 earth versus globe earth and we are starting right now with the flat earth side thanks so much for being with us which it gets it and Kai the floor is all yours how's it going so uh you want to we'll do our little opener right now share the screen you bet i'll switch it over for you there you go they can see it crystal clear all right perfect all right so the earth is a stationary geocentric die electric plane don't make it weird all right so we want to go over a few little uh quotes let me start one all right so briefly everything occurs as if the earth were a rest physics uh hennrick lorenz but he just like one of the father has an electrical field theory what does he know i actually can't read this because these people are in my way can i move the actual people just forget it um this is unsigned basically saying that every attempt on any terrestrial experiment to prove the earth is spinning didn't work and was a negative result but that's how we know the earth is spinning uh the data of michaelson morally were almost unbelievable there was only one other possible conclusion to draw that the earth was at rest another physicist what do we know this is a infamous steven hawking's uh really smart guy is a telemic or cupernican system correct observations to actually show that the earth is at rest this is infamous physicist steven hawking but what does he know again once more for the record has been shown at least six different ways the century this century alone that the equations and physics used by nasa to launch satellites are identical to the equations arrived from geocentric universe well there's no way the earth could be geocentric that's crazy i can kind of remember this even though it's again blocked but today scientists substitute mathematics for experiment experiments wander off in la la land to where basically they end up with no relation to reality and mathematical constructs of course aren't reality um so let's just see if nasa's a credible source since they're the ones that give us all this mystical information about space and the earth being a ball it's your question that uh the sky is almost white with with the light of the universe with the uncountable number of stars the sky is uh the black the sky is almost white with with the light of the universe with the uncountable number of stars the sky is uh the black you can't see the constellations because the sky is just so alive with stars the most unexpected thing i think was um the blackness of space most unexpected thing i think was um the blackness so again you're just going to hear more contradictions between the astronauts whether you can see stars or not you would think that they would all be on the same page and recall the same things if they went to the same place but clearly there is a discrepancy so we have more of this we were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics uh i don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the sonar corolla what what stars we could see remember singing the sky is uh deep black uh when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from uh cislunar space the space between the earth and the moon and we cannot see stars it's it's not the way i mean it's black but there's all kinds of all that there's all the stars there and the cool thing is about you can see it during the day and when you're when you're in space and you're looking into deep space and you're on the sun side of the orbit the sunlight washes out all the starlight so you can't see any stars just like you're on it there's all that there's all the stars there and the cool thing is about you can see it during the day you can and there's more than stars you can see planets you can see moons you Do you see the gas Magellan clouds? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So yeah, which is it? Do we see stars at all? Or do we see them on the sun side or not on the sun side? So much contradiction does not make sense if they're all going to the same place. Yeah, seems weird. They're all going to space, but they all have very different experiences that are directly contradictory. Here's some pictures. Most people I've seen, this is an infamous scientific talk from NASA. And in the background, it shows you this guy that's opposing on the ISS in front of a blue screen, totally, totally normal. And here's in the bottom right is NASA saying, which is a clip shot of an article talking about how they use virtual reality in space now, which is convenient because we've seen their hands go through coffee cups and lemons and et cetera. But... And that's how it looks like they're manipulating like water droplets or like floating pizzas or whatever shenanigans they have, but they're able to do it with such accuracy because they're using VR. Yeah, and just to address, I mean, we're addressing the credibility of the primary source of all the stories of space before we get any further. So NASA also admits that they practice their spacewalks in a pool. They have a Mox ISS in the pool. Do you fancy lab? Yeah, so that's pretty cool. Just practicing the pool, no big deal. But it appears that NASA missions halted after astronauts almost drowns. Water covered eyes, nose and ears. Here's another article. Astronauts keep almost drowning in space. And it does say keep for a reason because if you Google this, you will find this story being told once every year for the last five years. So consistently, they can't figure it out much seriously, NASA's astronaut suits keep filling with water in space. But of course, like we said, they do practice their spacewalks in a pool. So maybe, maybe just maybe they're in water. This is to address the claims of all the satellites, the biggest consumer of helium in the entire world as NASA. They consume about 90% of the world's helium supply. And of course they have a satellite project. So no one, most flatter, there's do not deny that they're stuffing the sky. We just denied the claims that they're in a second law of thermodynamics violation. So we're gonna move on. Oh yeah, these are apparently real pictures of planets, but clearly they are CGI, which same with the globe. There's only one real picture supposedly ever taken of the globe. Robert Simmons confirms this in an interview they did that they use composite imaging and artist rendition. They take a flat map and wrap it around a ball and add in Photoshop clouds. Right, so it's just 2022, but we have nothing but CGI. And if we deny this, then we're apparently crazy. So here's a video with an actual video of what the stars. With the Nikon P1000, I believe. When you actually look at the stars with that versus using NASA's CGI. So the globe, EarthThurs will of course say that this is just not in focus, but it's very convenient that you can so precisely critique a shot with an actual camera as you tout CGI. So I think it's a bit of a double standard there. This is an actual verifiable video as opposed to computer generated cartoons. So I think that doesn't really make sense. I would probably pump the breath. It's just out of focus. It's out of focus, but anyway, moving on. Here's another video. So what are the lights in the sky then? This doesn't look like the CGI. And again, we always have to rely on a handful. And by the way, in the telescopes, I'm sure they're gonna say the telescopes are the same as they have computer program rendering the image in its layered. So again, that's not a real image. That's not a real picture. So what is up with that? Why is it that when we look at the actual pictures, they seem to show a totally different story. So like she said, I wonder what they are. And what they resemble are cinematic patterns in water, which is where you take frequencies and then you were able to create this sacred geometry in water or sand. There's also an effect called sonoluminescence, where you use frequency in water and it's able to create a bubble once the bubble collapses, light emits. And this phenomenon is also called a star in a jar. So just if NASA is lying about these things in the sky, what could they possibly be? And this is just actual science, where you can actually prove the phenomena. So if you manipulate a medium with acoustic introduction or frequencies, again, it will emit light. And they look identical to what we see when we look at the sky. So very interesting, cinematic patterns seem to potentially be the source of the sky. So the entire conversation here is, is the Earth a globe or is the Earth flat? One of the primary things you hear a lot is, oh, do you have a model? Do you have a model? Well, here we go. If we just use the actual phenomenon that we can measure, the magnetic flux here, these are on the top, that's the magnetic flux on the bottom, that's ocean currents. They map out perfectly on a flat surface. Of course, on the globe, they're all over the place. This was very popular website and it took the azimethyl projection down once people started finding out about flat Earth. On the right here, you'll see that the sun rays, the direct nine degree angle does not line up with the equator, which is the hottest part of the globe, which makes no sense whatsoever. Of course, on the flat Earth, it makes perfect sense the temperature distribution is perfectly aligned with the position of the sun, just like when it's hotter, when it's noon. So of course, gas pressure is the force of the gas particles colliding with the walls of its container. So that's an antecedent to gas pressure is a container. Gravity is not a container, not a physical container. Although that is your replacement of a container. So here we have some proof of what appears to be the container reflecting light. This effect is called a sun dog. They say it's because there's ice crystals in the sky, but this phenomenon also can happen during the summer. Interesting. Yep. I think we only have like a minute or two left. So real quickly, this is an electromagnetic field, which is what we have on the Earth, the globe Earth, according to Harvard, still can't even adequately explain how the magnetic field even exists or how it is distributed. But anyway, magnetic fields have what's called an inertial plane. So there's a depiction. You would live on that green plane through the middle. Here's an inertial plane. What it actually has is the inverse to counter space, which of course is polarity, which is a three-dimensional S-curve. In other words, the plane of inertia, which is the inverse of magnetic centerfugal divergence, which of course forms the geometry of this. The toroid is a cross-section of a toroid or a donut shape. And this is of course what the magnetic field looks like, right? It's toroidal, right? So there's the inertial plane, which would again be where you live. I'm gonna have to go through this pretty fast. So sorry in advance, but there's an atmospheric gradient on the Earth of electric potential. It goes up a roughly 120 volts per meter that results in a downward curtain on the Earth. So when people say something about gravity, actually they're just hijacking the phenomena that we know is there, is electric force stronger or weaker than the gravitational force? Well, it's 10 to the 39th power stronger than gravity, even claims to be, and you can't isolate it. So how could you ever find out anything that was any weaker than that? So it's not gravity, it's electrostatic. So electrostatic, it's an incoherent dielectric celebration specifically and in a world productions. We made a time pretty quick. Thank you very much for that opening statement. And wanna let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform, hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome, no matter what walk of life you are from, Flat Earther, Globe Earther, you name it, we're thrilled you're here. And don't forget to hit that subscribe button for more juicy debates coming up. With that, we're gonna kick it over to Taylor and Jen for their opening as well. Thanks so much for being with us, defending the globe tonight. Taylor and Jen, the floor is all yours. Thank you so much, James. Taylor with a Kai. Everybody associated with the channel, great to be here. I'm, Jen, I'll be giving a defense of the globe Earth. And I'm really looking forward for the chance to be back on the show. I just want to say real quick that I appreciate the amount of scholarship that has gone into my opponent's defense of their position. I don't recall exactly how the last debate went, but it does seem that it's a lot tighter from the scientific persuasive angle. It doesn't mean I agree with you. And I'm looking at you audience, all the people that said that I was defaulting mid-debate last time, that did not happen. It's just called being, having a good sportsperson like attitude in debates. So back to what it is we're talking about here. And this is a bit of a touchy topic for you. This has frustrated me before. It's like, isn't it obvious that it's a ball? I mean, look, everything pretty much, if we just let it do its thing, it's a ball. But that's obviously not what our senses tell us. So we have a bit of a pull back and forth between an impression and measurements. And we have to use geometry, mathematics and physical models to interpolate our way to a greater understanding. And that's where I like to invoke metaphors. What is this? It's a three dimensional lens. And it's a metaphor both for our atmosphere and our consciousness and our eyeballs. What is this fundamentally doing? Well, it is pulling in a bunch of light to a more concentrated region. And I apologize in advance if my audio is not working out. This is a new set of headphones for me. So please bear with me. I'm doing my best to make the most compelling version of the arguments as I can kind of cobble together because it's hard to put myself in the position of somebody who would be skeptical about something like that just because I, isn't there already a sort of inbuilt skepticism just with the sheer relative size? If you're saying the earth is flat, you're potentially saying that what your eyes recognize for something that's many thousands of times bigger than you is the accurate shape. Now, why would we expect the shape to be accurate when I just demonstrated three examples of lenses, atmosphere, consciousness and eyeball? And none of those reflects what was originally put through. Does it? I'm flipped upside down. What am I getting at here? It's about what's a reasonable place to begin. A reasonable place to start is, well, it's actually pretty much the only way the only way to explain what we see here is with a globe. And if I may share my screen, I will go over to address some of these arguments. All right. Crystal Clear. Okay, so as my leaked government document, I just Googled this randomly and I'm sure this is a bit of a straw person here, but just bear with me. What is this saying? I can totally see how you might wanna say, oh, well, they did a drawing and therefore that's what reality is, but we're sort of missing the point of physics, which is to make models. So it is perfectly conceivable that NASA or others would be using something that looks like a flat earth model, but that does not actually, nobody using that model actually believes that the earth is flat. It's just the best approximation given the scale. And what does that mean? Just intuitively, there is no reason to think that we would be able to do multi-scale estimation. So we really have to completely trust a model on all the levels. So what this model might be telling us, I don't know if it's real, it's probably not, but hypothetically, let's say that it was, it would be an approximation on that scale, meaning not more than a hundred meters. If we wanna take into account the scale of the entire planet, well, that's considerably bigger. So if we start with what's obviously a sphere, I've got this ball here, as I pull it away from the camera, it's a lot harder to tell whether it's a sphere or a circle. So there is an issue with spherical things at a sufficient distance appearing flat. And there's a question of what is it we can actually conceive of in terms of a model that is going to give us an accurate representation that is going to give us accurate predictions of numerical values. And realizing that those two aren't the same. So the model that gives you the best numbers in terms of future values and the model that tells you the exact physics of what's going on, they may not be the same in you may not even be able to have a single model for both because of the complexity of the cosmos. So I'm just throwing out examples here that even though it's a frustrating debate to keep on having, you can see why there might be misunderstandings, especially when we have prevalence of beliefs that cogito ergo some, and perhaps this is committing a bit of a reification policy with regards to the importance of sensory impressions. How am I doing for time, James? I feel like I've been really rambling here and I don't want to go too long. All right, well, I have like pages and pages still to go here. And I know my partner wanted to wrap it up and go into the actual meat of the conversation. So I'll try to just skip through to whatever was the, I made a lot of notes about the presentation. So that would sitting Kai put on. So I guess... Well, take your time if you feel like you need it. Don't rush on my behalf. Guess I'll mention just quickly, thank you so much about the moon, that there's definitely some mysterious stuff going on with the moon. And have a look here. There's really no reason that the moon ought to line up with the sun so perfectly as to create this effect. It's really quite something. And so I don't think that that necessarily tells us anything about a physical model, but it's certainly an example as to how mysterious everything is and can precipitate the symmetry. And I think you mentioned also that there was no way to disprove that we were in the center of