 and we're starting right now with Flat Earth Test. Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours for your opening statement, Flat Earth Test. You can seriously catch just had a debate with flat soil and he spoke of 10 minutes about honesty. So I wanted to stress the honesty so they say we don't bring evidence. Man, that's playing super high speed, man. Can I pause that for a second? Let's pause. That was about one fourth of my show. Is it playing it right on your screen? Sorry about this, y'all. It should be about six minutes and 30 seconds long. Okay, so anyway, I wanna bring some evidence because I hear a lot when we debate that we... Yeah, it's just blast and do. But anyway, I could never keep up with that. Why is it doing that, man? Hey, check your Discord, Austin. I sent it through there. I don't know why. It's playing like in fast motion. It's got six minutes. It's got six minutes on there, bro. Okay, okay, my fault, my fault. Okay, anyway, so I wanna make sure we bring evidence so I just don't wanna hear that we didn't present any evidence. So there's a laser and that's obviously a direct hit. You see when it's not a direct hit, that's 16 miles away. So you're talking about 100 foot of a curve that's supposed to be blocking that laser. So we're gonna, here's a mirror test. So you have all kinds of long range lasers, mirror flashes, which should not be seen if we're on a globe. There's a geometric horizon supposed to be blocking it. So we see compression here. This is 16.8 miles away. And you see the horizon behind it and there's another boat even beyond that. And so you do have days with maybe some structure to be honest. And you have Loran's, the Loran system, Nicobine, we're talking signals from thousands of miles away using VHF, which is not the kind that curves around balls. Look at this, this is seven inches above the water. Okay, it takes a nice clear day and nice calm conditions to get these effects but they are out there and we are recording. So people are going through a lot of efforts to show the truth to people, to show the truth. Used to, we'd argue that against them that the horizon was geometric, earth curved, the edge and that's what was hiding boats, but that's not. They've updated their argument lately because they know that it's refracted. We've showed them that the horizon moves up and down. We preached it for a couple of years. Finally, we showed them the black swan and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Okay, this here is the weatherman. This is how they explained us seeing the skyline of Chicago across Lake Michigan. They say the atmosphere acts like a lens. So they always ask us how could the sun set on a flat earth? Well, just with a little lens on a flat surface just backing it away. And another thing you'll notice that the sun is setting, it's also not shrinking in size. So if y'all please don't ask that question, there's a perfectly reasonable demonstration with the experts backing us up. So there's lensing and here's what happens when you zoom out, when you zoom out then you get obstruction, you get obstruction and with the lensing comes magnification. So the angular sides of the sun, it wouldn't play much of a part and it sets just fine. So this is the laser and sugar water. This is how they said the atmosphere work. They say the light refracts downward to the denser medium. So yeah, I don't argue that, whatever's happened, look. Look what happens when he lowers the camera. You see that obstruction? So their only demonstration of how refraction works literally shows how it would work on a flat earth. This is, you see that compression, it's not things disappearance, literally compression. There's the local oil rig and look at the ones in the distance. It's compression and it took years of, we would have never knew the one up top, we would have thought half the boat was missing if the stent line wasn't written on the side of it. Thanks, Ranchie. But it's literally compression. And look, so the horizon is beyond this boat. Earth curve is not blocking this boat, but with the shoaling and the conditions, you know, people might, I've seen where people came to that conclusion. So for the sake of being honest, you know, but see there's more examples of compression. Look toward the bottom floors. So next I wanted to squeeze in the star trails. It sounds like, look at Stellarium shows separation. I've talked about this with Mr. Sensible. There is literal separation in a, we asked from one position, how can the stars simultaneously go in three directions? If I'm spinning and the stars are stationary, why are they deviating away from each other on the horizon? That doesn't make sense. That can't possibly happen on a ball. It can't, and so I heard excuses about fish island. So this is straight from the astronomical society. If you want to go back and read that or if you have time that the star trails do indeed take three separate paths. And if you want to use an equatorial mount to use that as proof against a flat earth, look, this is what you get. If you're at the equator, looking at stars to the north, you get a frown. I mean, you get a smiley face. You look to the south, you get a frown. And if you look straight overhead, you get a straight line. This is the eclipse. This is a selenilium eclipse. I personally recorded this last week. There's the moon well above the horizon, fully eclipsed. And look that even that side of the sky is daylight by that time. But there's the moon fully eclipsed. They say it's the earth causing the shadow. But look, I go to see, and look what I see east. The sun, it's already made it over the horizon and over the cloud deck. Here's the trick. So if the sun is only half a degree above the horizon, it's 800,000 miles above your feet. And that can't work. You see that sun above the horizon? That can't be tested as shadow up on the clouds and down on the ground simultaneously if the rays are coming in parallel. And now look at these shadows, they're divergent. Look at the sun shining on the bottom of that cloud. That's impossible if the rays are coming in parallel. They want to use, so sunrise at equinox. So it would work perfect on a cylinder. Would work perfect. The sun would be following the latitude lines. But as soon as you change your orientation from the equator, the lines converge toward the equator. Anywhere, go to Google Earth and draw a due east and you will wind up at the equator. So we're in fact not looking parallel. And that's only 6,000 miles. That's not enough to bend you over backwards. And I don't have much time, but celestial navigation. Look, if I'm right by cancer, going to Sudan, I start off north. Just traveling to Sudan right by the equator. But if the same meridian south, I still have to go north. Why would I have to go north from South America to get to Sudan and north from North America to get to Sudan? That's just a head scratcher. So to me, it's all retrofitted to work with reality, but I'm gonna pass it over to Austin. Thanks, man. Sorry about the beginning. No worries. All right, I'm gonna share this screen here. All right, cool. So I got here, heliocentrism has never been proven. It's a religion. That's what it's called when things aren't proven, but blindly believed based on the doctrine of men and then the pill to what other people think. Here is a depiction of a magnetic field. You have what's called a blocked domain wall in the middle of a magnetic field. It's also called an inertial plane. This can not work on a globe, hence why Harvard, Stanford, and yeah, I will tell you that still in 2022, they literally don't have a working dynamo model of a magnetic field on the globe. But of course, it works perfectly on a flat earth. That's we are on the dielectric plane to the middle. Here's a picture of it using magnetic film over the magnetic field. You see the inertial plane of blocked domain wall right there. Here's a ferrel cell image of it. There is literally no explanation nor has everyone even been proposed with a millions of dollars and all the universities that people love to appeal to constantly, which is of course fallacious. They do not have an explanation. I can offer all kinds of documentation addressing the over a century of failures and attempting to explain this on a globe, but it works perfectly on a flat earth. Of course, here's again, a ferro cell image of magnetic fields. You look at the top left, you will see this flower of life depiction. You have constructive and destructive lines of interference. And then again, you have the inertial plane depicted right there. I do find it funny that this is similar to the black hole picture we give space course. Everything must be electromagnetic, but anyway, I digress. So if you look at the picture of the ferro cell and you look at the magnetic flux over top of a flat projection, it matches perfectly. This is of no coincidence. Again, it can't even be explained on a globe. So here's a video. I'm going to kind of go through it some. This is a ferro cell image and you see you have those lines of interference right there. And this is like a perfect flower of life depiction. So people are like, oh, where's your flat earth? And they picture a disc in space. Dude, this is the flat earth model. You want a flat earth model? You live inside that right there. And that's the only way that the magnetic field could possibly exist. And you can chuckle and you can laugh, but I promise you can't actually debate it. You can't actually even offer a working magnetic model for the globe. I've actually looked at all the top levels of academic sources. They don't know the answer. So here's another depiction of that. So just keep that in mind as we move forward. And also here is a motion depiction of visualization of the toroid in the movement within it. So here's another depiction. So just so you can visualize the patterns that happen within a toroid of a magnetic field. And what do you know? What a coincidence that from a geocentric position all the planets happen to move in this exact same model. Here's Mercury and Venus and Saturn and Uranus all fitting perfectly within that exact same pattern in the magnetic field. It's probably just a coincidence that all the planets over their cycles happen to fit perfectly within the geometric expression of a magnetic field examined in a ferrocell. The geocentric model has no explanation for this other than it's a coincidence or it doesn't match. So we'll see if maybe we actually get an explanation here. I have to close it up. I'll point out this hilarious part of the globe debacle. This guy invented special relativity to counter experiments that revealed the earth was motionless in space. This special relativity in response to Nicholas Morley this eventually led him to general relativity which ironically forced him to accept a motionless earth in the center of the universe as a viable cosmological system. That's pretty awkward. And this is objective. It'll be disputed, but we'll get into it. Here's a quote from Einstein. I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment. And they will have to say that this is cherry picked and out of context. And actually at the end he says all though the earth moves around the sun. Well, we're not invoking this to say Einstein thought the earth didn't move around the sun. We're pointing out he said you can't use optical experiments in the context of interferometry. So when you bring up ring laser gyros you're disagreeing with relativity and Einstein. Most people just hand wave dismiss this with the misrepresentation of the argument. Here's another quote of Einstein. To the question whether or not the motion of the earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. Of course the word terrestrial means on the earth of the earth. Anything to do with the earth in relation to the earth meaning you can't do an experiment on the earth. We have already marked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result. That's Albert Einstein. And then here is your famous physicist Stephen Hawking. So which is real the Ptolemaic or Copernican system Ptolemy being a geoscientific stationary earth. Copernicus of course being the idea that we're in significant space moving around the sun. Although it's not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong. That is not true. One can use either picture as a model of the universe for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. And here is him in 2007 citing that same exact quote from Albert Einstein and a stubbornly persistent illusion explaining you cannot prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth. And that's what the stubbornly persistent illusion is is that the universe tricks us to make us think that the earth is always stationary no matter what we do to detect it. This is the Mickelson morally that led into this whole debacle and the change in physics. They did not get the expected friendship or difference if the laser was moving against the earth and it had to catch up to the earth and it should have been a separate difference when it received to the detector but that's not what we observed. So they said time physically slowed down and the measuring apparatus physically shrinks. So it looked like it was the same time and distance even though it was actually a greater distance and a greater time. And this is still to this day the exact model that people defend. And here's Mickelson to go ahead and get ahead of this to wrap this up. This is Mickelson himself talking about the observation saying this conclusion directly contradicts the explanation which presupposed that the earth moves. So to basically the globe and that's spinning and revolving around the sun you have to say everything's an illusion the universe is a wizard waving its wand constantly deceiving you into believing that the earth is actually stationary and we'll get into the intricacies of this but of course to believe the current model you have to believe that you could never prove the earth is actually moving around the sun and it just always looks like it's stationary. So there's that. Bravo, Magnifico. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening and we are going to switch it over to our globe earth team. But first wanna let you know folks if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and you didn't know modern day debates. Second debate conference is this Saturday, November 19th in Plano, Texas. You don't wanna miss it. If you're in Texas, I have linked the tickets for this conference at the top of the chat and it's in the description box. Highly encourage you folks. It's gonna be a blast. We've got monstrous debates going down there. For example, as you can see on the bottom right of your screen this one's gonna be a juicy one to be sure in particular for the first time ever Aaron Raw and Daniel Hukikachu collide the unstoppable force versus the immovable object. You don't wanna miss it. With that, we're gonna jump into the globe position side. Thank you very much. Conspiracy culture in Mr. Sensible. We're thrilled to have you here. I'll kick it over to you, Mr. Sensible for your opening statement. Thank you. Let me just try sharing my screen first. Hopefully you can see an image. Yep. Let me just move this other window out the way. Right, let's say thanks, MDG for hosting. Thank you, Austin for debating. Big thanks to Brian for stepping in last minute. Massive thanks to Katz for being excellent as always as you will see and big props to NASA for all the funds. Thank you. Now, it's quite interesting that straight away in his opening, Austin had his quote from Einstein Oh, Einstein. Because the full quote is while I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Mickelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect. If we admit Mickelson's no result as a fact, this was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the earth is revolving around the sun. I'm pleased that Austin tacked that bit on the end because usually that's not added, but he's talking about the sun, sorry, the earth moving through the ether. But going back to my pre-prepped intro, this is an image of the sun. Wonderful, isn't it? Well, you might not think so until you find out that that image of the sun was built up taken from around a kilometer underground using neutrinos. This is the super camea candae neutron detector. It contains around 50,000 tons of ultrapure water with 11,000 light detectors detecting the little flashes of light as neutrinos collide with atoms of water. Neutrinos pass through virtually everything. The 60 billion go through an area the size of your fingernail every single second. They're really hard to detect, which is why there's so much water, so many detectors because of the chance of a collision of one in 10 million trillion. So that explains why it's so big. There are three flavors of neutrinos, electron, muon, and tau, and they can flip between the flavors. Now, this happens more as electrons pass through material. Now, as I said, this detector is around a kilometer underground, but you get more flipping when the neutrons pass all the way through the earth. So there's Austin in his neutron detector, rather disappointed that the direction the neutrons are coming from, sorry, neutrinos are coming from the sun is coming from below his feet. That cannot happen on a flat earth. Next thing I'd like to look at is tow tanks. This is the Boulderwood tow tank in Southampton. Towed tanks are long tanks of water that are used for testing models of boats and ships to see how they behave in various conditions in the water. They can generate waves of different patterns, so they can test the effects on the different hull shapes if I just skip it on a bit. So here's one being tested. Now that gantry moving along with the model must be kept absolutely level above the surface of the water. Otherwise it's pushing the boat down or lifting it out, thus nullifying the test. It's got to be kept within 0.1 millimeters level of the surface. Now, that gantry moves along around 10 meters per second, I think, along these rails. Now these rails in this tank, which is 138 meters long and about six meters wide, these rails are held in place with these little red sole plates, this 440 of them. In fact, if I just let it zoom into them, each one had to be adjusted to make sure the rail is absolutely level above the surface of the water. These are microscope to detect how a pin just breaks the surface tension of the water. One guy had to adjust all of these so that there was no difference in people's eyesight. It took him two weeks. Now the length of that tank, 130 meters level above the surface of the water actually has a curve. The bend, the hump, is 0.6 millimeters over 138 meters because the rails are following the surface of the water. The water is following the gravitational equipotential of the earth. Water being level is not flat. And the next thing I'd like to move on to is this thing. This was a package that someone sent up under a weather balloon with three cameras in. You can see at the top of it, at the bottom of the screen has a circular hole. There was an upward facing camera pointing at the balloon. In the back, the narrow end to the right, there was a camera, a wide angle camera that was just there for the view and nothing else. And to the left, under that little white plastic thing, was a forward facing, non-distorting rectilinear lens camera. And to the extreme left, you can see the framework holds two taught strings. They're held taught by springs to be used as reference lines. Now, I've just got, just bear with me one second. I have the actual points to jump to in the video. Do apologize. Right, so one minute in. Where are we? Oh, it's not showing me the timestamps, is it? Yes it is. One minute in. This is Mage as it was flying. You can see that the reference line strings held taught at all times. Top left, you've got an upward facing balloon camera. That is a wide angle. It's only there to show the balloon. And next to it, you've got the wide angle camera that's just for the view. The main view with the strings is non-distorting. And if I jump to two minutes 26, I'm sorry about that. You can see the balloon grows in size as the weather balloon goes up due to the lower pressure around it. And around here, we can just see the last few seconds when it's reaching its maximum altitude. I'll jump before a tiny bit. And the balloon burst, just count down there five, four, three, two, one. And you'll see the balloon burst. It shreds at the speed of sound as the hydrogen within the balloon disperses as the latex balloon can no longer maintain the pressure differential between the gas inside and outside the balloon. Absolutely beautiful. The important thing about this is this was a shot that was taken at almost maximum altitude. The reason this shot was taken, sorry, I didn't pause it there. The reason this shot was taken is because the horizon is across the middle of the screen where even with a rectilinear lens, there is some distortion towards the edges. But by being across the center of the screen, it rules out that distortion. If you compress it left to right, you can see that curve against that straight line. And in fact, what I've got here, there's that same full picture again, an engineer in Chile, André Palma, actually calculated the prediction of the curve. We should see it the predicted target height of 39 kilometers. This is only 35, but we overlaid the prediction on it. And it's a pretty damn good match. The curve you see is virtually the predicted curve. And I'd like to finish with a quote. Only two things are infinite in this universe, the universe itself and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the format. You'll like that quote, Austin, it was from Albert Einstein. And at that point, I shall hand over to conspiracy cats and stop sharing. Thank you. Right, can I show my screen, James? Is that okay? All right, go on, let's do that. So, and how do I do the slideshow on this? Oh, what am I doing? Okay. So basically, like this is gonna be a debate like you've never seen before on modern day debates because for those people who didn't know, I am genuinely a time traveler. I know Whitsitt likes that kind of like funky sci-fi stuff. Genuinely, I'm a time traveler and I've seen this debate already. So what I've done is I've decided to come back in time for my opening statement and just tell you how good it was. And then it's up to you whether you watch it or not, but this is what happens, okay? So in this debate, basically Whitsitt is gonna speak really, really fast. He's gonna say a lot of stuff, but then when he's asked to explain stuff in like a really coherent way and in detail, he's gonna get really angry and then he's gonna refuse to do that. For example, there's a bit in this debate where we discuss Coulomb's law. You're gonna really like that bit. Whitsitt doesn't like that bit at all. He gets a bit angry that I bring that up and it gets a bit tense during that bit. James steps in, but it's all good. It's all good after that. Brian, on the other hand, Brian's gonna be really nice. He's gonna be really friendly, but he's not really gonna bring any evidence for flat earth. Now we've already seen this first bit other than the odd picture that he thinks shows we can see too far. He's put that in his own statement. Of course, we've seen that already. But within that, we're not gonna see any hard data like observer heights or any kind of coordinates. But other than that, he is gonna ask for a lot of questions about the globe. Some of them are gonna be silly and we'll answer them politely. However, only open to a point where he thinks we're being like a bit too oversimplified with our answers and he's gonna feel a bit consented and upset, but it'll be all good because he's a nice guy. We'll apologize and we'll move on. That'll be something you can look forward to. We're gonna see lots of childish experiments being shown such as moving torches or lenses back and forth. I believe you've already seen the bit where we see the lens back and forth in Brian's, don't know. You've already seen that bit. And this is genius. But eventually they'll kind of ignore the fact that what they've had to do is take that lens or torch and move it specifically into that exact point to get the exact effect that they're looking for and then they ignore anything other than that exact position it's got being to get that exact effect. They kind of ignore that and just pretend that it is actually an explanation of what's going on in the real world. That bit's quite funny. And they'll also accompany that phrase with stuff like, it works perfectly on a flat earth. And I think which it has already done, you've seen that bit and you'll see it again, where they say, well, this works perfectly well on a flat earth, without explaining how it works on a flat earth whatsoever. So some of that you've seen already, some of it you haven't. This is my favorite bit of the debate though, which it didn't like this bit, but what he does is he tries to bring science into doubt by using evidence from NASA space probes. And as a flat earth, he doesn't understand the irony that using data from space probes, doesn't really support the flat earth. It makes me laugh. He doesn't find it amusing, but everyone in the chat, you can have a laugh about that. That'll be good. It's gonna be a good bit of this debate. I'm also gonna bring up at some point that which it believes in the lost city of Atlantis and Brian believes that the ISS is an Egyptian God. And I'm gonna bring that up just to show that we're dealing with nice people, but people that just wanna believe whatever they wanna believe. And that's fine. And flat earth is just one of those beliefs. Neither of them really appreciate that. They're not really tickled by it, but I'm gonna bring it up. Now, at some point during this debate as well, what happened was, it was quite good, which it brought up some evidence that he thought was really, really clever. But myself and Mr. Sensible ask him, well, why is that evidence for the earth being flat? And which it really won't be able to explain. One example we've seen already is which it claiming that the earth is stationary. And that really doesn't explain how the earth is flat because this is a debate about the shape of the earth. And then when we press him on that, he kind of doesn't wanna answer, so he gish gallops and yeah, you've seen it before, haven't you? I literally have seen it. I've just traveled back in time. Anyway, at the end of the debate, the audience are gonna post loads of comments in the chat saying that the two flat earthers yet again actually brought zero evidence for a flat earth and eventually just tried to poke holes unsuccessfully in the globe over and over again. And that's pretty much how this debate went, but it was good and it was fun and I'm glad I did it. So thank you very much. You got it, thank you very much for that opening. And before we jump into the open dialogue, wanna say folks, if you didn't know, our guests are linked in the description. We highly encourage you. You can check out their links right now. That includes if you're listening via the podcast, which has thousands of downloads. We don't have any ads on the podcast as 100% free of ads. We don't make a dime off of it. We hope you find it useful and that's available at every single podcast app out there where you can find Austin's flat earth tests, conspiracy culture, and Mr. Sensible's links in the description box there as well. With that, we're gonna jump into open dialogue. