gas movement, Craig? Because in this particular example that they are doing, they are removing gravity to make it simpler to understand. Having a... Show me one gas law that takes gravity, please. 20. Show me one gas law that takes gravity into account, please. Go ahead. One point. Can you interrupt me while I'm in the middle of saying things? 20 points. Yep. So what you are doing now, again, I'm going to respond to the thing you were saying, you are showing a simulation that simply has not included gravity. That's it. That doesn't... Okay, 24. I'll start again because he interrupted me. So showing a simulation that does not include gravity does not debunk gravity. I don't know why you would think it does. Simple. Because no gas law in existence takes gravity into account. This is Physics 101, mate. I don't think you took Physics, so I'm not sure that you could say it's Physics 101. Can you show me a gas law that takes gravity into account? 25. Okay, laws don't need to take other things into account. They just describe things in isolation. Multiple laws can work together at the same time. Having a law saying one thing does not debunk another thing happening. For example, the universal law of gravitation, FG equals GM1, M2 over R squared. That is a law. It is the law of gravity. That law of gravity does not debunk electromagnetic theory existing. The forces created due to electromagnetic theory are a real thing. But just because the universal law of gravity exists doesn't debunk that. Just like gas laws can exist, they don't debunk the universal law of gravity. They just describe gas behavior in an isolated example. Okay, while you're looking for the gas law that takes gravity into account, I'm going to open the system of Earth for you. What's happening to all that gas, Craig? So just to be clear, you ignored what I said and just continued on waiting to speak. Now, again, your simulation does not take gravity into account. Therefore, it is not appropriate to try and debunk gravity with a simulation that simply does not include it. Okay, so now I'm going to ask you again. Can you provide any gas law that shows no gravity taken into... Well, that shows gravity taken into account, please. It's almost like you didn't listen to the words that came out of my mouth. No, because that's not what the purpose of a gas law is. Laws are individual things. I literally went through an explanation. You can have gas laws that will describe the behavior of gases in an isolated system with no gravity involved, but you can also have a law of gravity that doesn't talk about gas. So gravity doesn't affect gas, then? 28, 28 times that he's interrupted me. It's amazing. Is that what childish behavior is this? Is this a debate or is this a childish guy who fails to even understand physics? Just... That fails to actually be a grown-up and answer me when I ask him questions and literally interrupts me when I'm giving his rebuttal? I didn't interrupt you. I've not interrupted you. I've been quiet when you've been speaking. Wait for my turn to talk and respond, but when I get to the middle of a sentence, you interrupt. I will start my sentence again. Please listen to what is saying coming out of my mouth, okay? Don't interrupt. You can have multiple laws at the same time. Gas laws just describe gas. They don't include gravity. They just describe gas on their own, but you also have the law of gravity, which describes how gravity works on its own. You can have multiple laws for multiple things that don't talk about other things that does not debunk those other things existing. Is that clear? Okay, so let's take atmospheric law, for instance. Do you know what Dalton's law is? Yes, please tell us exactly what it is. Not asked you. No, you didn't. You just asked me, do I know what it is? And then I asked you to tell me. So I know what it is yet. My question to you is, why interrupting me? I was in the middle of saying something. Oh, no, I thought you don't interrupt. Okay, there's been quite a bit of interruption, should be fair on both sides. So let's just try to give each other a little bit of space here. Go ahead, Flotsword. It's the partial, yeah. In other words, it's the partial pressures that make up the 14.7 PSI. In other words, it's a mixture of all gases, Craig. Okay, do you know why Dalton's law doesn't take gravity into account? And it's literally what your atmospheric gradients are based upon? Can you please tell us? I'm asking you. No, you didn't ask me. You asked me if I know what it is. I answered you. Yes, I know what it is. And I said, do you know why? You just said, do I know what it is? And I said, yes. And my question in response to you was, yes, please tell us why. So please tell us my question. Can you use that? I asked you, do you know why it doesn't take gravity into account? Those were not the words you said. Those were the words I said. Okay, let's just try to move on. Yeah, so I'm waiting. Anyway, as a quick response to what you've said before, actually, you know what? I can think of a gas law that takes gravity into account because pressure equals rho kT, which includes mass and by extension includes gravity because, you know, all mass is your mass. So I mean, yeah, there is gas laws that do include gravity because they include mass. So I mean, I forgive you, flatsoed. I absolutely 100%. I'm not sure why you're saying sorry, but just to be good, I do forgive you. Because that's false. What? P towards rho kT is false. No, the false you trying to false equivocate gravity now to buoyancy. I didn't do that at all. Rho, what's a row? Rho depends on what you're describing. Rho can be different things depending on the equation. I wasn't talking about buoyancy. P equals rho kT is a gas law, not buoyancy. You're trying to put gravity in there with buoyancy due to rho. Thanks. I didn't mention buoyancy once. Why are you bringing up buoyancy? What does rho stand for? In what? It will row in buoyancy. It stands for the volume displaced. Displacement, exactly. Yes. We're not talking about buoyancy. So gravity then is not there. Well done. So it's not gravity. By your own mission, it's not gravity then. I do want to just step in very quick. And just because we have been going down a totally different path, just based on what you said, that's okay. Just quickly, one thing. Sure, I think. The G in buoyancy is the gravity, not the rho. That's acceleration. That's the equation. G means acceleration. Due to gravity, yes. That's why it's G. So is gravity acceleration? Gravity causes acceleration. Yes, that's the G. Acceleration due to gravity. So G is not gravity then. It's acceleration. It's the acceleration due to gravity. No, it's the acceleration constant. It is not gravity. It's the acceleration constant. It's the excitation that says that the G in the equation for buoyancy does not stand for the acceleration due to gravity, please. You literally just said it's acceleration, not gravity. You said gravity causes the acceleration. So if G stands for acceleration, it's not gravity, Craig. Yeah, no, no. To be clear, the G stands for acceleration due to gravity. All right, I have to step in here, guys. But G is not gravity. Just because we've gotten so far down into other topics here and the topic for tonight's debate is flight versus globe. So I do want to give you both up to a minute here just to just bring us back in and explain just for the sake of our audience why what we're talking about would indicate your model over the other. So we'll start with you, if you don't mind. Okay, great. Yeah, so in summary, it's simple. Craig needs gravity to pull gas down. Due to gas behavior and gas natural laws, even the dual expansion of free gas and every gas law in existence and the second law of thermodynamics really requires gravity to be a force of expansionate, expansion, what? Expansionate, you can't pronounce the term after cons. Magnitude, which is impossible. Even given gravity as a force, it can't do anything to gas because it's physics 101. Gas has no direction to gas. Gravity has no direction to gas. So if you're claiming gas go down, you need to be able to demonstrate it. They can't and therefore debunks the globe. On the other hand, flat earth, biblical cosmology, we have containment, therefore we have a dynamic gradient system. All right, over to you, FTIP. Can take up to a minute and a half, abouts. Wow, how to be so wrong in a few sentences. Gravity is empirically shown to be a fact. The fact that we have a pressure gradient shows that there's an acceleration downwards and shows that gas does not move freely in all directions. If gas move freely in all directions all of the time, then there would not be a gradient. If, as the flat earthers like to claim, low pressure always, high pressure always goes to low pressure, then we would constantly have an upward rushing of wind, except we don't because there's a downward acceleration of the atmosphere due to gravity. The prediction is that there will be a pressure gradient. It matches the prediction of the globe model. Flat soil has done the same thing that all flat earthers do and just not understood the globe model, straw man to my position, and then because we straw man claim that he is right. It's just all flat earthers do. Everyone that knows physics knows that I'm right. Simple as that. Would you be able to still man the flat earth argument for why we have pressure gradients? No, because there is no conclusive flat earth argument. I've heard many. So you don't, you don't know. Well done. Give me a specific model and I'll still man it. Flat earth contained model. Why do we have pressure gradients? There's, there's, there's many. I've said it multiple times in the stream. Yeah, but there's many different versions. So. Biblical. Go to the biblical cosmology. How's that? But I don't, I don't care about biblical cosmology. I care about the flat earth model. It's not according to most. It is. So I will attempt to steal man at least one position, which is one, a position I've been told many times, right? And that steel man is the gases are produced at sea level. Therefore, there is more gas down here and less up there. Is that correct? Ever got as low. Well done. Right. Okay. I can debunk that because there is no extra production of gases. No one says there's extra production. So that's a straw man. Well done. But, but if there's no production, there's just an exchange. The amount of gases that there are never changes. Do you drive a call? Do you drive a call, Craig? I was in the middle. That's what I said. 32 is it? I thought you're finished. I thought you're finished. Do you drive a call, Craig? I was doing this as though I was about to say something else and in the middle of my sentence. Before we get down to meta debate, just carry on there and finish your thought. So good. I forget my thought because he interrupted me. Right. So yeah, the layers of the atmosphere are, it is gradated. There is pressure gradient. If there was a production of gases and gas expanded equally in all directions all of the time, that would necessitate there being an upward rushing of gas to the areas of lower pressure. That is unless there is something stopping the high pressure moving to the low pressure areas. That is according to physics. In physics, in reality, what we see if we open a container in a vacuum chamber, like you showed, the gas will rush into that vacuum chamber because the high pressure went to the low pressure area. But in reality, in the atmosphere, we do not see the high pressure rushing to the low pressure. The reason we do not see the high pressure rushing to the low pressure is because of a downward acceleration created by gravity. Simple as that. Okay, I just have to point out you fail to show any gas law that shows gravity pulls it down. Secondly, that's a strawman saying gas will be upward wind. When you are literally claiming gas go down, go boom, boom. So in other words, if we stick something in a vacuum chamber and remove the gas, then object in the vacuum chamber should now get lighter because you don't have gas pushing down on it anymore. The fact that it gets heavier is because the air around it is pushing from all directions, Craig. This debunks your claim that gravity makes gas go down. Again, you didn't address the fact that there is not high pressure moving to low pressure. Okay, I can do that. Stopping the high pressure moving to low pressure. There is. It's called a storm, Craig. Do you know what a storm is? So let's just talk about the atmospheric gradient. Don't change the subject. A storm. 