the universe. And findings like that, they're mysterious I expect that because cosmology does tend to be mysterious. And that fact pretty much signals to me that it's another manifestation of the least action principle that's very ubiquitous notion that the amount of energy is always minimized over whatever field the vibration is taking place in. And so whenever a mysterious symmetry arises, I always think, okay, it's something connected to the least action principle, even though I don't know exactly what it is, somehow it's coming together to create something beautiful. And I better not let my inclinations towards poetic interpretations take me off on a flight of fancy because I am doing physics here. I need to really stick with not just good measurements, but a good interpretation of the measurements and acknowledging all of the evidence, but also contextualizing it like, what does it really mean that you saw those water effects on the, I think you call it the sacred geometry, what does that really mean? Well, much more likely that that's a lensing effect either from the camera or possibly even the atmosphere. And so there's maybe some effects that are less well understood. For example, a snow dog could happen at any time. I think that's what it's called, the lens effect in the sky could happen at any time. It is really just a triple, not a triple point, sorry, it's just a matter of whether it's at the right pressure density, temperature point for that effect to happen. It doesn't have to be like cold or warm on the surface. That's an effect that manifests in the atmosphere and it would be the temperature there that determined it. So yeah, the moon is really what sells me on Earth being round because we don't see the moon all the time. It goes away, but we do see the same face of the moon all the time. So that's another mystery. But those two things combined, the fact that the moon is less privileged than us rotationally in the sense that the face that if you were standing on the moon, you could eventually see everything on the planet versus the planet Earth only sees one face of the moon. That tells me it has to be a sphere because we would see it all the time if it was flat, I suppose. So I guess I'm done with my intro and thanks for listening and I'll hand it over to my co-debater, thanks so much. Thanks, Jen. And I'll share my screen too. While he's pulling that up, wanna remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description. So if you'd like to learn more about the views of either side, you can by clicking on their links below. All right, Snake, they can see your screen as clear as day. All right. Is this tab, is the word tab showing up? Yep. Oh, okay. I'm gonna be reading off that. Or do you see my text document or do you just see the glow? Right now you're fully sharing your screen. If you wanted to click on a certain window to share, you could, you'd have to unshare and then go back to sharing. Okay, sorry about that. Not a problem. As mentioned, folks, they're linked down in the description. That includes at the podcast, modern day debate debates are uploaded to our podcast within 24 hours of each debate and we put our guest links in the description box for the podcast episode as well. They can now see a picture of a glow birth. Okay. So, yeah, so Flat Earth is pseudoscience. It's fake skepticism. They accept photographs and tabletop experiments if they support Flat Earth, but they reject photographs and valid experiments if they support the glow. They have an impossibly high standard of evidence for the real science, but will instantly turn on a dime and lower their standards if the same type of evidence supports the Flat Earth, but you can't have it both ways. We have experiments proving how gravity works. Do they care? No. Do they have experiments showing how gravity works as they say? No, but they accept their conjecture as fact anyway. They'll speculate about some woo woo electromagnetic, whatever that might be responsible for suspending and moving the sun inside the atmosphere and that's good enough. But meanwhile, rigorous peer-reviewed science is dismissed as a conspiracy. They insist that the sun is in the atmosphere, but will never send an expedition there. Any photographic evidence of actual expeditions to the moon are claimed automatically to be fake. So there's a double standard. Regardless, the globe predicts data. Flat Earth predicts none of the data. If you make predictions about reality, you understand how it works. If you can't, you don't. Flat Earthers can't even accommodate the data. They're actually so incompetent at this that they now avoid even trying to make a map at all possible costs because all flat maps always contradict real-world observations of flight paths, star paths, lamp proportions, path as the sun and moon, et cetera, et cetera. Flat Earthers don't even have enough real confidence or practical skill to make a map, let alone send an expedition to the things that they claim are in the atmosphere like the sun and moon, nor will they even try to quote Kai, that's why we keep it vague. So it doesn't matter to them because all the evidence is a conspiracy. It's all lies, so they can just reject it out of hand. It has to be an impossible global conspiracy instead of facing the possibility that they might be wrong. When Flat Earther Bob Nodell bought a laser gyroscope to prove no rotation, then he measured a 15 degree per hour rotation. He dismissed it rather than accept the possibility he had no idea what he was talking about. When Flat Earther Jarranism proved water curvature with his own experiment, he dismissed it rather than admit he was wrong, interesting. You also saw them in their presentation misrepresenting what physicists actually say about the subject, quote mining things, cutting things up out of context. So what are we supposed to do in the face of such reckless hubris? Well, what about the oft-repeated phrase replacement is independent of falsification. The excuse for why they can't produce a working map. The so-called falsifications come down to a few typical misunderstandings like why no one falls off the bottom, quote unquote, how curved water can be level, how the atmosphere stays held to the earth next to a vacuum, properly understood real physics like gravity explain all this and actually necessitated globe shape, falsifying and replacing the Flat Earth at the same time. Flat Earthers universally reject gravity and it's for a good reason if you understand gravity, you can't really be a Flat Earther. Okay, so a couple more slides here, almost done. Second point, other than gravity, I would like Kai and Witsit to explain how the stars rotate in different directions depending on the hemisphere because it's not physically possible on any flat plane. And let's see. Oh, thirdly, the feed you saw for most of this presentation was the live feed from the Himawari-8 Japanese Weather Satellite, a non-NASA installation. So, and Flat Earthers can falsify it at any time, just go find weather data that contradicts the unfakeable live feed. I can assure you they will not do this. And the only other photographic evidence I wanna bring up is the photos of the curved water at Lake Pontchartrain. So let's discuss, thanks. You got it, and with that, we're gonna jump into open conversation. Wanna let you know, though, folks, as mentioned, a lot of juicy debates coming up that you don't wanna miss. For example, at the bottom right of your screen, I'm pulling up this new one, are trans women women? It is going to be a controversial one between Vosh and Dr. Bochardis. As they collide next month, you don't wanna miss it. Hit that subscribe button. With that, we're gonna jump into an open conversation, as mentioned. Thanks so much. Austin, Kai, Taylor, and Jen, the floor is all yours. Okay, you keep on talking about experiments. So I think Kai has a question for you. Yes, we have a question for Taylor. So, Taylor, what are the three constituent parts of a scientific experiment? Well, you're looking for a specific answer. So why don't you tell me? We're just looking for the right answer. Yeah, because you think that we don't care about- Let's just talk about an experiment. Let's not waste time. Let's talk about Cavendish. Okay, so I will answer the question that you can't answer. You have an independent, dependent, and control variable, okay? And the crucial part is establishing cause and effect, okay? That's how you conduct a scientific experiment. All right, so let's talk about Cavendish experiment, cause and effect. Before you interrupt me. So when we're talking about gravity, that means you have to, if gravity, space-time, has to be the independent variable, you have to be able to manipulate the independent variable. And that is not what the current science, which is actually pseudoscience, is ever doing. So. No, you don't. That's just a lie. So let's talk about the Cavendish experiment. You don't need to manipulate all those things. Cavendish wasn't trying to prove gravity, but go ahead. Yes, it does. It proves that there's an attraction between masses, which is gravity. Cavendish wasn't trying to prove gravity. It doesn't matter what he was trying to prove. It matters what the experiment shows and the man Cavendish is irrelevant. So what does the experiment show? It shows an attraction between mass and the storage. No, it doesn't actually. It's very, it's actually very inconsistent. So are you claiming that you always get the same results? No, that's the point of experiments is you can repeat them. Right, as less than 10%. Sometimes the experiments have errors. There's a torsion element to it. Some people get the torsion element wrong. Okay, so, but you have any torque in it. You agree that if you do an experiment 10 times and then you only get the right result one time and you dismiss the other nine to use your error and just cherry pick the one out, that's not actually science. So 99% of the time you get the same answer and it's mass attracts mass. That's incorrect, which is not even, which has also been superseded by Einstein, which is now the bending warping of space-time. No, Cavendish was not overturned by Einstein. They still use that. Newtonian physics. So you said mass attracting mass. That's saying that gravity is an intrinsic property of matter that's Newtonian physics. It was superseded in 1915. Gravity is no longer considered an intrinsic property of matter. That's fine. There's still an attraction between mass. Well documented. If you just research it, I can pull up some academic quotes for you if you would like to. There's not an attraction between masses. I remember you mentioned something about a stationary plane and an electric plane. Would you? Yeah, where's the experiment for that? Wait, wait, wait. Before that though, would you like to concede that? Absolutely not. You're lying right now. That is a experiment that absolutely shows attraction between mass and mass. When you put two heavy masses next to each other, they will always be attracted to each other and you can take out the many variables. That's what the torsion bar is for. You take out the variable of spin and torque. You take it off the ground. You take off the variable of friction. So anytime you put two masses next to each other, they will attract each other. You can switch them and the experiment will spin the other way. You can put the masses on the other side and it will immediately be pushed to the other side. Okay, again, you're just saying that, but I've actually researched it in depth. It does not consistently work, but the real problem I'll just go and cut this off. You're lying. I'll go ahead and cut this off at the head for you, man. You didn't control for the variable of electrostatics, which is 10 to the 39th power stronger than gravity. So even if it was consistent, which it objectively isn't, the attractive force there that's objectively and measurably there is 10 to the 39th power stronger than gravity. Can you rebut that for me? Yeah, because you can put elect, you can test for that. The actual physical answer there, if you want to get technical, is that gravity acts over one over R squared. Balls off as one over R squared and electromagnetism balls off as one over R cubed. So what you see is exactly what you'd expect, but you have to interpret it correctly. It's a question. Electrostatics? Why are we even able to stand up? I mean, let's, you know, give the globe, give them a chance. Like if they're right, basically what they're saying is that we have this big globe and we're sucked into the center towards the center of it because it's so massive. And then the question becomes, well, why aren't we just a big flat pancake on the ground sizzling? And the answer is because we have electrostatic torsion holding us standing up. I mean, in a way, it's a bit of a miracle that we're able to stand up and emulate. So easily ask anyone who's trying to program a robot to walk. And it takes them a really long time to get the thing not to just fall over in a ball. I mean, being a bit hyperbolic here, but just so you know, the electrical gravity torsion, you know, equilibrium point, that's exactly what you would expect for a globe. It's just that when the gravity force is one over R squared versus electricity is one over R cubed. So in very close distances, electricity is much stronger. Over longer distances, gravity is stronger. And then they have a balance point. That's called a begging the question fallacy. So we're actually disputing that very thing. He just invoked Newtonian physics, which no idea you're lying again, Matt. So are you saying Einsteinian physics is mass attracts mass? That is an observable fact. Whether you're in Steinia is the theory of relativity. Does the theory of relativity say that mass attracts mass? No. No, it doesn't both sides outside of the Newtonian. The theory of relativity doesn't say the sky is blue either. Okay. So what you're saying is that you were trying to prove a gravity that was proven to no longer work in your model and it had to be updated to the theory of relativity. It didn't have to be updated. Mass accelerates towards mass. Mass no longer attracts mass. That was not overturned by Einsteinian physics at all. And it doesn't matter if it's electrostatic or not. Mass accelerates towards mass, whether it's electrostatic or not. Okay. Yes. I understand. First of all, gravity is the effect of the bending and warping of space time according to the theory of relativity. That is supersede Newtonian physics. The reason electrostatic is because of the debate. Well, you know, you're trying to prove something that doesn't even happen into existing in your model anymore. So... And if we're going to discuss gravity... No, that's a lie. It exists. If we're going to discuss... Gravity exists in Einsteinian physics. Stop lying. Mass is sucking mass. I want to be sure to be here for... Mass accelerates towards mass, yes. Just to be sure to be here from Kai. It's on the lake. You have something to say, Kai. Oh, thanks, James. All I was going to say is it's absolutely applicable if we're going to be discussing gravity. We need to understand the supposed cause. So... No, you only need to know its behavior. The cause, the bending and warping of space time. Yeah. You only need to know its behavior. So here, let's ask this question. So you said that gravity has been proven over and over by scientists. Can you describe the difference between correlation and causation? Mm-hmm. Causation is something that is caused by something else. Correlation is just appearing at the same time as something else in the data. And how do you differentiate between the two in the academic world? Do you eliminate variables? You have an independent, dependent and controlled variables. And the key part is to manipulate the independent variable and see if it affects the dependent. So when they were studying gravity, we're going to use Einsteinian gravity because that is the most current explanation. What was the independent variable and the dependent variable in that experiment? In Cavendish? No, when they actually proved Einsteinian gravity. I don't know. That's the foundation of everything, according to you. The Newtonian element for the debate. No, Newtonian didn't work anymore. They had to update it to Einsteinian physics. Are you not aware? I'm not talking about Newtonian physics. Mass attracting mass says Newtonian physics. And actually, hilariously enough, Newton said, please do not attribute that to me because the idea that innate brute matter could attract innate brute matter and act on it through the vastness of a vacuum is to me, so great an absurdity that no man with competent faculty of thinking and philosophical matters could ever fall. Okay, so. That's his word. Why do you interrupt so much? Why do you just waste time so much? Mass attracting mass. Just in case Jen has anything to say. We haven't heard from you in a while, Jen, in case you had anything. Thank you, maybe. Jen, you're muted. Wait, you're not muted. It shows you as unmuted, but we're still not hearing you. This is the best globe argument I've heard all day, James. Did I actively mute? I'm so sorry, I got excited there. So perhaps my last few arguments were missed, but thank you for calling attention to that. I was interested about one of the arguments in your opener, which is just maybe taking a new direction about you mentioned that you can't see the stars. Now, it just clarifies the claim there that you can only see stars within the Earth's atmosphere and once you're like too far, that it's blackness or something, could you refresh my memory as to what the claim actually is about the... That's a great question, Jen, because the claim is not consistent. So we'll start with Neil Armstrong. At first they say that because of the glare of the sun, you cannot see stars because of that. Then in another interview, he