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. If it gets too rowdy, I'm gonna break it into two minute segments. That way there isn't too much interrupting. Floor is all yours. Well, that was very exhilarating. Conspiracy cat's entire presentation was ad hominem fallacies. This dude is crushing. And so let's just skip that since that's an admissible and intellectual forum and holds no value. Mr. Sensible, you brought up a lot of begging the questions fallacies. Then you said, wreck 10 linear lens that doesn't post curvature, but will ignore it because it doesn't match the global prediction, but it's kind of close and blah, blah, blah, blah. But I just wanna, before we get started, I'm wondering, can you help me out here? I got covered what you were gonna say about the Einstein quote. I literally covered it and said they always love to say that they leave the end of the quote off. I explained how that's not a rebuttal to the actual point. Would you like to start there? Well, yes, they do normally leave that out. I have seen you leave out many times, Austin, although today you didn't, I'll give you that, but it was not in context. It was with regard to the earth moving through the luminiferous ether, but I'd like to see some actual evidence from you that the earth is flat. Right, well, the conversation is, is the earth a spinning ball or is it a stationary plane? And so there's two aspects to it. It's the geometry of the earth and then of course the motion. So we're gonna start with motion because it seems that most globe proponents don't comprehend relativity. This is what I've discovered over the years and I'm quite sure that neither one of you guys do. So maybe you guys can prove me wrong, but it has nothing, it doesn't matter if it's through the ether or not. Okay, it's talking about Michelson-Morley, he proposed a special relativity and it did not show a friendship between the lasers. So he had to say that time slowed down and the matter contracted. So it looked like it was the same. This is with or without ether. This is what relativity to this day says. You can't use measuring rods or clocks to detect the motion of the earth around the sun because time slows down and matter shrinks. So this is in the context of an optical interferometer. So that means you can't use a ring laser gyro either, but can you address that part? Can you address the actual relativity part? We do know that time is variable. It flows a varying rate depending on the speed of the observer. That is known, that is measured. So you agree that you can't prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth because of that? Well, Kat, she was just taking a jump in there. Can I just screen share it? If anyone can answer my question, that'd be pretty cool. Can you guys admit that relativity claims you can't prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth? No, that's completely wrong. We can use all sorts of techniques to prove that, but when you were talking about two things, when you were talking about not being able to use ring laser gyroscopes, I mean, you can live in that world where ring laser gyroscopes don't work, but all this list here is... Nobody said they don't work, bro. ...is real-life applications of... Are you diverting? Just hold on, let's be sure that he's... I haven't finished yet. Go ahead. Diversion, red herring fallacy. Hold on, hold on. All these are examples of how the ring laser gyroscope is actually used. So I'm glad you said it does work. And when we're talking about time, you know, traveling at variable rates, the Havili Keaton experiment where we use atomic clocks and we move on at high speed, we kept, you know, we compared them afterwards, fell in line perfectly with what we predict with relativity. So I don't understand the scientific evidence is there. So what is the problem with it? Can you say what the problem is with these experiments? Hey, look me in the eye while you're talking, bro. You've only implemented two fallacies thus far, a full of ad hominem fallacies in your opener. I brought up, can you guys admit that relativity says you can't prove the earth is moving from the earth? I cited Einstein saying no terrestrial experiment. I cited Stephen Hawking in 2007, citing Einstein from his writings on general and special relativity and a basic elementary understanding of relativity would necessitate you say yes, you have then shifted to rotation. That's called a red. What you're using, what you're using is Max Principle. Would you like to explain to everyone what Max Principle? We're not talking about that yet. We're actually talking about it now. No, no, no, no, you are. You are. So would you like to explain to everyone about it? You just brought up Ernest Mock. If you're gonna bring up Ernest Mock, don't ask him to explain Max Principle. Wait, no. You're explaining Max Principle. Wait, wait, wait. Let me explain for the audience. You're saying to Max Principle. No, I'm not. Max Principle has to do with rotation. So you're using what's called a red herring fallacy. It has the illusion that it's relevant to the subject, but it's actually not, and it's an attempt to divert, okay? So we're actually talking about revolution around the sun right now. That has nothing to do with Max Principle, right? So would you like to concede that relativity says you cannot prove the earth is revolving around the sun from the earth? No. So can you tell me how you can prove it? Would you like to tell us why it doesn't? Sure, because when you're in motion, according to relativity, time slows down and matter physically contracts. So any attempt to use any mechanism regarding matter or a clock measuring time will be a futile pursuits and it will look like the earth is stationary. That's why that both Einstein and Hawking say, along with every other astrophysicist that actually understands relativity, you can't prove it with terrestrial experiment or observation. So if you're claiming that you can prove it, I guess you need to replace relativity for us real quick and please tell us how you did that. So you're telling us that we cannot prove that the earth is moving around the sun via observation? Or terrestrial experiment. No, Einstein said that. Yeah, Einstein and relativity says that and Stephen Hawking said that. Right, no, actually none of them said that. All those, before we started this debate, I was actually sent a list of the quotes that you were gonna use. I can show you, Kosho sent them in Discord, all of the quotes that you showed at the beginning you were gonna use. And he explained that he's seen these before and how they're all taken out of context, right? And we can go into that. But essentially, let's just talk about parallax. Let's just talk about parallax. Okay, okay, first, so you say that you can't prove it from the earth. And so Stephen Hawking is wrong in his book, because I know you haven't read it, but there's a book called Stubbornly Persistent Illusion by Stephen Hawking. And the whole book is about the stubbornly persistent illusion that the earth is stationary and geocentric, even though it's actually not stationary and it's in a heliocentric one. That's what the whole book is about. That's what relativity says. You obviously took that out of context, Austin. We have a heliocentric solar system, but it's not a heliocentric universe. Of course, yeah, that's a non sequitur to my point. Yeah, well, so many people can sort of say geocentric or heliocentric with the geocentric, that's requiring an entire universe to rotate around us. I said model, I said model. I didn't say universe. Yeah, but if it's geocentric, you're talking about you would have to be talking about everything rotating around us. But Austin, we're still waiting for some evidence for the earth being flat. We would have got right into that if you guys had have showed some intellectual honesty and actually understood your own model and said, that's correct, Austin. We can't prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth according to relativity. If you could just be honest and concede it, we'd move right on to the next subject. Let's give one sec. Let's give two minutes before we go to you, Brian. Let's give two minutes to the other side, whether it be culture cats or Mr. Sensible. Can I just have 30 seconds and I'll pass on to Mr. Sensible? I only want 30 seconds, and then I'll pass on to Mr. Sensible if I can share my screen. Sure. Thank you. So like I said in the opening statement, I don't know if my screen is sharing yet. Yep. OK, am I sharing? Yep. OK, so this is the bit of the debate that we're at, the bit of the debate that I said you would see. This is Whitsitt trying to be clever with evidence about relativity or whatever, without offering any evidence that the earth is flat, trying to switch the topic of the debate from flat versus globe, which is obviously what the debate has all been about. So try and be clever about something that in no way, shape or form, shows that the earth is flat. So I did say that I'd seen this and this is that bit. So I'm going to pass that on to Mr. Sensible now, but that bit's done, so well done Whitsitt for that bit. I'll pass on to Mr. Sensible. I had a harm in him, bro. Now, with regard to the earth moving, we can look at nearby stars in January and then look at those same nearby stars in July when we're halfway round our orbit around the sun, there is parallax that shows that we have moved with respect to the stars around the sun. Why can't the stars just be moving? Well, the nearest star is 4.2 light years away. How much do you think it's going to move in six months? I don't believe you're claiming that it's 4.2 light years away. I'm not worried about what you believe, that's measured. You can measure the nearest stars using parallax, there are other methods for measuring the distance to further stars. Well, first of all, you assume the medium, you assume that we're moving and then you try to measure a difference. But if the stars were just moving, which I can cite many astrophysics will tell you, a neotyconic system will explain retrograde and parallax is very easy. Just for the audience, if you don't understand, parallax is the movement of stars throughout the course of the year. They're claiming that that happens because the earth is moving and the stars are not moving. Well, in reality, of course, the earth, if it's stationary and the stars move around the earth, if they were to change how they move, that would give us the same observation they're calling parallax. So why is that not possible? Sorry, the stars moving around the earth. Well, the nearest star is 4.2 light years, which means for the stars to rotate around the earth once in 24 hours, that nearest star will travel 26.39 light years in 24 hours. And something like the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2.2 million light years, would travel 1.38 times 10 to the 7 light years in 24 hours. It's not possible. I just rebutted that and said, you are assuming a medium in making assumptions. Why'd you skip that? Sorry, I missed that. What medium are you talking about? Yeah, you're assuming a near-perfect vacuum. Well, it is a near-perfect vacuum. We've been up there. Oh, you've been up there? You used a plural noun. Have you pronouned? Have you been up there? Can I just share my screen again in seconds? Sure. Is this where you show the gas pressure that needed a container? And then because of the disequilibrium and actually expanding to the available space, which actually debunks your model, would you like to address that you just appealed to the authority of NASA or some space agency? And you did assume the medium, and that's the only way you can make the claim about the distance of the stars and that parallax doesn't prove a geosynthetic earth wrong? I think, am I sharing now? Yep. Okay. Here's that balloon as it's about to be launched. That's me launching it. Okay. That balloon was mine. And in a second, you can see, as I turn around to the main experimental camera, there is me launching the balloon. It went up to... You know, you just... It went up. Please, Brian, please, Brian. I'm Brian. No, no. You can't just jump in on that, Brian. Yeah. So here it is. Sorry. At 38 and three-quarter kilometers, the atmospheric pressure has dropped from over 101,000 pascals to 256, 0.002% of the atmosphere. That's a pretty damn good vacuum. So my mage, which is sat right behind me, I can't show you because I'm sharing the screen, mage went up to that height down to that absolutely minuscule amount of atmospheric pressure. What, like 100,000 feet? It went, it's 38 and three-quarter kilometers. I forget what that is. Is it 24 miles? So you went 24 miles and that per star is 4.2 light years away. Yes, and... That's very interesting. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Jaren isn't here. Why are you saying interesting? Wait, let me get my word in real quick. Mr. Sessful, in my opener, and I tried cramming in a lot, but if you go back, anybody can go back in my opener. I showed Blue Horizons with lens correction, and it's 62 miles, and it's perfectly straight line across compared to your 20 miles. Bro, not big... And also, hold on, hold on. Hold on, I gave you time now. Now, also, I showed a 25-mile laser flash directly in the lens. You showed a 130-meter laser test. And conspiracy cats are custodies I also made a prediction that you were gonna claim that we're not gonna bring evidence. I wanted to give y'all a more advanced presentation, but just so you didn't claim we didn't bring evidence, I showed mirror flash test. I showed VHF waves traveling 1,000 miles. I showed long-distance laser tests. I mean, so we've made it. You still haven't answered Austin's first question. So where's the script? Answer his first question. Brian, you did bring lots of things, and that blue origin thing, I actually wrote down, that video has been debunked because it is stretched and compressed and the tops and bottoms are cut off. It is not original footage that has been edited by someone dishonest. Well, I just got one even higher than that from NASA. I got one even higher than that from NASA that I didn't have time to include. So each time you're high, I just showed you pictures. I just showed you a picture from 38 and three-quarter kilometers. In fact, video showing the curve of the Earth. It was only 200 meters short of Felix Baumgartner's jump, which drove me crazy. And what did he say when he was up there? He said he could see the curve. I know that you're gonna say that NDT says you can't see the curve, but he's wrong. Yeah, he's stupid. And I actually know someone that talked to Felix Baumgartner in person, asked him point blank, and he said, now that he started thinking about it, he actually didn't see the curvature of the Earth. I know someone that personally talked to him and the person that's gone out into the whole world to represent the globe, scientific communicator for the whole world as you would never see the curvature. You'd be two millimeters off a big beach ball. You'd never see the curve. Well, you say we would. And this is all a diversion, so the audience keeps up, right? They can't be intellectually honest about anything. They can't even admit that relativity says it can't prove the Earth is moving around the sun from the Earth. Now we've diverted to, oh, the stars this far away. How'd you know I went 100,000 feet in the air? That looks like a vacuum. We're supposed to be talking about the shape of the Earth, the shape of the Earth, Austin. The globe Earth model versus a flat stationary plane model. And with regard to that, you saw in my footage, you can see curve, it's only slight. And that's at 38 kilometers. It's hard to see. And probably if you're up there with the naked eye, it'd be really tough to see. It's easy to see in that because I can freeze the image. I can compress it to actually accentuate the curve. It doesn't change straight lines. So it's difficult that, I mean, yeah, we are quite close to a bloody curve. You literally say that it is. You said that it doesn't, it actually adds curvature to the edges. And then you said, look, but it matches it. And it literally didn't match. Everyone in the audience saw it, literally didn't match at all. It wasn't. I did say, I did say, Austin, that that predicts. That's your problem. That's right. But I did say that the prediction graphic provided by Andre Palma, thanks Andre, was for 39 kilometers. That image was taken at 35. So you wouldn't expect an exact match, but there is a very close correlation. And the fact is, what you're talking about with the distortion is barrel lens distortion, which means that anything across the middle in any direction remains undistorted. What gets distorted is straight lines above, below, to left or right. They get pushed out and up and down. That's why there's those reference line strings. And between those two strings, which are straight, that horizon, if it was flat, could not end up being more curved than the strings. Okay, if you show that again, I can't believe, you probably will recruit more flat earthers than me and Austin with that image. But can you show it again, please? Because I thought the horizon was equidistant in all directions from the observer. Yeah, let me just call it up again. There's so much wrong with this in every way. Welcome to flat earth. Yeah, sorry. Which bit, do you want Brian a bit? With the, sorry, not that one. That, is that what you wanted? Welcome to flat earth, sir. But you can see a curve there and you can see the atmosphere as well. Yeah, if you pan to the right, it's gonna start over, right? So you're gonna have like a rose-pedal earth? Or what you're gonna have, man? No, no. Do you not understand how a horizon works? It's equidistant around you. Here you go, then here is moving footage of it as you're rotating. Yeah, that's not halfway in the screen. You said it'd be distorted if it wasn't halfway in the middle. Yeah, but it... So why are you lying to everyone? Why are you showing things that you know are distorted? Austin, any distortion in the bottom of the screen would be downwards. It wouldn't be making it look concave. It depends on the angle of the camera. No, no, no, no. Yes. Let me show you. Here is, that is barrel distortion on the left. As you can see, towards the bottom, it would be bowed down. Towards the top, it'd be bowed up. Across the middle, it will be straight. If I tilted it up and down with a change, if I tilted the angle up and down with a change. If you tilt it down, you will be pulling it towards there. And so when I say, like, if you take, anyone can do this themselves just to prove that you're not telling the truth. You can take a camera outside and you can look at a sidewalk. And if you tilt it down, it'll impose curvature. So based on the angle of the view, all lenses, including rectilinear lenses, impose a curvature on the edges. And based on the movement of the lens, it will impose curvature. And it doesn't even match your prediction. There, the curvature will be, if it was across the top or the bottom, not across the middle. That is barrel distortion on the left. If you look across the middle, it's a straight line. It's not across the middle. If it's toward, that is pretty much down across the middle. Really, there's more earth than sky. Well, I mean, that, okay. So if you're saying that's straight, if you're saying that's a straight line that's being distorted by the lens, why isn't the straight string, which is above it, distorted more? Because that is further up the screen. Because when it's further away from you and you're looking at an angle, it's going to change what you view proportionate to. Yes. In addition to this, in addition to this, yeah, actually you would actually get the optical appearance of curvature or convexity based on like actual radius of light. So a circumference of light on the ground, like a circular circumference of light, and our eyes see in a circle and you're imposing curvature with your lenses admittedly, and it's not in the middle of the screen. So this is terrible. This is awful. This is no such thing. You obviously don't understand. Who cares about the left or right curvature there? Obviously, can I just step in for a second? Can I just step in for a second? Sorry, if I can just finish off. Okay, sorry, go to this. That's okay. That is not how optics work. Light is traveling to you or to the camera lens from the string. The light is traveling to the camera lens from that horizon. It hits the lens and then any distortion takes place. So the fact it's come from further away does not make it more distorted. And your example of pointing down to the pavement, yes, I know what you mean, towards the edges of a picture, any straight lines would have a certain amount of distortion. But across the middle, it won't. Thanks, Cass. Would the angle change based on distance? Yes or no? So, we'll say, and Brian, both of you. So easy. This is so easy. Sorry, which I was, I'm sorry that... It's okay, Mr. Adham, go ahead. Introduce you there. So we, basically, this is why these debates really aren't debates, they're more entertainment, which is fine, I'm happy to be part of entertainment because you're clearly being shown the curvature of the earth, which is being referenced against two taut, very straight strings. And obviously it doesn't show, when you look at that image, it doesn't show what you wanted to show. So we enter the flat earth world then of just making up as much bullshit as we possibly can by saying, well, there must be some amazing coincidental effect on that taut bit of string, which is making it look straight. It must just be in the perfect position to be made to look straight. Self-history. Again, not finished yet. Against that curved horizon. It just must be. And yet you've applied absolutely zero reason for why I would say that, zero evidence for why you'd say that, zero mass for why you'd say that, zero understanding of why you'd say that. You've literally just said, it must be. And this is like summing up all flat earth arguments in one go. We look at boats across the horizon, you've got flat earthers out there saying, no, it's cause our eyes are round. Things this way cause they're out, or there must be some ether band. Or that you have an internet band. You have an internet band. Give me 10 more seconds. I'm not finished yet, Brian. Give me 10 more