33. So the atmospheric gradient is at sea level. There is 14.7 PSI. As you raise up, it decreases in altitude. What is stopping the high pressure at sea level anywhere in the world at any time rushing upwards to the lower pressure? What is stopping that happening? Multiple variables. How gas pressure describes it. It's got multiple variables. Pressure changes, temperature changes, volume changes. The amount of gas. Not a difficult thing to understand if you understand. The whole earth is in a container, Craig. So the pressure gradient is in a container. Do you know what dynamic means? Yeah, you didn't answer my question. What is stopping, physically stopping the high pressure moving to the low pressure? Why is there not high pressure moving to low pressure? We live in a dynamic system. The dynamic system doesn't change the fact that the air pressure has a gradient everywhere in the world. That just because we have a dynamic system, it doesn't stop it. And a dynamic system would change. You know, if it's just due to a dynamic system, then that air pressure gradient wouldn't be constant all of the time. They have not answered the question why there is not the high pressure rushing to low pressure. There has to be something physically stopping it. Please tell me what it is. We live in a dynamic system. Where is the highest concentration of gases? At sea level. So why is that high pressure? Okay, do you know what bolts? Do you know what I'm still talking? Do you know what bolts and cons? I'm still giving my point, Craig. I was saying something in your interest. I'm still giving my point. I was making, I was, I didn't stop talking. I was still talking. Making my point. We'll let you make your point there, Flatsoy. Just let's try to carry on. I was in the middle. Yeah, I'm going to start from the beginning, just like Craig. I'm going to start from the beginning because he really interrupted me. That's clear. So, and he's still interrupting me. Okay, Craig. Interrupted me. All right. Just let's carry, let's let Flatsoy carry on here. Just if you can hold your thought, we will come full circle. Don't worry. I'm not going to put a stop to it, but we'll have to let him carry on. Just to say give the discussion. Okay, but I must say I'm having fun. Thanks. Okay, we live in a dynamic system, Craig. The concentration of gases is at ground level. Okay. Things actually change how a gas behaves based on temperature, pressure and volume. Now I'm asking you, based on this, do you know what Boltzmann's constant is? Yes, please tell us what it is. Again, just like I've asked him a time, I'm asking him a question. He refuses to answer me. No, actually your question was, do I know what it is? My answer is yes. And then my question to you is- And that follows up to answer. If you know what it is, please explain it to the audience. How's that? Fuck you first. Please tell us. I asked you, Craig. No, you didn't. I think there's going to be a theme going forward. So, yeah, I think, you know, we've already been on this hill a few times. So, Flatsoy, if you want to go ahead, I think we'll- Okay, I'm going to close the statement on gas. Yeah, can I do a closing statement on the subject? Then we can move to our horizon then. Is that fine? Okay. Okay, based on Craig being a total girly girl that can't actually debate properly, gas pressure requires containment. This is substantiated by every single gas law in existence. Gravity not having any direction on gas. Gas has behavior. And as he said, he concede himself. He cannot demonstrate it because you need containment to demonstrate the thing he says does not need containment. So, that's my statement based on gas pressure. And that's why gravity cannot do anything even given a force. So, therefore, it cannot be a globe. Okay, and yeah, that's before we move on. Yeah, good job on once again straw manning everything about physics and the globe. He failed to answer the question. Why is the high pressure not moving to low pressure? Just saying we have a dynamic system doesn't change the fact that there is a constant gradient. If it was just due to a dynamic system, there wouldn't be a constant gradient that stays the same regardless of where you are in the world. Gravity is an empirical fact that's measured. The fact that we have a gradient is a result of gravity acting on the atmosphere. What flat soil it has done is simply done affirming the consequence. Gravity needs a contain- atmospheric pressure needs a container. Therefore, there is a container. That is literally affirming the consequence. And anyway, gravity is a container. The universe is a container. Watch your obsession with containers. Okay, if you want to answer that and then move into- Okay, yeah, then we can move on. Horizon. It was able to answer that correctly. He doesn't need to- Okay. No, no, I'll answer it. It's fine. You don't need to answer a rhetorical question. No, no, I do. Remember, I asked you for demonstration. I can have gas-press outcontainment and you haven't been able to demonstrate it. So in other words, every gas law in existence validates my claim. Your claim is you don't need it and you can't demonstrate it. So you are begging the question and affirming the consequence. Well done. I didn't affirm the consequence of anything because I haven't included my conclusion in the thing that I was saying. Yes, you did. You said gravity pulls gas down when the container needed. Well done. Good job. That's affirming the consequence. That's it. Anyway, can we move into the horizon now? Because that's also something I find that Craig doesn't know what it is. I mean, I definitely know and everyone who has brain cells knows that I know. What you're going to do is strawman the globe position on the horizon and refraction and pretend that the horizon is not a thing that it is and just say a bunch of stuff that doesn't make sense in physics. I know exactly how this is going to go. It's fine. So yeah, please tell me how the horizon disproves the globe. Simple. It's an optical illusion effect. It's an apparent position where the sky meets the ground. It's not physically meeting the ground and we can demonstrate bottom up obstruction on flat surfaces with many variables and you guys needed to be physical. Oh, and we see two four. Yeah, the horizon is a physical thing. That's why we can see it. What we see specifically at the time depends on atmospheric refraction, but let's be clear. The light has to bounce off of something to come to our eyes to be able to see it. That means it has to be a physical thing for the light to bounce off of for us to see it. We see a horizon. Therefore, the light is bouncing off of the horizon and coming to our eyes. Not exactly. Too far. Simply ignores refractive variables. Not exactly, Craig. Okay, I'm going to first tell you. Will you be able to define horizon for us? And secondly, I have to correct you. Light gets bounced off physical water or the ground. Not the horizon. Horizon is an apparent position, Craig. So would you please be able to bring the definition up for horizon as you claimed it's physical? Yes, the definition of bounding. In fact, the etymology of the word is bounding circle. It comes from the Greek word literally meaning bounding circle. Nope, it comes from the word horizontal comes from the word horizon. No, it does not. The literal word horizon comes from a Greek word meaning bounding circle. Can you please bring the definition up for everybody with horizon, please? 38. Can you bring? Yeah, anyone can go and look it up themselves. Just go in. Anyone right now, go and Google. I want you to do it, please. I don't need to because anyone that's watching can do this themselves and see that we are. In fact, this is what I would like everybody watching on my channel, on one debate channel, the seven people watching on Flat Soil Channel. I'd like all of you to Google. No shame. Meaning horizon and bounding circle and see where you what you find out about the etymology of the word horizon and where it came from, because you will find it is derived from a Greek word meaning bounding circle. And if I think Flat Soil said he was willing to screen share, we do have to. Yeah, I'm going to sorry about that. I will. I want to, but I first want him to bring the definition up while he's doing that. I'm getting something on screen. Yeah, my side. I thought you were going to bring it up for you. I want to bring up something, but can you quickly just do us a favor and show us the definition on screen, please? I think that's a fair thing to ask a group, Brian, because you made a claim it's physical. I mean, I can't force him to do it. I can ask if you want to take the time. Yeah, that's that's fine. Maybe I'll listen to you. Fine. I mean, if he really wants me to embarrass him live, I don't mind. Let me just put that up for you guys so you can see it as well. Do you need to see my video? I did look it up, but it's not up to me. All right. Horizon. Now, Oxfam from Old French, Modern French Horizon earlier from Latin Horizontium from Greek. I'm in the middle of, do you have impulse control issues? Can you not let me finish what I'm doing? Sorry, I'm just pointing out it's horizontal. Well, except it doesn't say that what I'm reading here. So if you just be quiet and listen to the things I'm pointing out, then that would be wonderful. Lovely. So Horizon, and this fits specifically from the Greek Horizon. I'm not sure if this is the correct pronunciation or not, but Caiclus, which means bounding circle from Horizon, bound limit, divide, separate from Horus, boundary landmark. So the etymology of the word horizon literally comes from the Greek word calyxis, meaning bounding circle. There we go. So not physical then. You said it says physical. Do you know what bound? Yes, that means a circle around you. If I got a field of view, physical. So if I got a field of view, is that physical? You're seeing a physical boundary around you. That's all you can see. Yes. No, no, no. You see physical ground, okay? Is the sky physical, Craig? No one said the sky is physical. Well, that's what the horizon is. The sky around appearing to meet. Well, according to this, it's a bounding circle. And specifically, it is an equidistant circle all around you. I equidistant circle, exactly, which is based on a field of view, which is optical. Well, no, it's based on the fact that the earth is a globe and there's a physical horizon. There is nothing about our eyes that mean that we would not be able to see, like, past the horizon. In fact, there's literally no reason on a flat earth that you would have a horizon. In the plane that things disappear bottom up on a flat plane is simply false. And I've debunked that many times. I've done many demonstrations showing up. But anyway, that's a strawman. But anyway, that's a strawman saying you can't get a horizon on a flat earth. And that just shows you ignorance. Can I see my screen? There we go. I'm going to show you my screen quickly on the definition. Okay. Oh, so we're just going to go back up, are we? So just before we do move on, I think FTFE was trying to inject there. So if you have something you want to... Let's go back to our main screen for just one second here and we'll let FTFE get his thoughts out there. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, so you can bring up the definition of the word horizon, right? But that doesn't mean that that changes the etymology or that there is other definitions as well. Words have multiple definitions, right? But the literal meaning... Is optical. I do apologize. It's very dry air here at the moment, so I'm coughing a lot. You're all right. We didn't even hear that. Yep. So the literal meaning of the word horizon where it originally came from, the Greek word collected meaning bounding circle, equidistant around you. And that matches the prediction to the globe. There's no reason on the flat earth for horizon. Okay. Again, it literally stands for optical. That's what you just said. Field of view. Do you understand? Field of view is optical. Is the ground physically 360 degrees around you at a point? Craig? Is the ground 360 degrees around you? Yes, it is. Physically. Physically. Like as in physically. Or does it carry on past that 360 degree limit? Yeah, but I can't see past it. So it's not physical boundary then. It's field of view. Maybe if you look up the Greek etymology word for everybody and show them the etymology shows it's optical. Yeah, can I have like maybe him muted when I'm speaking because he doesn't have the ability to not interrupt me? I was correcting you. I do apologize if your mic slightly is cutting out when other people are talking. So it is hard to notice when you're getting over spoke because even right now when you're speaking and I started speaking it cut you right out but flatsoids will... I don't know why that happens but yeah. Maybe when I'm talking just mute flatsoid till I'm done because he doesn't have the ability to have impulse control. Always quite fun. No, it's incredible because I'll be in the middle of a sentence. So let's be clear about the horizon specifically. The globe claim is that the horizon is a circle equidistant around you. It is an effect of the curve of the earth. Right? It is a physical limitation to what you can see because the curve of the earth is getting in the way. That doesn't mean that there's no land beyond it. It just means you can't see that land beyond it because the land in front of it got in the way because the earth is curved. To be absolutely 100% clear, the horizon is an effect of the curve of the earth and to say anything other is a straw man of the globe position. Okay, great. So I got on screen, horizon. The line at which the earth, surface and sky appear to meet. Does it say physically meet or appear to meet, Craig? That says appear to meet. That's because it's not physical. Great. So the horizon is the apparent curve, okay? That separates the surface. So what does apparent mean, Craig? It means that it's apparently there. Okay, and what is perspective? Is perspective physical? That question makes no sense. Is perspective physical? So if I see, look out in the distance and I see converging railway tracks, does it physically converge? No, of course it doesn't. Cows that are very small, flatsoed, they're just far away. Great. Okay, so now I'm going to share my screen again for what I wanted to show earlier because now I've made my point that it's not physical. How does that debunk the globe position though? If you're not agreeing with me, then you are straw manning the globe position. That's the thing. No, that's not how straw man's work. Just because you don't use it doesn't make it a... No, that's not how straw man's work. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make it a straw man. Oh yeah, you are straw manning the globe position. That's it. You don't know what position is, so you're straw manning it. Can you see on screen, Craig? Yes, I can. It's about hidden by the curve of the earth. Is it? So you would say that is hidden by the curve of the earth, that boat? It appears to be, but I'd have to see the video that steals from... Okay, so that's hidden by the earth curve. Is that showing bottom of construction? Let me finish, right? It could be, depending on where this was taken from, it could be in a swell that is a little bit further out. So not earth curve then? Doesn't debunk that things go over the curve of the earth because it is in a swell. So not earth curve then? Again, you can also watch boats go out when there isn't swells and they still disappear bottom first. Just because there is a swell in the ocean, as you go out, which is actually quite normal when you're going out from sandbikes because the surface of the water isn't flat, it's actually changed by the topography of what's underneath it and the gravitational pull. There is certain occasions where boats will bob up and down within that swell. However, that does not change the fact when you're at sea state zero and there is no swells in the middle of the ocean, you can still watch other boats disappear bottom first. Right, so you agree then, not earth curve causing this bottom up obstruction which we see now? I don't know. I said it could be in this... If it's a swell, let's say if it's a swell, would you agree that's not earth curve? Forty-two? If you let me finish my sentence, then maybe you will know. I am trying to present something to you and give an argument and you refuse to answer me. Or you interrupt. We're both talking, so let's just... Let's just... Or you interrupt. Yeah, let's finish that, but we can, like I say, move into some muted rounds here just for the last couple of minutes to clean that up. That's gonna work. It's fine, as long as flat soil doesn't interrupt me when I'm in the middle of a thought, then it's absolutely fine. But let me be clear with my response without an interruption. In this circumstance, I do not know because I do not know where this was taken or what the conditions are. There are certain times when a boat can disappear bottom first because it's in a swell, but you also come back. That does not stop the fact that when there is no swells, you can also see boats disappear bottom up. I agree because it's optical. Okay, now swell, just to clarify, you agree if it's a swell, it's not Earth Curve. Both can exist. If it is caused by a swell, as you put it, would that mean it's Earth Curve? This picture, the screenshot I've taken now. Again, I don't know. I don't know if that... It is a swell, no. Again, I don't know if that boat is in a swell or if it's disappearing over the horizon. If it is a swell. If it is in a swell, then no, that will not be the boat going over the horizon. Because it's in a swell. It was clearly in a swell, but that does not stop boats disappearing bottom first that can never be brought back. When it is sea state zero, zero waves, zero swells, the same thing happens as a boat moves away from you. That's nothing to do with perspective. Things can't disappear bottom first on a plane for no reason. Remember I said we can demonstrate things having the same effect on flat surfaces, but we'll get to that now. You would agree now this boat has risen up because it was in a swell. This particular boat has clearly not gone over the horizon, yes. Has that back boat gone over the horizon now? I do not know. I do not know the stills that this is from. Remember, this boat in front is closer now. That boat is further away. Has it gone over the curve now because that other boat is on top of the swell now, correct? Again, I do not know the conditions of this particular picture. That's perfect. I'm just trying to get you to understand that it's not an earth curve. What's going on now? In this particular picture, it may not be earth curve. It may not be going over the horizon. That does not stop there being instances where it goes over the horizon due to the curve of the earth. Okay, cool. So we can summarize then. It's not always earth curve. It can be demonstrated not to the earth curve then. There is times when a boat can disappear bottom first because of the conditions of the water. However, that does not stop things disappearing bottom first when those conditions do not exist. So again, we can then reiterate because we can demonstrate this not always showing bottom structure because of a curve. It then nullifies the claim that only earth curve causes bottom up obstruction. That's not a claim we make. Oh, but we say we can do it on flat surfaces and you say no, that's impossible. That's not a flat surface. There's waves. Oh, no, I'm going to show you demonstrations on flat surfaces as well. Demonstrations. Every single, right. Okay, what I'm going to do is make a prediction before you do. The demonstration you will show will have the camera below the surface of the thing at least half of the way, right? Which would indicate if we were to equate this to a person at the beach them being buried with half of their eyeballs covered. That's the prediction that I'm making. Please show your example. Okay, before we do that, I'm first going to show the video that we just saw. Just a piece of it so you can see how it's moving in and out. And the reason I did this specifically because this is nine miles out. So, yeah, this shouldn't be an earth curve. Anyway, that's just to show a point that globes love to be dishonest and take still images of something that's behind wall of water. So therefore, earth curve, this is showing why that's not the case. And if I ever do that, right, so what you're right now is poisoning the well because that's not something I've ever done and it's not something that I've ever known. I say globes. Did I say you? Are you debating other globes? Or are you debating me? Are you not a glober? But I don't do the thing that you said, so not all globers do what you just said. And in fact, I don't know of any glober that's ever done that and claimed a wave as earth curve. You just said a thing with no evidence because it backs up your religious beliefs. Now, please let's get to your demonstration of something disappearing bottom first on a flat surface. I am eager with anticipation. Many, many, but like I said, the point is you will concede that we do not have any claim that it's always earth curve. You agree? It can be done by other things. I've ever made, so I don't need to concede anything. I just want to wait for my... What's the name to end? Okay, let's get to it. Just want to get to the point. Okay, let's do this share screen. The claims that I've made rather than just, you know, But you claim the horizon's physical. Yeah, that's why we can see it because light is bounced off of the physical thing. Great. Okay, you can see on screen? Yeah, let me make this big so everyone can see it on my side. Give me one second. That's what she said. You're up on our screen. Okay, cool. Making some poor comedy over there. So I've drawn a little small ship. That bottom red would be representing the whole and this marcin tape will just be folded to hold the ship upright to the 90 degree on the floor. So I'm not going to be able to go below the floor, Craig. And do you have measurements of your floor to show it's flat? I even put water on. You see that reflection? Okay, do you have measurements of...? No, no, no, no. Okay, can you stop straw manning already? I didn't show what I asked you about. What was his...? Let's just... Oh, I'm still talking. What was your...? What was your...? Let me ask this question there, FTFE. Yeah, yeah. What was...? Question is, do you have measurements of it being flat or are you just saying something? It's literally based on a floor that's done by concrete. Last time I checked, concrete lies flat. Okay, so... Okay, anyway. Do you have measurements that you didn't answer the question? Concrete is lane level. We'll get a little respawn. So, yeah. So just saying concrete lies flat isn't a measurement because now it doesn't always lie flat. It can have variations in it lots and lots and lots. But it's a very specific question. Do you have measurements to show that this floor is perfectly flat? Yes or no? I don't need to worry about your straw man because you're scared of what I'm about to show. Now I'm going back to what was the claim he made, guys. I'm going to make a prediction that the next thing he shows, his camera is going to be below the floor. Did he not say that, guys? Okay, Craig, are you going to concede that I can't go...? Are you going to concede I cannot put my camera below the floor, Craig? Back to what I was saying. Me asking a question can't be a straw man. So I'm just going to ask the question again just to make sure I can get an answer from it. Do you have a straw man? Sorry, Ryan, this is my point. Every time I want to show him something and I want to talk to him and ask him something, he's so dishonest, Craig, I'm talking to Ryan. It seems like if FTFE, if you've got something that's related, I don't want to get into meta-debate. Sorry, flatsoid. So let's try to continue. I'm trying to make a point here and he's literally trying to straw man and use semantics. I have, like I said, I've given him the floor. We're going to do one minute back and forth till we get to the end here. So one minute for your FTFE. Me asking a question is not a straw man. Flatsoid's claim is that this is a flat surface. So I would like him to show that claim to be true by showing me a measurement to confirm that this is a flat surface instead of just saying it's a flat surface. It's not a straw man. It's a question. I'm done. All right. And I'll bounce that back over. Over to you, flatsoid. First of all, concrete. When you pour concrete, it's liquid. It seeks level when addressed. In other words, flat. Okay, signal. If you don't give me a measurement of your flat dining floor, am I going to say that's not flat? No. So shame. That's a straw man. Now we're going to go on to what my whole demonstration is. Showing that your claim that the camera has to be below eye level is false. Okay. And another point I could have brought up is does refraction cause mild obstruction? Which would be a yes too. Okay. Note I put some water there so it can give. What are you doing? Look at that. The angular resolution is changing. Oh, it's already getting worse. Can you tell me where you see Curven's floor so far Craig? 10 seconds. There we go. This is all got to do with the diffraction limit that I was trying to do. That is your time. All right. And we will bounce it back over to you. FTFE. You need to come out from you FTFE. I'm so sorry. I will concede 100% that no, you did not move the camera below the floor. However, at zero point in that demonstration, did the boat disappear bottom first? At all. Ever. What happened was the entire thing disappeared at the same time because of angular resolution because the camera couldn't pick it up. So what you showed was that things that are too small to be seen disappear at the same time, not bottom first. If you can actually see the things that are big enough so the angular resolution isn't a problem, you can literally watch them disappear bottom first. And no amount of zooming will ever, ever, ever bring that bottom that has disappeared back. To be clear, in your demonstration, Flatsoyde, that little boat did not, at any time, disappear bottom first. Thanks for disproving your point. Okay. We'll bounce it back over to you, Flatsoyde. And I'm going to try to keep you guys off mute and just ask you to kindly behave. And we'll try to keep it open for the last couple of minutes here before we go into Q&A. So go ahead, Flatsoyde. Sure, sure, sure. Yeah, that was just one demonstration. That demonstration was just showing a basic diffraction limit. You couldn't see the bottom of the boat because it was diffracted into the miraging more reflected water. Now I got another one trying to show you how these angles compress into the distance. This is a triangle I drew. All these blocks are actually the same height and it's lying flat on the floor. As I'm going down, it compresses away. You see how it's getting less and less visible further away? Because this is showing how the angle gets limited and compresses with distance. Just like you see when a boat or anything goes over the ocean, it moves away and that's why you can't see the large angle anymore. The large angle would be the floor. So that's just that demonstration. And now I can show you an actual demonstration again where I'm on a flat. Where I'm on a flat aluminum surface having bottle caps bottom up obstruction. I'm going to show that now when it's my turn. Okay. One minute for you there, FD. Again, to be clear, nothing disappeared bottom first in anything that you showed. So it doesn't prove your point in fact it disproves it. And anytime you show this floor, I'm just going to ask you