says that the sky and space is a deep black from the view of the moon and also CIS lunar space, which is the space between Earth and the moon. So that is the original claim. Now, that has been updated with recent astronauts that have gone to the ISS. Some of them say we can see stars, whether we're on the sun side or not on the sun side, whether it's day or night, we can see stars all the time. The one astronaut said it was so bright because of the stars, it's almost light. But then other astronauts on the ISS say it's a deep black, that there's no stars. So it doesn't stay consistent. We don't actually know the real answer because these astronauts, but astronauts that have been to the ISS, the same location have different recollections of their eyewitness testimony, which in a court would be very suspicious and should be treated the same. Yeah, so what's happening is they're just lying again because they know that they're taking these statements out of context. You can look in a particular direction and you will be blinded by the sun. You can look to the right and you will see the blackness of space and stars. It's like looking into a flashlight. You can't see the flashlight, but if you turn to the side, you can start seeing things again. And you guys know what you're doing. Don Pettit said, we're not lying. We actually just played it for everyone to listen to. We did more research than you did. We didn't have to read from a paper or anything. No, you clipped it out. So, Don, it's Don Pettit. I'd like to respond. Okay, you call us a liar, but I mean, we played it for the audience. And you need another word. If I wanted to take a page out of your book, I'd take the next minute to blow via about how only the stupidest, dumbest, most idiotic could ever believe something like that. It's true, but I won't waste time like that. That's what you said in your article. So, no, I described what pseudoscience is. So, yeah, when you take clips of people saying, we can only see the blackness of space. And then you take a clip of someone saying, when you're looking at the sun, you can't see stars. You are taking your quote mining, you're taking out the context because there are certain directions you can see stars, certain directions you can't see stars. We just removed that context. You just removed the context. Correct. Wait, wait, we just played a video. And one of the astronauts says that during the light of the sun, you can see stars. And one says that you can't. So, you're wrong. No, because it depends on which direction you're looking at. They said even during the day. They said even during the day. Right, right. Which is why you trim the context because it matters whether you're looking at the sun or not during the day. So, if you're not looking at the sun, you can always see stars in space. It depends. Then you would disagree. It depends on a lot of different factors. There may be two effects. Are you familiar with something called a snow blindness? Or it's an effect when you go skiing, like there's a reflection off the snow and the sun sort of blinds you. But anyway, there's all sorts of different effects that can happen with art. I guess you're probably a bad example. We're just pointing out they have contradictory statements. He's trying to say that we're misrepresenting them. We played it for them. I encourage everyone to go look at it. It's possible within the atmosphere, there's more twinkling caused by the atmosphere itself. It seems maybe that you're having trouble understanding how there can be an atmosphere. Did you give any thought to what I said last time about the moon being the thing that's holding the atmosphere in place? That sounds wild to me, but. It's totally wild because we have to contend with what are apparently contradictory but not contradictory boundary conditions or binding principles, which is the speed of light is three times e to the eight. So that's like three with eight zeros meters per second. And that's a very fast, very fast compared to the speeds that we're used to. It's a global conspiracy. Sorry, go ahead. Global conspiracy, but they can't get their story straight somehow. Stop self-projecting. Our story or the astronauts who literally say you cannot see stars. Okay, and these are just a few of, there's so many of these clips. They say you cannot see stars in space. It's called a hot-style witness, bro. But if you were looking at our star, because it's so close, our sun is so close. Okay, if you're looking towards our sun, you're not going to see behind it because all the light from the sun is going to be glaring in your face. And Don Pettit literally said, even when they're looking at the sun, they still see stars. You can see all of them. That's what they're saying. He said when it's daytime. So, okay, whatever. I have to address something because my homie Bob, right? So you just now said that whenever they, he used a gyro and he found the degrees he didn't want to accept it and he dismissed and all stuff. That's actually just patently false. So what happened was he actually ended up taking the gyro to different altitudes at the same latitude and got over a degree invariance. So would you agree that if you use a gyro to detect the axial rotation of the earth at a certain latitude, but then you change altitude and then the degree changes that refutes the idea that it's because of axial rotation? No, because you're still measuring rotation. At the same latitude it just? Since you clearly have never done any science at all. You've never had to calculate your, it's not. You've never had to, you don't, you're clearly demonstrating, you don't understand what a margin of error is. But if there's rotation measured, I did, I said no. If there's rotation measured, then rotation is measured. Hey, but what if there's a margin of error? Would the rotation change if you keep the same latitude on the globe? It could. Was he in a different location on the globe? He was at the same latitude. But I thought you had a bunch of quotes before saying all these physicists couldn't distinguish their measurements from a flat stationary surface and everything you can. That's true, but this guy claims that the gyro proves the earth is spinning. So I'm going to see if he even understands why. So on a globe, there's latitude lines on a globe, on a globe, there are lines of latitude and the earth spins at different rates based on the size of the sphere. So if you stay at the same latitude, then the axial rotation remains the same no matter where you are on that ball if you're on the same latitude. Isn't that right, Taylor? Nope. And Bob, yeah, you're just wrong. There's a thing called margin of error. Margin of error, you're vaguely- I'm not done on my statement. So Bob, before he did the experiment said that this machine will work if it shows rotation, then that shows rotation if it shows degrees of rotation then that shows the rotational of the earth. Then he changed his story. He said, well, the degrees of rotation changed. Therefore, the machine doesn't work anymore. No, no, no. I actually know him. You're avoiding the question because it destroys you. So the margin of error- I answered the question. The margin of error can give you up to two degree variance. Margin of error? Sure. Why does it always stay the same? How come the margin of error always changes at a different altitude at the same latitude? Wouldn't the margin of error be consistent at all altitudes? Not necessarily. Okay, so a pill to- What if gravity changes with how far you are from the center of the planet? That doesn't change the speed, the rate of the earth spinning. Yes, it changes the speed of time, which I know is a rate of time rather. Altitudes- But that's not what the gyro- But I see what relativity is saying. Altitude does change the diameter slightly, so. The gyro doesn't detect time. So try again. I said nothing about time. Okay, so here's the deal, man. What you're saying that he's lying, the truth is that the gyro, a ring laser gyro- I wouldn't say he's lying. It uses the SAGNAC effect, okay? It was discovered by a dude named SAGNAC. He says it's a vortex-full movement in the ether. Now, he was not aware of that at the time. He said, this is interestingly at 15 degrees. It doesn't look good right now. So then he kept looking into it. He decided to test it further. Actually, a professor told him an idea that you can test to see if it's the vortex of the ether moving or if it's the earth moving by keeping a certain latitude but changing altitude. When we did that, it changed over a degree based on the altitude that debunks that it's because of axial rotation. So you make up the ether, even though that was disproved, okay? You can't respond to my point, man. So we can move on. You're invoking a magical field to describe how your experiment failed you. No, no, I'm not invoking a magical field. The ether is a magical field. Ausification is independent of replacement. What I'm saying is you're claiming that it's because of axial rotation. But if you maintain latitude and change altitude, it changes debunking your claim. I can offer a replacement, I don't have to, but I will go back to the very person that discovered the effect the ring laser gyros built using, which is called the Sagnic effect. What he said was it was the vortex for movement in the ether. That's all I said. I don't have to replace it. Your claim is wrong. It doesn't prove the earth is spinning because it changes at different altitudes. How come you thought it would prove the earth is spinning before the experiment ran and he only changed his mind after he failed? He had to further research it. That's called actual intellectual. He had to accommodate his failure. Can I just ask, did Sagnic conclude that the earth was flat from his inquiry? Because ether model doesn't mean flatter. That's two different classes of models. That's right, but in his opener, he tried to call out Bob and slander him. So I exposed him for not knowing what he was talking about and I told the true story, because I know him personally. And the truth is he went to different altitudes and it debunks the claim of axial rotation. So we can move on now. I just wanted to call out his slander in his opener. So it has nothing to do with if the earth is flat or not, that's true. Even though it measured axial rotation both times. Interesting. It literally didn't though, because it changed up. So you can't actually replace the model. One reason is what I already mentioned is stars, I'm just responding to what you said. You claimed you can replace the model, but that's the reason you won't make a map because you can't explain. I did not claim I can read. You did. You said, I could replace it. I'm not going to. Because you said I can replace the explanation of a gyro. Okay, well, my next point is going to be the same. The stars spin in different directions depending on hemisphere. And they just go in a straight line on the equator. So explain that on a flat plane. Okay, well, first of all, they all go in the same direction. So when you say that they spin in different directions, you're just patently wrong. All stars go east to west. They don't go in a different direction. They all go the same direction. Whenever you look south, you're looking in a different direction. So then you have clockwise and counterclockwise relative to perception, correct? Yeah, but that can't change no matter how many times you spin around. No, it changes based on what direction you're viewing it. No, it doesn't. It changes on which hemisphere you're on. You can look in any direction on the Northern Hemisphere and it will spin, I think clockwise. No, counterclockwise. And if you look in any direction on the Southern Hemisphere, it'll spin counterclockwise. Because it's clockwise and counterclockwise are relative to perception. They all move east to west, though. How is this? You can't get that spinning effect on a flat earth. Well, the sky is spinning, my man. So I guess you need to catch up. We showed you mainstream physicists telling you that there's no terrestrial observation that proves that the earth is moving. We even quoted Einstein saying that. So do you think that means that the earth is not moving? Just because we can't measure it? Well, no, I think it's the default position because to do anything in the real world, whether it be fly planes or helicopters or shoot interballistic missiles or use rail guns or anything the military does or electromagnetic propagation of weapon systems, we have to assume that the earth is flat, dielectric plane, and that it doesn't move. That's the default position with all practical evidence. You're claiming something antithetical to that. Because the technology is being deployed at close range to the surface. 100 miles? 100 miles? It's a scales thing. 100 miles. What's the alleged radius of the planet? 3,959 miles, which would be 6,666 feet at 100 miles. That's a big difference. You've measured target by over 6,000 feet. Yes. So. Okay, I've seen myself a long time ago. I wasn't gonna try to do math on shows, but I appreciate the pushback. It's all good. I mean, but this is the point, the overall orc-ing point, right? And I don't like high-talk, so I don't wanna just be like mansplaining, but here's what I'm saying, right? So we had the default position with all evidence. You're making a claim antithetical to that. Now there's a misnomer where in the world, everyone thinks flat earthers are so dumb. Oh, you think the earth is stationary? You're crazy. Whether the truth, we've proven that the earth is spinning, but the truth is even Einstein himself will tell you that you cannot prove the earth is spinning from the earth. All these physicists will tell you that, but then we have no name people that appeal to authority, those very authorities, saying that it's been proven from the earth, which just shows ignorance of the subject. All we're pointing out is that we have the default position. You have the burden of proof if you're claiming something antithetical to that. Well, we have models that make predictions that we can then verify. So. The live satellite feed from space shows live weather conditions. You can go debunk that anytime if you find any errors in the weather. You think it's like live 24-7-8? Is that what you think? Yeah. No, it's literally not. It has like 10 to 15 minutes in between each shot. You didn't know that? It's live. You can't Photoshop. I can't even Photoshop a thumbnail in 10 minutes. So. You don't think that I'll go with it. So you're supposed to Photoshop every piece of weather data from an entire half of the globe every 10 minutes. The clouds don't even match half the time. You're just making stuff up. Then, OK, then go show me. We have. Go check out Globusters. No, Sunday. Actually, can I just ask, like, in your model, if the earth is stationary, what's moving? The sky, the stuff in the sky. So there's a vortexual movement in the sky and that's where everything moves. That's why Polaris has stayed the same place forever. Yeah. And they reset, they move. So don't you think that would take a lot of energy? Yes, it would, it would. That's why the reason why we can't tell that we aren't at rest is because the universe abides by minimum energy, not because we're not at rest for or not because we literally are at rest. We can easily falsify the notion we're actually literally at rest by the by virtue of the fact that the sunrises and sets. It's just a question of how do we account for the fact that there's so much stability but also so much motion and that is by the same principle that gives us our sensory perception that we can reliably say, why is it always feeling no matter where I am, I'm at the center of the universe and the planet feels the same way and everything else, that's the least action principle. And we can use that to build up things like, go ahead. So what I was going to say is, I believe one of the quotes, I don't know if we included this, but there's no celestial observation that can be done to differentiate whether the earth is moving or the heavens above are rotating. So I want to know when the academic community is established and how they established that the earth itself is rotating and not the celestial objects in the sky. Yeah, that's an equivalence principle. So when you want to point to that, there's this indistinguishability of perspectives. We need to use an operating principle that has been meta analytically established to be the case in many other things, which is the least action principle. So you take your two possibilities and you establish which one would take less energy to get going, but what does it mean to get the system going? What does it mean to energize the system? Where does our planet get its energy from of motion? That's a very hard thing to think about, but go ahead, please. So you're just talking about a philosophical argument. I'm actually wondering when they, how did they actually prove it? How did they actually prove it? They assumed globe spheres and then they model gravity as an attractive force in that and it's, I guess, close enough. Thank you, Jen. Thank you, Jen. The three-body problem doesn't have a solution. That is an issue. This is why Jen is an MVP is because she's intellectually honest. As she said, they assumed globe, but we want to make sure how do we know the assumption is correct? How do we know that the earth is actually rotating? And they gave us a speed to 1,000 miles per hour. So how did they get that amount, that measurement? Well, she answered it, right? And so like, I applaud you for that. I applaud you for being honest. And it went to be fair to help you out. It doesn't prove one way or the other, right? Like the fact that it was an assumption and that you can model it out, that doesn't prove or disprove it, right? But the point is that it's just an assumption. And you're right that for the