seconds. This is just pure selfish. Give me another 30 seconds. Give me another 30 seconds. Does it debating now? I'm finished yet. You're a sophist. I wanna give another 30 seconds. I'll start again. Yeah, I'm gonna keep starting with it. So essentially the point is this, if we're gonna actually have an adult debate, what you've actually got to is bring adult arguments. And the arguments you're bringing literally are at the level of a child who's saying, no, it's not my bedtime yet. No, no, it's not. Cause I've won my clock back five minutes. So I've got another five minutes. That is a level of argument. So up your game a little bit. What's your problem, dude? Brian, I had you on mute. Hi, Brian. Oh, seriously, all right. Sadly, I can't believe I have to do this, but once in a while I actually have to change the settings so that people can't unmute themselves. So I gotta do this, Brian, cause you just unmuted yourself. So seriously, come on. Work with me here. Okay, that setting is different. So any, looks like that was about all you needed. And then with it, we'll kick it back to you. Sounds like you wanted to speak. And I'm asking you to unmute. Yeah, see the reason people are interrupting him is because he's just ad-homing people from the very beginning of the debate. All conspiracy cats has is ad-homs and sophistry. The whole audience can see it. Now he knows that the like zealous base here to defend the globe are gonna love it and eat it up. And that's all he's catering to. But this is just incredibly distasteful. Your entire response was to just chant and to ad-hom me and your entire opener to this moment. Now what I actually said, when you said I had no arguments, I explained many arguments that went directly over Mr. Sensible's head, including that something further in the distance would have a different angle to view based on some of the strings close to the view. This is objective. Secondly, he claimed if it's right in the middle of the screen, it would be flat. And then he showed multiple examples of it not being in the middle of the screen. And thirdly, everyone can check rectilinear lenses impose curvature. That's not the same as oh, whatever you said. All you're doing is being a sophist and using ad-homs and constant fallacies. This is why it's hard to sit here and listen to baseless chanting and insults insistently since the debate has started. That's why you got interrupted and that's what you're gonna respond with. I think what we've got to do- And you can't even admit and agree with Einstein and Stephen Hawking right out of the gate. I mean, that's weird. So I think what we've got to do, thanks for that, Brian. I think what we've got to do is establish some kind of a minimum standard for the arguments we're gonna present. Mr. Sensible has put a weather balloon in the earth. He's shown you the curve of the earth. He's referenced it against taught straight strings. And you've looked at that and then straight off the back of your head, you've said, well, there must be some sort of distortion which is happening to the curve of the earth but not the string. And I don't really know what it is but it must be there because the earth must be flat. So I'm just gonna say there is. Now you can have a go at me and say that's ad-hom all you want. But that is exactly what you're doing. I'm not gonna pretend that you've offered anything that's anything like a scientific argument there. What you've literally done is look at it and go, no, I'm not accepting that. So I'm just gonna say that, you know, the fairies did it. That's literally what you've just done. Is that what I said? Hold on, he put up a balloon, hold on. He put up a balloon. I surveyed down the coast a mile and a half and nothing was changing at all. So I just gave up. I do level for a living. I've worked in auto level for over 30 years. He put up a balloon. This is what I do for a living, bro. Okay, wait, wait, wait. I gotta respond. Okay, you just did the same exact thing after being called up. You have no shame. You just strawmen me and said that I said fairies did it. You probably, if I could give you 10 grand right now, you probably couldn't even say what I actually said and I said it three times. I know you don't know what it is because you can't debate this. You're projecting right now. Wait, wait, I'm gonna repeat it again. The angle of view changes relative to distance. The strings are closer than the horizon. Now actually rebut it. Actually rebut it. Yeah, well saying the angle of view changes with distance makes absolutely no impacts on your argument whatsoever because if your claim of the earth is flat and then that horizon is literally gonna be almost infinitely far away, isn't it? In all directions. Why are we getting that curved horizon? It makes you don't understand it. You don't understand the rebuttal. So just admit you don't understand the rebuttal. Because you don't make any sense. Okay, let me help you out here. Let me help you out here. Wait, it doesn't make sense. If you took one of those strings and took a shot with horizon where it's near the strings, those light rays are both hitting the lens at the same point. They would be bent or refracted to the same degree. That doesn't happen. Dude, view of view will change what looks like curvature. Everyone in the audience can prove you guys wrong by taking a camera out and just looking at a sidewalk. And as you tilt it up and down, the curvature rate changes. If you tilt it more down, it becomes more in motion. Hold on, don't interrupt. It becomes more exaggerated. The angle of view becomes more exaggerated. I just wanna make sure the audience understands. It becomes more exaggerated as you tilt to different angles. So you're going lower and lower in the distance looking at the optical appearance of a horizon. So it has a different angle. So thus it's not going to in any way be comparable to strings right in front of it with a different angle. And you're just saying, uh-uh, and using ad-hons and soapistry. That's all you have. Okay, okay. Forget the camera. Wait, are y'all trying to read the claim for GMAG? No, no, no, Austin. That's the bone that will come right over to you, Brian. Yeah, Austin, I disagree with you 100% on that, but forget the camera, right? That mage was fitted with two GPS trackers and broadcast its position. When we were launching, the only site that could pick up that signal, which was only a couple of watts was us. As it went higher, it was picked up by tracking stations because people who are in the high-altitude balloon community track them and then send all the data back to a central server. As it went higher, then sites further and further and further away had line of sight on the balloon. At 38 kilometers, the radio horizon it could reach was approximately 400 miles. When it was on the ground, it was within a mile. Now, there is no reason that that should happen apart from things like hills. And as far as I'm aware, in the middle of England, there are no hills 38 kilometers tall blocking the signal from getting any further. So you have a growing horizon, depending on your height, evidence by radio signals. So forget the camera. That still shows it's a globe Earth. You got it exactly backwards, hold on real quick. From that distance, you should have got seven and a half degrees. Forget the left and right curvature. From the ground to where the atmosphere runs out, you should have been 45 miles. Now, from that distance, the horizon is a function of distance. Are y'all trying to reclaim the geometric horizon? Because every globe I've talked to has admitted that it's refraction and not geometric. Y'all trying to reclaim that? Brian, can I ask you a question? At the beginning of the debate, you brought up me bringing up honesty with flat soil. You didn't answer mine, sir. It's opistry. More sophistry. Are we trying to reclaim? Well, the whole idea of this geometric horizon that the Nathan Oakley pushes is a ridiculous childish argument. So I know reclaim, like reclaim a geometric horizon. I mean, we all know what goes on with the horizon. There is a horizon. We see it, refraction can happen. Just like refraction happens when light travels through your eyes. You're looking at your phone now. The light from your phone is refracting through your cornea, refracting through your lens. Every time you look at something, there's a refraction there. So are we gonna claim if you've got a geometric phone and a non-geometric phone, are we gonna take it to that childish level? You know, it's a silly argument. But at the beginning of the debate, you said to me that you were gonna talk about honesty. You wanted to talk about honesty. I'm just gonna ask you a question. Wait, was that a yes or no? Was that a yes or no? Just 30 seconds, we'll come right back. I'll take 10 seconds. That's all it is. Do you think the video that Mr. Sensible has shown you about mage is what we would expect to see on a flat earth? Simple yes or no? Welcome to Flat Earth. Indeed so. Flat Earth, indeed so. So, okay. So Mr. Sensible, you can show that again, obviously, and we'll have a look at the flat earth, I suppose. I think we should leave it up on screen. I'll say we leave it up on screen. So you've never answered yes or no? Sorry, who are you talking to? Both of y'all, y'all trying to reclaim is the horizon you're observing. Is it geometrical? Have y'all reclaimed the geometry? Of course there is a geometric horizon, but you see an apparent horizon because of the refraction. But this was not optical. I'm talking about radio signals. The fact was, as it went higher, the line of sight, that's not visual, the line of sight, the radio waves could hit stations further and further away up to about 400 miles away when mage was at its higher height. Had mage been able to go higher, it could have reached even further. But why not talk about something different? Why don't you guys do something? Why don't you go to the South Pole and film the midnight sun in midwinter? Or rather, according to you, it wouldn't be the case. Why don't you go and do something like that? Okay, well, I wanted to... All right, first off, so the height of the balloon, you say you're roughly about 20 miles. 24. In the distance with your earth curvature, forget the left and right curve, you should be 45, it should be 45 miles from the ground to the edge of the atmosphere because of the 25 miles of earth curvature over 400 miles distance. But I'm still wondering, Austin, did they ever answer your opening question? Did they ever give you an honest answer? Because they're throwing, I don't get it, man. What you say, Austin, did they ever give you an answer, an actual answer to the first question you asked? Austin? Oh, Austin, we can't hear you if you can hear me. I don't think I muted you, but I just... Yeah, I just naturally, I naturally muted myself back, so I didn't... Gotcha. Yeah, like this is the thing, so just everyone's seen it. So from the beginning, everything that's happened is as you guys get destroyed, you never can see it, you just divert away to a different fallacy and different begging the question, diversion, ad hominem, sophistry, blah, blah, blah. But we started off with, you actually can't prove that the earth is moving around the sun. This is objective based on relativity. I brought this up to show the audience that our opponents are not capable of being intellectually honest. They can only chant and use scripts and then like use sophistry and blah, blah, blah. So if you guys, I'll give you another opportunity because then we talked about the camera, you thought I'd prove the curvature, then we got real quick to when we had to throw that out real quick. So we destroyed you on both those points. Brian just destroyed you again, but the first point is can you guys admit that relativity says you cannot prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth because time expands and slows down and matter contracts? Can you please admit that? That's what relativity says. Absolutely, honesty, Austin, I can either confirm or deny it because I don't know enough about that. Can I ask you a follow up? Don't you think that if you want to have- Sorry, just one second, Austin. I failed to see Brian why it's funny if someone says I don't know about something. Because that's the most important question because if you don't know about something, you can learn about something. Anybody who wants to come debate us, go to Earth Awakening's Discord if you want to debate any of our points, but it's a litmus test in there. We asked, because many of Glober's come in and the ones who are perfectly honest, maybe you could plead the fifth on this one. I have nothing against you, but a lot of them will be honest and say, and admit that yeah, there's no way to know for sure. Go on with your follow up, please, they'll agree with Einstein. Okay, okay, can we chill, Brian, please? So this is the point, okay? The reason I bring it up is because you could have said that from the jump, right? As soon as I asked you, you could have said it. But I appreciate you saying it now, but this is my follow up. It's like, if that's the case, right? Then how is it that you can be so incredibly sure about your belief system? Because it's kind of like someone telling me the Bible's real. And then I tell them, did you know Genesis 6 says there were giants and that angels came and had sex with women and made giants? And you're like, the Bible doesn't say that? I'm like, really? You want to go look at it? Well, I've never read Genesis, but I know it's real and I know you're wrong. It's weird. I don't have a belief system. Relativity is required for the globe Earth model. It is required, okay? It is the fundamental glue. So you shouldn't understand it if you're going to believe it. I know it's to a layman's level, but why is relativity required for the Earth to be a globe? Well, if you want to pretend that it's a stationary globe, then we can throw movement out. If you want, you know, and then we can move on. Why can't it move and be a globe? Well, that's what the debate's about. But if you think- I think you need to show some evidence. If I can't do it, what? Why can't it be a globe that moves? Why do you have to invoke relativity? Okay, let me tell you. But actually, relativity has been shown because it was- You're not submitted, you don't know what it is. No, I didn't say I don't know what relativity is, but I am not a subject matter expert in it. But what I do know is that Einstein made predictions and Sir Arthur Eddington in 1916 or 17 tested the- Sorry? 1990. Was it? Okay. It took images of the stars, which were or should have been apparently behind the sun, but they could be seen beside the sun because the light had been bent due to the warping of space-time. Yeah, that's the idea. It's called a begging the question fallacy, though. But this is the point. No, no, no, that was- Exactly backwards, you're backwards, bro. Arthur Eddington. That was an observation. Arthur Eddington. That was an observation that fulfilled a prediction made by Einstein. Okay, you're asking a bunch of questions, right? So first of all, it's well-known and it's been proven. They actually threw out, so that the prediction was like 1.98 arc seconds. They got observations that were 0.83 arc seconds or 0.97 arc seconds closer to the 0.83 arc seconds predicted by Newtonian dynamics and they threw those out and it's actually been proven. But whatever, none of that matters. Arthur Eddington himself said what I'm saying right now, which is it appears that the velocity of the earth might happen to have been nil in response to Mickelson Morley, which is what made Einstein come up with special relativity in the first place, which you put as the first slide in your thing, which was him explaining that he came up with relativity to explain away Mickelson Morley. That was the whole point. There's the quote, there was just one alternative. The earth's true velocity through space might have happened to have been nil. This was ruled out, this is the bit you don't say, this was ruled out by repeating experiments six months later since the earth's motion could not be nil on both occasions. So what does that mean? Well, how was it, what was it ruled out doing what? You know? Oh, do you not know what it's it? I do, but I know that you don't know. Well, explain it. I know you don't know. Explain it. You've been saying over and over again that relativity says that the earth can't be moving around the sun. You've said that over and over again. Now, Mr. Sensible is showing you the full quote. You've been pretending to be an expert on this. No, no, no, no. Just for one second, for one, no, Brian, I haven't finished yet. Just for 10 seconds, can I screen show? Then I'll take it off. Just for 10 seconds. Wait, wait, wait. Neither one of you know what that means. Neither one of you guys know what it means. I haven't finished yet. I haven't finished yet. It means you cherry picked. But what does it mean then? For 10 seconds, I haven't finished yet, which is it? I haven't finished yet. Because I'm coming straight to you for an answer. So we're going to allow him to continue to ad-harm me the whole entire debate. For those 10 seconds, sorry, for these 10 seconds, I'm just going to remind everybody about this prediction at the beginning. Because you've been talking about relativity as if you were an absolute master of it and you knew all about it and you know why it proves the earth can't, why we can't use it to prove the earth is moving around the sun. This is exactly what I said. You are going to be asked to explain things that you have said coherently in detail and you're going to get angry and refuse to do so. This is the bit of the debate where you refuse to explain to Mr. Sensible why relativity says the earth can't be moving. So everyone in the chat can see you now. Shut up, Brian. Everyone in the chat now can listen to you, refuse to answer Mr. Sensible's question. Go ahead, I'll stop for you in two minutes. This is of course what actually happened. As I went to answer, you interrupted me to then pull up your same third grade level rudimentary screen that ad-homs me because you couldn't debate me if I chugged a bottle of Jameson conspiracy cats. Let's be honest, you can never debate me. It's very- We're still waiting for the answer, mate. We're still waiting for the answer. No, no, no, no, you get the ad-hom me uninterrupted. So this is the point. Yeah, I explained, I understand relativity, you don't comprehend it. Now I asked you since you act like that- We're still waiting for the answer. The answer is that relativity claims that because I've already told you the answer five times, maybe you should- We're still waiting for the answer. Maybe you should- You haven't answered any of his questions. Just let him expose himself as the clown that he is, okay? So this is the problem because we're just cats. Say something again. You can't help yourself, you're getting destroyed. So I told you the answer already five times, which is relativity says that time physically expands and slows down. So any attempt to use a clock to measure the velocity of the earth around the sun would be a futile pursuit. In addition to that, matter contracts when in motion. So you can't use a physical apparatus to measure the distance. Do you understand that? So what you've done is you've read out that same statement a couple of times. What I'm asking you is why does that mean that we cannot be on an earth move? So you've said, well, it's something to do with matter contracting and time, but you haven't explained, and this is where we're gonna push you on now and it's gonna fall apart and you'll get angry. You haven't explained why that means we can't measure the movement of the earth around the sun. That was their only explanation to keep the earth in motion around the sun. I got it, I got it. So the truth is we all, everyone can tell you don't understand this, okay? But the point is that during Mickelson Morley, so the audience understands, they shot two lasers, okay? Using interferometry, one went with the motion, the alleged motion of the earth, going 20 miles a second around the sun, really like 18.97 or whatever. And then another laser going against the motion of the earth that was assumed, okay? So they were perpendicular to each other. The laser going against the motion of the earth would have had to catch up to the earth, right? To get to the receiver. So the other one would have had to go with the earth and the other one had to fight against the motion of the earth and catch up to the earth to get the receiver. Now what, so there should have been a separation between the two lasers because one would have been behind the other having to catch up to the earth. What it actually showed was that the laser got to the receiver at the same time, damn near, like pretty much the same. And then Einstein said the reason it wasn't exactly the same was instrumental error, okay? He was trying to prove the existence of luminiferous. It took him 22 years to come up with that explanation. And he was trying to prove the existence of luminiferous ether and he failed. No, so you don't understand it, but it's okay. So actually- Well, let's move on to something else, are we? Yeah, let's move on because I'm almost done. I'm gonna, he said, I don't understand why that you're self-projecting your own intellectual inefficiency. Well, you don't understand why. So maybe you need to be exposed. So actually- The fact that a ring-glazed gyroscope works. The fact that it actually works. You're freaking out. Would you like to concede- The fact that it actually works. The fact that it actually works. The fact that it actually works. I'll give you, I'll give you, I'll give you, let's give Wits at 30 seconds and then we'll kick it right over to you. Baldi gets. So in conclusion, Einstein had to propose relativity to say even though it actually took longer for that laser to get there, because it had to travel a further distance, time slowed down and the apparatus measuring the distance shrink. So it just magically looked like it was the same and that it didn't take longer to travel a further distance. And that is still needed to this day. It's completely independent of ether. Einstein threw the ether out, but still kept Lorentz contraction, which he got from Lorentz who thought it was ether. So that's the answer and that's why it's still the same theory it is today because without that, you have no way to tell if the earth is moving or not. You have to claim that you can never prove it. Cool. Can I have my, I'll just stop 30 seconds, just screen share and then bounce back on. So basically what you're saying is all Lorentz contraction means that we can never measure if the earth is moving or not. And then you said, so therefore we can't use a ring laser gyroscope, which Brian has already admitted earlier in the debate that ring laser gyroscores actually work. Essentially ring laser gyroscores like we've got here, we have two beams alike. One will take the clockwise path, one will take the anti-clockwise path. And if there's no movement, there's no rotation of that ring. Both of them will hit the end point at the same time and produce a particular diffraction pattern. However, if it's starting to rotate, so here it's starting to rotate clockwise, what we can see is the one on the right moving anti-clockwise is going to hit that screen earlier. The one on the left is going to hit it a little bit later. We get a change in that diffraction pattern because this, and we use, you know, because there is rotation going on and we can use it to put it on the earth. Like Bob Nadelle says, thanks, Bob, 15 degrees, Bob. We can use these to measure the rotation of the earth. So you can say that it can't be measured, but we have devices here that Brian, thank you, Brian, said that it works. And so thank you for saying it works, Brian, that has actually measured the rotation of the earth. So you can say over and over again that because you've heard about Luen's contraction, and you know some fancy words, that there's no rotation of the earth. So you're gonna bring up the same device that Michelson literally invented. Michelson invented this, then perfected it, and you're gonna bring it up to try and do both. No, no, no, no, no, no. It's a red herring phallus that we're talking about. Revolution around the sun, not rotation. I've already told you that. Please try to keep up. So do you accept that the earth rotates then? Do you accept that the earth rotates? No, no, no. I accept that we detects ideal rotation because it actually was originally done in Michelson-Gell-Pearson with a 98% prediction of sidereal rotation. I know this is not just words. That makes sense, because you don't know things. Okay? So yeah. There's a sidereal rotation. There's a sidereal rotation, but it's actually a ring-lace and a sharp-scratch. A ring-lace and sharp-scratch. Just to be a little in-changer, I want you to hold on a second, gentlemen. We