for measurements of the floor being flat. Excuse me, apologies. Yeah, unless you can show me the measurements of the floor being flat, I will dismiss your claim that the floor is flat. Anything asserted about evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But even if that floor is flat, it doesn't show things disappearing bottom up in either of those demonstrations. When something has disappeared bottom first, even when it's big enough to see because I'm going to resolution, it will never come back. One minute over to you. Okay, while I'm looking for that, remember what we said, floor swells. So when something goes into a swell and we're trying to zoom it back in, will you see the bottom of that boat, Craig? Get on sir, it's fine. You're in a still picture though. If a boat's in a swell, it's going to be going up and down. That's different to something that has gone over the horizon and it's in sea that is still, nothing will bring it back. There's no swells involved. Right, we can remove swells from the equation and say there's no swells in this water. Boats will still disappear bottom first and be large enough to never be zoomed back. Okay, so would you then agree with me that parallax is a thing? The further away an object is, the slower it's going to appear to rise all four. Parallax is the thing. I believe it's the entity of the Yellow Lantern Core that was trapped within the Green Lantern Core's battery for a long time, which is why Green Lantern Rings were susceptible to the current Yellow Lantern Core. One second. Sir, yes, please. Yeah, can you hear us please? It's the entity of the Yellow Lantern Core. Does cause of parallax give something like a boat in a swell further away or is it to appear slower to rise or sink compared to something closer? Parallax makes things that are further away appear to move less than things that are closer. Great. So if something's in a swell further away, would it seem like it's staying behind in a swell for a long time? No, because swells usually go up and down. There's waves and it would be going up and down. But again, remove swells from the equation. Let's go to the middle of the ocean at sea state zero, right? Which is when water is like glass. That's sea state zero. There's no waves at all in the middle of the ocean far enough away from the topography underneath to make a massive difference. At that time, when there's no swells or anything around, the boats will still disappear bottom first and not be able to be brought back. Simple as that. Okay, I'm going to debunk that with a video shortly. I'm just trying to get this video that I was trying to bring. I've got it now. I'm going to share. Okay. Sorry, behind the frames, just look there. So insults. That's what the guy does when they lose people. I wasn't really an insult. It's commonly. So there we go. There we go. This is on my mixing bench. This is an aluminium flat ball. It's physically manufactured to be flat. Okay. And you should. Obviously, this is sideways because I took it sideways, but you're going to take to show bottom of obstruction sideways as well. This is just the point. Notice my camera is above the island. You see this bolt on the top? Yeah, that's raised for reference because that bolt is above the aluminium ball. So that's to give reference to show you. I don't go below it. Okay, Craig. Correct. Okay. Now see, I'm above. I'm zooming in. Can you see the bottom of that? Well, let's restructure the closest cap. Can you see the bottom of it? Yeah, but you do know the part of the lens is covered on the lens. No, no, no, no. It's above. I'm literally showing you reference with the bolt that's above. Oh, wait, wait, wait. That's called the fraction. Craig, I'm still making my point. I'm still making my point. Him so that I can respond. Yeah, we do have to let him be able to respond and we're trying to engage with what you guys are talking about. But I'm still making my point. Spoken. Can you please mute Flatsoy so I'm allowed to respond about it? But I'm still making my point, Craig. Stop over-talking me. I'm making my point, Craig. It's my time. But you asked me a question and you won't let me respond. Yes, but you can answer in your time. It's my time. I'm making a point. You've grown up. So I would like to answer the question. Yeah, I'm going to let him answer the question. I'm so sorry, Flatsoy. We give you all the time to answer back and forth, guys, but we got to try to engage with what we're talking about. So go ahead. We'll try to carry on. Yeah, so, right. This camera is slightly covered on the left side of the lens. You can see that by the fact it is darker on the left than the rest of it. You have my exact prediction of half of it being obscured instead of actually being the entire lens above the thing that you are comparing to. Also, you have no measurements to show that it is flat. Again, you just said a thing. All right. Sorry for putting you on the mute there. I just figured where you're sharing screen, you won't forget where you're going with that there. So let's carry on, Flatsoy. Sorry, I have to call you out on that, Ryan. That's a bit biased, mate. I was making my point still. So I am supposed to be making my point the minute and he was literally interrupting me while I was making my point. So can we please in future, if I'm making my point, don't mute me because that's not fair, mate. No, you go back into... On screen, Craig. On screen, Craig. On screen, Craig. I've got three... Just one second. Like I was saying again, I've got three things. Okay. I've got this bolt on the top showing reference. I'm above. Okay. That thing you see that little on the left, that's called the fraction. That's literally the fraction. That's what it is, Craig. Now we've got the closest cap which you see the whole thing. The second cap which you see less of the bottom and there's another bolt exactly like this one which you can't see none of it. By the way, you know that one that bolt? It's painted red on the bottom. Can you see it? And yes, it's an aluminium flat bar. It's literally manufactured to be flat. So are you trying to... No, it's not flat. Is you running away that I can demonstrate things having bottom up obstruction on flat surfaces. Thank you. All right. All right. Once again, the bolt is in the middle and the left side of it is slightly covered. However, that does not change the fact that you just saying it's manufactured flat is not evidence. Show that it's manufactured flat. Show me the evidence that what you are having there is flat instead of just saying it. I don't give a smeg if you say it's manufactured flat. Prove it is flat. Don't just say it. Aluminium flat bar. All right. Yeah. And that's just saying it. Show me where it specifically says it's manufactured to be exactly flat. Show me that. Where do you have that written down that it says that? Okay. I'll get it for you. I think this will be the last thing I'll hook up to. Before Craig doesn't know how to actually just say, yeah, I concede you can demonstrate flat on flat surfaces. But you can't. You haven't shown that it's flat. That's the thing. You're saying it's flat. You're going, it's manufactured flat. But you're not showing that it's flat. You're just saying a thing. Why don't you put a level along it all the way? Why didn't you test if it was flat? You didn't. Oh, really? I actually did. All right. I think what we should do, if we're not going to move into that next topic, we should probably go into our Q&A because we do have lots of questions and lots of things that I think we will spiral into more conversation. And yeah. So I think this would be a good time to go into that. And I do want to say thank you to Flatsoy and FTFE for having the discussion. It's been lively and a lot of fun. And just want to remind everybody, if you haven't hit the like button, do so. It doesn't hurt you. I swear. It doesn't bite. Not hard anyways. All right. Let's get into the super chats, guys. All right. So we have from Roger and Ledwill. Thank you so much. We have the death of evolution cooking in an entropic stove top. But the thing won't boil. Please send the recipe for the primordial soup. Shout out to out. Shout out to Roger. This is for you, friend. Good job, buddy. Go start for you. All right. No other thoughts there. Okay. Yeah. I think that's made a commentary on a different subject that we do debate on modern day debates. So keep an eye out for those debates. Roger Ledwell, also a little bit off topic, I think. But you know, let's see when we get out of it. He said, the Big Bang makes a lot of noise. Okay. I can explain why. That's a different debate. Yeah. I mean, if you guys have any thoughts, I don't want to do you bad there, Roger, but it's a little, you know, it's left field for sure. He's just, in other words, saying that it violates the first law of thermodynamics. So therefore impossible. But the Big Bang doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics because there was nothing created or destroyed. Every bit of energy that existed in the universe now existed at the point of the Big Bang. And where did that come from, Craig? No one knows. I know. The ontological primitives. But anyway, let's move on to another debate because if we had to debate this, you wasn't going to suffer measurably. Well, no, because I understand the Big Bang globe model and you don't, so. Well, remember, I wanted to debate biblical Earth, which would have been based on this ontological primitives tonight, and you don't debate biblical Earth. We may as well debate the Lansom cores is the true core because they're both books. Right. Let's try to move on there, Gents. LJ asks, at what height does the vacuum of space start at? That's for you, FTFE. Well, there is no vacuum of space. Space is just a low pressure area. Really low pressure. There is a gradient. The accepted line where we say this is the boundary between space and not space is approximately 100 kilometers, and it's called the Kármán line. However, to suggest that there is a point where it goes from atmosphere to no atmosphere is just a straw man of the globe claim. We have a gradient that goes from 14.7 PSI all the way up to not very much. Simple as that. Why space is a vacuum? Just had to point that out. That's my rebuttal to that. Yeah, but space isn't a vacuum. It's just out on screen. Yeah, it's a little article written by somebody that probably in it says... I can be multiple. Yeah, but the entire scientific world knows that space is not a perfect vacuum because there's things in space. So, it is a vacuum. Just not perfect vacuum. Right. It's not a vacuum. It's a low pressure area. Not a perfect vacuum. If we're talking physics-wise, anything low compared to high can be considered a vacuum. But when we're talking about the vacuum of space, it's not a perfect vacuum. It's just a low pressure area. All right, let's carry on. It's a separate system there for a vacuum. We got to carry on. LJ, coming in with the second one, says, why don't we have non-CGI footage of space in 2024? We do. SpaceX did lots recently. Very, very beautiful non-CGI footage that was live-streamed. Like, in fact, well, give me just one second. Let me hold this up so you can see it. Where is it? All right. There we go. Non-CGI footage of space. Taken onboard the SpaceX Starship as it started its boost back and going back to Earth. You can even see the bits of ice particles coming out at the top from the cooling fluid. So, yeah, this is non-CGI. The flatter-uppers will claim that it's CGI, but that's just a claim. It's not. I don't care if you say it is. Is it in space? High footage of Earth since the 1940s from space. Is that in space? Yes. But you haven't shown us a demonstration that you can violate all gas laws to have the claimed space. But it went to space. There's no gas laws being violated. It went to space. All right, let's carry on. Matters now asking, how does Vlad Zoid explain the direct f-camera feed from the Starship going to space and seeing a curve that was obviously not CGI? If you guys know anything about production, you can easily do those productions, mate. It's all just a show. It's fake because it has to be. Yeah, because it violates natural law to claim it goes to space. No, it doesn't. There's no natural laws it violates. It hasn't demonstrated it yet. Remember, I get the last word. It's my super chat, so. Yeah, but you don't know what natural laws are. So can you? Oh, really? It's a tendency for everything to happen in nature. You're on the physical world. He's always talking to me while I'm supposed to get the final say. Yeah, well, if he wants to. That's a sign of failure, by the way. If he wants to respond to and you want to bounce it back, that's fine because we've been doing that the whole time. But yeah, if you want to wrap up your thought there, Vlad, so I'd go for it. And then if you could just hold your thought. Okay, shot. Yeah, the thought is first demonstrate the violation of gas laws. Then you can claim that space is real. Okay, all right. We'll carry on. LJ says, share your screen with real non CGI footage of space. Me? That is from LJ. And he is always here to ask questions to our global speakers. So LJ, always a pleasure to have you here. And every time people share their screen, everybody sees my Dio background. I got caught. Shut up to LJ. Uh, change my video feed for you. Give me this video. There we go. Non CGI footage of space. This is taken with a Hasselblad camera