earth to be stationary and everything in the sky moved, there would require a field of energy that is immense. But who's to say that it's not the case? And Nikola Tesla would say that any attempt to explain the movement of celestial objects without a field of energy is a futile pursuit destined to oblivion. He was just a literal genius. So yeah, there's a field of energy, the sky moves, Polaris doesn't move to claim otherwise. And you say it's just the least action. It's at rest for spinning, revolving around the sun. It feels like we're at rest. I'm not even at a point of saying what's actually happening. We have to start with what it feels like because we're building these principles up intuitively and perceptively. So we can all agree that it feels like there's a center to what we're experiencing. It feels like we're in the center of the universe. That's kind of nice. But anyway, that doesn't make it real is my point. What could it be real? We can account for that by saying, well, there's this tendency for the universe to just be like ultra-lazy. So even though it has intrinsic motion, it's also ultra-lazy with how it dispenses that motion. So you're navigating between two boundary conditions. So what we've done now is look at the evidence and now we wanna say, okay, well, what actually explains this? And it may be a question of, well, what is the most reasonable shape to assume that the planet is? And then we can build a model from that rather than looking at data to then try to infer what the shape of the planet must be based on data because any interpretation of data requires what amount to assumptions. So the question is what's the most reasonable assumption on the get-go to actually build the entire model from? The only assumptions are always the globe. It's like when we fly a plane, we have to assume the Earth is flat and stationary, but we can assume it's actually curving and spinning and gravity keeps it perfectly to where it just presents itself flat and stationary. When we shoot a laser and it goes and hits the other target and it's not blocked by over 400 feet, that should block it, we can see that clearly the laser hit it or we can assume that light must have had to have bit right over it, we just can't tell. See, there's only one side that consistently makes reification fallacies and assumptions and that's kind of our point. We need to substantial proof, right? And it doesn't exist. Philosophy is not gonna cut it and that's what the truth is and you've nailed it on the head, those will tell you that it's a philosophical discussion and that the geocentric Earth can never be disproven, but we avoided it all costs because of the horror of a unique position. That is a philosophical bias, that is not science and if we can at least have that distinction made, then we'd be happy to let the chips follow where they may make your own decision, but it's not modern times when we're painted as crazy people denying science, no, we're denying philosophy and religion, and that's what we're denying. So two things I want to address. Yeah, I want to address the fact that we do chew lasers to prove that the moon is not in the local atmosphere at least. There is a laser reflector on the moon, takes longer than it would if it was in the local atmosphere, but the main point was we do not use a flat Earth to calculate flights. They use a globe Earth that if on a flat Earth, all the flight paths are curved instead of straight, but on a globe Earth, they're straight. So what's up with that? Also, James, if I could share my screen real quick. And you are all, oh, sorry, I just wanted to make Taylor aware that you know, the mainstream says that the moon is in the Earth's atmosphere. Are you aware of that? Not how you say that. They recently discovered that. Not as close as you say. It's only technically the thinnest possible atmosphere, but it is, you could fit all the planets in the solar system in between the Earth and the moon. It's just how big the atmosphere technically is. So you are again, taking things out of context. No, you just said it wasn't that. What's that supposed to establish? Sorry. What does that fact establish? What I said. Yeah, it's just unclear what the point of what you said. Because he said something about the moon is not in the atmosphere. And I just wanted him to know that the mainstream says that the moon is in Earth's atmosphere. Yeah, you're playing with semantics. So it's much farther than you guys claim by leaks, leaps and bounds. But what I'm sharing. How far is the moon? I'm not sure the exact number, but you can fit all of the planets in the solar system between them. Two hundred and thirty eight thousand miles. OK, well, that's what NASA says. Yeah, I don't believe in science, man. Yeah, you guys think it's much closer. But I don't make the laser off of it. So this is the problem, though. If you don't know the medium, then you don't understand what you're perceiving so it can perceive to be perceived to be many things based on the medium. And I just I don't buy stories of that. Well, we do know the medium because we went there and put a reflector on the moon. You didn't go anywhere, bro. I'm talking about humans. So you mean you're putting on the screen is showing the rotation of the stars, the apparent rotation of the stars. It's actually the rotation of the planet. But you know what I mean? I didn't do it. It doesn't matter which direction you face. They're going to be spinning the same clockwise or anti-clockwise fashion. So that's all I wanted to share. I'm sorry if I took up too much screen sharing. Just recapped what we already I got a question you didn't ever address the fact that it doesn't matter which direction you face. It matters which part of the globe you're on, which direction they go. And that's a problem for the flat Earth because then the distance between stars is getting shorter and larger. And if we're on a flat Earth, but it's not a problem on a global. I just wanted to address something that you brought up before about when you're flying a plane, you don't assume a flat Earth. So what's it is going to pull up a conversation we just had with pilots like a month ago. So also, I just wanted to pull up a few things here. So this is www.aerostudents.com slash course slash flight dynamics. Okay. So any introductory pilot is going to learn about assumptions that are assumed when they're flying the planes or flying. The first one is that the plane is assuming there is a flat Earth, the Earth's curve zero. Second is there is a non-hating Earth. No Coriolis accelerations and such are present. So I can pull up another. Well, how come you forgot the assumption that the plane is a rigid body even though we know that the plane is not a rigid body? You think that's analogous to not accounting for Earth curvature? Just because they're not accounting for the flex of the plane. Because it's negligible. Because it's simpler matter. So it's negligible. Just to make Taylor aware because he's probably not aware so that they tell us the radius of the Earth is 3,959 miles, which means there should be an eight inch drop per mile squared. That number is exponential. So just an idea so you get some numbers. Over a hundred miles across the Earth, there should be a 6,660 foot drop. Okay, that's immense. That would absolutely need to be taken into account if you're flying a plane. So- I don't actually think it would because I just real quick looked it up. It says 7.2 miles is commercial aircraft relative to 3,963 radius of Earth, 0.01% difference. It'd be so close to the surface that it would make total sense to approximate it. Obviously not totally, but close to what would appear to be a plane. Okay, we're gonna play the pilots. Is it cool if we just play the pilots real fast? Because someone says no flat Earth there's ever flight of plane. I know over 10 of them. But here, let's play it real fast. It's just 13 seconds. And so we'll see what the pilots say if that's cool with you, James. Ready? Okay. Yeah, so basically it's like the Earth spins and curves but you fly the plane like it's flat and stationary. Yeah. Yeah. So it could be flat and stationary. They weren't ready for that red pill at their lunch break, obviously. But there you have it. Did you see that guy's face? He looked like he was like falling in love with that idea. He was like. There's so many, there's tons of videos. They obviously get shadow banned on YouTube but there's tons of videos where people just ask the pilots, hey, do you account for curvature or rotation when you're flying the plane? No man, we fly it. If you're flying at 0.1% of the size of the planet you wouldn't expect to account for curvature. Can you accept that? It's a very small proportion. What do you say gravity's dipping you down? No, the idea is that you have a really, imagine a sphere that just is super big, okay? And you're an ant on that sphere. You're a teeny, tiny little nothing. It's approximately flat when you're on a very small area of it. Okay, but if I fly 5,000 miles and I keep just going straight the earth's gonna be going down beneath me, right? So- No, you're always gonna be at the same approximate distance because you're not gonna wanna deviate in terms of where you are in gravity because it takes so much energy to overcome. Gravity, you only wanna go as high as you absolutely need to. Okay, so I just looked it up real quick. It says 5.9 to 7.2 miles. Even in a high estimate, that's 0.1% of the radius of the planet. You let me tell you what the actual pilots say, you let me tell you what they actually say. So they say they maintain altimeter pressure zones. They use altimeter to maintain pressure zones and they go up and down. And that's what they're fluctuating. And he says, gravity is actually going to take you around the curve without you noticing it. That's the official explanation. That's again, that's the least action principle that all the, everything is saving energy to the greatest extent, meaning that geodesics happens spontaneously. And a geodesic in flat space is a line, a straight line. But a geodesic on a sphere, the shortest distance between two points, that's something called a great circle. So there is some curvature that happens, which can be followed. But this is extremely hard to visualize. I wouldn't start there if I was trying to actually understand what's going on here because you gotta really put yourself in the position. Like, you're an ant on an ant hill trying to figure out something that is inconceivably larger than you. So it makes a lot of sense to acknowledge what seems attractive to believe, but also to realize that we weren't built to conceive these things. Doesn't mean we can't eventually get to the right answer, but we should be very cautious and skeptical. And it doesn't work though, because the radius is a certain size. If I'm one foot off the earth, I would see the curve of the earth just one mile away. So it's not just too big to see. I would see it one mile away. Yeah. If you start flying off of the earth in a straight line, eventually you're going to be going basically straight upward. So you're going to have to actually be adjusting to be, to maintain a straight upward position. If you don't need to adjust. It has to conform with the ball. It wouldn't be going up. You would have to actually be dipping your nose down. You would have to adjust and try to go straight up if you were flying off of the curve of the earth. You don't have to make any adjustments to maintain a level position because the forces automatically align, like drag and just the aerodynamics of the plane will always put it level. You would have to increase the engines in order to keep going at a steeper and steeper angle. Okay. Your answer is gravity pulls the plane around the ball. If you don't want to absorb it, I don't care that's actually what it is. But here's my question. I actually said aerodynamics. We fly the plane like it's, we fly the plane like the earth is flat and stationary. So could it be flat and stationary? No. So it would be different. We'd have to fly planes different on a flat and stationary earth. It would be impossible based on what physics we observe for it to be flat and stationary. It would violate gravity, which is something we can. Gravity was made to explain the earth being a ball though. So that's so backwards. We came up with gravity to explain omnidirectionality on a ball. That's why we proposed gravity. Then we're still trying to figure it out. We've never discovered the graviton. The theory of relativity doesn't work when we apply it to the universe. It's off by 95% with dark matter and dark energy. We have numerous problems. Quantum mechanics is completely dismantled relativistic applications. Newtonian physics had to be thrown away 100 years ago. We keep gravity because it has to exist for the earth to be a ball. We don't know the earth's a ball because of gravity. We know gravity exists because the earth's a ball. That's called a begging the question vows. I have some more documents I'd like to read. I just have some more documents I'd like to read that again reiterate the same thing. This one is from www.faa.gov. The engineering analysis and design of the aircraft dynamics model for the FAA, okay? It says on page 32, the observant reader will notice that the aircraft equations of motion were calculated assuming a flat earth. I have another article here. This is from nasa.gov. Slash API slash citations a mathematical model for the CH-53 helicopter. The helicopter equations of motion are given in a body access with respect to a flat non-rotating earth. I have so many of these documents by the way. There's like over a hundred. So for you to say that they are assuming and we have the video of the pilots, they absolutely do not account for a globe or a moving surface. They're flying over a flat and stationary plane. It's not even able to be argued at this point. You can say no, but you have not provided. The math is calculated as flat because it's easier because it's negligible because the up and down direction what is that pitch and yaw or something is correct itself. You don't have to pilot the plane to dip down. Okay. The thing, but the thing you're, yeah, let's move on to the thing you ignored, which is the flight paths which are mapped on a globe. There are numerous flight paths that debunk the globe though. So that's a very bad argument for you. Emergency flight landings where people were dying or giving birth, they had to land and they landed in a place that would not fit on a globe. Also we would take tons of paths that we don't take. We would take tons of paths that we don't take on a globe. There's direct shots across a globe that we never take, but when we look at the flat earth map it makes perfect sense. And we are not claiming the flat earth map is perfect because we don't listen carefully because you love to bring up how we don't have a map and somehow that makes the earth a ball, right? This is why I tell you falsifications and independent replacement. The reason we can't make a map is because we don't have an accurate central point to start the Cartesian coordinate system. So it's impossible without an accurate central point. It's illegal to go within 500 miles of each direction of the North Pole. So that's the problem. So for all the globers out there that love to talk about the map over and over, it's an impossible task because we don't have access to the central point to map it out. No, it's not. You might have to file some paperwork, but it's not illegal. So. It has to be improved. We have to say there were locations on the earth that don't exist on a globe. What? No, I said that the emergency flight, so the plane turned. No, they landed and I believe, I can't remember specifically, one of them had to do with Alaska, but where they landed did not make any sense on a globe. It would have been far out of the way. Another flight that people observed that's very suspicious is there should be a direct flight from, for example, Buenos Aires, Argentina to Johannesburg, South Africa. That would just be the tip of South America to the tip of Africa. In order to get a flight, the best flight that you can get, the fastest one, you have to stop all the way in the Netherlands, okay? Dave, it's not a direct one. That would be a great example of the globe, but on a flat map, that works perfectly. Do you want us to share the screen and show you that flight path or? Sure, because I got a flight path to share with you as well. Oh, we have all kinds of a flight path that goes right past that. We're about to show you the actual flight pass, my man. And so I don't understand why globers bring this up. It's really weird. It's really weird. Because it debunks the flat Earth. It doesn't though. It doesn't. That's what I'm trying to explain to you, my man. Flight paths don't help you. I promise. Oh, I don't think we ever got. Oh, I can't hear you. Jen, we lost you. We're muted. If you can hear me. You're muted. Jen, can you hear us? It happened again. Okay, no worries. I'm so sorry about that. Heck, a little more tech here. I agreed with you that it ought to look flat if you're sufficiently close to the surface. So did that point get made? Did you understand that? It makes sense to model it as flat, even if it's a sphere? Yeah, it just happens to work out perfectly. That's the answer. Gravity makes it work out perfectly. Gravity accounts for the curvature that you would have to account for. That's the actual answer. We know the answer. You're basically staying at the same level of the gravity field because that's the minimum energy solution is to deviate minimally from a stable gravity field. So if you can get into a point where you're between two pressure gradients and you're sandwiched between them, you just ride that and it remains stable approximately if you're at the same distance from a globe. Well, you