can't hear anybody if people are speaking over each other. So we do have to give it a two minutes, and then we'll come right back to you. Okay, I'm gonna unmute. Who was it? I think it was Austin, not Brian, right? Okay, go ahead, Austin. All right, so Michelson-Gell-Pearson, which performed many years like in 1935, that's many years after 87, it did match the sidereal rotation prediction with a 98%. But using that same methodology, interferometry, to try to detect the motion of the earth around the sun, it didn't detect it, okay? So the only viable alternative is there is a sidereal rotation, which everyone observes it, okay? Everyone knows that the sun moves in the sky every day. Everyone knows that. The question is, is the sun moving in the sky, or is the earth actually moving the sun sitting still? It just looks like that. So yes, we don't deny a sidereal rotation, all right? We deny you're begging the question fallacy where you reify that it's the earth moving, and it just looks like the stuff in the sky is moving. Okay, so the fact that you detect motion means nothing. Sagnac effect is what ring laser gyros utilize. Sagnac said it was a vortex in the ether. We took it to different altitudes at the same latitude, and that showed a variation in the degrees, which is impossible on a globe. It has to stay the same latitude, and this is all diversion away from the revolution. Diversion. They still haven't answered your first, second, or third question. This is ridiculous. And then I meant to click on mute on everybody, so in case it doesn't bring up a window. Otherwise, Mr. Sensible. Okay, I'll say that ring laser gyroscopes, yes, as Kat said, shows 15 degrees per hour rotation. Thanks again, Bob. But it also detects the orbit of the earth as well. Really? We are not listening. Can I just say that I just want to summarize just what's happened so far, just so we all know. What's happened so far, just two things. Mr. Sensible has shown the mage going up into the earth, and he's shown that curve of the horizon against that fixed-tort string. And the only way that can be possible clearly, according to the Flat Earth proponents here, is that there's just the perfect amount of distortion to make it look that way. There's just the perfect amount that can't be explained. It's just so coincidental. It's the perfect amount. We then talked about the ring laser gyroscope, and again, both Whitsitt and Brian have admitted that we detect rotation with the ring laser gyroscope. But again, even though we detect it, it can't be rotation. Certainly it can't be. It must be something else. So we've seen the horizon of the earth. We've seen it against tort string, and you've got some sort of, well, whatever reason for it. And you've got some sort of whatever reason for the rotation of the earth. And this is why I said before that these debates are for entertainment, they're getting destroyed. Thank you. Oh, my God. So why are you bragging about winning? You just got destroyed for the first 30 seconds. I think that's a really good one, mate. Austin, you watch it. Let's kick it over to Mr. Sensible. Mr. Sensible is trying to speak. Thank you. Austin, why don't you go to Antarctica and either find the edge or find the dome or film the sun not being a midnight sun in the middle of winter? Okay, so it's illegal to privately and freely explore Antarctica unless you get prior approval and the United States where I'm from, you actually have to give them a three months heads up and it has to be approved and you have to give them a specific route and they have to approve where you're going. That was a diversion away from the fact that you've been getting destroyed on every single point that you've brought up. You guys, this is the reason that these are debates are only valuable on the internet where the audience can see. Because you guys see, if we were to talk about the one point we talked for five hours before they conceded, you're now diverting away again. You could just say, yes, we can't prove the earth's moving around the sun. We can move on. We detect rotation and we can question is it the sky moving or is it the earth moving? But we don't have honest conversation. So I just explained why I haven't been to Antarctica and that's a ridiculous question if anyone actually reads the- Hold on real quick, Mr. Sensible, real quick. I'm actually responding to it. Responding to it. Let me just add something real quick. I've been pretty quiet. He put it way too easily. Really, you have to do an environmental report which at a minimum is gonna cost you around 200 grand. And also it's gotta run through not one country but multiple countries. You have to give a report. You can't bring gasoline. You can't bring dogs. You have to bag your own shit. So yeah, we can go down there if you want to bag your own shit and report to all these countries and if you're a gajillionaire. So it's way easier than he even said. So drop that argument, please. I have, don't drop the argument. I've heard Austin say on countless debates you cannot go beyond the 60th parallel. It's illegal. There is Article 6 of the Antarctic Treaty. The provisions of the present treaty shall apply to the area south of 60 degrees south of the latitude including all ice shells but nothing in the present treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights or exercise of the rights of any state under international law with regard to the high seas within that area. You can read the Antarctic Treaty. It's about four pages of A4. It's 16 articles. It'll take you about 10 minutes. I checked with the UK government requirements for visiting Antarctica. And it says at the bottom the Antarctic Treaty does not prevent tourists, military personnel or scientific researchers from being present. But they do require an appropriate permit from a treaty party. So yes, you have to receive, you have, if I can finish, you have to receive a permission much like a visa for certain countries. Yes, you're not allowed to or you need to inform them about certain things you may do like storing fuel. Yes, you have the bag up your arse. You perfectly, it is perfectly legal for anyone to go there. Yes, you have to jump through certain hoops. Yes, it'll cost you a lot of money because you're going to need a hell of a lot of insurance because if you get into trouble because it's a very dangerous place, you're going to need rescuing and it's not like just calling for a pickup, you know, a recovery truck. So I wish I'll just finish off. So I expect, because I've heard Austin told countless times that the treaty does not say you can't go beyond the 60th. I have now just shown treaty article six which confirms, yeah, please let me finish Brian, which confirms that. So I expect to never, ever, ever see Austin ever say again that you can't go to Antarctica. Okay, now I'm going to respond. Austin, shit, you're good, good. So I said it very specifically and you know what I said. You know what I said. I said, you cannot freely and privately explore past the 60th South latitude. You then bring up a piece of legislation that literally says what I said it says, which is you can't freely and privately explore that area. It says that if you want to go into the water around that area, it doesn't necessarily prohibit as much as when you get to the land, you have to give three months advance to the United States. You can't bring external fuel supply, external water supply, and you have to give them your route. They have to look at your route and approve it. And guess what? As it pertains to this conversation, it would be north to south circle navigation that would prove there's a globe. You go over Antarctica, you pop back up on the other side of a globe. Okay, as it pertains to that route, directly over the center of Antarctica, it's already let known to everyone that's off limits. That route will not be approved as too dangerous. They don't have the infrastructure to rescue you if something happens to you. So when I say you cannot freely and privately explore past the 60th South latitude, that is objective. You need to freely go to 14 countries to take that route. You can't freely travel to North Korea. You have to jump through an awful lot of hoops, many countries like that. The reason these, the articles are in place is in order to protect the environment and to prevent exploitation and military using the continent. Anybody can go there, but you have to follow the agreed rules. So I see you have to get past me. So is me taking a shit, is me taking a shit there? I haven't skipped past anything, Austin. I'll just show you. You should get past what I said. As it pertains to this conversation, you would actually be needing to go over the middle of Antarctica and come back up on the other side of North Korea. So you're doing North South from navigation. That's illegal. Have you ever heard of one more orbit? Yeah, I'm not believing you're clean. Someone did it. All right, so it's illegal unless someone's done it in which case it's a fairytale. Oh, do you have proof of conspiracy cats? Cause I actually researched it. You don't even know what it is. Have you actually researched it? Oh, what have I? Why are you talking? What Mr. Sensible has. Oh, so you don't actually know what you're talking about. This is coming from the man who says there's the perfect amount of distortion to keep that string tore and the horizon curved. This is coming from the man who agrees that a ring laser gyroscope proves rotation, but there has to be some other reason for it being other than the earth moving. This is coming from the man who claims that relativity, that we can't move the earth around the sun, but when asked to explain it, you simply just say matter contracts and something to do with time so we can't use a clock, but you won't actually articulately explain it in detail as I merely did in the debate. And this is the same, 10 more seconds, Brian, 10 more seconds. And this is coming from the man who also, we've been at this debate now for an hour, neither one of you actually have brought any evidence whatsoever. As I predicted at the beginning of this debate, neither one of you brought any evidence whatsoever that the earth is any shape other than a globe. What you've tried to do is pick holes and try and pick complex areas where, oh, I might be able to catch him out on this and catch him out on that. But again, you've offered nothing to show. You talked about honesty. You talked about honesty. Did Austin say that the ring laser gyro detected earth rotation? And I'm so glad that you both have made the, you just said the answer to the question. Let's give him a chance to respond, Brian. I'm so glad that you've just admitted the earth rotates. Thank you. The most dishonest person I've ever debated. And James, you know I've been on here dozens of times. This guy has hands down. Look, I can destroy everything he's saying. First of all, he's claiming, oh, there's just a perfect distortion as such an illusion. How convenient. The ironic part is it's the globe that claims that. When we see the horizons too far, illusion. Whenever we see that there's things way too far or distance not obstructed. Illusion. When we shot the interferometry lasers and it was didn't match the globe prediction going around the sun. Illusion. Oh, the cell and million eclipse just happened and the sun and the moon were both above the horizon in the sky at the same time, which is impossible on a globe. It's an illusion. Everything that happens is a magical illusion. And this is literally what Stephen Hawking is writing about in stubbornly persistent illusion. So the irony of you to claim we claim perfect distortion. And no, it doesn't have to be perfect because Mr. Sensible's prediction didn't even match what's in the picture. And we explained why it isn't true. So Mr. Sensible couldn't actually address the angles changing base relative to distance. So then he had to just throw it out. You've been destroying every point. And then he asked you, did I say that this ideal rotation detected is the earth rotation? And you couldn't answer because you know that I didn't say that. Brian said it was. Brian said it was. Thanks, Brian. No, he didn't. No, he literally said that. Did he literally say that? No one could wind back and he literally said that. This is bad, bro. This is probably the worst I've ever said. When he talked about magical, magical. Magical is in believing in Atlantis though that the ISS is an Egyptian God. Is that what you mean? Which is why I'm never trying to discredit his character. I'm a dishonest man in my life. I have never debated a more dishonest man in my life. Why are you trying to discredit him personally because you can't actually go into actually dispute the arguments? If I can share my screen just for 10 seconds. Bro, you're not. You're not just trying to do more ad-homs, dude. I thought you used to be a teacher. You don't know what ad-homs are. Am I showing my screen? I can't see. You know what ad-homs and fallacies are? Is my screen on? Nope, not yet. Conspiracy guys, can you help me out here? Do you know what an ad-hom fallacy is? He's going to show my screen. We are now. No, there's on the bottom in the middle. He's going to punch below the belt right now. There's using it. He's going to show the bottom. Hold on, Brian, is either in the middle, in the middle on the bottom or the middle at the top, there's a screen share button that should show. Oh, I haven't hit the screen share. That's what I'm doing. And what it's just so you can just say, Austin, please stop saying the prediction didn't match that image. I told you the prediction was what it would be at 39 kilometers. I could only match it up against 35 kilometers for a shot that was applicable. So it was not expected to be an exact match, but that was showing how close it was, even though it was four kilometers short of the prediction height. Why wouldn't you just change the math to match it? Because it was an image that an independent party had provided me. So you can't do the math? No, I'm not a mathematician. So there you go. I'm honest. Okay. I'll give you that. I'll give him that. At least he's being honest. Well, yeah, but there's no evidence. There's no evidence it matches the curvature. If you lay it over, it doesn't even match. And even if it did, it doesn't matter. And this is actually the diversion. Look, look, look. Your teammate is about to ad-hom us again. Do you understand how bad it looks that all he has is logical fallacies? I told you at the beginning of the debate exactly what was going to happen and what has happened has happened so far. You're incompetent. You've tried to pick. You've tried to pick holes in the globe by talking about complex things. But when you actually pressed on it, you really couldn't explain why. When you were pressed on relativity and why that means that we can't prove the earth moves around the sun, you literally just said, and anyone can wind back and listen to this. You literally talked about matter contracting and a clock and you couldn't go any deeper. And I will give you the floor after this. So you can go deeper, but you won't go deeper into it. If I do it now, go deeper into it, Austin. Go deeper into it, Austin. Okay, I explained, I did already go deeper into it. I explained to Mickelson morally, which is actually the very observation experiment that motivated him to come up with relativity, which claims matter contracts and time to expand. And I've explained it four times and you're going to pretend it didn't happen. So no worry in what you just said there. Have you explained why that means the earth can't move around the sun? What we want is a link between, what we want is a link between what you're saying and the conclusion you've made. The conclusion you've made is that relativity means that the earth can't move around the sun or we can't prove, we can't prove sorry that it goes on the sun. And then you're saying, Mickelson morally, matter contracts, time, but you're not linking the two. Just like I said at the very beginning, you're not going to be articulate and explaining detail. I'm going to hold you, tell us to the point. And you're going to get really wound up, but really explain, and I want you at the end of your answer to be, this is why we cannot prove the earth goes down the sun. Can you say anything, Austin? Can you? Brian, chill, dude. Let's go to Austin. So I already did that. I said that based on Mickelson morally, the intersection of the perpendicular light rays, the one going against the motion of the earth would have to be behind the other laser, but that's not what happened. So in order to explain Mickelson morally, which showed that the earth wasn't moving and the laser wasn't catching up to the earth, they had to say that the measuring apparatus was physically contracting and time was expanding because of the interferometry not measuring the alleged 20 mile a second orbit of the earth. Your entire argument, your entire argument, because you started off by saying relativity says, we can't determine that the earth is moving around the sun. But actually what it turns out is your entire argument is limited to that one inframeter that Mr. Sensible is already showing the quote about saying that it was repeated six months later and it ruled out a stationary. It's not linked to any observation. It's not linked to anything other than that one little piece of kit in that one of experiment. Are you wanna see enough to admit that? The same exact principle. Are you wanna see enough to admit that? The same principle still applies. If you replicate Mickelson morally today, the same thing happened. Well, they did it six months later and it disagreed. No, six months later it's still so. Are you wanna see enough to admit that you just talked about that one piece of kit? I can't hear either of you. Sorry. Six months later it still showed that it did not match the predicted. The only reason it brings up six months that's in a different part of the elliptical orbit. He doesn't know that. He just added to it and thinks it contradicts me. Keep reading the next paragraph, Mr. Sensible. Then you'll start to understand it's about the elliptical orbit of the sun. What the point is that Mickelson morally is the same today. The Air Force did it in 87. So this is why it's called the greatest failed experiment in history by any physicist that knows what they're talking about which you clearly do not. And that is that that has to be happening if the earth is moving around the sun. Time has to be expanding. Matter has to be contracting. It's not just Mickelson morally. It's anytime you use a clock, anytime you measure time, anytime you use any type of matter, anytime you use any type of measurement device, okay? That's why you can't do it. That's what relativity says. So what you're saying essentially is your entire argument is based on that one piece of kit. You're ruling out all of the observations that anyone can make ever because they don't apply. And again, will you be honest enough? Yes or, all you've got to do is say yes or no. Will you be honest enough to say that your entire argument though is based on that one piece of kit being done. That's a straw man because unless you can come on. No, it's not. It's a yes or no. Are you honest enough? No, it is a straw man. The whole chat listening now, waiting for that yes or no. I'll waste it now. That's called a loaded question, okay? It's called a lot of, it's like saying. So for the chat, that's a yes. That's a yes. How long have you stopped beating your wife? Have you got experience in wife beating? Do you understand that? Do you understand that? Why would you be like, is that something that your mind goes to? You don't understand? You see that your mind always, you're asking a loaded question. You said, are you honest enough to admit and then went on to say a straw man? You're not even supposed to logically competent. Well, let's move on to something else guys. Let's move on. Let's move on. Let's move on. Let's move on. Did I ever see evidence for a flat earth in my opener? Did I present evidence? No, please let's have a look. Did I not predict you'd say that I didn't? I just wasted half of my presentation showing you evidence you've seen where an empire state building is supposed to be in between me and the laser. I'm showing it shine into the camera and you're still denying that is even evidence. Right, refraction is the thing. You guys have mentioned geometric horizon and so on and refraction. I can show you right now seeing beyond a geometric horizon, just using refraction. I can show you. I showed. This will take a few seconds if I just quickly share this. Is it this one? Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude to you Mr. Sensible. What we've got is a ball with a tack on it and you can see the top of the base of the tack is perfectly in line with the geometric horizon. In the top right corner, we've got a second camera watching over the entire experiment. So you've got my phone camera, the ball with the tack on and in the far distance on the bottom of the window ledge, you can just see a little bit of white. That's another tack with a bit of white paper. Now what happens is I introduce refraction. I introduce a lens between the ball and the camera and we'll see it come down and you can see the tack. You can see the geometric horizon and as I change the refraction you can see way beyond and in fact you can see the white paper behind it. That's the equivalent of the sun or the moon being lifted up by refraction. That is the equivalent of your black swan seeing past the towers because of refraction. I have not changed the position of the camera. I've not changed the settings of the camera. I've introduced refraction. It's a real thing. And that also debunks your whole black swan thing if you were going to bring that up. So don't bother. I thought I showed that your most famous experiment, the laser and sugar water. I didn't do that. That wasn't mine. That wasn't mine. No, it was in my opening presentation. Yes, I know. It was nothing to do with me. You said about me doing a laser experiment. I haven't done one. That's someone else. Yeah, yeah, okay. But my point is, is I showed y'all's best evidence. I'll even put this at second best but you put a little city skyline at the back of the fish tank and put sugar in the fish tank, in the water and let it dissolve to pretty much mock a density gradient. You say the light's curving down but with line of sight, we watched half the city disappear. With direct flat line of sight, we watched the top come down and the bottom go up. It almost looked like the bottom of the city disappeared. So all these mountains in the background and I mean, it's explained by y'all's example of how the atmosphere works and it's backed up by experts of how the sun sets. It's all explained, man. What we're looking at, the light rays travel through the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a medium. It refracts. I have just shown, because I don't think anyone would dispute that there is a physical ball there. Therefore it has a geometrical edge. We can now see further around that ball because of the refraction. That's what happens in real life. Now, someone in the chat just mentioned, oh, you've introduced a lens. Yeah, a lens uses refraction. That's crazy. So basically you just begged the question. No, I didn't. I just showed that you can bend light using refraction, which is what the atmosphere does, which enables you to see further than the geometry. You never lost light of sight to that. You can use the actual conditions of the at most, of course. So it's literally, unfortunately, I don't have a planet-sized ball in my office that I can use to demonstrate it. That is a demonstration. Make sure you censor me, and then you can win the debate. Make sure you censor me. Sorry? Make sure you censor me. What are you talking about? Do you want to hear their battle now? So you didn't use actual atmospheric conditions. And secondly, all you're doing is begging the question by thinking that applies to the earth and assuming there's a geometric horizon there. Basically your argument is there is a curved curvature there, but we can never see it. We can only assume it's there. That's called a begging the question policy. That's what you're doing. I'm begging no question. Well, with something like the black swan and other C2FAR claims by flat earthers, they say it's ridiculous. How could you see beyond the curve if there is a curve? I'm just showing you with refraction, you can see beyond that curve. That lens is between the camera and the ball. So how can we see beyond the edge of the ball? You still have my sight. It bends the rays of light round to the camera, to your eyes. That is a demonstration of refraction. It's not saying that that is an exact replica of what happens on earth. But we know there's refraction because we know that something like is it the Chicago skyline? Once in