in 1972. No CGI involved. Next. All right. Any thoughts there, Flatsoid? Or? No, same thing. All right. Let's carry on there, everybody. And thank you once again to everybody who's putting into the super chats to entice our guests here to have more juicy discussion. So let's see as I scroll up. Mr. E-Man. Actually, we got a few more above that. Kango 44 says, for Flatsoid, please explain why it's harder to carry a weight up an inclined surface than along a flat surface. Please don't say stupid things. They say, oh, you're being spicy, Kango. Stop that behavior yourself. Whatever your answer, can FTFE correct you? They say, well, we're doing bouncing. But yeah, let's go back to the original question. Please explain why it's harder to carry a weight up an inclined surface than along a flat surface. Expandature of energy requires more energy to actually go up an inclined than flat. Simple as that. Why? Because you have to require more distance to go up than to go forward. You require more energy to lift your head up, leg up higher. Why? Expandature of energy, Craig. Why does it take more energy? Because expenditure of energy. I don't know. Don't you burn kilojoules every time you move, every time you yelp that mouth of yours? Yeah. But why does it take more energy to lift something up than move it down? I don't know. You go ask yourself that, because if you don't understand how expenditure of energy works, it's not my problem. Oh, I understand that's just words that you said, but you never gave a mechanism for why it's harder to go up and down. When you move, you burn calories. That is expenditure of calories. Energy. Therefore, it's harder to move upwards than forward. All right. Well, FTFE responding, you get the last word there. I think you're literally just saying things, whereas the reason why it's harder is simple. It's because of gravity. You fucking. Wow. Remember, gravity is not a force. Gravity. Have you ever heard of fucking gravity? Gravity, gravity. We're getting into the memes now. Okay. Let's carry on. That's our last word there. Right. Simple. Gravity is not a force, Craig. You trying to equate gravity as a force shows you're not just ignorant to the subject. You're being woefully dishonest. Thank you. The straw man, gravity creates a force, not is a force. All right. All this talk about walking up pills making me tired. All right. I'm not like James. Yeah. I rip him all the time. All right. Shout out to James. That's work. Come on. Yeah, we love James. Awesome. So, hey, he was on the other day. If so, have you missed it? Prostate. Prostate. You're brilliant. Modern day debate was on. Soon to be Dr. James. So, yeah. Have a check in on that once you're done here. Master E-Man says, can flatsoid please present at least some evidence or measurements for the flatness of the earth ever? Yes, it's called planar surveying. All planar surveying takes no earth curve into account when doing surveying. There we go. As a response to that, planar surveying purposely ignores the curvature of the earth because it's done over such a short distance that the curvature of the earth is irrelevant. However, if you do surveying over large distances, non-planar surveying, you know, then you absolutely do 100% take the curvature of the earth into account. In fact, with the transcontinental triangulation of the American arc of the parallel, every triangle they measured across the continental United States had a sum of angles greater than 180 degrees indicating the surface of the earth is curved. That's a triangle, Craig. Okay. Let's carry on. Last word was for flat, so we got to carry on there. Yeah. So, yeah, especially with all these questions, my finger's going to be tired if I have to keep scrolling up after checking that live chat. I see you guys hanging out in there and appreciate it. Since you got so much to say with all those thumbs that are typing, why don't you hit that like button whether you're hanging here or hanging elsewhere? You know, I don't mind helping out. MattersNow says, why is there non-CGI footage of the moon passing over the earth from the DIS VR satellite after show on MattersNow hosted by Max? I think it's for you. So this one's from Max. It says, why is there non-CGI footage of the moon passing over the earth from the DIS VR satellite? First of all, you cannot claim space to be real if you haven't shown a demonstration how you can violate every gas law in history. I don't know how much time I have to answer this, but yeah, the moon's a real thing. Okay. I think we'll just go down. No gas laws are violated with gravity. There is no gas laws that say gravity cannot do this thing. So there you go. And I'm going to end that with he failed to show us any gas law that does take gravity. All right. Coming up from Mr. E-Man. And I'm going to talk back by saying that there it doesn't need to be because gas laws are about gas, not about gravity. And we breathe gas. All right. That was the last word for you there, flat-soaked. So let's carry on. Mr. E-Man, if one more orbit traveled east to get to New Zealand from Antarctica, why is it that when you travel west from New Zealand, you get to Australia? I don't understand the question, but okay. You're just moving in directions mate. Well done. You're moving specifically in directions that match the predictions of a globe? Not actually. Actually, that was the point of the question. Not actually. Do you know one orbit? One more orbit team was matching the predictions of what they would expect to happen on the globe. And you can place that exactly on a flat map and it does the route that it should be on a flat map. Well done. Showing they never went straight through Antarctica as they claimed to do. Could you... Which flat map? I got the final say, Craig. It's exciting. There's a flat map, guys. Come on, let's see it. All maps are flat. All right. I was going to say, if you inject, I got to give it back to Flapsoy to end it off. It's just the rules of how we employ the debate. So Mr. E-Man asks again, if... Oh, that one we just did. LJ, to both, when you're standing in the middle of the road looking down at it, are you saying the clouds drop down to touch the street at the horizon? That's for you, FT. No. Perspective. No, I think he's mocking the flatterer position there. So... He's making fun of you claiming the horizon is physical, Craig. The fact that you don't get that. No, if he is, then his tumour is not very good. And it would be a straw man of my claim because I didn't mention the clouds a single time in my description of the horizon. So it can't be mocking me because it wasn't about anything that I said. Can the clouds drop down to can the clouds go behind the horizon, Craig? Yeah, absolutely. So therefore it's your claim, Craig. Well done. I'd never said that at all during this debate. But and I'd never said that when you look down, the circle around you is now your horizon. That's not what I said. And there's another straw man of my claim. That is. We brought up the definition and claimed last word. The view is physical. Last word is for FT. Bounding circle. Bounding circle means the limit of what you can see when you're looking out. Not just looking at the floor and ignoring everything else that you can actually see. All right. LJ coming in again says, why can't we isolate, measure and control gravity? We can absolutely isolate the things that affect gravity. The prediction is that gravity is affected by both mass and distance between masses. That is the prediction. The same way that if we want to affect magnetism, the way that I would do that is to increase the coils of a copper wire next to a rotor. And that would then increase the magnetism that is happening. I didn't directly increase the magnets. I increased the coils that made the magnetic field stronger. The same way with the Cavanich experiment, we do the thing that affects gravity to see if it matches our predictions. This is just an example of flat earthers not understanding experiments and therefore saying they've debunked it. Okay. Just so I can have her back then they can just finish it all. Absolutely. Cavanich is not an experiment. It doesn't even have a viable hypothesis. Thank you. That's just not true. There's absolutely a hypothesis and that is that mass attracts mass. All right. Matters now coming in again says, I'm confused, flatsoid. All I heard was you deny gravity like in my debate with you. This is coming from Osean. Do you have any actual measurements of the entire earth? Yeah. Planar surveying. And by the way, geodetic surveying comes off the planar surveying. And 100 square miles is not a short distance. You don't even really observe further than that, do you? You're doing, you know, bigger surveying than just planar. So, you know, linking horizontals together triangle. Yeah. Remember when I asked you what's a triangle? That's the third thing. Ouch. Yeah. Right. Well, some of the three angles, that's what it is. Yeah. Linking horizontal baselines. Okay. Yeah. The window's trying to be curved because the angle. I measured horizontals. The angle's somewhat to what? That's another debate we can have, which I would literally... Don't you mean that it could be on a... Love to screw you on. Okay. Only means that it can be on a spherical surface when the sum of the angles add up to greater than 180. It's called a spherical... Do all the angles measure up more than 180, Craig? Unless you ask a question, that is. That's it. That's it. Good job. He didn't answer me, but okay. Okay. Let's carry on there, guys, because we're almost halfway through the super chats, and you guys are rocking them. So, thank you so much to our speakers for keeping us moving through and to all of our... The people who are asking questions. Hopefully, we're getting to expound on what you're asking. Try to keep those questions friendly and relevant to what we're discussing. I don't want to have to skip over any, which you guys have all been good. So, let's carry on. Kango 44 says, Flatsoid, large bodies of water have higher pressure than the sky above them. Why don't the oceans rush to fill the sky? Whatever your answer... Same thing, they want an FTFU to respond. So, large bodies of water have higher pressure than the sky above them. Why don't oceans rush to fill the sky? Flatsoid. This is where gas is a different thing than liquids. Liquids are bonded, very dense. Gases are unbonded, always moving, never static, not very dense. Any thoughts over there FT? Yeah, but the pressure is still less than the other thing. So, the entire pressure of the ocean is less than the entire pressure of the atmosphere. Yeah, for some crazy reason that I just can't seem to fathom. The high pressure isn't rushing to meet the low pressure. So, this is me talking and I get the last word. The answer is, and it's no surprise, gravity. I can tell you. You can take this water. It's physical. How are you going to get something to pass through concrete, maybe? You can pass stuff through concrete, actually. Last time I checked, last time I checked when something static doesn't move. But yeah. Okay, well let's carry on. I see spin says, a flat zoid explanation for a starship ignoring as the firmament. When so it's static, it doesn't move. Maybe it's just not getting to the firmament yet? Who knows? So, there's a firmament. There has to be a containment. Remember, I'm a chemical cosmologist. That is the beggin of the question. Sorry, the containment. All natural laws show that we need containment. Firmament's containment. So, the FTFE respond will give you the last word there. Well, yeah, but gravity also is a thing and the gravity is also a law. And it's very interesting how you would accept some scientific laws, but not others, as though you are the arbiter of what can and can't be science. That would require you to be smart, but you're not. First of all, gravity has never gone through science to be claimed as a scientific law. It's just said as a scientific law. All right. Next one coming in from... Got to carry on. I'm sorry, FT. We got so many questions. Mr. Fudgeab says, I thought FT were... FT's were a U.S. thing. We're doomed to... Oh, flat FT's were a U.S. thing. We're doomed to this. Yeah, especially FDs. Let me see. E is close to T. There's an R in between them. So it may have been... I think they were... Yeah, I think they're saying... That's just kind of a commentary of the meta. And that's... Thank you for... I find it irony that the guy's trying to insult Flat Earth as well. He can't even say iffy. Or he just did a typo, which is something that happens. Or he's just... Or he's just as idiotic as... We should just move on there, guys. Let's just... And we appreciate the super chat. Sorry, Mr. Fudgeab. It's not really going to spur on positive discussion. LJ coming in again says, At what size does a sea ocean water start to curve? Water is always curved. In fact, there's never a time when water is not curved. So I don't know what you mean. Wow. Physics 101. Water always finds level when addressed. No, water doesn't have its own physics. Physics 101. Matter just reacts to forces acting on it. Sorry, he's never used a water level before. I did Physics 101. All right, let's just see here. Kengo 44 coming in. Flatzoid, air molecules work against the force of gravity as they move around. That's why we have pressure gradient. No collisions are perfectly elastic or inelastic. PV equals NKT, gas law. The gas is at equilibrium, in homogeneous