have to go up and down, actually. So actually, you don't just maintain the same. You have to go up and down. We have a 13 minute conversation with pilots explaining it in depth. And our point is it's just to address the misnomers. It's like they say, if you Google it, you can see the curve of the earth from a plane. No, you can't. I just now asked two pilots right after my plane landed. Is it, do you see curvature up there? No, of course not. So it's flat up there. Yeah, of course. They don't even hesitate. Anyone that's actually flown a plane, I used to work in an airport. I know many of them. Everyone knows that the earth looks flat in a plane. Everyone knows you fly the plane like it is flat. And everyone knows you fly the plane like the earth isn't moving. You can say, well, yeah, it just appears that way. The equivalence principle, relativity. Oh, it makes it look that way. Gravity makes it more perfect. It makes it look that way because of the relative size, okay? You are 0.1% of the size of the total planet off the surface. So the amount of area that you're capable of seeing relative to the total surface is quite small. Okay, so Google's definitely wrong when you said you can see the curve of the earth from a plane then, right? Well, that's unclear exactly what that means. So let's just put that to the side. But I'll grant you that it's, when you're in a plane, it can definitely look like what you're looking down at is flat. However, if I was going to agree with you and say, yeah, the earth is flat, what I would expect to see under that model is I could look out and see all the way to the other end of the earth. And so it's a question of, well, why can't I see that? Why does it disappear so predictably at that same point? Give or take atmospheric fluctuation? Yeah, well, the horizon always moves because it's not physical in your model. It is physical, but here's a flight path right here from Santiago to Johannesburg. Share the screen. So right here you see on a flat earth, it's a straight direct path. On the globe earth, you go up out of your way and then come back down. You could fly straight across the South Atlantic Ocean, but no, you go hundreds of miles out of your way and come back down. There are probably 30 of these flights though, which is why I don't understand why globes bring it up. So is there a buttle? Why does it work perfect on the flat earth? But at the Ursa globe, so we added hundreds of unnecessary miles to go out of our way. Is there a rebuttal? Yeah, so I have my own flight path to share. So no rebuttal. To address this one, they might just not book flights there. So you have all these private companies that know that the earth is flat. You have thousands of employees that are plotting these flight paths and they know the earth is flat. Globally, every single company without fail and they all say, you're at this flat or the earth is a globe. So you're not rebutting the actual? That's just interesting. So you don't know. And no, they might not just go to Johannesburg because of, again, these are private companies. They want to make a profit. So maybe there are more flights to the north of Africa than the south of Africa. So there are plenty of explanations. Gotcha. They just make up stuff. Gotcha. It's hard to know what this evidence is actually saying. Yeah. They have to fly them. You have to ask them why they do this. That's the most direct path on a flat earth. They have to fly it that way. That's why they do it. It's not because, oh, there's probably a reason. No, the reason is that's the only way you can go there. That's the reason. That's why there's not one flight that exists that goes from San Diego to Johannesburg over the South Atlantic Ocean. It goes up and comes down because on a flat earth, that's the direct path. That's why they do that. You think that private companies that spend money on fuel, their entire business plan is fuel cost effective. That's actually why they shut down the trans-south pole flights is because they weren't cost effective. They used to fly them and they don't anymore. And this just appears to be an economically viable route because there would be presumably people that wanted to go from Dakar to Johannesburg. This is very compelling. Well, there is just not economically viable. I mean, it's not even clear what a direct path means, right? So you got to be really clear as to what, because we're not even agreeing as to, like, what if we don't agree on the shape of a direct path, we're not talking about the same thing. And all of the continents there are completely distorted. You couldn't, you know that the shorelines are not like that, which is why no flat earth map ever makes sense. On the main three-markator map, it's completely off. They showed that Alaska is so tiny and it's like huge. This happens all the time. These are direct flight paths. So no stopovers, no, the variable of economic, whatever gains that you would get from going to one particular location over another is eliminated. So we have a flight path from Sydney to Santiago, Chile and New York to London. Five times the distance in less than twice the time. So why would companies do that? Why would they waste so long? So the fastest air current is low. That's also impossible. So that's another way. The fastest air currents are literally right there where you drew your little dotted line, you would catch a air current over the earth. Secondly, you actually have to apply a scale to the southern portion of the map. Did you know that? You don't just look at it and say, I think that looks too far. You realize that you actually have to properly apply the scale. So credit to Professor Dave to not know how to use scales. So, okay. What happens if you flatten the earth, the scale is off. The southern hemisphere is distorted. That's why a flight that takes 12 and a half hours is five times longer than a flight that takes eight hours. And if wind is a factor here, it would have to be record breaking hurricanes 250 miles per hour. Well, then why does the plane take so much longer when it goes back the other direction against the current? If it has nothing to do with it. It's not much longer. It is actually sometimes up to two and three hours. No, it's not as long as you want to say. Two to three hours. Two to three hours. Yeah, so that's not gonna speed up five times. But five times, we don't need five times. The distance is over five times as long. No, that's what I'm trying to say. The further direction for the trade winds is actually what you'd expect on a globe though. I'm trying to explain to you guys that you've- The globe is constantly getting a different edge of the sun. And so there's a preferred direction for the trade winds to blow in. You guys didn't watch the intro where I explained that actually all the currents work better on the flat earth and showed you how you can actually map them out. But here's the point here. So you're lying and saying it's a certain distance because you're listening to the goofball, Professor Dave. And a lot of globe earthers do this, so you have to understand you have to apply a scale to the Southern Hemisphere. Explain that. That's how the map works. How would you fix the scale of the Southern Hemisphere? Distort Africa immensely so that Australia and South America are closer? So are you saying you don't know how to read as a methyl maps? Is that what you're telling us? Because that's- You don't know how to read them. Yeah, you have to apply a scale past the equator. It's just like, duh, like you guys use memes. You guys use memes. On a globe, you do. If it's actually flat, then that's going to be the distance. Otherwise, you're going to have weird spatial distortions, which again, I guess you'd have to invoke some kind of magic field where there's spatial compression where you can travel further in less time. This is what you still don't understand. So your meme is a straw man because you didn't apply the scale. Now, that does not mean that's what the Earth has to look like because the Southern Ocean is basically unexplored and we don't actually know what's there. I don't know if you're aware of that, but basically no one goes in the Southern Ocean and we don't know the central point to map out the proportionate layout of the land. You have straw man, even the map, you've shown a basic misunderstanding of how to use maps. The azimuthal projection fits on a globe because if, okay, so if you apply the scale between Santiago and Sydney, then you can do that, but then there's going to be gaps somewhere between the edge of the globe, of the projection of the globe. There are gonna be gaps, yeah. There are gonna be areas that aren't mapped out accurately, which is convenient because no one goes to the Southern Ocean and I'll also explain to you, you just drew a pattern. I've objectively debunked you three different ways. I'm not gonna talk about it for like an hour. Listen carefully. You're now trying to debunk me with a continence you're claiming that you haven't discovered yet. You go on that little dotted line of yours and that's going with the currents. When you go the other way, the flight takes at least three hours longer and then to tag on to that, this flight basically never happens. We actually wanted to go try to do it and you can't find it one way. You guys just like to draw lines on maps and make up stories. This is a very rare flight if it ever happens and it's much slower the other way proving that the reason that the plane goes faster is it rides the air current, it's just objective. So we can move on. How does that establish a flat earth? He's saying it debunks the flat earth. I just now refuted his claim. I didn't make any claim about it proving a flat earth. I'm making a point that it doesn't prove a globe earth. Right, so we can move on now. You did that claim. Yeah, go ahead. She's got another point. Oh, I just thought we'd talk about entropy maybe since we have a church of entropy here. Yeah, well entropy is basically just another way of saying the least action principle. So entropy is saying that order is constantly, energy is constantly diffused. That's what entropy says. So there's two ends of it. One end is we observe a tremendous amount of motion. And the other end is it appears that for a lot of our perceptions and observations, things are at rest. So we have to go in between those two boundary conditions and determine what assumptions we need to make to construct a model. How many assumptions we actually need and in what order we ought to express the assumptions geometrically or algebraically in order to generate reasonable predictions that we can then look up in the sky and say, oh, our model, it's lining up in the sense that it's telling us maybe something like a future eclipse. Entropy doesn't apply per se to cosmology. Entropy is more about life because it's more about thermodynamics whereas in cosmology it's more about what you might call a stasis field. So something that's moving, we can establish that there's movement going on. You can look at the time lapse going across the sky and establish that there's some type of movement but there's also a perceptually tremendous amount of stillness and we have to account simultaneously for both of those effects if we're going to have a satisfactory model because clearly these other models aren't quite convincing enough in the sense that this debate is still happening. So I do appreciate having a chance to go through these arguments. I'm ready to go to the questions. I don't know how everyone else is feeling but hopefully we've got a lot of the arguments out. Okay, what she's trying to say is entropy will always increase and your name is convenient because the second law would refute your claim that there's a pressurized system adjacent to a near perfect vacuum of 10th and negative 17 toward because the pressure would obviously seek its equilibrium due to the second law. And natural laws apply to your cosmological claims as well because they make claims about the natural world. Yeah, I was just gonna cover within that movement. Would you agree that high pressure goes to low pressure? Not necessarily because pressure is defined relative to a container and you're not always dealing with a clearly outlined container and that's where mechanics is really complicated is when you can't actually conclusively say where it makes sense to claim that there's a boundary because there is no actual boundary but there are pseudo boundaries and a conservation in some sense of pseudo boundaries that you can use as a modeling template. But again, this is sort of beyond the scope of what we want to talk about here right now. This is what I wanted to talk about gravity is because gravity can act as a container for air and it doesn't matter if it's electromagnetic or not, all that matters is if air particles are pulled toward other masses. Gravity has a singular vector of down relative to the center of mass and gas to services and omnidirectional infinite vectors. So a singular vector down to the center of mass would never in any way contain it. That's why it doesn't contain it at the surface where gravity is the strongest. I know your word salad is a lot, but... Word salad means things don't make sense but that made sense. It doesn't make any sense. Air doesn't just move omnidirectionally just because. Air pushes against, what was that? Two minute warning, we're gonna go into Q and A in two minutes. Air doesn't just press, just go in different directions. Air will press against other air. So it can move in an upward direction but gravity will pull that air back down and it will push against other air until it balances the force of gravity. You have a vacuum chamber and you open up the vacuum chamber. What happens to the air surrounding the vacuum chamber? Surrounding the vacuum chamber. You have a vacuum chamber and you open the little latch. Yeah, it goes... What happens to the air outside the vacuum chamber? What will happen? It pushes into the vacuum. It rushes into the vacuum because... Because of air pressure. High pressure goes to low pressure. Why? So if you have this vacuum up in the room and then there's gas below it and then you opened up the vacuum would the gas pressure still go up into the vacuum despite gravity being there? Yes, because it's being pushed by the other air molecules. Okay, thanks for playing. Yeah. We can extrapolate this metaphor to the scale of the planet because what you're talking about is a clear boundary. Something that was vacuum sealed and you open it and pressure you calibrated. You can't then analogize that to the cosmos because there's no clear boundary. And I'll go ahead... You would have to go in the academic world that you could have gas pressure without containment and they cannot show this. You can. In the definition of gas pressure. They have to prove gravity also. It's in the definition. Chemistry.elmhurst.edu. Gas pressure is the collision of gas molecules against the container. Physical container. It's also pressure. No. Against other air molecules. So the reason air pushes into a vacuum is because the air molecules are hitting each other, pushing them and there's no air in the vacuum to stop them from getting pushed. So pushing them to what? Wait, that's not using me. There is pressure differentials. If you're talking about the scale of the Earth. If you're talking about the scale of a protein tank, that's not the scale of the Earth. There is pressure differentials when you go up a mountain. So the further up you go, there's not air pressing down on the air at the top of the mountain, not as much relatively at the bottom, because it's lower pressure. The thing that's keeping the thing that's pushing the air down is gravity at the top of the mountain. What we have to do is go into Q&A. Want to remind you, if you want to hear more from either side folks, you can click on the links below. You can hear more about the views from either side as you really do appreciate our guests. And we have to say, my dear friends, if you haven't yet, hit share as that really does help us get the word out. If you think that you have a friend or you're like, oh, they'd enjoy this debate. Now's a great opportunity to hit that share button below and you can share it with them, enjoy it together. And like I said, it helps modern day debate have a positive influence as we strive to be a neutral and fair platform for everybody. So with that, we're gonna jump into the Q&A. Thanks very much for your first question this time. Coming in from Joe Schwartz says, can we all agree that regardless of shape, your earth is pretty dope? Thanks for that, Joe. Yeah, it is super dope. And thanks for your super sticker from Steven, appreciate your support, as well as Dr. Anarchy who says, hey, whits it when blue origin or SpaceX starts to offer commercial seats on a spacecraft to orbit the globe, would you be willing to take a trip and admit that you have been wrong all this time? Well, if it's just four minutes of weightlessness, which is identical to a vomit comment, I probably wouldn't admit I'm wrong. They'd have to let me independently verify it and document it. I also know there's something called a circumference of light diverging rays create a circumference of light. You could go up on a flat surface and appear to have a slight curve due to circumference of light. So no, I probably still wouldn't believe it. I know you guys don't like that. If they took me out of space and I could float around and see that the earth was a ball from the outside, then yes, I'd believe it and that will never happen. This one coming in from Dupregera question. Will Stewart says Jen wins. Doesn't matter what she says, as well as you got a fan out there, Jen. He says there are many variables that can explain different testimony about what can be seen. The visor technology polarized versus not, light, refraction, et