however often you can see Chicago across the lake. But most times you can't. That's a wrong. I went to that very low case. Would you agree that the lens still have line of sight, Mr. Sensible? Would you agree that the lens still had line of sight? How can it have line of sight around a curve? I'm asking you. You say that the lens didn't have line of sight, but in two feet, we showed you just in a garage, a hundred feet, we have opened a garage door and showed you atmospheric effects with actual atmosphere. You showed us a lens where the top has line of sight. Let me address that. Let me address that. James, can I screen share, please? Thank you. By the way, I went to Chicago at that very place and I asked all the locals and they said you see it three or four times a week. So why would you say no? But not all the time. Not all the time. You said you barely ever see it. Well, I don't share your Austin. Austin, I'll say it. I've been there. I know you see it all the time. Austin, our hands up say I could be wrong about the frequency, but the point is you don't always see the same because the atmosphere changes. Yeah, Vladimir doesn't deny that. So a cool story. So what we've got here, again, what we've got here, again, from the beginning of the debate, am I, yeah, there we go. So we're coming up on the screen now. I said at the beginning of the debate that the evidence for you will be silly, silly examples of taking things like a torch or a lens and moving it into that specific position to get the exact effect that you wanted and this is now what you're using as your actual evidence. I paraded it at the beginning as a joke and you're using it now. Yet Mr. Sensible, who actually made his effect through the actual error without needing to put a lens of any kind in between to show his refraction, you're doing the exact thing here. You're doing exactly what I said you were doing. You've taken a lens. You've put it in the exact position you want to get the effect you want. Mr. Sensible's shown the curve on the ball. Sorry, when he's taken the lens, he's not been fiddling around with it to get it in the exact position he wants. He's moved it. We can see the exact refraction that we want. Wow. You just said that he did the same thing you're accusing him of because if you changed the lens, it would change the way refraction looks and he had to use exactly the right conditions to make it look like what he needed it to do. You literally just refuted it. So he'll just say the atmosphere is a lens. No, we didn't say the atmosphere is a lens. Sorry, I'm finished. I'm finished all yet. I think I got a slight ahead of myself, so let's do that again. When you took your lens there in that beginning example there, you took it and you maneuvered it. You maneuvered it specifically into the position that you needed it to be to get that exact view that you needed. When you're using that as evidence of things disappearing bottom up. Like Mr. Sensible just did. No, Mr. Sensible didn't do anything of the sort to show that things to be finished bottom up. He literally just did, dude. I've not finished, but Mr. Sensible had his ball out, he had his nail on the balloon and he's taken just a lens and he's just wafted it in any opposition. He's not deliberately manipulated it to get the exact view he's wanted. He's put down and he's shown something ever so slightly different. He's shown that refraction can cause a big effect. He's shown that he can do exactly what you're doing over the other side of a ball. Only when it's in the perfect position though, right? However, what Mr. Sensible isn't doing with that. I don't know. However, Mr. Sensible is not doing with that. He's claiming that we can use a lens here to make things disappear from the bottom up. Which is what you're doing with your lens. That was. Yeah, well there are different things, man. Like I don't see, how do you not understand that he's literally doing the same thing if he moves his lens the effect changes and he does the experiment or the demonstration non-experiment exactly like he needs to show the possibility of something happening. He did the same thing. So you're refuting your own teammate. Well, he literally just repeated my evidence, Austin. Yeah, thanks. So what you've done, what you've done though, let's just, let's just get this right. What you've done is you've taken, you've taken a picture of that skyline. You've taken a lens and you put it in position in front of that skyline and not seen what you want to see. So then you've maneuvered it specifically in position to get exactly what you want to see and said, oh, there you go. That comports to what the atmosphere is. That's what you've done. But look at what Mr. Sensible is doing here. Using a magnifying glass, which is literally what Brian was showing the same effect and then you're trying to show that it can. How is that the same effect? How is that the same effect is what you showed? Did you not watch it? How is this the same effect? The magnification explains why the sun can disappear from the bottom of the ladder. Is that nail vanishing bottom up? How can I magnify something? Is that nail vanishing bottom up? Hey, Mr. Sensible, if you move that around, would it change or would it stay exactly the same? If you move the magnifying glass around. I'll just play that bit again. But how could I magnify something that's hidden behind the ball? How could I magnify that white piece of paper that is not in view? It's not in view. I put the lens in between. The light is, which would have passed over the camera, at the wrong angle, is now bent down. So I can see that white bit of paper right behind. I can see past the tack, which I couldn't see before. Okay, that's all it's showing. I'll stop sharing again. And also, of course, you need to show an outside angle of what you're doing with the camera because I don't trust ballers. But it doesn't matter. The point is that. It's there on screen, Austin. Yeah, but what caused that refraction, man? What caused us to see around your ball? I believe you. It doesn't matter. Oh yeah, there it is. In the top right corner, the whole time it's filmed constantly, so you can see it, okay? So then you admit that using magnification can explain phenomena on both a flat plane and a globe. How does the lens work, Austin? Oh, answer my question. Answer my question, Brian. Yeah. But if it's permissible to use the magnification then it's permissible for Brian to do it as well, right? I'm not commenting on Brian's thing. I'm showing that refraction can show you beyond the rounder curve. It's not the fact it's magnified, the fact it's larger. It's the fact that light rays have been bent. So now they enter the camera's lens. The different medium. It's a different medium. Snail's Law, which is refraction, which is where you get the giant change in the light, is a different medium. Tell me about Snail's Law. Tell me about Snail's Law. Okay, make sure you divert to the math because there's like five different ways to explain it. It doesn't matter. It's a different medium. No, please tell me about Snail's Law. Snail's Law, Brian. You want to divert, you want to divert. Please tell me about Snail's Law. Address that it's a different medium, please. Well actually, no, it can be different density gradients within the same medium. Is that a different medium in his observation, yes or no? There is in my observation. Okay, thank you. Yeah, okay, cool. Is there two different lines in the atmosphere? Hold on, hold on. Katz, what's the density gradient over 10 miles of atmosphere on a 70 degree temperature day? What is the density gradient over 10 miles on 70 degrees? What are you talking about? What's the refractive index? What's the refractive index of 10 miles of atmosphere? Just explain to me what you think refractive index is. If you change mediums, okay, you're referring to Snail's Law and trying to quiz somebody. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so let's do that. If we're gonna change mediums, hold on, if we're gonna change mediums, then we're gonna get refraction, right? So is it the atmosphere doing what Mr. Sensible's showing or is it that magnifying glass? So the question was, you brought up refractive index and I asked you what it was and then you diverted because you didn't answer it. I asked you a question, bro. What's the refractive index for 10 miles of atmosphere? So you tell me what refractive index is. All you do is divert, dude. No, refractive index isn't a change in medium. How about water is tied, right? Refractive index isn't a change in medium. Bro, you're not gonna win a Simpleton quiz, bro. Water as refractive index of one and a vacuum has a refractive index of zero. Sorry, water doesn't have a refractive index of one. Water doesn't have a refractive index of one. Okay, what does sugar water have a refractive index of? Do you not stand behind the sugar water experiment? It depends on the concentration of the sugar. It depends on the concentration of sugar. What do you think refractive index is? It's not what you think it is. It's not Snowslaw, what do you think it is? Bro, you can't answer one question, bro. I literally can't answer one question. Wait, I'm curious. You think this is gonna make it normal what you think refractive index is because you know what you're doing. I gotta cover this. And then, okay, let's see if Vostin can answer what he thinks. I'm gonna expose you if I'm gonna do it. So every single time conspiracy cat is in a debate, he uses sophistry and at home, which is all you've seen the whole time. Now, what he's trying to do is he's come in with these little gotcha math questions where he thinks he can get someone to get math wrong. And then all of a sudden, the whole hour and a half that he was intellectually eviscerated with every single subject somehow evaporates and goes away because he's asking gotcha questions. And it doesn't, it literally doesn't. And your refractive index is nothing more than a fluctuation of a parent radius of 15%. And you call that standard refraction. You beg the question of the R value, fluctuate that R value, and then claim somehow that proof that's the actual R value. So let's talk about what refractive index is because you've gone off on word there. Refractive index, Brian. What's the refractive index of water, Kat? It depends on the purity of the water. You quizzed me. What's the refractive index of water? It depends on the purity of the water. Would you like to give me a concentration of water? So you can't answer any question at all. It helps. Let's talk about the index of the water, Brian. I'll give you a lesson. I'll give you a lesson, Brian, on refractive index. What's the refractive index? Refractive index is a ratio of the speed of light through a medium compared to the speed of light through a vacuum. It is a ratio. So for example, with glass, we tend to get around about 1.5, but it depends on the type of glass. It depends. If we're gonna look at water, well, you know, it's gonna be a little bit above one, but then again, it depends on the concentration of the solutes in the water. All refractive indexes is a ratio of the speed of light through that medium compared to the speed of light through a vacuum. So when you're saying, what is the refractive index over 10 miles? The reason that we're not answering, and you're saying you're not answering the question, is because your question makes no fucking sense, Brian. It's because that's what we're looking through, and you can't answer that. And thank you for verifying that the report comes in. Brian, your question makes no sense. One at a time. Excuse me, cats. Excuse me, cats. That was the whole point. Is it for a look at the question, I know you can't make a prediction off Snell's law. And thanks for verifying. So what's the refractive index of a vacuum? Is it not? One. Brian, what's the vacuum? No, it's not a vacuum. It's one. Brian, what's the vacuum? Brian, what's the average speed of blue? Look, here's the deal, man. It makes no sense. It's a dumb question. Can I say something now? You guys are doing everything you can to scatter gun diversions and red herring fallacies because when we've had actual pointed arguments at every stage in turn of this debate, you guys have had to concede and you don't know it. And if I could share my screen, I'd give you another one that you definitely can't rebut. You guys will not address the fact that I pointed out that a magnetic field has to have a blocked domain wall and a inertial plane in the middle of it. And of course, on a flat earth, that's the dielectric plane that we reside on, which our military documents showing the only way to make ground weapon systems using electromagnetic propagation is a treat the earth like a dielectric plane. So where's the dielectric plane or the inertial plane or blocked domain wall in the magnetic field on a globe? The fuck are you talking about? Seriously, get your thing up, get your thing up and say that again. You not know what it is? So you've just said, you've literally, literally said because we're talking about refractive index and I'm pointing out that neither of you know what refractive index is. And you've said this is some kind of trick he's gonna try and pick on a lack of understanding of science. Just like you did with relativity, waffled about something you didn't understand. You're gonna waffle about something you didn't understand now and pretend that you understand it. So let's hear what you're gonna say, but what I want you to do, what I want you to do, we aren't finished yet. What I want you to do is explain why this is evidence for the earth being flat. If you don't incorporate into this, why this is evidence for the earth to be flat. Well, good. You are articulately. Go ahead and do it articulately. I already did. Right, well, everybody missed that, including everyone in the chat. No, just you. Do that's always behind. Go on to it again. I'll explain it again. Now I'm sharing it. So here's a block wall of a magnet. Okay, it's an inertial plane, a blocked domain wall. It's in every magnetic field that exists. It's a plane through the middle of a magnetic field. On a flat earth, of course, we would reside right here in the middle where the inertial plane is, right? And we would observe the top half of the toroid, which I then went on to show you why that actually matches what we see. You see the toroid here with the black on the middle. Of course, the inertial planes do that. I showed you the magnetic flux data and matches that on a flat projection. Did you even watch the actual presentation? I showed you that all the planets match that exact same projection. Can you pull it? Can you pull it? Can you pull it? It's perfect on a flat earth. So if you would like to explain to me where the inertial plane is in the magnetic field on a globe, I would appreciate it. Thank you. So when you say, can you leave that image up there? I'll let cats respond, but can you just leave that image up there a minute? Sure. Okay. Okay. So what are we doing? Maybe another five minutes or so of open dialogue and then we'll give each person a two minute closing or so, is that work well for you guys? You're talking here about magnetic fields and you're throwing inertial plane and I've mapped it against the planets and it works. But yet again, like I said at the beginning, you have done literally, you've not explained though, in any way, shape or form, why this works on a flat earth always proof. Let me just talk about magnetic fields for a second. Can you tell me the difference between a radial magnetic field and a uniform magnetic field? Can you address the actual points at a divergent- But you haven't made a point. It's like Brian asking about the refractive index over 10 miles without knowing what refractive index is. Here is the actual argument. There's an inertial plane in the magnetic field. It works on a flat earth because it would be the inertial plane. How does it work on a globe? Now you want to come quiz me about different types of magnetic fields when you don't even know what comprises a magnetic field in your paradigm to this virtual photons. Don't try me, bro. Answer the question. Why don't you just honestly answer the question for once? Say you don't know. Which non-think that you are saying is making sense. Can you tell me how this is evidence for a flat earth? You're saying magnetic field, inertial plane, answer the question. None of what you're saying is making any sense. So maybe it's your communication skills. So I'm going to give you time to break it down. I said at the very beginning of this debate, you try and throw in bits of science that you think were clever. But when pressed on it, yet again, you wouldn't be able to explain when it's proof of the flat earth. I just did. I'm going to give you all the time. No, you didn't. Just like you did with the relativity thing, all you said was matter contracting, time dilation, therefore clocks don't work. And then when pressed on it, you just wouldn't explain it just like you're doing with this. So I'm going to give you the chance, but everyone in the chat is waiting for you to specifically and articulately explain why this somehow is evidence for the earth being flat. Please articulate it properly. Okay. So every magnetic field has what's called a block domain wall or an inertial plane. It's a plane of inertia that cuts through the middle of the magnets, the middle of the toroid. This exists in all magnetic fields ever. Okay. Now on a flat earth, we can look at the magnetic field we have on the earth and it works perfectly with the earth being inside the dielectric plane. And we match the magnetic flux data on the flat projection, which shows the top half of the toroid perfectly. But your model, according to Harvard, still cannot explain the magnetic field on the globe. So can you please explain where the inertial plane is on the globe? Right, let me show you an image. I mean, honestly, this is the biggest bunch of waffles. Well, Austin has his image up there. That bottom picture, Austin, with the vertical, I think I'm a bit colorblind, like blue line. So you're saying that that would be where your, it's turned 90 degrees. That would be where your flat earth is. Yeah, yeah. So that means your north is in the center and up. South is below. That doesn't quite, yeah, that doesn't quite work. That does it, no. Yeah, it literally does. Actually, if there's something in the center, this would be what's in the center. Now you can't explain it, your model can't explain it. Your model literally get now. The north pole is in the sky is what you're saying. Yeah, no pole is in the sky in the middle and the south pole is somewhere below in the middle. Yeah, there's a vortex that extends all the way up throughout the magnetic field, right? So do you see the pictures right here? Do you see the top right of the ferrocell images? Now look at the top right. Now look at the actual earth's data over top of flat projection. You want to skate past it, but Harvard says that we do not have a working model for the magnetic. No, so where's the black inertial plane on the globe though? Where's this on the globe? Can I just show that on the screen here then? And where's that same data? He's going to show a cartoon with the magnetic field. It does not answer. What's up? Where's that same data you just showed that those lines moving? Where's that same data? So you see the pattern of that data on a globe. It goes every which way. You can go to bobbwins.com and you can look at yourself. I don't have anything to show us the difference. I don't have a presentation. You haven't brought any evidence at all to show that the earth is flat. This is your question. Yeah, literally I'm showing it. I'm showing that the magnetic field data doesn't work on the globe. You can't answer it. And this is it. And this is it. You can't answer it. This is it. We're two hours into the debate and what you're doing is you're trying to show magnetic fields claiming that the north pole is in the sky somewhere. The south pole is beneath the ground somewhere. You can't explain the difference between a uniform and a radial magnetic field, although you think it's some kind of expert on magnetic fields. Brian is asking questions about what is the refractive index over 10 miles. I mean, that's what I said. What happens to a banana on it over? You're just sophist. You're just basically chanting, dude. Are you? I'll show you my screen. I've brought evidence. I've brought examples. You've brought a picture of a magnetic field. That's it. No, we actually showed mirror flashes which require a line of sight over large bodies. Why do you guys consider that? Refraction. How do refraction answer direct line of sight requirement? Sorry, second. Direct line of sight does not get explained away with refraction. Direct line of sight requirement. So there's no refraction on a flat earth. Is that what you're saying? See what I'm saying? Straw man found. That's not a straw man. If you were talking about direct line of sight and you're using it as some kind of flat earth proof, then you have to deny that there's refraction on a flat earth. Mirror flashes require a direct line of sight so you can't say it's refraction. Are you denying that if the earth was flat, refraction wouldn't exist? Straw man found. No, it's not. It's exactly what I was saying. Again, like I predicted at the beginning, when pressed on what you're talking about, you won't commit and you won't answer. You've got these quotes that you throw out. I didn't say there was no such thing as refraction on it. I said that's not a set of quotes that you throw out but then you can't back them up with anything. This whole magnetic field thing, they're way more about all the quotes than you do, dude. You're taking some kind of weird pictures of magnetic fields that you don't understand that you can't explain. You're saying, there you go, debunk that. Well, look, I've got a snotty tissue here, debunk that. This is exactly what you're doing. This is the magnetic data of the earth that matches the ferrocell images and your model can't explain it today. Harvard, Stanford, Yale all agree. Well, you haven't shown that data on a globe. Where's your paper? It's chaotic all over the place and they can't explain the central source. Okay, yeah, I'll pull them up. You want them? Do you want the papers too? Yes. If you ever researched it, are you claiming there is a- Yes, I want to do it now. So wait, are you claiming there is a working magnetic model for the globe earth? I'm saying, when you say working model, I mean, do you mean how we know how the magnetic field exists or how we can map it on the surface? We can map it over the surface. Yes, we know how it works. Really? How does it work at the center of the earth? What's the source of the magnetism? It's a dynamo effect. Really, where's it at? What, where's the dynamo effect? Mainly in the liquid outer core. And now, is there any problems with that or does it work or does it work? No, there's no problems with that, unless you're gonna suggest the Curie effect. No, no, that's why you move it to the outer core because of the Curie point. It's not why we move it to the outer core. Oh my God, I'm trying to help you. It's because the dynamo, no, no, listen here. The dynamo effect requires moving charge to generate an electric field. You're not gonna get moving charge within a solid core, but however, however, because just like an electromagnet, when you've got that wire wrapped around an iron nail like we do with kids at school, the iron core then becomes an induced magnet inside the magnetic field that's caused by the dynamo effect in the liquid outer core. And then we can map it, we, sorry, go on. To sum that up, let's go to say to sum it up. To sum it up, the core is not magnetic. It's the movements in the core. It's the movements within the core, which as Kat said induces magnetism. But even that doesn't work, according to Harvard, it's still off by 20% distribution. So you don't know what we're talking about. What distribution of the magnetic field? Explain. Distribution of the magnetic field. In what way? Explain. On the surface, all the way out to the surface, it doesn't match the surface measurements by 20%. The actual magnetic data, the magnetic flux and density and inclination and declination data of the earth doesn't match the model, the dynamo model. Explain. And sustainability of a near, and sustainability of a near, and sustainability of a near perfect magnetic field doesn't work either. I'm dropping the PDF from Harvard, which will show you that they have six different models. They're trying to figure out what's the best one. Explain your understanding. Explain. Here's the explanation. Your side hasn't even come up with a model that works yet. And I explained to you, and the whole audience has seen it and you can't address it, which is there's an inertial. Explain. I'm trying to explain what this control is to you. You said 20%, we're off 20%. And I've said, what 20%? He's gone, the distribution. You don't understand. I didn't say that. I said that inclination. Explain that. Now's your chance to explain. You have a problem. I said the inclination. Now's your chance to explain. There you go again. Basis chanting in silvers. Another minute and then we've got to go into these two minute closings. It's so bad. It's so bad. Inclination data, magnetic inclination, magnetic declination data, magnetic flux data, the density flux, the data doesn't match the distribution prediction of the most, oh my God, the most popular Dynamo model does not match the actual data. And they can't explain the sustainability of the magnetic field. Dude, I just told you. Sustainability, because the core is constantly moving. But you have the burden of proof to show that the earth is flat. You have not made that burden in any way. I just explained, let me say that one more time, James, can I say it one more time? It is very simple. Magnetic fields have a plane through the middle of them. And that is where the earth would be if it's a plane, but the globe has to have a plane through it somewhere. And you guys can't answer and you're trying to dive right away. Thanks for playing. Cool. If the earth was flat, where the hell is that magnetic field coming from? Boom. I said center. Government of the closing. Center. This one coming in from. In what way? First, we had getting us started at the very start. Brian, AKA Flatter Test, will let you go first two minutes, then we'll go to Austin for two minutes, then we'll go to Mr. Sensible and then Conspiracy Culture and then the Q and A. Two minutes to set for you, Brian. Oh, I can't hear you yet if you're speaking. Oh, he has to be asked to be unmuted. I'm virtually certain I already unmuted him. Go ahead, Brian. I just clicked it. Unmute. I just keep clicking it, asked to unmute it size and I keep clicking it. Are you not seeing it? Can you shake your head, Brian? Are you not seeing a window? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got it. Sorry about that. Yeah, I mean Austin's literally wearing them out by itself and he's asked to explain. And as he explains, I got a guy in the background with some grudge just saying explain, explain, explain. It's like unbelievable. This guy, I predicted right off the bat, I wasted half my presentation again, showing evidence is that he's seen 100 times. So apparently they're gonna try and claim Superman refraction going over Empire State Building. They invoked seven over six R, which basically just expands to 39, 59 radius by 18%. And even when we show them black swans are in my presentation at a 16.8 mile observation from seven inches, seven over six R is a joke. What I failed to put in my introduction that I didn't have time to was a globe Earth anti-platter if you could say a surveyor who repeated the Albaruni test and he was off by 20 million feet, which doesn't sound like a lot in feet. But even after adding refraction, he was well off. It's like they have to invoke refraction to prove the globe. They have to use radius to prove the radius. It's a circular argument. This whole thing is a joke. And I told you that after all the evidence I presented, he's still gonna say, y'all didn't present any evidence. This guy is dishonest. I've never, I'm sorry, James, and I'm sorry for interrupting but I've never debated a more dishonest person ever in my life. And that's all I got. I'm gonna pass it on to Austin. You don't need me. He whipped him by himself. Go ahead, Austin. I didn't know. I thought the question was directed to Brian. What was the question? Oh, it was just two minutes for your closing. Oh yeah, my bad. Oh yeah, so basically, I'm sorry. Just a real quick summary. We talked about motion. They couldn't rebut it. But objectively, relatively, he says you can't prove the Earth's moving around the Sun. That was just an inflection honesty test. If you're referencing the truth and Flat Earth is so stupid, you wouldn't have to constantly lie. Use ad homes. Use strawman fallacies. Use red herring fallacies. And constantly insult, interrupt, and attack different people constantly. That doesn't make any sense. And of course, I explained that mirror flash required direct line of sight in an inertial plane of a magnetic field. It only happens if you have a plane. There's many other things, of course, radio transmissions, all kinds of things, but I just, I think we showed pretty clearly to the audience that they were being intellectually dishonest. And anytime you have to constantly use fallacies and ad homes, and from the beginning, try to discredit the person with personal attacks, then you're not being a genuine person when it comes to the conversation. So we'll let the audience decide. Okay, get over to Mr. Sensible. Thank you. Well, as I said, there's a burden of proof here. You guys are claiming the Earth is flat. Now, you could, you always turn it around and say, you don't have the burden of proof. But if I said cars don't require fuel, you never actually see petrol or gas or diesel. You don't see the electric, it goes into cars. Therefore, there is no fuel in those cars. The burden of proof is on me to prove that. The fact that the overwhelming evidence is that the cars have a requirement for fuel, that's the accepted fact. So the person claiming otherwise is the one who has the burden of proof. The accepted fact is that the Earth is an ablate spheroid rotating all between the sun, traveling through this universe. You have the burden of proof. And as for all your magnetic stuff, Austin, Albert Einstein said, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. And I'd like to finish off by offering you some dressing for your word salad. Thank you. Culture cats. Yeah. Well, like I said at the beginning, these debates aren't serious debates. They're for entertainment, you know? And I'm pretty sure we've all seen what's happened here. When we see this in all flat Earth debates, we see people from the globe side, like Mr. Sensible has done that fantastic mage, sending his balloon up into the sky, capturing absolutely fantastic images. He's talked about the water tanks that were adjusted for the curvature of the Earth. He's a bit absolutely fantastic. And then of course, what the flat Earth proponents bring is literally nothing again, and what they will do and what they have done for the entire debate, as we all expect, is to try and pick holes in the globe model and try and catch people out on different bits of science that they don't understand themselves. You know, we saw that with Witsit when he was talking about relativity and Mr. Sensible asked him, well, can you explain why relativity means we can't detect the Earth going around the sun? And it all boiled down to the fact that he didn't trust an interferometer and he was interferometer, sorry, and he was literally throwing all the other observations out the window with it. He literally just, it was based on that one small thing there. When we get to the end, when he tried to offer some evidence for the flat Earth, it literally shows a picture of a magnetic field and goes, there you go, the Earth must be flat. There's a paper somewhere that I don't know anything about and I'm not gonna explain. And that's pretty much as bad as it gets. For Brian's part, you know, Brian seems like a decent guy, but when you're asking questions like what is the refractive index over 10 miles, you may as well be asking, how fast can the color red sprint? You know, it's just, it's not a question that makes any sense whatsoever. And it just highlights the flaws in the knowledge he's got, although he doesn't realize that yet. Hopefully he will do and he'll snap out of these flat Earth delusions. But it was entertainment and I hope you're entertained and I know that nobody watching is any wiser about the flat Earth. They've just had a good bit of entertainment and that's it. I just realized I'm seriously sorry. I had your name wrong the entire time. I had conspiracy culture. I get all the names. Sorry about that. But culture cats. Yeah, well I'm also Mr. Boldy sensible cat, so go figure. It's culture cats linked in the description in addition to Mr. Sensible and Brian Flatterer's test and Austin Whitson. So I'm sorry about that. Seriously, culture cats that I had on screen. No problem. My name wasn't wrong. It's I tuned in your old channel name and it was like conspiracy tunes and then there's Baldi cats out there and then there's culture cats. There's so many cats and anyway, we're gonna go into the Q and A. Wanna remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description and thank you very much for this question coming in from, do appreciate it. We've got a lot of them. We're gonna try to move really fast. M2M says Brian talks about honesty but just lied off the bat. Tower model was below edge of table. Are you serious, Brian? You gotta stop muting Brian. Yeah, well you're right. Once you mute yourself, I think now we're probably safe. Once you mute yourself. That time, that time I did mute myself and I was just enjoying watching to be honest but sorry for making you hit the buttons like machine gun in the buttons earlier. I get it now but can you repeat the end of that question because I'll answer it as honestly as possible. They said, Brian talks about honesty but just lied off the bat. Tower model was below edge of the table. Are you serious, Brian? Tower model. What I showed was what they claim is refraction and how it's working. They use sugar water to show how light is bending toward the denser medium downwards. This was what I showed was a Glober experiment and them showing how refraction is supposed to work but all it did is show line of sight, obstruction and lowering of the city. It showed compression which is what we see in real life without earth curvature. So that didn't answer, I'm sorry. That's the way I took it. Doesn't come in from, do appreciate your question. Earth is life, says my prediction. Whitsit will make many claims and won't bring any evidence whatsoever. This one coming in. Yeah, I literally did get it. Like it's an easy talking point to say. Like that's all he keeps saying they bring no evidence because it's an easy talking point, right? It's really a dishonest thing to do. It's kind of like, it's called sophistry. So that's all that is. I mean, we did, I showed you the literal magnetic data of the earth shown on a flat projection map matching a ferrocell projection. We showed you mirror flashes over long distances, lasers over long distances. We did also attack the positive claim with the convexity of the earth and show what's wrong with it as they presented to present things. But the talking point is that we could bring 100 pieces of evidence and everyone would say in the chat that are zealots, they would say, once again, first bring no evidence. It's just a talking point because they're like a cult. So I mean, to be expected. This one coming in from the bat man says, time for Whitsit to flat smack them again. This one from M2M says, Brian talks about, we got that one. David J says, Globers are just not ready for any real gravy. This one from KO champ fits as Einstein died before we went to space. F the flat ease. Okay, just Sean says, ask questions separate please. One is the moon flat. There's a reason they don't bring up space in this argument. Trust me, you don't want to go there with space. With the moon, if I look at half of it being honest, it looks like a disk kind of man. One half of it does look like a rock out there. It looks like craters. Depends on, to me, it depends on what side you're looking at, man. To me, it's potentially plasma. I'm not going to claim I know how far something is or what it is, unless I do. And in this case, Austin, you got anything to add to that? Well, we don't know exactly what the moon is. So it could be magnetic calligraphy. It could be plasma. It could be many things. It doesn't actually matter though. You know, we just now wash in eclipse with the moon and the sun above the rise in the same time it debunks the globe. So that's completely irrelevant to whether or not the Earth is applying like literally. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Miladia says support, debate con two on Saturday. James, I can't wait. Thanks for your support, Miladia. And the crowdfund which helps us cover the venue cost is linked in the description folks. There's only 29 hours left and then the crowdfund closes. So do want to encourage you, hey, if you're going to watch those debates this Saturday, we want to say, hey, they are completely free to the public, every single one of them. You want to help us cover the venue costs? That crowdfund link is in the description box and we do appreciate it a lot. This one coming in from K.O. Champ FTT says, some of these, we're looking for sincere questions. This one from, sorry about that. Some of these are, you guys, you guys got to take it easy out there. Well, be honest, be honest, it's the globes. It's the ballers, it's the anti-flatter. Now, Sean had a follow up question. They said, if the moon is flat, how do craters move from left to the middle to the right side? Not claiming anything's flat, but orientation changes when you move like direction. You can put a six on your room ceiling, walk on the other side, you'll turn to a nine. So it changing, the changing the orientation relative to position does not debunk anything. This one from Sean says, during your laser test, how far above sea level is the laser light? How far above sea level is the camera? Go back and watch. The information, it was quick, but the information's there. The absorber height's there, the laser height is there. It varied, cause I showed three of them. And I think the lowest one was one and a half feet. And I think the absorber height was about five feet. And I think that was like, I think that was the six or 17 mile one. But the information's in there. I just sped through it in my intro, trying to get as much information as I could. And you know, we're doing something right when people watching the show, Globers watching the show are getting triggered. And it sounds like that's what's happening, man, with some of these comments you don't want to read. Oh yeah, Brian. Well, AstroSmart says, you're making them cry, cats. Then Sean says, last question, how have no prominent space people blown the whistle on this? Statistical impossibility. Literally two different astronauts, two different astronauts have said, one said the earth is flat, and one said that they didn't go to outer space. And so once that is said, you will pretend you didn't hear it, you will ignore that that happened and immediately try to dismiss it. Think about what's going on in your mind. Two different astronauts, one from the Soviet Union, one from another place, a Polish astronaut who was asked about the earth. Is the earth really a ball? When you went out there, you said, I did not expect this question, but the earth is flat as you seem to expect. And the other person said, anyone that tells you that they're going to outer space is lying, two astronauts did blow the whistle and you still don't care. So then don't pretend that that would do something for you because the truth is you're just trying to use a talking point that you don't actually mean. And also it would appear that when you do hear something like that, it's that significant. You instantly forget who the astronauts were and you don't bring that evidence to a debate. So there you go, hand wave dismissal. You're amazing at debating, dude. You should make a living out of it. This one comes from Sean. It's actually regarding these astronauts. Says, dude, the flat earthers really believe astronauts got in rockets and died even though they knew that it was a lie, namely that the moon or the earth being round was a lie. Yeah, I guess you mean all the ones that had twins? Even if they shot, like literally they all had twins. Literally the official story is they all had twins. So I don't know if they did die, but the point is that even if someone shot a rocket up and people were in it and they blew up, does that make the earth a ball? That's ridiculous. I think that most people probably do believe the narrative. So what's it matter? This one coming in from, do appreciate your question, heat stairs says, Whitsett, please take a quantum mechanics course. Then K.O.Champfit says, Quantum, I gotta say, quantum mechanics actually debunks the globe because it's well known that general relativity doesn't work at all on any level on quantum mechanics. It's literally debunking gravity at every single turn and showing that they have to come up with a new quantum gravity to make it a grand unified theory. So quantum mechanics is like literally the globe's worst enemy. And also, can I just add to that that, you know, of course, when we made the same side, that it's really, really important not to explain why that's the case just to say it is and then not explain it. So because there's actually no detection of gravitation based on the mass distribution and the bending and warping of space time encompassed within general relativity on the quantum scale. Thanks for playing cats for like the 50th. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. K.O.Champfit says ring laser scope invented in 1963, Einstein's death was in 1955, eight years before that. That is literally irrelevant though, because it's the actual methodology used in the Michelson-Gail Pearson, which was in 35, which is the interferometry. And of course this effect was discovered by SAGNIC, which is what ring laser gyros use. And Einstein specifically writes in depth about the Michelson-Gail Pearson and the SAGNIC effect, explaining actually that based on the Machian principle to be a translation of motion to the earth, it was stationary. And he said, no optical experiment using interferometry could prove that the earth is moving around the sun, even though Mr. Sensible for some reason seemed to claim that this debate, but yeah, that's irrelevant. That doesn't mean anything. Let's also remember that both of them conceded in this debate that the ring laser gyroscope does show, well, Brian specifically said that the ring laser shows that the earth is rotating, which specifically said that it does show rotation and then just said it shows rotation, but probably isn't the earth rotating. So let's just remember that. Thank you. That's called a strongman founds here. It's only karma that you're robot. It's called a strongman founds here to say, and then he said, but no, we actually said, there's a vortex as SAGNIC effect literally is what is used to calibrate the technology of a ring laser gyro. He said it was a vortex. And we took the gyro to different altitudes at the same latitude and got a different reading, which debunks the claim of axle rotation being the cause. No, you won't, because if you know anything about altitude, if you know anything about taking a ring laser gyro from one altitude to another, you will know that the circumference of that circle has increased. Therefore the linear velocity has changed. So therefore, how does that debunk anything? Wait, wait, let me just make sure that you really, you think that if you take a gyro at the same latitude to a different altitude on the globe, that the degrees per hour would change. No, we weren't talking about at the same, we were talking, you said you took a ring laser gyroscope and then just put it somewhere else at higher altitude. You didn't say we're at exactly the same latitude. I did say that. It's not predicted by the global model, bro. I know it doesn't matter. You still said bigger circumference. Yeah, when you put it to the same latitude, when you put it to the same latitude, to you're saying that somebody's done that and then got a different amount of drift. So it's easy to say those things. I thought you knew that, bro. What was the evidence for that, bro? What was the evidence for that? You know that to go off and get the sun to change by one degree, you have to go up a million, 600,000 miles. How far do you think we have to go up to get a star to change angles? I thought you knew math, bro. I'm not sure how that question is running. You think going up a mountain is gonna change the angles to the star? Don't change the subject, please. This thing's exhausting me. Austin, what we're talking about, you've just made the claim. That exposed. No, no, you've just made the claim there that somebody's taken a ring laser gyroscope and then took up a mountain and got a different result. You've claimed that. You just claimed that if you took it at different altitudes that there'd be a greater circumference around the earth therefore you get a different degree. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, you interrupted before I finished. You interrupted before I finished. You literally said that. But the point is, but the point is, the point is you just claimed, the point is you just claimed that somebody's done that and then got a different result. And what you're referring to is Bob Nadell from Glowbusters who just said that. The same Bob Nadell who just said that we're gonna keep the results of the ring laser gyroscope secret because we don't want people to know. So what you've not actually done is shown any of this data. If you had this data, you'd have shown all of this in the debate. You'd have brought stuff like this to the debate, but you haven't, just like the entire debate. You've just been constantly saying things like that but not providing any evidence for it. You admit that if you did that at debunked action rotation. And then there's a lot of questions left. Oh yeah, I'm just saying then he's basically admitting that if it does show that, then it debunks action rotation. He showed his ignorance by claiming it would change based on circumference of rotation, which is not true. We say the same in latitude. So whatever, you know, for usual. James, may I just jump in with something? May I just jump in with something important? I was muted. Austin, did you say earlier, you were saying something about twins. Are you talking about with regard to the challenger astronauts? Yeah, a lot of them have twins. What a coincidence. Well, we've been here tonight having a very nice chat. Bringing or not bringing evidence and so on. Oh, virtue signal. Virtue signal incoming. I am absolutely disgusted that you could disrespect people who have risked and then in fact given their lives in the pursuit of science. But before you get disgusted. No, Brian, it's absolutely despicable. Let him do it. No, no, no. Brian, let him do it. It's crap. Come on, one sec. You need to go to vital statistics, bro. No, no, Brian. Before you get disgusted. Brian, please come down, bro. Let him do his virtue signaling. It's very obvious that he's just, he's just like projecting. So, please continue out. I think it's absolutely despicable. Those people have families, Austin. Those people dedicated their lives to science. That they put themselves forward as astronauts. Yes. And they died for science. I'm an astronaut, dude. You're not fit to wipe their boots. I'm an astronaut. I sacrifice my life for science. I'm an astronaut. Just to clarify, if people actually died, I obviously in no way would talk bad about them. All I said was, I don't know what happened because they all coincidentally have a twin. And then I said, even if they, yeah, most of them have twins. And I said, even if they died, that doesn't prove that the earth is in any way a ball. So thank you for your virtue signaling. That's all you guys have is sophistry. We can move on. I'm an astronaut. You can't come at me, bro. This one. Harold says, speak with confidence and swagger. No matter what you're saying, people will believe in you. Evidence is not required. This is exactly how cults start. It's Witzitz, modus operandi, exposed by cats. Wow. That's crazy. I see literally you sophistry enchanting the entire time and couldn't respond with substance specificity at all. It seems like you're kind of projecting him on to me, but it's all good. Thanks for the compliment that I'm confident and cares, man. I asked you a question. So simple. I asked you a question. No, bro. I'm sorry, man. We just got so many questions. Delco says, you dodged this last time. Why do our industrial robots detect a very small pole when using large and large end effectors with very small components? It's also a polling form, digital, not from above or below. It's weird. They only detect one pole though, ain't it? And it's uniform throughout the span of the earth. Shouldn't they detect two poles? Wait, tell me, tell me. The globe doesn't claim that gravity pulls anything. So that's weird. This is awkward. It literally doesn't claim that. So I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, but there is a downward electric bias on the earth. There's downward electric current. Things that fall out in an agreed pound average of 9.8 meters per