gravitational field. Great. So he's using ideal gas law and the Boltzmann equation. The Boltzmann constant is exactly why we have the pressure gradient as I stated before. Why I asked Craig, do you know what the Boltzmann constant means? Yeah, I do. Tell us what it is. All right. So again, I'm going to do my closing statement. Craig doesn't know, guys. Well, I just said I do. And then I asked you if you do. That was my closing statement. Craig doesn't know, guys. But I do. So you roll. Then tell us, Craig. I asked you first. You tell us. All right. I said to the you do it. No, you do it again. We've got to carry on. The guy doesn't know. I'm so sorry. Give a definition of the thing. If they want the definition, they better bloody tell me it. I didn't tell the definition. I said, do you know what the Boltzmann constant is? That's what I asked you. You said yes, you do. So that means what is it, Craig? How does it work? I asked you what it is. You tell me because you are ignorant. But that's my closing statement. Can we move on things? Well, I say you don't know what it is. That's my closing statement. Let's move on. Oh, no. All right. Let's carry on. Cango 44 asks again. Ideal gas laws law given the three parameters of temperature, density and pressure. How the gas behaves is described by the equation of state. What force is causing the pressure? Flatzoic. The gas. Gas causes a force as it presses upon a surface. It has elastic collision. So as soon as it has a collision, that's pressure. That's a force attributed. Oh, that's fucking. Oh, sorry. I'm not. In all directions, by the way, Craig, not just down. Yeah. I've just debunked his entire argument. The gas law. Can I ask if he, because you've got time, if he can show us this quick debunk? The gas law that includes gravity is the barometric formula. It's used to model the changes in the pressure of atmosphere at various heights above the Earth's surface. The formula is derived from the ideal gas law. Gravitational force exerted on the mass of gas. Let me repeat that. The formula is derived from the ideal gas law combined with the gravitational force exerted on the mass of the gas. The standard form of the barometric formula takes into account the decrease in atmospheric pressure with height along with temperature, gravitational acceleration, the mass of a mole of the mass of the gas. And the mass of a mole of air and the ideal gas constant. So, yeah, the formula, which is a gas law, includes gravity. Boil's law. And what's the name of that law that you just stated? Barometric? That's not a law. It's Boil's law. Barometric pressure is based on Boil's law, which is you assuming gravity is a thing. And again, you must say, wait a minute, you missed the point when it literally said Boltzmann constant with temperature and pressure, and I can give you a citation, where Boltzmann constant literally says temperature gradient cannot exist due to gravity. You were just wrong with what you said because it didn't say that. I can give citation. Anywhere in what I said, it didn't say what you just said. Again, barometric law is a gas law that includes gravity. Show us it's a gas law, please. It's literally a gas law. What do you mean, show you it's a gas law? It's a gas law. Go and look it up, if you don't believe me. It's expressed as P equals P0 times AXP times the negative of MGH over RT. That is the gas law. The barometric formula is the gas law. And I just explained to you why it's false. I can give citation. I mean, you saying it's false doesn't change the fact that it is what it is. I'll make a video, I'll make a video just giving citations. Why there's a scientific body of the world says that it's a gas law? All of them, not just them, all of them against you. Citation, showing you are talking bullshit. All right, we're moving on there, fellas, because we are going to. I just want to finish my sentence before it's me that has to in. Can we move on? Just going to finish my citation that says he's talking rubbish. Just to be fair, you did open the floodgates on this one and ask him to go down the path. So we've got to let him finish up. So without being interrupted, that makes 40, by the way. So again, the entire scientific body of the world, all of it, every single part, every single one of them says that it is a gas law versus you saying it's not. End of story. Right. Sorry about that, Ryan. Oil law does not take gravity into account. Boltzmann constant, literally by citation, says you cannot have pressure gradient due to temperature because of gravity. I'm sorry. Gravity cannot cause the temperature gradient. All right, let's carry on. And no worries there. All the time I have speakers that will say, dough, I really want to get this out. And you know, you got to play it. You got to play it as it goes. It's not on speaker. No, that's not a gas law. All right. Oh, you're not understanding that temperature gradient cannot be caused by gravity is based on Boltzmann constant, literally throwing it in the dustbin. I have citation for this. That's what I just read you, of course. The one I just read you that you're just denying because you have to. All right, we're going to keep in the same vein with the next question, guys. Kango 44 asks, flatsoid, you know a helium balloon goes up because of gravity, right? No, it goes up because of displacement. Archimedes principle existed 1,900 years before Newton was even born. And it doesn't describe buoyancy. Displacement. Do you know what displacement means, Craig? Yeah, but it doesn't replace buoyancy. Oh, sorry, buoyancy came after displacement. Archimedes principle. 39, just 49. 49. Yeah, I was just wondering. It was for me a question. My God. It was for me a question. And I cannot finish. Flatsoid, finish up here, guys. Yeah, thank you. I mean, he interrupted me. Thank you. Sorry, Craig. Sorry. Sorry, I forgive you. I forgive you. I do forgive you. Buoyancy is literally a hijacking of displacement and has no need for gravity. And by the way, your G in buoyancy is acceleration, not gravity. Thank you. So my response to that is, no, you cannot calculate how to move things unless you use the buoyancy equation, which includes the acceleration. And this is very important due to gravity. That's literally what it stands for. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with it. It is G, road, G, V. And that G stands for acceleration due to gravity. And again, our state. I all does not change it. I have the final say here, Craig. And again, our state. Archimedes principle does not include gravity. It worked. They had ships working on the ocean due to displacement because of Archimedes principle before gravity was even seen as a thing. It's literally just displacement and acceleration is not gravity. Claiming it's due to gravity shows you don't even know what gravity is. You think it's a force. It's not a force. Get with the plan. Again. All right, we're going to carry on. So sorry, FTB. I have to respond. But if he strawmans me, I'm afraid I have to respond because he does this all of the time. I don't say gravity is a force. It creates a force. Stop strawmaning me. Gravity creates a force. And there is no way to calculate the buoyant force just using Archimedes principle. Oh, yes, I can. I can change G to Felicia. So 50, 50 interruptions. No, there is no way to calculate the buoyant force. Yes, I can. For changing G to Felicia. 51, 51. So we finish here on the subject. Can we move on? This guy's wasting my time. To suit 52. So again, there is no way to calculate the buoyant force just using Archimedes principle. Can change G to Felicia. That doesn't change it being G. It just means acceleration. In other words, it's acceleration due to displacement of the weight displacing the medium around it. Last word. There we go. We got to carry on. That was the last word. So sorry, FTB. No, I'm sorry. I got to place you on the view. We got to carry on. And I'm sure with the questions that we have, we will come full circle. Whatever you're thinking of, it's probably going to go poof. Oh my goodness. Because the Super Chat is going to probably bring it up. So Mr. E-Man is asking for flat soil. What is the container made of? That is a straw man because no one claims to know anything what the container is made of. The argument is naturally antecedent containment. What it's made of never made that claim. My response to that is that that is literally affirming the consequent. Gas pressure needs a container. Therefore, there is a container. Literally, the fallacious argument called affirming the consequent. Thank you. Last word. Gay-Lucic's law. Aregarder's law. Boyle's law. Dalton's law. Yeah. Free expansion of guest. Jules's law. Thompson's law. All require containment. Thank you. At the second law of thermodynamics requires containment. Second law, there are no requirements for container. All right. So, FTFE, we got to give them the last word to be fair. I know there's a lot of questions for flat soiled, but like I said, I'm trying to give you an open space to respond each time. So, your pal, Al, asks for flat soiled. And I'm sorry, FTFE, once again, there's a lot of questions for flat soiled. Is down a direction? It's relative. Any thoughts? Yes, down the direction. Yes, relative. Right. All right. There we go. Let's move on from there. That seems like a good point to just stop there. Let's just carry on. It seems like we got some huzzah for once. Matters Now asks, flat soiled. Since the Bible is false, how can you prove biblical cosmology? Let's debate biblical cosmology on modern day debate. Or Matters Now or Drainism. Yeah. I'd love to debate biblical cosmology at the Asian. All right. Garen will play. You heard it here. Maybe that's something we'll get set up here shortly. So, yeah, we'll fire off some messages once we wrap up. Burger and Legman. Craig is doing God's work. Flurfs beware. That's what he says. That's more of a commentary. Thanks for that. I'm doing, flying spaghetti monster. You bless his newly appendage. Okay. Icy spin says, flat soiled, explain the equidistant horizon at sea state zero. Easy. It's based on field of view. You have a limit to your field of vision. If you can, how can I put this in a way you can maybe visualize this? Take a pole and stick it out in front of you. That radius of that pole is going to be exactly the same all 360 degrees around you. That doesn't mean that the ground is physically stopping there. That just means your field of view is limited to that position, which means it's an optical boundary, not a physical boundary. All right. The field of view doesn't explain a literal equidistant circle where you cannot see any further that matches the prediction. It literally does. All right. We're going to let him respond to this one. 53. It does not explain an equidistant circle matching the predictions of the globe and atmospheric refraction. You literally, according to geometry, cannot have a horizon if the earth is flat. 1.22 times the dirt. Yeah. That's based on the globe, just so you know. Oh, it's based on eyes, mate. No, that's literally based on the light and the aperture. That's what that equation is, is the radius of the globe. Dan, we got actual math for this. I know you don't understand refraction because you think your hands reflected 10 centimeters in front of your hand, which I'm still waiting for a video demonstration for, which has been a year and a half. I don't know why you're- And it's fine. I'm giving the final statement. Craig, you're immoral. Well, I'd say you give us a couple of questions. Yeah. So, again, that equation- Why is he talking? I thought I gave the final statement. Next question. What? Well, you did ask, like I said, if you ask a question or bury a question- I didn't ask him a question. I made a statement and showed him he doesn't understand refraction. That equation that you used is based on the globe, mate. You're using the earth's radius. No, it's not. All right. It's based on the fraction limits. All right. The fraction limit is wavelength of light based on the diameter of the eye. Nothing to do with the globe, Craig. Based on anything other than earth's radius, because all citations will say earth's radius. All right. All right. So what we'll do is we are going to ask a question, let the person respond. One of you guys just to wait till they finish their thought and then respond without interruption. If not, then I'll just start popping mutes. You know how it goes. But either way, we just want to make sure we're just having just a little back and forth so we can get some thoughts out on these questions. And I just have to say, me and Craig are very passionate, though. It's great. We don't take this seriously, by the way. Being like this to each other. No, no, I do want to make sure that you guys are coming across. I mean, I could maybe stand one or two beers with him before I threw it away. The whole table, right? Yeah. Ah, the beer, right? Slip the thing. Shut up, you moron. Just picking up the beer, just like, don't, you can't do this to beer. This is a crime. All right. Frode asks, to Flat Earth, what is Aurora Borealis? Plasma. I mean, that's not wrong. What else would it be? I mean, there's a little bit more to it than just plasma. But yeah, he's not wrong when he says that. It's ionizing radiation interacting with our atmosphere, creating plasma and a frequency that we can see. Yeah. So I don't understand why we make a difference on a flat Earth, though. It's just where that