cetera. Are you considering this when claiming contradiction? Well, was that question was for us? I must have not followed the question there. I'm not sure. I think it was. They said there are many variables that can explain different testimony about what can be seen. The visor technology polarized versus not, light, refraction, et cetera. Are you considering this when claiming that there's a contradiction? Yeah, that doesn't work when the same person contradicts their own testimony from the same occurrence and experience. This one coming in from Sean Hawkin says, I'm still waiting to see Kai zoom the sun back in after it sets. I think this might have been regarding one of your earlier pictures or videos says, so I'll repeat it. They said, I'm still waiting to see Kai zoom the sun back in after it sets. If she can't, she has no choice but to concede to curvature. Okay. Hello, my obsessive fan. There's videos on YouTube, but also once the sun disappears because of perspective, so once it's actually disappeared beyond the vanishing point, then you obviously can't bring it back. So, but there is no curve. It's simply perspective. You got this one coming in from Kango44 says, it's very, very, very, very, very easy to measure the shape of the earth. Humans did it two and a half thousand years ago. I did it last week myself. It's a globe also by a telescope. Then you can see what the planets look like. Okay. Look through a telescope probably 20 times. So save it. Obviously putting sticks in the ground is not a measurement. You have reverse engineered a calculation. The calculations are not measurement. Of course it works the same on a flat earth. So why do you have to bring up something from 2,500 years ago? If we have NASA getting $60 million a day, it seems kind of weird. Can we get physical measurement not pre-sumptive calculation? Calculations are relationships between measurements. Yeah, it's calculations are synonymous with measurements though. What did I just say? I'm asking, are they the same? No. So you have to have physical measurement first, right? That's what the sticks are measuring. Yeah. What are they? Calculations or interpretations on measurements. That's right. What are the sticks measuring? Angle of the sun's rays. Well, and the shadows actually. But if I do that same thing on a flat table, I can map it out with calculations to make the table a sphere. Did you not know that? You can't, but you know. Okay. It also presupposes a distant sun. Yeah. Which they had no way of establishing. And assumes no refractory. Yeah, you're ignoring the time factor, but that's cool. No, yeah. We're pointing out the time factor and how stupid the claim is for Glober to regurgitate what Google told them that it was proven 2,500 years ago. It's ridiculous to grow up. It's not Google. It's the navigators. There's no primary documentation of this actual occurrence. Did you know that? So we can move on. I've got to move on to the next one. This one coming in from Kango for forces showing the planets through a P900 and saying, quote, look at the planets are wandering stars. Unquote is the very height of dishonesty. Anyone can produce very clear images of the planets with a cheap telescope. It's so funny because the definition of Planaea was wandering star in the past. Yeah, and actually when you look at them to telescopes, they pulsate. You'll never actually make a static observation of the lights, which is the entire point. And actually there seems to be an analog and digital difference, which is why the P900 catches the cinematic patterns. This one coming in from Baltazar 228 says, do either of the Flat Earthers agree with Alden's theory of level Earth? Not familiar. Gotcha. That's it. They're just trolling you. I just want to see what you'd say though. Okay, this one coming in from, it's one of Vosch's memes. But Will Stewart says, there are many variables that can explain different testimony about, no, we got that one. Sorry about that. Ilabaka, thanks for your question, says, Whitsit, why hasn't Bob published or repeated his gyro test at different elevations? If that's true, he'll get fame and a Nobel Prize. What is he waiting for? He does have the documentation. Why is he not published? I don't know. You'd have to ask him. Actually, the reason he didn't publish it, the real answer, I guess he's cool with me saying this, is because he gave it to be an exclusive in the Flat Landers episode that hasn't come out yet. And so he was trying to do them a favor for letting them exclusively release it. And then secondly, he will never get a Nobel Prize because it's not about being honest or having new innovation or any type of discovery. It's about just fitting the status quo of consensus and you'll just get hand-waved dismissal like we got from Taylor earlier, where he's like, margin of error. You're a liar. I think you did. Margin of error. So that doesn't really matter to be honest, but there's your answer. Didn't you just go on and on about how Einstein overturned paradigm of physics? So the contradicts we just said. No, because it still fit within the consensus actually. That was a thanks for making my point, which was Michelson morally debunked the fact that the earth was supposedly spinning. So theory of relativity had to come in and throw their little cape on to say that we have such a model I was talking in. So then it was once again fitting into consensus, which was my point. So we can move on. This one's coming in from, do appreciate it. Dufus Manfred says Bob released the full data from his FO Gairo. The different rates detected corresponded directly to the FOG fog being at temperatures out of SPAC. Hashtag G-L-T-F. Okay, try to not use so many acronyms or not seventh graders. And I don't know what you're talking about. He hasn't released the full data. He gave it to them exclusively. So I think you might have made that up. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Will Stewart strikes again, says you claim contradiction. But what about? Do you do that one twice? No, no, no, it's very close to one that we read earlier, but it's a different one. He says you claim contradiction, but what about variables and visor technology, refraction position, et cetera? That isn't a and not a at the same time. And in the same sense, have you considered this? Yeah, yeah. Again, it doesn't work if it's the same person talking about their own experience, but then giving contradictory testimony, just like in court, they would be considered an invalid witness. Do that. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Tim Pryor says they say particles of the atmosphere reach to the moon, not that it's in the atmosphere. Read the whole article. How can particles of the atmosphere go out past the moon without the atmosphere being out past the moon? This one from Robert Summers. Well, hold on just to be sure I read it right. They say particles of the atmosphere reach to the moon, not that it's in the atmosphere. Well, it's a question of like the gradient falling off. It's a bit of a thesiasis ship, like how dense does the atmosphere have to be before it's not the atmosphere anymore? It's arbitrary in the sense that, yeah, it might be a particle from the planet that's on Mars right now, but we don't count it as part of the atmosphere, do we? How many tons of rain does the atmosphere in? We have no idea where the atmosphere is, got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. The gradient. Robert Summers. But you have to have pressure to have a gradient, by the way, honey. Robert Summers says. There's a pressure gradient, you can measure it. Regarding gyro, even if the values did change outside of a margin of error, what was being measured then? That was for him, I would imagine. What was it, it was for me, what's the question? It's gotta be for him, right? If it's outside the margin of error. I think it's the gyro experiment. Gyro. He's the one that claimed it was margin of error. So I'm not sure if it's outside the margin of error. You say, even if the values did change outside of a margin of error, what was being measured then? Yeah, yeah. The change in the vortex will movement within the ether. So if you had a tornado, it's wider at the top and it's smaller and tighter at the bottom. So you're measuring a differential of movement based on the vortex will motion. So it would change without the two at the same latitude. On the globe, it would stay exactly the same at the same latitude. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Will Stewart, oh, he's hungry. He says, if you maintain 30,000 feet around or flat, you fly at 30,000 feet. Whether the earth is round or flat. Round, you stay at 30,000 feet. Flat, you stay at 30,000 feet. It's not flying perpendicular. Explain. Yeah, okay. So the difference is on a globe, you would to maintain 30,000 relative to level, you have to actually be going down as opposed to just maintaining over top of a horizontal, which is what we actually assume it to be as well as sea level to get your altitude in the first place. This one coming in from nuclear creation says, oh, so if we are living on a flatter, can we fall off of it? And since we supposedly live on the flat part, then what the F is on the other side and are other stars and planets also flat? Oh, so the word other would insinuate that you're begging the question that we are a planet. So they are something different than the earth. They move top of the earth, created sky clock, what's below it? Well, that's why you've always heard as above so below. It's a hermetic principle which tracks back forever. It's because like I showed you with the magnetic field where the inertial plane. So we have the same top of the magnetic field toroid underneath it as well. And that's the only way that it could exist. And when people smirk and laugh about it, it's really funny because Harvard still admits they can't explain the magnetic field in the globe and I can explain it perfectly. So the answer is that you're within the inertial plane. There's the same above, same below. And no, we aren't planets. And no, you can't fall off of the edge with your trifecta question there. That's a ridiculous idea. Can you fall off of a shoreline? Secondly, because we measure the earth to be a plane, we're not claiming the entirety of it or a shape. It could be some type of realm. We have no idea. It doesn't matter. It's illegal to go there. And we're contained. That's why we have gas pressure. And from there, then you would get a gradient. So you can't fall off through a container, can you? This is what I'm going to talk to me. Do appreciate it. High Flyer says, I've flown 22 years as a US Air Force U-2 pilot above 70,000 feet. Every time I've looked outside, the earth was curved. OK, so I want you to really listen carefully to this. There's something called the circumference of light based on Rayleigh scattering within the air, OK? So divergent rays have a circumference of light. Now, you can use AutoCAD or whatever to explain this to you. If you go up over a flat surface, the circumference of light based on certain altitudes will actually give the illusion of a slight curve. Of course, it doesn't actually match the globe predictions. But secondly, you can't see the actual curvature of the globe from 70,000 feet according to your own math. And the other grass, Tyson. Which says 62 miles, you can't see it. So it's really, I'm not even saying you're lying. Because there's a circumference of light over a flat earth, it's possible that you could perceive that, certainly if you really want to believe it, because that is what happens with Rayleigh scattering and a circumference of light. But you wouldn't see the physical curvature according to your own model. Got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Ayla Baca says, Witzit, you know when there were direct chili to San Antonio flights, SA might also be. San Antonio, whatever it's called. What is it? I forgot to say it now. And San, whatever. San, what is it called? Do you want to know somebody here knows? I forgot. Saudi Arabia? Well, they say it's like. No, it's like, I just don't want to pronounce. It's like, A-N-T-I-G-O. Someone done. They say, Witzit, you know when there were direct chili to SA flights, World Cup in Santiago, charters, many of them, why? Because it's profitable. Other times, not so much. Yeah, basically it never happens. And again, it doesn't explain anything because you're following the jet streams. You're literally going over top of the air current. That's why when you go back the other way, significantly slower, makes no sense on a globe, though. Gotcha. Might have Ilebaka corrected me. South Africa. But nonetheless, I think the same point is my guess is your answer is the same either way. But thanks for clarifying that Ilebaka. And then, Nuclear, creation says would love for flat earthers in debate to respond. I don't know if they did themselves or to the other speakers. I don't know. Anyway, Dan the machine, or maybe to their previous question, Dan the machine says, how do you have a quote unquote southern hemisphere on a flat earth? Is it circumference? If so, what's west and what's east? So that's why when I said hemisphere, I quoted it. I air quoted it. East to west is relative to center. We travel using the compass, which is north, which points to the center. You go east in the west. That's why you can circumnavigate on both a globe and a flat earth. It is not mutually exclusive in any way. East and west is the same relative to north. Gotcha. And thank you very much for this question coming in from. Two seconds, as I mentioned, our guests are linked in the description folks. That includes if you're listening via the podcast. And Javid Benz Cosme, thanks for your question, says for Witsit and Kai. Just saw Xi Lin on Jake's stream. Xi believes the biblical map is flat square map with north pole in the north edge, not the center. And south pole in the south edge. Would this map be considered? I'd have to see it and look out the specifics. Like to be honest, it's very open right now. And anyone that's an honest researcher and looks into this knows that we don't know the accurate layout of the land. And only people that have a bias are going to say otherwise. So I would be interested to see any and all projections that it's worth looking at. This one from Robert Summers says, wait, Witsit, are you asserting they wouldn't allow you to become an astronaut? You need to be a Freemason. Yeah, I'm not big into drinking baby blood or being like Freemason dressed up in the dark plain, like dressed up with grown adults, so maybe not. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Whiskey. Whiskey Brandt says, why haven't you guys presented one globe proof? I think that's for you, Jen and Taylor. Yeah, we have. So when did you stop beating your wife? I'm sorry, go ahead. I didn't want to go down the same road as always just presenting the same exact arguments. I think we made a pretty strong case, but a proof really depends on your standards of proof. And Taylor said it best, if you're going to be skeptical, sort of behooves you to be uniformly skeptical. And it's clear that there's a level of skepticism being applied to the globe, even though the evidence does clearly support it, properly interpreted. That's just not being applied to the alternative hypothesis, which sadly doesn't appear to be specific enough to really amount to what might be necessary to approve of disproving the opponent's position. You got it. This one from, sorry, you're good. Ron Tronimus says, actual alleged outer space is pitch black. There are no stars in space. Explain Taylor and Jen. What was it again? They said, actual alleged outer space is pitch black. There are no stars in space. Now explain Taylor and Jen. I really want to take this one of his OK, because let's not say that there are none. We can't establish that there are no stars. Maybe the testimony of some of these astronauts went up and they said it was very dark. But let's think about what's going on here. We just had some experiments show us that the atmosphere is really big. What is that doing? It's a lens. What does a lens do? Focus is light. That's where you get the twinkles and all those super fun, beautiful spiritual geometry, what-have-you effects. That's all the combined effects of the water in the atmosphere, which is what makes this such a great model for that, because it's got a tremendous amount of conservation of structure, even though it's quite wonky. Taylor, anything? Yeah, I mean, if you don't accept picture evidence of stars in the sky, but you accept picture evidence of the Earth being flat, even though the laws of perspective don't work for flat Earth, they only fit a globe model, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, it's the double standard of evidence, again. Can we get a measurement of Earth curvature? I don't know what else. We can't send everyone to space yet, so I don't know what else you want other than pictures. Can't send anyone to space. Physical measurement of Earth curvature, probably. Yeah, or just prove that you can have gas pressure without a container. We don't want to answer your questions all good. Listen, I'm coming in from, do appreciate it. Cana Bayer, let me know if I pronounce it right, says boats don't fall off, don't fall over the edge of an imaginary sphere horizon. We see way further. The globe model was made using flat Earth elevation angle measurements. Taylor. The globe was measured with what? He said, the globe model was made using flat Earth elevation angle measurements. No, I don't know. The globe was a lot of different things, partially, originally sea navigation. They couldn't make flat maps work, so. This one from, let me know if I did get that cana bearer if I got that right in terms of understanding it and reading it. Ilabaka, thanks for your question, says, Whitsit, if we find a grain of sand one mile from the beach, does that mean the beach goes that far? Analog to the atmosphere. I don't understand. I'll read it one more time. Okay. Basically the question is, how many grains of sand is a pile, is a beach? So if you have a couple pieces of sand from the beach scattered on the road, does the beach reach to the road or is that just a piece of the beach that's on the road? Oh, we're talking about the atmosphere. Oh, okay. Oh, you're saying analogous to the atmosphere. I get it now. Yeah, yeah. If there is a magical vacuum sitting next to an atmosphere, even though gases have no intrinsic shape and that's stupid, then the gas that keeps going out would still technically be part of the atmosphere. At what point in time do you draw the line? You don't have a road or anything like that. That's the moon. At the moon. Right at the moon. That's where it stops out there. You can approximate it at the moon because the moon is what's binding. I mean, you're asking a great question. The moon is what's binding the atmosphere. I don't think this is very well understood, but it would boil off if it weren't for the moon constantly scooping it back in. So this is a very good question. That doesn't- I like that you at least, I do really like you, Jen, in the sense that you're willing to think outside of what they tell you that we know everything about. So like, I will give you that. I think that's beautiful and that's what everyone needs to do in regards to what they think about this subject. This is coming in from- I don't think there's anything ridiculous about having a gradient. We can observe those all the time. Yeah, me either. The only way you can have a gradient- Well, listen, this a minute. The reason you have a gradient is because you have gas pressure. Gas is constantly introduced at the surface level. Most of the gas is coming up from underneath the surface and we have an electric gradient going up a hundred volts per meter on the earth. So if the earth is flat and contained, that's exactly what we would have. Okay? Okay. This is coming in from- I've got to give Austin a last word on that one because the question is for him. This one coming in from down in the rabbit hole says- Good to see you down in the rabbit hole. Do you think globe cultists will ever admit that zooming in on a terrestrial object from a terrestrial position is completely different from zooming in on a celestial object from a terrestrial position? You can't zoom it back. I can read that again. What'd you like? They say- Do you think globe cultists, like Taylor, will ever- I'm just kidding. Do you think globe cultists will ever admit that zooming in on a terrestrial object from a terrestrial position is completely different than zooming in on a celestial object? So a celestial object rather than a terrestrial object. So in the first case, it's terrestrial object being zoomed in from a terrestrial position and others saying don't- You think- Are you willing to admit that that's completely different from zooming in on a celestial? So with a sea, not terrestrial, but celestial object from a terrestrial position that you're zooming in from. They said you can't zoom it back. I'm not sure what he's saying. They can't zoom it back from. But yeah, there are differences. I'm not sure what differences he wants me to state there are. I don't know. I guess the one comment I have is the reason you can't zoom back things that go over the horizon from that are on the terrestrial level is because of the curve. And the curve does not rise to the actual horizon line which you would expect from linear perspective. You got it. This is coming in from Andy Perdue. Let me know if I say this right. They say nowhere in my flight training was I taught to fly as if the earth was flat. Instead I was taught the four forces of flight which imply the presence of gravity. But how come whenever you were trained they had to negate the gravity vector and you don't ever have to account for it when you fly. No one, it's a ridiculously egregious strawman to say that we are saying they teach pilots in pilot school that the earth is flat. No one's saying that. It's that when you fly the actual plane you do not account for personally account for curvature or spin you fly as if you don't have to worry about that. And you do also not have to make any type of accounting for gravity other than weight itself of course which is what just called lift that's into plane. So yeah, you have to fly the plane like it's flat bro. I'm just not understanding why you would have to account for this. Account for oh, because the ground would be dropping down beneath you bro. And if the earth is spinning I'm gonna land on it. If I'm landing on it going west and I'm going relative to the earth spin if I'm going east I'm going relative to the earth spin but we don't have to account for any of this. North, south, east, west we land on runways every which way, never, we get to fly the planes as if the earth is just sitting there perfectly still and it's completely flat but actually it's spinning and curving and gyrating sideways and going around the sun and all this other nonsense. So like it's just, the answer is relativity fixes all of your problems. That's the answer. It makes it look like it's flat. That's true. Even though it's never been scientifically validated. And it's a reification file. So you can't treat physical properties to conceptual abstractions including a privation which is the absence of anything. So it's actually stupid lunacy on its face. This is coming in from, do appreciate your question. Perpetual motion says if Chile and Greenland and that's, if Chile and Greenland are separated by 8,000 miles, this is folks you gotta do me a solid. Sometimes it's like the, I don't understand. So I'm gonna read it just as it is. They say if Chile and Greenland, if Chile and Greenland that's separated by 8,000 miles is seeing the sun while New York City, so I think they're saying like if both Chile and Greenland which are separated by 8,000 miles are seeing the sun while New York City that's 500 miles west is in the dark, how does that work on a flat earth? Turning a ball in front of a lamp solves it. Man, oh my goodness, man. It's called light attenuation. Light does not go on forever. And I've explained about four times in this debate there's something, to be fair, maybe you super tried it before, unlikely though. It's called the circumference of lights based on the divergent rays. There's Rayleigh scattering of lights, okay? It's a well-known phenomenon. And so is attenuation of light and absorption rate of light. So the idea that the light should go on forever is ridiculous and antithetical to physics that we know exists. It's called a straw man. This one coming in. From Daniel Hegel says just here to say you gotta get David Weiss, flat earth, sun, moon, zodiac, clock, app, in the App Store presumably, on Android and Apple devices. Love you, Dave. Oh, I think they're saying, like, they're saying Dave, we hope that you get this app so that it can be used on Android and Apple devices. Let me know, Dave, if I got that right. Or Daniel, let me know if I got it right. Robert Summers says. Oh, sorry. I was gonna say take the flat earth challenge, watch the video of the day for two weeks and you will definitely probably question the globe, at least, or be a flat earth. This one from Pivot Cyroy says, shout out to the builders of the Dutch. Well, let's see, afsloit dugek. One of the longest dams in the world, which you can clearly see curve over the horizon and which is calculations take into account the earth's curving during construction. Every single time that people say this, it's not true. They don't actually account for the actual curvature rate nowhere close to it at all whatsoever. You can't even build things if you don't maintain level. Secondly, where you claim it's going over the curve of the earth, that's gonna change every single day. So is the earth breathing in and out or are you gonna see more of the dam at one point? How does that work? Is because it's all based on atmospheric conditions. So the at most changes throughout the day changes how much you can see the earth doesn't breathe in and out. So the dam is it consistently obstructed by a physical location every single day and the same amount of the dam is hidden. That's just patently false. And I do not account for eight inches per mile drop either because that would be absurd. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. Robert Summers says, So the answers to my questions were two in all caps, assert that flat earth is some kind of tornado or something and that all astronauts are baby blood drinking masons. Evidence for that? Oh, okay. It was just a joke. I don't know if they actually drink the blood of babies, but they are typically masons. Some of them don't admit it. So yeah, that would be speculation, but they all like to throw up. Oh, I can't even do it. RV truth will slaughter me. But they throw up the signs consistently. So the point is that, yeah, I wouldn't be allowed to be an astronaut. But what was the first part of the comment? First one. Not the blood drinking part, but the... A tornado. Oh, yeah. So no, I didn't say the earth is a tornado. I get you're trying to be facetious, but it's that that's a good analogy, a whirlpool of tornado of how it's wider and then it gets tighter because that's the vortexual movement in the ether in the actual ring laser gyro you guys use to measure the earth's spin was discovered with our uses, the effect called the Sagnac effect discovered by a guy named Sagnac, which said it was the vortexual movement in the ether, which also explains the Michael Smorley. I was explaining the movement of the field of energy over top of the earth that you're detecting with new look at inforometry patterns in its ring laser gyro. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Cana bearer says boats don't fall over the edge of an imaginary curve horizon. You can see much further than globe model sphere calculations. The globe model was created using flat earth elevation angle measurements. I think Cana bearer, we read that one earlier, but I don't know if you missed it, but we did. Maybe you went to the bathroom, but we'll give you, this is exactly the same one that I read, but so if you guys wanna respond to you, let's humor them, cause they really wanna hear your response to this. I think it was a little bit different, but yeah, I don't know how you get a globe from flat earth measurements if it's flat. How is it producing a curve? The reason that you can sometimes see further than the calculated curve of the globe is atmospheric refraction, which can make the curve appear less curved, but cannot make flat appear curved. Gotcha. This one coming in from Shane from Kentucky. Thanks so much for your kind words, says James, your legend. Thanks for all you do. Seriously, thanks. I really do appreciate your support. And also I gotta pass the credit on to the guests. The debate-ers, the guests, are the lifeblood of the channel. We appreciate them so much, my dear friends. I've gotta tell you, they honestly make this show awesome. And so we wanna say a huge thank you to them. And Amanda sent in a, I've gotta put this in the old description box cause I mentioned it once, but nobody, I hadn't put it in the description box. We have, on modern day debate is on Venmo. In case you are like, listen, I wanna submit a super chat, but I don't like supporting YouTube cause YouTube takes 30% of super chats, like right off the top. And so, if you're like, hey, I don't wanna, you know, I'm not really big on giving more to Google, that's fair. We do have a Venmo and I'll put that in the description box. But Amanda said, don't forget to smash that like button. Thank you so much for your support, Amanda. Seriously, that really does mean a lot. We are encouraged by that. And it's true. Don't forget to hit that like button. We really do appreciate it when you do support the channel that way. But one last thank you, Austin. Dave, have you ever considered reading the questions that they send off YouTube? Like I say, if they PayPal'd you or Venmo'd you in a question, that way they'd still get the perk of, it's just an idea. I try to kind of do that because they take too much of it, man, but with a little grabbers. 100%, yeah, that's what I was saying, is that we, I'm gonna put it in the description box so that way people can access it in the future, is that we do have PayPal and we do have, yeah, we should, we'll put that on the top of the description box just for anybody who's out there and we'll put it, we'll make sure it's like always in there because some people, I don't blame them. I think everybody in some way, frankly I think YouTube tends to go after any extreme view no matter which direction, like politically, for example. Like if you are far enough left, I think that YouTube may actually censor you and I think if you're far enough right, YouTube will censor you. And so I think everybody, I sympathize of everybody has a little bit of skepticism about YouTube, I think that YouTube's trying to please the mainstream. And so anybody too far out in any direction, YouTube I think is not always true. But I wanna say, Austin, Kai, Taylor and Jen, it's been a true pleasure to have you. Thank you so much. They're linked in the description folks. Do you wanna hear more about their views? I bet you do. I mean, you've been listening this long. What are you waiting for? So I'll be back in just a moment with updates about upcoming juicy debates that you don't wanna miss. So stick around and I'll be right back folks. Amazing. Oh, here I am. Okay, see, so my dear friends, hold on, I'm gonna fix this. How embarrassing. My dear friends, I've gotta say, wanna say thank you so much for your support of modern day debate. I'm still here, all right. Okay, see my eyes? Is thank you for your support of modern day debate. I've gotta tell you, we are absolutely excited. We've got a lot of cool stuff coming up, stuff that we're pumped about. Big time debates, as we had mentioned. Oh, I think I like even took away the, let me put the overlays back in. Amazing. So for example, tomorrow, I am excited. I'll be hosting this. David Wood and Nadir, Christian versus Muslim. I'm trying to remember. It's whether or not there is scientific evidence for whether or not Muhammad is the one true prophet. You don't wanna miss that one. That's juicy, and you know it. You don't wanna miss it. It's gonna be really fun. So don't forget to hit that subscribe button, folks. We are working on bringing you more juicy and amazing debates. And so let me tell you about the next one. Not only that, but this juicy one is next month. Vosh versus Dr. Bogartis on whether or not trans women are women. It is gonna be controversial. I know in some ways, even the titles will offend people. We're not trying to offend people. But I've gotta tell you, if you hang out of this channel long enough, you probably will be offended. And it's not that we're trying to, at least not disproportionately toward any group. It's important to us to offend everyone equally. Chris says, Whitsitt, when do you plan? Let's see. Oh man, you guys. So I've gotta tell you a couple things. I don't wanna read that when Whitsitt's not here to defend himself. So I can't take sides. Balthazar228 says, will you one day do a debate with a caveman costume on and call it ancient day debate? I like that. That's juicy. Amazing. So I've gotta tell you, thanks for your support, Balthazar228, appreciate that Super Chat, as well as thank you very much for your Super Chat, Chris. I would love to host Professor Dave and Whitsitt. I don't know if they'd be up to it. We can see, I can ask. So let me write that down. And I can at least ask. We never feel entitled to having guests on. So if they were to say no, I can't complain because we're just thankful to have the guests we have, which is why it's true. In the live chat, some two people are a little annoyed. They're like, oh, don't make this chat so beta by making everybody be nice to the speakers. And it's not as much that we want you to be nice. It's more that sometimes people are really malicious toward the speakers. Like if they're attacking their appearance and stuff like that, it's like, that's not all we want. Because we want the guests to come back. We're really grateful for them. And so if people are, and this is a really tiny percent, because 99.9% of you are like rock stars. You support the channel in so many ways and you don't maliciously attack guests, which we appreciate. And I've gotta say hello to you in the old chat. I wanna say as well, I like turtles, good to see you. Nicky, glad to see you. John Bernhardts, glad to have you with us. Trash Panda Bear, War Boy, good to have you. Kazimierz Sakalowski, happy to have you with us and into the break, glad you were here. Raven Randwolf, happy to have you here. Now let me tell you, my dear friends, we really are passionate about, this is our vision. It's always been our vision. We are passionate about providing a neutral platform on YouTube so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. That's what we're determined to do. That's what we're bringing to YouTube and that's what we're going to make a reality as we continue to grow. And I've gotta say thank you for your support. We're pumped, 71,000, we just hit several days ago. That's amazing. So we are super encouraged. You guys make this channel fun and here are a lot of ways you guys support the channel just for real, you do. I'm not just saying that. When you ask questions during the Q and A, we need questions for a Q and A. If there were no questions from you guys, there would be no Q and A and so that's an awesome segment that people like as a part of the debate is when the audience gets to be involved and they get to hear