would come from on the flat Earth, I guess is the question. We can predict where and when it will appear based on our knowledge of the Sun and its current output cycle and the direction. So we're going, okay. It's plasma. Yeah, okay, great. All right, let's carry on. White asks, why is everything we observe with telescopes around, but the Earth is flat? Flat. Round is also flat, by the way. Any thoughts after you, Effie? Well, what we observe is specifically spherical, and we can see this by having slightly different views of it at different times of the day and throughout the night when we're looking at things. Also, looking at Jupiter and seeing the moons literally orbiting it with a telescope myself was pretty good confirmation that it's something spherical. I don't see how there could be things orbiting it in a pattern that appears spherical with the thing itself wasn't spherical. And I can easily bring up a video showing all things like Dave White, she brings up which one is spherical, which not, so I don't need to do that. All right, you got it. Flatsoid, this is from Kengo 44, coming at you again. Flatsoid, you said horizon came from the horizontal. Then when Craig showed it from a bounding circle, you changed it to say it's optical. No, I said horizontal comes from the word horizon. That's what I said. And I said the etymology of circle boundary is optical. He didn't want to go further with the etymological word. And yes, even he citation, he brought up optical. Thoughts over there or do you want to carry on? No, it's fine. And I might not be being wrong myself to be honest. I may need to correct myself, but I don't think Irore Borges is plasma. I might have been wrong with that. I know, yes, it's plasma. It is an ionized gas plasma. It's not gas that's being changed. But again, I may have been wrong with that, so I have to be correct. So I'm not going to correct. I'm not going to claim I know either. All right, there we go. Always good to have a little humility, especially when we're debating lots of big topics. And we just can't know everything. That's just how she goes. So Mr. E-Man says, can Flatsoid identify how scientifically the container can be measured, how far away it is, and what it's made of? I think we had a similar one, but go ahead. Yeah, first of all, that's a category that's not science. Science is specifically based on courseway effect. How far something is is not scientific. And no, I can't tell you how far it is, because all I know is based on natural law and observations, we require containment for gas pressure. And if we have gas pressure, therefore we have containment. It's the same as going to order a piece of steak. If the cow didn't exist to give you the steak, you can't have the steak. No, that's not over there. No, it doesn't seem like it. Yeah, gravity is the container. All right. And gravity is not a force. It can't be a container. Of course, again, don't storm on me. We've been through this. Create a force. Gravity creates gravity, guys. Remember that. No, gravity creates a force. What force? The force due to gravity. How does it create a force, Craig? Because of the bending of space-time. So a mathematical construct bends. No, space-time is not a force. The force of gravity is the fabric of the universe, despite what you say. Show me space-time, Craig. Here. No, that's air. That's not space-time. It's also space-time. The fabric of the universe is space-time. We can show that space-time is warped by mass. No, you can't. It's a mathematical fourth dimension construct. It doesn't exist. It's literally mathematical. Eddington Experiment 1919 shows the big masses warp space-time. No, it doesn't. But okay, carry on. I see spin, flatzoids. So about the evidence for flat earth, I got any, they ask. Yes, got lots. The fact we need containment to survive, and the fact we can do bottom-up obstruction on flat surfaces, the fact we can keep showing everything is optical, and the fact we keep showing everything based on the globe is hijacking things like perspective. And plane or surveying. None of that was evidence to the Earth's globe. It was just saying things that he doesn't understand. Sorry, none of the things he said was evidence of flat earth. Sorry, it was just saying things he doesn't understand about the globe. Saying that something isn't right on your thing doesn't mean that the Earth is flat. And again, gravity contains the atmosphere. No problem there. So again, I finish off with gravity is not a force to be able to give the containment. Correct. Based on gas laws, there is no gravity. Based on physics, gravity can't even do anything to the direction of gas. As gas behavior debunks, the notion gravity pulls it down. All right. White asks again, so sorry, FTFE, we got him move on. Yeah, White asks again, can you explain what meteors are and how they enter the atmosphere if the Earth has a dome? If so, what is the dome made of? A rubber made bowl. Oh, we got a lot of comedians. Do I have to answer this again? That's the same thing. I don't know what it's made of. I don't know where it is. Who knows where the meteor came from? Maybe it fell off the dome. Maybe it came inside the dome. Some of these might have came in. Maybe it painlessly came out of nowhere. I don't know. Yeah, some of these might have came in right around the same time. And they might have not seen that. That question was already asked. So sorry, we've already expounded on that. And I think we've gotten as much on that as we're going to get. So CountDiscalcula asks, the longest line of site photograph taken is 443 kilometers. Please both explain why you can't take a photograph of Madagascar from Africa's coast. Hint, curve. I'll give you the first minute FTFE because you've had only a handful of questions. To be fair, that is a bit of a strawman of the Flat Earth Clean. Because the angular resolution would be too small. Atmospheric fog or even if the Earth was flat, you wouldn't be able to see across the entire Earth because it's too big. I could not stand on one side of the Earth and look at Mount Everest on the other of the Earth was flat because Earth is far too big and compared to that, Mount Everest is far too small. So that question is to be fair to the Flat Earth side, a little bit of a strawman of the Flat Earth Clean. Big ups to Craig. Craig, thank you. All right, well, thank you. Let's carry on. We are getting wound down on some of the superchats and a big thank you to our audience for all the engagement here. We really appreciate it. So let's try to whip through these last. We got about 10 or so more, maybe 15. Ergyt says, why are Flat Earthers still given a platform? We'll just cap that one there and I'll just say it would seem, based on our numbers, we're having a lot of fun. We got great numbers here. We got people who truly believe they're defending here tonight. So, you know, I think that it is important that we have these discussions, especially when you see... Fair Ryan, the truth is... I think everybody's enjoying it, so... But the truth is that we're just paid by NASA to put on this charade to hide the truth. You heard it here. He's confessed to everybody. No, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Just kidding. Just teasing. All right, so either way, Ergyt, we're going to keep doing that, because not only does our audience enjoy it, but it's just important not only to, like I say, have this specific discussion, potentially where you see this happening in lots of spaces, but also it's important to learn how to have discussion, you know, so not everybody's walking around being a contentious troll. Get it out here at Modern Day Debate. Keep it away from your family, all right? Kango44 says, Flatsoyde, in your boat example, your boat disappeared in totality, not bottom first. So just to be clear, you did not show bottom up destruction on a flat surface. It was about the resolution limit that's what was showing the fraction limit. And if I use the different camera, you're supposed to show it bottom up. Lovely clean. I challenge you to use a different camera. I'll show it bottom up. I can show you another demonstration now, where we have bottom up destruction. Made that you... Radio resolution. Camera to show it bottom up. I want, I would love to see that. Okay. Did you say you're going to share a screen? You want me to show now? I thought you said you were. If you wanted to do that, you're welcome. Okay. If you guys want to, we'll quickly see if I can get it. No problem. We'll take a moment and entertain this super chat. And once again, there's still just under 600 people watching, so make sure you're hitting that like button. And we really, like I say, appreciate the audience. Somebody made a commentary on your shirt. It says just the word fart. It says don't fart. I see something. I don't want to know what's going on with the rest of that shirt. That's what we really want to know. But you let me know when you get that up there. Let's see if I can run through another question here. What motivation... Let's see if I can find one for you. Looks like most of them are for you, Flatsoyde. So let's just see. Okay, I got it. Okay, good. I managed to waffle right to it. There we go. Thanks, buddy. Sorry. Yeah, you can see on screen, you can see everything. Look what happens when we add refraction. Just opening the door. Bottom up obstruction coming in. Three, two, one. There we go. Wait, hold on. I haven't seen that. Give me a second. I pressed them overall on my screen. And now I can't see your thing. Give me one sec. Just let us know when you're ready. We're all seeing it here on modern day debate. Show me that again. Sorry. And you see everything. And it's going, opening the door for refraction to come in. And three, two, one. Bottom up obstruction. Here we go. Bottom up obstruction. And what is this? Where is this? On the floor. And just opening the door. Shout out to Sky Free for this demonstration. I can show many others as well. I didn't put it up on my screen. My bad. Yeah, but I mean, again, what is it flat? What? Yep, floor. Left floor. It's flat. I mean, don't mention it. Bottom up obstruction due to? But no one's denying that refraction can do a thing. But refraction on the ocean works a certain way, not that way. All right. Let's carry on. Kengo44 asks, flatsoid, in your boat example, your boat disappeared in totality, not bottom first. So just to be clear, you did not show bottom up obstruction on a flat surface. It was part of it just to show the fraction limit here. And then I showed the other one with the limiting angles. And then if we had more time, I could have gone more to show giving a bottom obstruction due to limiting angles. That's how I was giving different parts of showing it. That's why I showed on the aluminium surface for Craig with the bottle caps. Oh, sorry about that. And yeah, aluminium flat bars are flat. Yeah, if I go over the same one again, it's because some of them really do read out the same way. And I'm like this. And then come to find out other debates that it really was a separate question. And people are like, you missed my chat, Ryan. I know it works. And I just got to point out it's 24 in the morning. I had three hours sleep the previous night and had no sleep today. All right, well, we'll get rolling then. To be fair, flatsoid, I know what it's like to bait in Lake. I'm in the UK. It's 20 past two here, but not as late as him. So I do appreciate him taking the time to do this. And I think we should all appreciate that, you know, he is mostly human and does need sleep. I would have thanks Craig. Mostly human. That is going on here. What's baked in there? All right. So Matt Hightower will watch the Starship flight this week. Very clear picture of globe curvature. All right. So Matt, you got your question in there or I shouldn't say question, but your statement. So yeah, if anybody wants to go check out what Matt is talking about there, feel free after the debate because you're here now. You can go watch Star Wars too. That's just as good. Keeping you. Keeping you locked in. All right, so. Ergy T. When you say Star Wars 2, let me be clear here. When you say Star Wars 2, do you mean Attack of the Clones? Yeah. That brilliant, not brilliant one. I don't like Clones. I was going to say I'm an OG. I'm a bit of an OG fan. I mean, especially when you watch something like Clash of the Titans from 1980, which came out three years later and you're like, whoa, that is a bad looking horse. And then you think about how well they did in Star Wars. Wow. All right. Let's be clear, everyone here. There is only two good movies in the Star Wars franchise. Okay. That's it. Keep going. Say a million minutes. Boy, we are going to get into a new debate. You keep that up. All right. Ergy T asks. Ask one side to explain the discovery of Neptune. They actually saw it with a telescope before they actually did the math. So, okay. So as a brief response to that, there is sightings of a planet that was now known to be Neptune before we actually discovered Neptune. We didn't even know what it was or where it was going to be. We just saw it. What happened was we noticed perturbations in the orbit of Uranus. We noticed that at a certain time in its orbit, it did something a bit weird, which didn't match Kepler's laws and Newton's laws. So what we did was we did a little bit of maths that said, well, if there is another gravitational body here, it would explain the strange thing happening in Uranus orbit. And then they looked in that place that they made the prediction of and discovered Neptune. And then based on Neptune's orbit, realised that later on, they'd actually seen it in telescopes previously as well. But they had never predicted or discovered it in its orbit until the perturbations of Uranus was the thing that was noticed. Thoughts on the other side, or do you want to carry on? Yeah. All right, beautiful. Let's see. What else we got in here, guys? And thank you so much once again. Let's see. I'll just read this last one here and then I'll keep scrolling up. Matt Hightower asked, why does a line of Starlink satellites disappear at a point higher than the apparent horizon? Things get out of view. Just like an airplane gets out of view. There we go. What he means is you can actually see the Starlink satellites come from the horizon and then disappear into spaces that come here. Remember when you told us about the horizons? Hold on. But let me finish my point. I'm finishing. You can see it coming from the horizon and then disappearing before they go over all the way. That's what he means. And the reason for that is because they are just high enough above Earth to reflect the sunlight that you would be seeing on Earth if you were high enough for that to be your horizon. Once they have passed what is essentially their horizon, there's no longer any light from the Sun to reflect off of them, which means they disappear at a point just above the horizon. Yeah, it's full perspective and the reason you still see the light is because the Sun is just far away. It didn't go down. All right. Melodic lyrics says, can flatsoil mathematically show that space violates gas laws? Yes, it can all thermodynamics. Bring up the equation and you'll see it violates gas laws. Thermodynamics isn't an equation. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system will always increase. What kind of system? The isolates of the universe. Yeah. So if you have the universe as an isolated system and you have an open system inside that universe, the air we breathe inside actually will activate into true space. So in other words, if you take the joules free expansion of gas law, it does not expand any energy, temperature change, or anything. It free expansion into the available space. But nothing in the second law of thermodynamics says that gravity can't be a thing that acts on gas. There's nothing- And gravity overcome entropy, Craig. Wait, absolutely. It can stop it. But the point of- What? I'm finished with that. 59. The second law of thermodynamics talks about the entropy of the entire universe. You can have isolated systems of reversal of entropy. And gravity is one of the things that does that. And there's nothing about gravity that violates the second law of thermodynamics of the universe's entropy increasing. Last thoughts for Craig. You want to prove that by demonstrating gas pressure that containment, please? But let's do it this way. Take a- You can even do it at Earth's core if you wanted to. Take a container, vacuum it out, take another container inside there with gas pressure and open it. See what happens. Okay. Again, none of that violates gravity. Very confused as to why you think- Gravity violates entropy. And you saying it can overcome entropy shows you think gravity can violate entropy. Well done. Gravity does not violate the entropy of the universe in any way, shape, or form. Do you know what the Joules free expansion of gas is, Craig? Yes, I do. What is it? The free expansion, no energy change of gas. Literally, no temperature change, no energy change, just its free expansion, instantaneously into the surrounding system. Yeah, but once the kinetic energy is gone, there's no expansion and gravity is- Remember I showed you- Remember I showed you- I think that says no gravity does- Right, it's a sentence, flat-soil, is that okay? Yeah, I'm sorry. Nothing about the second law of thermodynamics says that gravity cannot be a thing. There is nothing about the second law of thermodynamics that says gravity violates the universe's entropy increasing, nothing at all. So can you show me where it says gravity can hold gas down to overcome entropy? The second law of thermodynamics isn't specifically about that. It's about the universe's entropy increasing. But there that again- Sorry, it stops it from increasing then. Gravity doing what it does does not violate the entire universe's entropy increasing. You get what you say. If you're claiming gravity stops gas from expanding into the surrounding system, you are claiming it overcomes entropy. It doesn't overcome the entropy of the entire universe. So in other words, gravity has no effect on the expansion of gas. So in other words, it cannot violate natural law. Yeah, but again, gravity doing what it does to gas does not violate the natural entropy of the universe increasing. Unless you can describe mathematically how gravity would violate the entropy of the universe increasing, you do not have a point. Your free expansion of gas law. Use that equation. There we go. All right, Matt Hightower out. What motivation does Space X have to fake launches? You can watch the things live. Elon's goal is to go to Mars. What will the Flat Earthers say when they land on a round Mars? I'm not going to divine one's motive, so I can give many reasons why, but I'm not yet to divine a person's motives. 500 years from now, a dad and his son are sitting together on Mars, and the boy looks up at his dad and says, Daddy, is it true that we came to Mars 500 years ago in a starship? The daddy says to him, don't be stupid, son. Mars is flat. We live in a dome and Elon Musk wasn't real. All right. Let's carry on. Best of threes asks, if gravity bends the surface of water, why doesn't the surface resemble the hill and valleys that's underneath? Actually, it does. Satellite data of the surface of the ocean shows that there is variations in the surface of the ocean that directly match the topography of the ocean floor. That they literally measure the distance between the satellites and the ocean surface and the variations of it over long periods of time and can use the variations in the height of the water to actually map the topography of the floor underneath it. Yeah, the basins, they're claiming. But note that these measurements are taken from a place that violates central law. Well, they take it. And it's unverifiable as well, by the way. SpaceX verified it the other day. Okay. Next one. Crypto roast says, to FTFE, show flatzoid the mesos a rocket launch. It's exactly what they demand to see. No fisheye, no NASA, but they all run from it. Rectilineal engines still have. They just store payments. This is the reason. This is a question for FTFE. I'm so sorry. Oh, sorry. It's okay. I can show flat earthers everything. In fact, I can strap a flat earther directly to a Suez rocket and send them into space. And they claim their eyeballs have been holographed by NASA to make them think that the earth is round. There is no point giving a flat earther evidence because they will never accept evidence because they need the earth to be flat for that little thing to make them feel special inside. Okay. All right. I don't have comments. Okay. All right. Can't go 44. Oh my. Flatzoid, you know you can have triangles on curved surfaces, right? Nerves. I don't know what that means. Oh, here we go. Non-uniform rational B splines. It's how everything is designed. He's talking about spherical triangles. Not claiming spherical triangles don't exist. I'm claiming to get those spherical triangles. You first have to measure flat and then calculate based on observational. I cannot put this perspective and because you believe it's a curve, make it curved. Yeah, that's not how surveying is done. They literally measure it. Oh, yes, it is. Measured flat, calculated curved. 59. They've actually measured the angles and compare it to, you know, what flat would be. And if the angles of a triangle add up to more than 180, that means that it's a spherical triangle and can only fit on a spherical surface. Measured flat, calculated curved. There we go. All right. Those were words said. No evidence behind it. Last one. Yes, it is. Okay. Can't go 44 strikes again. He said, Ryan, you did great. Oh, thank you. I can't imagine how fun, I'm going to sub that word out, how fun it would be dealing with FTFE and flat suede, because we are having fun. I'm always chill. That's right. I think you should just both apologize to Ryan because you know that he's going to go and cry after this, right? He's drinking something stronger after this. Me? No, I'm behaving myself. I do apologize for your therapist's bill, but I'm not helping you with it. Yeah. No, I'll save it for the doctor, right? No, I'm kidding. No, I always have fun. I'm always chill. I'm always doing other things that are legal in my neck of the woods. So don't worry about that. Yadian asks for Craig, can you explain the Boltzman constant and how it may have been misunderstood? Yes, I can. This is the game I'm not playing. Can you explain this? Can you explain this? Can you explain this? Yeah, I can. There's no point because I'm just going to be told that I'm wrong. But yeah, I can explain it. I've done it many times. You just go and watch my previous streams, but am I going to spend a bunch of time doing it now? Should I just be told I'm wrong? No. All you have to do is just say I don't know. Not even for Yadian? Okay. It's okay. He's got another question here, so we'll unpack a little bit more for you here, Yadian. And thank you so much for your super chat. Yadian asks for Flatsoid, if I take a box of one meter down, seal it, bring it to the surface, and open it from the top, the water will shoot out, even though it's water, not gas. Why does the ocean fill the air again? Hydro statics. Air compresses in a compression. So remember, water can't compress. Air can compress. So as soon as you bring it down, it's forcing it that way. So as soon as you go up, it has to increase. How can I play this in a simple term that people are going to say? If you fill a bottle of water up to the brim and you stick it in a freezer to freeze, it expands because it's ice. It expands. So when you take it out, it can rupture the bottle. Any thoughts on the other side? No, I'm sorry. I was paying attention to the chat. I apologize. Okay. It's all right. We are getting near the end here. So I do appreciate both of you for spending this much time. Please, I'm tired. Yes, I understand. I'm tired too. I had my St. Patty's Day show yesterday, so my voice might be still recovering. Matt Hightower says, why does... Oh, actually, I think we might have already hit this one earlier. Yeah, why does the Starlink satellite disappear at a point higher than the apparent horizon? Yeah, we did that one. Yeah. So we are at the end. Isn't that marvelous to say? So just where you wanted us to be, but I will give you each one minute to close your thoughts here. I'll start with FTFE where you started out flat. So if you don't mind. So one minute on the floor, your closing thoughts on your discussion tonight. Well, thank you for having me on, Ryan. I really do appreciate it. And thank you, James, and good luck. We're getting your doctorate finished. If you want to watch any more of me, you can find me on the YouTube channel, at youtube.comforcerftfe1. What happened tonight was what happens in every flat earth debate. The flat earther, whether they understand it or not, just straw manned a bunch of physics and bloke claims and then said, well, because of my straw man, therefore I've debunked the globe. The issue is that no flat earther understands physics at all. What they have is a word salad mixture of concepts that they have no grasp of. And I refuse to play the game of just being asked to define something for them to just refuse the thing that I've said. If flat earth ever has evidence, then maybe a real debate will occur. Until then, I will always title my flat earth debates flat earth debate. All right. Thank you so much for being here, Craig, and everybody you can find Craig over at FTFE and Flatsoid. Let everybody know where you're at and your closing thoughts on our discussion here. Awesome. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you, Modern Database. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, James. Everything I do wish the best. And thank you, Craig, for coming. Yes, I do have a channel. Flatsoid's Perspective. You'll find it on YouTube where I go and embarrass people like Craig who just show ignorance and have fun with them. All that's happened tonight is he's failed to demonstrate anything he claims, calls it a straw man because he doesn't know how to rebut it and shows his lack of I cannot put it, physics acumen because he thinks he knows what he's talking about and when asked a question he can't answer it, so Roller wants to reverse the burden on to us. So Roller, go and watch it again and see over and over how the globe has floundered. Thanks. All right, you got it. Well, thank you to both of our speakers. So we're going to fly on out and let our speakers go. But once again, big round of virtual applause to both of you. And yeah, don't mind me screaming some of my metal at you guys since you already caught my background, my Dio background every time you guys stop screen sharing. So yeah, we'll close it on out. And thanks again, everybody. Cheers. Yeah, so music with you, Ryan. Cheers, cheers, dudes.