other people's questions and what they're thinking about. So that's one way it helps a ton. Also, we are at 185 likes right now which means we are so close to being at hundreds, hundreds. We're at 185, we only need 15 more. There are 323 people watching. We can totally hit our goal of getting 200 likes so that it is literally in the hundreds during the live stream itself. That helps a ton for real. The YouTube algorithm, I really do believe it. That is a small, you could say contributing factor in terms of a YouTube algorithm. YouTube shows our videos more when they get more likes. All things being equal. So it really does help when you do hit that like button. So thanks for supporting the channel that way. And last, two seconds, saying hello to more of you in the old chat. Mark Twain says beta mail and Sean Elke, good to see you. Erzer, thanks for being with us as well as Regis Ter Slobear. Happy to have you here. Bruce Six, good to see you again as well as Marker113 and what is truth? Good to see you again. Thanks for your support. Seriously, Amanda says make sure you check out the Patreon. You can become a front row VIP and hang out with me at meetings. We do have a Patreon. And by the way, if you're a member of the front row seating of our Patreon, Patreon, we have a meeting this Saturday. If you can make it, wait a minute, that's tomorrow. Okay, well let me, sorry. Let me just double check. Do I have the time right now? No, no, it's Sunday. Is it Sunday? Yes, I'm embarrassed. Okay, what have I done? Sorry about that. I should know. Ah, let me just double check that I've got the right time. You know what? Ooh, did I double book? I think I might have double booked something for tomorrow. Oh, embarrassing. Let me fix this, because I'm concerned. Thanks for saying that. I almost, I think I did accidentally double book, but let me check just to be sure. I think tomorrow's Patreon meeting for front row seating if you're in the front row tier. Because we do, we have a Zoom meeting and it's kind of our way of like, if you're like, hey, I really support the channel, what you do if you're at that tier. Yes, I double booked. Okay, let me problem solve and figure out how to handle this. I'm so glad you said that, Amanda. Let's see, let's see. Maybe 11, I could do this. How embarrassing, you guys. 10 AM. Okay, let's see. Ask, ask them. Okay, I'm so glad you told me. We avoided catastrophe. Ask, house, 11. You're hearing me think out loud. Do you like that? What is that that they call it? The RF's VP or I can't remember the name of it. ASMR. That's like, you can hear my inner thoughts. But my dear friends, wanna say Phantom of the Paradise, glad you were here. Elijah, McMahon, glad you were with us and we hit the goal. 200 likes while we're live, amazing. So thank you guys. See, we do appreciate it. We really do appreciate it. That's a huge way that you do help the channel. So thanks, we just crushed that goal and Amanda says I'm here to help and I'll see your pretty face there tomorrow. I'm pumped. Thanks, Amanda. Seriously, that really does help because I'm like, I need help right now. I've taken on a little bit too much on my plate but don't worry, I'm starting to like cut, you know, slow and cut back. For example, we got two debates tomorrow. I've been booking debates like crazy and then I was like, okay, hold on. Let me take a deep breath because we don't have to do two a day all the time. And not that it wasn't getting to be that much but I was kind of like, we don't have to do as many debates per week. I need to take a little bit of rest time. So Kaz will be hosting tomorrow, tomorrow night, I'll be there during the day. We'll have an abortion debate tomorrow. It's gonna be controversial. And like I said, I have to warn you if you're one of those deplatforming types, the cancel culture type of people, you're not gonna like this channel highly unlikely because at some point you're gonna wanna cancel us. And that's okay because the truth is, I never say it, but the truth is whenever people call for a boycott of modern day debate, have you ever heard, I'm sure you've heard the old phrase, there's no such thing as bad publicity. I'm not trying to generate bad publicity. I'm not trying to get people on Twitter to call for a boycott of modern day debate and to say, oh, let's stop watching this. But I've gotta tell you ironically, it tends to correlate when people call for a boycott. We grow faster, no joke. So I can see the stats in two places. Well, one, in my own creator studio. But sometimes I can even look back in time. So let's say there's a day where I was like, oh, I remember somebody put out of, like maybe it was a good size content creator. So maybe they've got a big Twitter account. And I'm like, oh, I remember that day, Paul or Barb or whoever it is, was talking smack about us on Twitter. And I'm like, I wonder, and I remember one time, because I actually did this. I was like, I wonder how we did on social blade that day because social blade shows how many subs you get per day. And it's common. Generally speaking, when people are calling for boycotts, I think it almost in a way. Now, like I said, I never was like going for the channel. Like I was like, we're called modern day debate. There are much more edgy or controversial things we could have called ourselves if we wanted to be edge lords. So we're not really shooting for it. But when it happens, I don't complain and I don't even hit back on Twitter. I don't tweet back and tell them like, oh, you know, you're stupid. We're like, I don't try to discourage them because here's the really funny thing. I can even see on a video, I can see how many views it's getting per day and even per hour. You can, it has like a last 48 hours like views. I can even see the source. So if someone trashes us on Twitter, not surprisingly, I've seen it before where I look at a video and I can see that it gets more traffic from Twitter. And it's the same one that the person linked who is trashing us. So there's almost like this kind of sick, humans are like kind of, you know, in a way, there's this kind of like a sick part of us that likes seeing like, oh, okay, what kind of naughty stuff is going on over there? So I think that's what's going on is that, and like I said, we see these increases in numbers. And so I've got to say 99% of you are super supportive and not calling for boycotts. But I mean, if you want to call for a boycott, it probably wouldn't hurt. So I wouldn't hold it against you. But I want to say 99% of you are so supportive and the ones who aren't ironically end up helping us. It's kind of like the Streisand effect, but not quite. It's like the Streisand effect in the sense that the effort is backfiring. So the Streisand effect is, it's not quite the same as calling for a boycott. In fact, it's not at all the same. But it's when you try to cover something up. And so you're like, oh, so, cause I remember it was like the, you know, I think Streisand was trying to cover up these pictures of her having this like huge mansion of a house. And then when she tried to cover it up, it made it a bigger deal. And it was a bigger, you know, got more publicity and more attention. And it was like, oh gosh, that backfired. The internet has a strange way of making things backfire. And so it's kind of like the Streisand effect in the sense that, like I said, when people call for that, like, oh boycott modern day debate, I don't interrupt them. Like I don't say something mean on Twitter. One, because I'm not particularly, I don't think it's a very productive use of time. Because, you know, like I don't really be, I'm not big on grudges at all. It's like, I'm anti-grudge. But the other thing is, I don't want to interrupt them while they're promoting us. So thanks for your guys' support. Seriously, Mav, Rick, thanks for your being with us. Thanks for your support. It's great work, James. Thank you for maintaining neutrality. I appreciate that. Seriously, that really does mean a lot. And then thanks very much for your support, Javid Ben-Cosme. Says, beta, amazing. Thanks for your being with us. Question the answers. Thanks for being with us. Says, imagine on this channel a day where everyone agrees on everything imaginable. That could be a good opposite day celebration. That's funny. Yes, it's true. It's lively here. Long nights, YouTube, and good to see you, buddy. I still, I have fond, warm memories of when we got to meet in Dallas. So I hope you're doing well. And thanks for your support of the channel as a channel member. Seriously, that really does mean a lot. Says, I have to catch the replay. Love this channel. Thanks, Long Nights, YouTube, and seriously, we appreciate your support. And Gross Patat says, you need to rename these globe denial debates, because it's never about flat or juicy, to say the least. Noran Davis says, James is at Jesse Lee Petersonite. And amazing. Let's see here. I've got to go pretty soon. It's getting kind of late here. And I'm not even in Eastern time. So, oh man, the debaters, like they hung in there late with us. Chris G says, the Patreon post says, noon Eastern. Yeah, it's 10 a.m. I got to fix that. Oh, man. But it's not a big deal. It's not like a tragic thing that I've got to fix. Hugh Janus says, what is going on? We're glad you're here, Hugh. Thanks for being with us. Flip Flat says, thanks for making the debate a little longer, sir. You're welcome. I'm glad we did. It was fun. Jacob Slacks says, more James RSVP. And that's funny. Yeah, Anton Gomez, thanks for your super chat support. It says, have a banana. I appreciate that, Anton. Thank you. And, amazing. Devil Dog, happy to have you with us, as well as, got to say hello to a lot of people. Chris G says, so James, we're gonna do a meeting earlier tomorrow or another day. We're gonna do it at the same time. I'm not gonna reschedule that. I'm gonna reschedule the other thing. And then thanks, Amanda, for your support. Oh, that reminds me, I've got to put our PayPal and our Venmo in the description box because I know that people sometimes don't want to support YouTube and I know it's a little bit less convenient, but we do want to make that, you could say, an option for people if they want to send in their question that way without giving their money to billionaire Google elites who are gonna censor some people. Now, they're not gonna censor all people, but I do think that they do censor some people. Justin Beck, thanks for being with us. So, space is cute. Amen to that. And then, Coby Coby, is it Coby Coby? Let me know. Am I saying it right? Glad that you were with us. My last name, good to see you, as well as, Sean Elke, am I saying it right? We're glad you're here, Sean. And then, amazing. But yeah, thanks guys for your support. Seriously, I love you. And then, Chris, she says, okay, all good. I'll be there. Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your support. Chris has been a huge supporter of the channel, folks. Including, we were in person this most recent January. Chris was super supportive. We were in person in Dallas doing our first ever conference, DebateCon, which was so fun. It was a blast. And Chris was there helping, volunteering, helping us with all sorts of stuff. Just kind of like a catch-all person, Jack of all trades, willing to help wherever he could. So we appreciate that. I want to say thanks guys for your support, seriously. That's right. Last thing. You probably enjoyed this debate. I mean, I hope you did. And with that, the completion of enjoyment of something or the happiness in something is sharing it with somebody else. It's kind of like when you're in love. When you're in love and you're like, oh my goodness, there's so this and there's so that and I could go on and on. It's just like that. The completion of the joy in something is sharing it with someone else and saying, oh, this was fun and this was a good time and I laughed when this happened or my jaw dropped when the person in the debate said this, whatever it is, that enjoyment is something that you can share with somebody. And like I said, it's got a dual purpose because it helps modern day debate in fulfilling our vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field as we strive to make that a reality. And we want to encourage you, hit that share button below. You can share it with a friend. You can just click share and then you click on sharing the link and then easy as that, you can send it in a Facebook message, a Twitter DM, on Discord, on a text message, you name it, so easy. Isn't that awesome? Amazing. So do want to encourage you, that really does help us grow. Just good old word of mouth because like I said a billion times, if I'm on Twitter and I say, oh, check out this debate, it's great. And they're like, oh, well, of course, you'd say a debate on your own channel is great, James. Like it doesn't really mean much. But if a third party says it, it has way more credibility because they're like, oh, okay, this person's, you know, they're not like, like they don't like run modern day debate or anything. And they're like, they're just neutral and they're saying that it's cool. So that really does good old fashioned word of mouth. That has always been huge. And so thank you guys for helping us that way. Seriously, I do see the number of shares on our videos and they're really high. We do have a ton of shares. So thank you guys for sharing and enjoying the videos with somebody else. That means a lot. And then Bible believer says, does YouTube take a percentage of super chats? Yes, they do. YouTube takes 70% give or take. So they do take a lot. So that's why if you are giving super chats to different channels and you didn't know that, well, now you know, like you might, that's why we're going to put our Venmo and our PayPal in the description. And when you send like, you know, a five spot or whatever it is, like, let's say you send your super chat that way, you send it through Venmo. You can put your question in the message box on Venmo or PayPal. Nice. How neat is that? So you're just, it'll be helpful. I've got to get into a habit of checking it too though. But want to say, you guys, thanks so much. And a huge thanks to our amazing level channel supporters or members. They exist. We have channel memberships. I don't know if you knew about that, but Michael Meyer, Ty Wilson, Oliver Katwell, and others. I'm so sorry for lost the list. Let me get it. Sorry. Okay. Don Fullman, Ozzie and Tux and Scott Mitchell. Thanks for being amazing level channel members. It means a ton. And, oh yeah. If you didn't know, Moderated Abate does have a podcast. Did you know that? You don't even believe me, do you? But we do. And you can find it on fine podcast. You can find it on app stores everywhere, fine app stores everywhere. Moderated Abate does have our own podcast. And so I highly encourage you to check us out on Apple Podcasts. Check us out on Spotify. We are out there. And that's something that we're excited about because we're like, hey, if that's a value to people, it's ad-free guys. You know, you might be thinking like, oh, let me see. It's ad-free. You can find it on your favorite. So have you tried the Moderated Abate podcast yet? You can find it on your favorite podcast app. And it's ad-free. And that's true. It is. I've got to tell you, that's something we are really excited about is if you are like, yeah, I love listening to podcasts. Hey, it's pretty convenient and it's ad-free because you might be thinking like, ah, do I want to listen to ads? And if you think about it, it's got even less ads than YouTube because YouTube for most people has the four second ad at the start unless you have YouTube premium. So Mark Reed says, did you tell James that he missed some super chats? He's usually good about it if someone lets him know. Will, I'm sorry, man. If I missed any of your super chats, I'm dead serious. I will send you the money back because we really do take that seriously. Just send me an email. So yeah, one thing that drives me nuts is sometimes people, they won't tell me, and I don't know if they think I did it personally, but they'll be in the chat and they'll be like, James is an ass. He didn't read my super chat. What a jerk. And I'm like, whoa, hold on. I didn't even know. I was like, I'll give you the money back. I'm not trying to screw you or anything. And I know that Will, I trust you will. I know that Will, that you were not talking smack about me. So you're not one of those people I worry about. But I'm just like, hey, you can always ask. Like, I hope I'm approachable that people can ask and just be like, hey, James, you missed my super chat. Like, let me know. Or we can just pay it forward if you're like, oh, well, you don't have to send it back. Just let me ask a normal chat question as a super chat in the next debate or something like that. Whatever way you want it, I'm happy to do. And then let's see. Grimthearist says, I definitely enjoy this channel. Thanks a bunch, James. Thanks for that support. That really means more than you know. I love you guys. You know what I would say goodbye eight times a night because I just love being here. Like, it's fun to hang out with you guys and just talk to you in chat. And so I want to say thank you guys. You guys make this fun. Seriously, it's always a blast. I appreciate all your love and support. My guys, into the break. Lad, you are with us. But yeah, thanks, guys. I love you guys. Thanks for your support. I'm at modernatobate.com in case you need me. Actually, yeah, Will, you've got my email. So feel free. Let me know if I can make your day easier. Love you guys. Thanks, everybody, for all your support. And I am excited to see you at the next one. Keep sifting all the reasonable from the unreasonable as we continue to fulfill the vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. Thanks, everybody, and we'll see you tomorrow.