second squared. Luckily for cats, we didn't get to that today, but that doesn't improve in any way. Your model doesn't claim that things pull things down to the earth anymore. That's long outdated, so please update. If I can respond to that very, very quickly. I mean, the reason we didn't get to that, and I'm glad for you, Witsit, that you didn't bring that up, if you're going to claim something as ridiculous and stupid that things fall or gravity is some kind of electrostatic effect, then you've got to take into account that everything contains charged particles, protons, and electrons. Every single particle of everything contains protons and electrons. So if we're in an electric field, then the direction of the force on the electrons and protons for every single atom is going to be in opposite directions. So why are things not levitating? Why do things fall? Such a stupid question. Well, it's not a stupid question, but I look forward to your articulate answer that you're not going to get to. Okay, I got you, shut up. So, because I don't want to debate this with you right now, you're going to get destroyed though, but of course there's a downward electric bias, all matters intrinsically electrostatic, which is 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity even claims to be. We have a, like, equipotential increase on the earth which creates a downward current. We can actually manipulate electrostatics with the Vandegraaff generator, which I have pulled up right here, to change the vector of an object. So the medium has electrostatic induction to the object, which can make it go up or down relative to the density and the matter, i.e. what you call mass, and weight of the object, which is with electrostatic induction. I know that you guys think you can debate me about this. I promise you can't, and we would be here forever, so we can move on. Everything's electrostatic until you can put a bit of a warping of space-time and your opinion doesn't matter. I wanted to notice, I want everybody to notice what happened there, because I specifically spoke about all particles, having the most space to the layman, thanks Brian for your contribution. For the people you don't think it's worth it. Thanks Brian for your amazing contribution. We're all learning a lot from you. Thank you. No, I don't think it's worth it to the layman to respond, Brian. I specifically said, I specifically said before that, that you wouldn't address it, the fact that everything is made of particles with charge, protons, and electrons, positive and negative charges. We all know that positive and negative charges experience forces in different directions in an electric field. So it's all right for you. I mean, you can laugh at that if you... Yeah, you're ignorant. It's fine. It's so low that you don't realize that, please. So what we're essentially saying is, if you're going to tell me that there's this electric field and the earth does have an electric field, but if you're going to tell me that's responsible for things falling, then you have to explain why protons and electrons are both falling in the same direction when they should be experiencing forces in opposite directions. You didn't explain that because you can't explain that and you won't explain it now. Yeah, all molecular and intermolecular, attractive forces, attractive forces, all molecular and intermolecular, attractive forces are electrostatic in nature and that's 10 to 36 power stronger than gravity even claims to be. So we're not explaining that, man. We're not explaining that. We'll move on, James. It doesn't mean anything. Wait, wait, wait, stop interrupting me, dude. It's not a problem. It's not a problem. Dude, you only... You're not explaining it. It's not a problem. It's not a problem. I mean, can I say my last sentence, please? Okay. So we should... Please stop interrupting me. I'll move on. I'll move on to you just so we can actually hear Austin. Okay, just to finish, what I'm saying is the difference is we can manipulate that independent variable like in a scientific experiment and show that things go up or down and causes vectors. But we can't manipulate the bending and warping of space time at all. We can only reify. It's never been proven. It can only be assumed and everything's electric and stronger than gravity claims to be. Thank you. Real quick, real quick, James. Real quick. All I was gonna say is this. No. It's to the limit. No, Brian. We've been spent so much time on this. Williamios' Flatter team, do you have a piece of the firmament to present to us to prove we couldn't possibly go into space? We can't get up high enough to get a piece. The only way that you can have equal potential increase of electrical potential lines on the earth like we have 100 volts per meter is to have two Gaussian services, one below, one above. And of course, necessary to see the gas pressure as containment. I've never heard a baller ever explain how we have the equal potential increase without two Gaussian services. We don't have to go up there and touch it to know that that's a requirement in physics. Well, you've claimed there's another surface up there. That's a positive claim. But an approved evidence, please. Yeah. We can claim that space in the vacuum and not prove it. Thank you. Got you. You claim to start with four hundred two light years away. Yeah. You said measured supercurve at ground level two, but that's none of my business. Supercurve to ground level, so to say. Yes. Well, that's crazy. That's just objectively not true. This is only fluctuates. Yeah, we shoot lasers over it. We the military says that they treat it as if it's flat for electromagnetic propagation. So that's just objectively wrong. Green. We're here because we would measure it in one there. Green bastard says funny how the quote unquote science deniers are far more scientific than the evangelical science worshippers. Actual science, a method versus scientism, a cult. Can I respond to that then? I think what we've got there is it's okay to say scientism is, you know, a cult and blah, blah, blah. But what we've seen tonight is specifically the opposite. We've seen Mr. Sensible show the the mage which clearly shows clearly shows curvature the earth against that torque string. And we've had two people that just had to say, well, maybe there must be just the perfect amount of distortion to make that happen. We've had two people admit that the ring laser gyroscope shows rotation of the earth. But then those same two people have just said, well, there must be, because I've got a predetermined conclusion, there must be some other reason for it other than other than rotation of the earth. And then we have somebody who's claiming that electrostatics are the reason things fall to the ground, yet when pressed on it, they can't explain why protons and electrons are not ripped apart in opposite directions. And he's laughing about it now because he knows he can't explain it. If I ask you nicely, will you stop lying, bro? Yo, what if I just keep it real concise, dude? So the attractive force is relative to distance. And so these alleged reified particles actually are obviously way closer. So they're being attracted. There's a weak downward electric flow on the earth. If you don't know that Coulomb's law is relative to distance, I'm sorry you don't understand things. So if you don't understand that positive charges repel or the positive charges and negative charges repel or the negative charges repel or the negative charges, then opposite charges attract, then your education level when it comes to electrostatics is below preschool. Strongman fallacy, it doesn't matter, it's not very long. Strongman fallacy. No, you've just claimed that electrons and electrons Everyone knows you've been intellectually viscerated. We can move on. Thank you. You've just claimed that protons and electrons are going to be pulled in the same direction in an electric field. I did not have to try again. Don't watch it back. Exactly what he claimed. Halfway crook says, time travelers are real. Cats proved it. I want cats to ask one question they have to answer, please. Okay, so here's the question. It's to you. The question is this, in an electric field, do electrons and protons, which are oppositely charged, do they move in opposite directions? That's the question. Yes or no? Yes, if we, there we go. We can end it now. Thank you. And you still don't understand how you still got destroyed because intermolecular molecular forces are electrostatic in nature. Thank you very much. Thank you. You'll get it. You'll get it. You'll get it. You'll get it. We do have to give them a chance to respond, cats. Yeah, you'll get it. You'll get it one day, man. It's that all molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature. And yeah, the attractive force of positive and negative, which is a reification, but charging and discharging, whatever, yeah, they attract and never said they didn't. That's what holds the matter together. The overall matter has a density and a weight relative to the electrostatic induction from the medium, which has a downward current. Thanks for playing. This numbskull thinks that matter should rip apart because of a change. We can literally show you with a reversal in the field, things losing weight, going up. Show us that happening with spacetime and an experiment, please. That's what a spark is, Brian. When you get a spark, that is literally the atoms ripping apart. That is the electrons being pulled away from the rest of the atom because the positive nucleus has been pulled in one direction and the negative is pulled in the other. Fucking a year seven science book. Can I ask you a word? No, you have not studied this book yet. Cats, cats, can I ask you a question? If what you're saying is true, and if I use a vanagraph generator to make something float, what you're claiming is that if I did that to make it float, then the matter would explode. No, what I'm saying is because I understand how a vanagraph works. Who's stupid? I don't remember. Because I understand what a vanagraph works. I'm not a preschool level. I can tell you when you put those little fishing rods to make those things bounce around and look like they're floating, what happens is there's a belt rubbed against the dome. There's a transfer of electrons to the belt, making the dome positively charged. The electrons from that little fishing rod you put in the dome are also drawn into the earth, making that positively charged. So just like I've said, those two same charges repel, which gives it the appearance of floating. But if you're out of your league, bro, you're out of your league. Let James ask the next question. You're out of your league. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm teaching you something, Brian. Please stay ignorant. According to you, the matter would explode in a vanagraph generator. It's so stupid so we can move on. Tim Pryor says, OK, no new drinking game. Everybody take a shot when with it misuses a fallacy. This one from used them all properly. Halfway through it says, Theo Mega wordy says, propagation angle and location in frame not equal. That's for them, I'm guessing. I don't know. What was that again? James, the propagation angle and location in frame not equal. We like propagates. Not really sure what is it. Is he talking about that business about the mage image where Austin was saying that the distance made a difference. He's talking about your little experiment with your with your ball. Could you read it one more time, please, James? With your ball, the experiment you show James, all right. That's all they put was that. That's all I have. Propagation angle, location and frame not equal. I'm not really sure what he's referring to then. Maybe they'll come back to it. Nominal says C C has been. Read D with a so instead of with a C redarted. What does that mean? So some there's a there's a NASA program that they sent out and they hit the Astro. They called it Dart, right? NASA, go NASA. Just kidding. Obviously, they're incredibly crappy. They suck. But anyway, Jarron started a joke that if you believe that cartoon and you think there's no way it could be faked and you believe it, then you've been darted and if you believe when they claim they did it again and you've been then you're redarted. Well, pretty funny. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Astro Smart says the earth and strings are flat while the earth is near the ground. The curvature is only visible near the highest point. So Witsit doesn't get it. That's crazy that it constantly as the radio constantly fluctuates up and down, up and up and down. That's weird. It's dangling from a balloon. It's swinging like this. So what you have to do is wait until the shot has it has the horizon across the center of the frame where where you don't get distortion. Why don't you take a picture of in the center of frame then? I did. No, you didn't. Everyone saw it. Everyone saw it wasn't in the center of frame. Literally, it literally was between literally that money between the two strings. These are the two strings center of the frame. We're talking about the camera, bro. Yeah, exactly. And any angle of the camera is going to change it. And just to what you're observing, the angle gets different with distance and you guys want to keep on whistling past that. And it's going to change. Oh, forget the camera. Forget the camera. It's going to change it to that perfect amount. So the strings are straight and the horizon. It's not the perfect amount. It's not even that's the prediction. It's not even that's the prediction. Austin, the strings were one third from the top, one third from the bottom. The horizon was between the two. What happened to the seven and a half degree drop, bro? In the distance. What happened to the seven and a half degree drop? It wasn't in this point thing towards it, Brian. Unlike us, it doesn't have an eyeball that swivels. So we're relying on the swing placing the horizon in the center of view between the two strings. You and I have eyeballs. We would look down, however many degrees. Mage being a static camera can't. It's relying on the swing. So you have to take a shot where the horizon is across the middle, which is what I did. And that's the fairest place, because there is no distortion either increasing or decreasing curve. And in fact, on the full Mage video, which I would recommend people go and have a look, I've got a Mage playlist. I've got a second one where I take the horizon in the bottom portion where any distortion would actually make it look flatter and there's still a slight positive curve. Did you do your second experiment? Sorry, James, but did you do your second Mage yet? That is Mage. That was Mage two. Mage one, I showed it failed. It went up five and a half kilometers and there was an equipment failure. The balloon basically had a pinhole leak, but I was honest enough to show that video. It's still up. That was Mage two and I'm looking at and currently in design for Mage three, where we're actually looking at trying to be able to determine horizon drop. This is coming in from that's what I'm asking. Kale Champ FTT says, I'm a glober, but the globes are just being rude. The Omega wordy says, Brian, stop being a blue falcon. What is that? Some sort of sexual innuendo? No, I hope not, man, but I'm thinking of the blue horizon shot, man. Real quick, everything to me, the Mage is a circle of sight. It's a circle of sight. So if you were to scroll to the right, it's not going to keep dropping down. It's going to have another same view and the earth would have to be a flower or a McDonald's sign for that to be earth curvature. Like he just said with Mage three, I want to see drop in the distance because you didn't have zero degrees of drop straight away and you required seven to seven and a half predicted by the globe model. Right. If it's dangling and swinging, how can you tell what the horizon is? Brian, but you still should at least show the picture center frame. I understand the strings and where they were. But I'll give you that. I can see that. This one coming in from Tim Pryor as a double header says also a shot for every time they dodge given any flat earth evidence when asked for it and with it really needs to learn what an ad-hom is. Never mind. He's been told the difference. He'll never learn. Yeah. Whenever you don't provide actual substantive arguments relevant to the other argument or subject, you just bring in personal attacks and insults as your argument, which is all that cats at the whole time. It's called an ad-hom. You did that constantly. So there you go. I think the truth is that every single time that I pointed something out and back them into a corner, they didn't answer. I don't know what the first part of it was, but oh, take a drink every time. What? Take a drink every time. Let me answer the first part. The first part was just evidence I showed from seven inches, seven inches above the ground, a horizon, 16.8 miles. That means the earth has to have a radius bigger than Jupiter's and they just dodge it. They just just whistle past the graveyard, just hand wave dismissals. Can I quickly respond to that? I don't think it's an ad-hom when somebody says something like relativity says the earth can't move around the sun. And then when asked to explain... You didn't say that, it's a strawman. And then, or relativity says we can't observe the earth moving around the sun. And then when asked to explain why, they literally just say something to be matter contracting and clocks and being asked over and over again when they can't explain why. And then for me to say to them, you can't explain your own point. That's not an ad-hom. Just make sure. That's an observation. Brian, Brian, you can't do that. Brian, you're doing a great job. Thank you. That is not an ad-hom. That is an observation of what's happened. When you say that the ring laser gyroscope does detect rotation and then you say, but it's not rotation of the earth, it's something else. And I bring that up and say that's a bit silly. That's not an ad-hom. That is literally an observation of what you said. When you say that... OK, this is my question. You've monologued long enough. Yeah, no, not really. 10 more seconds. When you say that electrostatic forces are responsible for things falling, but I say to you, well, how do you explain protons and electrons traveling in opposite directions in an electric field? And you dodged the question. Me picking that up isn't a strawman. It's an observation. OK, so what you just did right there were all strawman fallacy. So I didn't say that you only ad-homi. You also strawman me. And then I had to correct you again. You've been corrected four times when you claim I say that it proves that the earth can't be spinning. I've corrected you four times and you repeat that strawman every single time. I've corrected you on every single thing that you've said right then. Protons and electrons. You're not allowed to respond anymore. It's my closing remark to the question. OK, so the point is that I said that you started your whole thing with ad-homs. You did. Everything else you did was red herring fallacies, strawman fallacies, virtue signaling, baseless chanting and nonsense. Everyone can see that it was all soap or street the whole time and let the audience decide things. When you say it was your question, it was a comment. It was a comment. Make sure you guys get the last word in any way. I don't care, James. You can make me. I would say we do. I just want to give Austin the last word because it was directed to him. So if he gets an objection where they tell him, like, you're an idiot and blah, blah, blah. And then we give you guys the last word. It's kind of like they're getting up on him. So I want to give him the last word, at least for the ones that are directed at him. Yeah. Yeah. Zandyle. So everyone can look at my fallacy accusation and count them. Zandyle Zulu says, Coriola's effect apply to a bullet but not a plane. Yes. This one coming in from. Well, I'd say, yes, it applies. It's noticed with the bullet rather than the plane. Plane is powered. And it's also being buffeted by the wind because it's not that fast. And so you're constantly making corrections. Like driving along a straight road, a straight freeway, your steering wheel, you're still going to be putting little inputs into the steering. Those inputs that an aircraft make are greater than the Coriolis effect. And also, aircraft will be heading from waypoint to waypoint. If they're off course, they'll adjust. So they're always pointing towards the course. So basically, Coriolis is there, but in an aircraft, you won't notice it. A bullet is a ballistic object. It doesn't steer. And so Coriolis can be noticed. This one coming in from. Do appreciate your question. Tim Pryor says, I want, I think this mean, I went to Antarctica in college. I witnessed the 24-hour sun. You can literally book trips there. Half to lie to fluff. No, you didn't see the 24-hour sun. You may have saw 24-hour sunlight. I literally am about to have someone on my show that used to work for NASA and was stationed there for those six months where you're supposed, around the time you're supposed to be able to see the sun. And he said, you only see sunlight. You don't see the sun, which can be explained with coffee cup costs to committing other things. You made that up. And of course, you can't privately and freely explore past the 60th South latitude. You guys are the ones that lie and claim that we say you can't go at all. So you can run this other narrative because all the globe has are scripts that they regurgitate that are dishonest. Well, I showed you tonight, you were lying about that. Anybody can go to Antarctica. I showed you the article from the treaty. Oh my God. I showed you from the government's website. So, and I said, you've had it pointed out before. I've now definitely evidenced it. You can't use that argument again. It's a lie. Give you a quick response. So he literally just did the very thing I said, which as I claim, you can't privately and freely explore, right? You have to get three months advance notice from the U.S. You have to give them your route. They have to approve it. And he responded with, I just disproved and proved you were lying about not being able to go there. I didn't say you couldn't go there. I said, you can't freely and privately go there, which just shows my point again. All the globe has is a script of lies. Thank you for this life says Dallas to South Korea, 14 hours and 10 minutes. Johannesburg to Sydney, 14 hours and 13 minutes. How do these two flight paths take roughly the same time? But on flat earth are vastly different distances. Tell them to look at the ISS logo and that explains it. Their main argument is Sydney to Santiago. And I was looking close at the A map and thought that ISS logo, because it's 200 years more recent. And I thought that it was the same thing. But I look closer and Australia is significantly closer. And Africa literally bends toward South America, explains all that stuff fine. And even if it didn't, they have faster planes down there. It's all it would take or jet streams. It's a desperate shot of the B-ball. He comes to Earth Awakening Discord and challenges quite often. Can I just add to that? The question wasn't about the flight path that you just said, Sydney to Santiago or the other way around. It was about two other flight paths. So you can't change the question. I can't remember. It certainly wasn't Sydney to Santiago. So you've changed the question to a flight path you know. So I haven't finished it, Brian. You've changed the question to a flight path you know. And then you've said, well, look at the ISS. And then you've still not been able to answer it. You've just said, oh, they must have faster planes or it's a jet stream or something. And this is, again, why people laugh at flat earth and the flat earth evidence that's brought because it's all, oh, it must be some reason. You know, it must be some reason why the ring laser gyroscope shows rotation which you have admitted. It must be some reason. It must be some reason why the planes take longer. Give up, bro. Give up. Okay, okay. Let's give off some chance. You just showed, stop bringing up the gyro. You showed the whole entire audience. You don't even know the globe model and that it would stay the same with different altitudes. Okay, please stop bringing it up. Secondly, we would have to look at the specific flight that you're talking about every time that we do. We don't run away from any of them. I have an entire stream on them. We cover all of them. And yes, there are jet streams. And yes, it takes longer in one direction than the other admittedly, up to three to four hours longer, et cetera. We'd be happy to look at the specifics every time we do. We debunk the claim it's impossible on a flat earth. So you can say we run away from it, but we don't. And actually what everyone laughs at is grown men that say flat earth is stupid and easily disproven but obsessively stock it and the people that push it. Thank you. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Mr. Baldi, sensible cats says, I think the bald guys won this. Then Tim Pryor says, so you admit people can go there, which means anybody can witness the 24 hour sun, but you still deny it, wait to debunk yourself. Again, so we, if it would be thousands of videos of this, there's only a couple and they are provably fake. You can literally prove they're fake and the ballers will not admit that they're fake. Which goes to show you that's kind of weird. Why you got a lie, you can literally prove that they're fake and they will not admit that they're fake. And again, I know someone that was stationed there for NASA, who says he was there for six months and never saw the sun in the sky for 24 hours. You can see sunlight that can be explained with coffee, cop, caustic. Thank you. Can I just add to that, sorry. We are, we are admitting that we get 24 hours sunlight in the, as well as admitting that the earth rotates. Thank you. Wow. You guys don't realize that when you lie at the end and it's a question directed at us, I get to respond and expose. You haven't put that together yet. No one claimed that the earth is rotating. We detect sidereal rotation. We detect sidereal rotation, but you're claiming it's axial rotation, which can be dunked or debunked, keeping the same latitude, but changing different altitudes. 24 hour sunlight can be easily explained on a flatter with coffee, cup, caustic. It's a 24 hour sunlight that you see the sun itself that has never actually been proven. Just to claim you guys are going to take things for you. So it can be easily explained, but hold on. Hold on. Go to Antarctica.gov and go to any, there's plenty of 24 hour cameras in Antarctica and just watch them from the government. There's several of them. Show me a 24 hour sun from a camera that's there right now as we speak. Funny, we can't find that. So you definitely have to wait 24 hours, what are you talking about? Funny, it's funny that we can't find that. We have to sit here for 24 hours. It doesn't exist. You're way late from this debate. You're like two years behind, Broke Ball. Yeah, it doesn't exist. Mushed the ring laser gyro. We've mushed the 24 hour in-art sun. You're behind by two years, Broke. You've only had your expertise, Brian, eh? Yeah, maybe so. As you've proven intellectual ineptitude this whole time. What's the refractive index? You don't get the last word. You keep trying to sneak it in. Intellectual ineptitude being projected doesn't make the earth a ball. We can move on. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Dave Hinkle says, global believers, please provide a demonstration of measured earth curvature over a body of water at least 10 miles, clearly showing the approximate 66 foot drop. Well, I showed evidence of curvature in water with the tow tanks. That was over 138 meters. And it was a curve, a sagittare of 0.6 mil. You can see earth curvature as you see ships disappear over the horizon. Now I've seen videos where people zoom back in and show the ship, but you can also see horizon behind it. They haven't passed the horizon. Once they've passed the horizon, you can't zoom it back. Just like the sun, where the sun is setting and you can see, it's a really clear day, you can see half the sun, the bottom half, where's that gone? It's gone beyond the curve. You ever feel the sunset? Sorry, go ahead. Tim Pryor says, I'm going to read a couple of these in a row. I predict Witsit will well then this question again like he's been doing through the whole debate. Any flat earth evidence? Any measurements of flatness? Everybody take a shot if he dodges around the question. And another lie, we do not say illusion. We say show to math, which says, I can't happen on a globe another lie. Some incoherent dribble there. All planar survey, which is the base data used for even the geodetic surveying, which of course just assumes the globe, it comes from plain survey data. All data ever taken assumes a horizontal plane to perpendicular to the vertical plum that's established in the beginning. Again, we have long distance mirror flashes. Refraction cannot explain it as it is requiring line of sight. We have long distance laser measurements. Of course, the government also uses long distance electromagnetic propagation assuming a dielectric plane. And there's much more evidence. These are all positive pieces of evidence showing the planar nature of the earth. You simply reiterating that we don't give you evidence by ignoring the evidence, doesn't make it true. It doesn't make us dumb. It doesn't make the earth a ball. Thank you. And of course in the real world, people use celestial navigation based on a globe to actually get from A to B. Rather than just saying, there is no curvature. We've never proven curvature without showing any of the details. In the real world, geodetic surveyors do it all the time. And then we use celestial navigation based on the earth being a globe to get from A to B, which is how the world functions. I get the response. I showed you Googlers, didn't I? I showed you how to shoot in. Let's give it to Austin. OK, so this is the problem with what you're saying. First of all, what you see is this optical declination in the sky. And you automatically take it out of the sky and assume it's actually the earth itself that's curving with celestial navigation. And literally, admittedly, you have to use a geocentric center position to even do that. And then you apply the optical declination to the floor itself. So that's all that there is to that. It's pretty simple. And then whatever else you said is easily explained, which I don't remember whether it doesn't matter. So literally, with celestial navigation, you require parallel rays of light hitting a sphere. And the angle of the source of that, like that star, the angle it is off of your zenith indicates how far around the curve you've got. Nautical miles are minutes of arc around a curve. You just repeated what I said. You reify the optical declination, apply it to the convexity of terra firma, then assume it is, in fact, the cause of the optical declination. You then respond by explaining to us how you do the reification of convexity with optical declination. Thank you. Every time you respond, I get to end it. So Q&A to me is the worst, because you guys can't lie to end it and drown it out in so much strength. Says Witsit, if you were only allowed to travel one place in Antarctica, would people still be able to film the 24-hour sun? You guys keep bringing up the 24-hour sun. But actually, that doesn't happen. It's only sunlight, which can easily be explained on a flat Earth. And if it was so easily proven that the sun is visible for 24 hours, you would just have tons of videos of it. It would be very easy to see it. That doesn't exist. And why would they be faking that? Well, folks, we can't take any more questions. We've got so many. We've got to get these guys out of here as quick as we can. Ryan says Randolph, Fiennese, and a crew independently circumnavigated the globe, which included crossing Antarctica in its entirety. We call that the dog leg route. They admittedly dog-legged around Antarctica. They've never went straight over Antarctica. They could change us all with one simple flight, but they just won't do it. One more orbit is a dog-leg orbit. That's what we call them. Why do they have to lie and say it went right over Antarctica and circumnavigated and literally didn't do that? It went over like a little edge and kept going up north. Why lie? That's weird. It makes no sense to have to lie. I'm just saying. This one from Chris Foster says, almost 2023 and still not a single workable model from the Flat Earth believers. Move on, there's better ways to get views and feel edgy. There literally isn't a working model from the globe, from the core all the way out from the magnetic field, from gravity, from the quantum to the cosmological scale. There is literally not a working globe model admittedly so the irony of that statement is overwhelming. Of course, matters are not reality. There is a magnetic working. If you want to see a Flat Earth model real quick, go to Steve, just S-T-E-B-E and scroll down about 20 charts. You'll see magnetic Flat Earth. It's terabytes of information. It's exactly Austin kind of elaborated on it with the orbits of the plants. And it's terabytes of data. And it's a working Flat Earth model. I'd like to add to that. And then there's absolutely no Flat Earth model. I know you're going to get your right to reply, which you'll say, yes, there is. But tonight you've literally provided no evidence of the Flat Earth. There's no Flat Earth model that explains sunsets, sunrises, eclipses, the weathers, the difference in the anticlockwise and clockwise rotation of storms in the northern sum of the hemisphere. There's no Flat Earth model that explains boats disappearing bottom up over the horizon or the celestial star trails in the opposite direction of the northern sun. They haven't seen the model that I just said. Have you seen it, Pets? They haven't seen it, finish. Thanks, Brian. So there is absolutely no model. And it's okay, again, you saying, well, it's over there somewhere, but failing to bring that evidence to the debate. If you had a working Flat Earth model, you could have brought it to the debate and provided Flat Earth evidence. Well, we all missed it, Brian. Yes, go ahead, come on. Anyway, did you see that model? Because I brought it into my opener against Mr. Sensible on this very channel. Fully enough, we all missed it. Did you see that model? Let me explain what it is, Brian. We all missed it. So they took a year of longitudinal magnetic, or the sun's azimuth and inclination or declination readings, and they actually projected it out with terabytes of data, showing exactly how it works on a Flat Earth. It is literally irrefutable. You, Mr. Sensible, you and Baldicats will never cover and refute it. 100% never will. Secondly, what I said to you was it's ironic you keep talking about a Flat Earth model. I do have a Flat Earth model. She's pregnant and beautiful. She's my wife. I don't need a model of the Earth because models are not reality. Fourth, I explained to you, you don't have a working model. You admittedly don't have a working model from the core all the way up. And every time you pick a model, it gets debunked. You don't have a model of gravity. It doesn't work on the quantum or cosmological scale. And you guys don't have a working model. And so I explained all of it. You guys understand this. Please stop repeating the same talking point. It's really old and lame. Theo Megawarty says the principle of the Lorentz contradiction carries forward to all and every kit that came after the first kit. It's needed to maintain relativity. Thanks, contraction. Yeah, Lorentz contraction. Austin, you got that. No, that's the question to them. He's saying... Yeah, that's for them. What was in the point of that part of the debate wasn't the fact that Lorentz contraction was part of the debate. It was the fact that what Austin was doing was saying that relativity and listen, I think I'm gonna say it exactly as you said it this time. Relativity, he says, makes it impossible for us to observe the earth moving around the sun. But he's basing those observations based purely on a certain type of instrument on interferometry. What he's doing when he says that is ignoring any other type of observation. That's like me saying a screwdriver can't be used to prove that my car is on my drive, right? Ignoring all the observations, like a camera and my eyes a bit. That's how low level functioning that argument was. And Austin has still not got the honesty to say, yes, actually that's what's happening. So really quick, once again, what the super chat's saying is that it's actually, it was applied, Lorentz contraction is applied to everything from that point forward that has any matter that you physically try to measure or any type of clocks. This is objective catch up. No, no, that's weird. And then we gotta go to the next one. What do you got, cats or sensible? No integrity. Okay, so again, the point he was making was about the interferometry. That's the point he was making because that's where it becomes relevant, right? Lorentz contraction becomes relevant when we're doing interferometry. It doesn't become relevant really when we're making any other kind of observation. So again, the dishonesty is seeping out of you. The dishonesty is seeping. You are claiming. Dude, do you have any integrity at all? Brian, Brian, don't do that. You can't be screaming like that. Well done, Brian, that was awesome. Okay, thanks for your contribution. It was very valuable. But what you're saying is that the Lorentz contraction and the interferometry, you seem to apply that's the only way that we can show that the earth is moving around the sun and you're ignoring every single other type of observation and you're always gonna go back to that Lorentz contraction because you know that other observations can be used but you don't wanna show those other observations. That's the flat earth dishonesty in- All right, we get it. You don't get it. You don't understand it. All right, we gotta go to the next one. This one from Tim Pryor has got a two Pryor says, hold on, wait, wasn't the laser invented in the 1950s? Is he saying the Mickelson-Morley experiment used a laser? Please show the oil rigs where the cranes are not bendy and the other is halfway blocked. That's perfect timing. It's a silver mirror. He's a silver mirror. Silver mirror looking at light, but yeah, so it's interferometry and unfortunately for him, what it is, the Lorentz contraction applies to everything on the earth that you try to use to measure anything if it's in motion, which it is on the earth, moving around the sun, everything on the earth physically contracts if it's comprised of matter and in space and all time contracts in motion around the earth. This is objective. And yeah, there was interferometry invented by Mickelson-Morley, I mean by Albert Mickelson. That's what it takes to keep the sun stationary and the earth revolving around it. Is this constant thorn in their side that they don't like to address? Yeah, thanks, Brian. That's great understanding. What I'm gonna say, like, again, you're going back to interferometry ignoring all other observations. Oh my God. If you keep going back to interferometry, just because Lorentz contraction relativity is a thing, for you just to keep saying, well, that affects, you know, things that use interferometry, that is, that's so- Strongman power. So totally, exactly. I just said it affects everything in Lorentz. I don't have a chance to respond. Oh, it's so exhausting. You just boldly strawman me. It's crazy how much you can lie. No, it's your arguments are weak. Your arguments are that we can ignore all other observations, right? Pretend they don't exist and then say that relativity says we can't observe the earth going around the sun because interferometers have Lorentz contraction. That's what you're saying. You're ignoring everything else. Are you denying that? You are going, Brian, thank you for your contribution. Honestly, mate, I'm learning a lot from you. But really what's it? That's what you're saying. You're ignoring everything else and just saying, well, it's interferometry. Like me saying, this computer mouse doesn't prove my cars on my drive. Therefore, therefore my cars on my drive. Brian, you're doing a great job. Keep it up, buddy. Oh my God, dude. I'm going to try to keep it in size because this is making the Q&A take forever, dude. Actually, Lorentz contraction, according to relativity, is applied to everything in the world that has matter. This is objective. Any clock you use to measure time relative to the positioning of the clock in the motion of the earth is affected by time dilation. Everything used to measure any attempts to measure the movement of the earth is effective. What you're basically saying is, we can't measure the movement of anything because that would apply on earth as well. So you're not actually making a link. You're not making a link between the movement of the earth around the sun and the Lorentz contraction of the relativity you're talking about. You're not making that link. You're not saying specifically why other observations don't allow us to see that the earth is revolving around the sun. Are you denying what he's saying? Brian, just let him look stupid. All right, thanks, buddy. What we're going to do is for the rest of the questions, we've just got to do a one quick response from each person rather than having the rebuttals because otherwise this Q and A will seriously go forever. Nominal says, Ryan, cool story, bro. Also, do appreciate it says James. Thanks for your question. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. Danny T says, will successful Artemis moon missions debunk flat earthers? Oh my God, that's why they didn't bring it up. Go look at the Artemis photography, bro. It's worse than the Chinese or the 1972. There's a reason they don't bring up space. And cats, man, do you have any integrity at all? Let's go. Don't drag it out, dude. James is earning his money tonight. Sorry, James. Tim Pryor says, Whitsett is only an expert in one thing, dodging and changing the subject to deflect giving flat earth evidence. And literally the audience can just watch the exact opposite of that happening the entire debate. Nominal says, CC doesn't understand what being redarted is. So he can't understand that he is redarted. Well, now he knows. This one coming in from Tim Pryor says, another win for Whitsett, dodging another question to explain Snell's law. Shocking. No, Snell's law is a refraction from one medium to another medium, but like my point was, I wasn't trying to get, it was ironically, ironically, it was actually him trying to divert into the specifics of that. When I was saying, look, it's a different medium. So ironically it was him diverting. But everyone can watch the debate and see that he diverted and strawman the literal whole debate. Except that's wrong, that's not Snell's law. Okay, cool. Tim Pryor says, love it. Whitsett claims they are dodging when they've actually answered. He just didn't like the answer, but still no flat earth evidence, even though I asked a thousand times. The irony. Again, it's just a talking point. It's just a talking point. It sounds good, but like we literally did provide evidence. I just entered that a second ago and you can watch the debate back. I'm curious. I need to do that again. He literally dodged every single point. The first 20 minutes is them trying to avoid my opening question. Nominal says, nobody out there who doesn't think it's a flat earth, just go get a camera and go look. One person, Brian. The nominal says, if you multiply the heat of the molten core by the dark matter, it's clearly slightly oblate. It's definitely a joke. It's definitely a joke for them. Nominal says, everything we observe with our own eyes is flat and motionless. We're not the ones making wild claims based on belief. Globers are. Is sensible, do you want to take that one? You just read it again, James. Everything. Yep, they say everything we observe with our own eyes is flat and motionless. We're not the ones making wild claims based on belief. Globers are. Well, I've actually went out and looked. I sent up that probe and imaged the curvature of the earth. We know that we're moving. We can see the stars rotate around us, around two rotation points. And there's always these people arguing about is it clockwise or anti-clockwise? Nevermind that. It can't rotate around two points. If you had something like an LP record, you can only rotate it around the spindle in the center. You can't have a second point of rotation elsewhere at the same time. From one location. No, this was from, do you appreciate your question? Mark reads, it's awesome. How does a magnetic field get generated on a flat earth? Explain the process and the mechanisms and the physics that allows it. Yeah, that would take a while to explain what's funny is they're looking to the stupid flat earther to answer a question that mainstream academic sources of mainstream particle physics cannot explain. They claim it's an exchange of virtual photons unidentified. But I will explain to you that it's actually, it's coming from the background medium, which is pure potential. You have centrifugal divergence and centripetal convergent superimposed. It's a conjugate geometric expression. And I'll go ahead and let you know, just cause you don't understand words, that doesn't mean it's worked out. This one. Sorry, so just hold up on that. Obviously what you're saying is that the earth, the global earth can't have some kind of magnetic field, but the, cause it doesn't work, but the flat earth can, but you're not going to explain how, how it's actually formed. You just kind of throw some words out. I just explained how it's formed. It's over your head. You're incompetent. We're moving on. I was just going to say, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it. Okay, a donut in the inside of a donut are the motions of geometry expressed within a magnetic field coming from the center, which gets bigger proportionate to the strength of the magnetic field. Now you can write it down, watch it back and try to learn it your side, claims it's virtual folk. Again, that doesn't explain how it's generated. Why do you keep talking? Why not? Because then it drives the debate on how it's generated. Nominal says everything we observe with our own eyes is flat and motionless. We're not, not though we just read that one. Earth is the license. Whitsit, what do Harvard professors say about the shape of the earth? That's called an all or nothing fallacy. If I invoke a hostile witness to correct their ineptitude at debating, right, to show they're not representing the actual model on invoke a hostile witness, I don't have to believe everything that that person says that's called an all or nothing fallacy. This is coming in from, do appreciate your question. Justin says flat earthers, please put your argument for flat earth in the form of a syllogism, premise, premise, conclusion, with an inference rule, et cetera, skip the jargon and just make the positive argument. If the earth is flat and stationary, we would constantly observe the earth being a horizontal plane and it never moving and the stuff in the sky moving. Therefore, since we constantly observe that very thing, that is the default position empirically that the earth is a stationary topographical plane. This is coming in from- That's exactly what we observe. Yeah, good one. Harold says, how many black swans as a refractive index? Hashtag flat. Nice. That's for you guys. Hashtag Superman refraction. Run your mouth now. Brian, calm yourself. Say, how many black swans is a refractive index? I think that's a dig. I don't think that's gross. I think that's a digger. Brian's lack of understanding of what refractive index meant because that question shows no understanding of refractive index. So I think that was actually a digger. No, it's literally a joke making fun of you guys. So you'll get it, watch it back. You'll get it. It's making fun of everyone, including me. Okay, Pivot Siamoy says for the flat earth side, what were the atmospheric conditions during your laser test and what was the refraction index for that day? The refraction index, if you go to look at the FE core data, if that's what he showed, it shows you the exact refractive index, exactly what happened. It uses the globe geodetic measurements and everything and shows that it does not explain it going over the missing curvature. We use their refractive index in the FE core laser measurements. You can easily look it up, FE core laser measurements up online. Including temperature gradients. Yes. The flat earth says for globe side, at what altitude do you reach space? Internationally, it's agreed to be, is it 100 kilometers? Yeah, calm the line, but it's really, that's just an arbitrary. It's arbitrary, yeah, because it's a gradient. And as, yes, it's a gradient. And again, with a MAGE project, I actually showed that, I showed the air pressure slowly going down. And recently, about three, four weeks ago, I was in Dubai. I took an air pressure reading in a Dubai mile at the entrance to the Burj Khalifa, which was 1,012 hectopascals. I then went up to floor 152, took another reading. In fact, I took readings all the way up in an elevator. You could see it dropping. And at the top, it was 952. It was a drop of 60 hectopascals. And 60 degrees. 60 hectopascals difference in air pressure. And 60 degrees. Thanks, Brian. 60 hectopascals difference with no container in between. Why the hell didn't the 1,012 rush up to the 952? Okay, yeah. The gradient doesn't prove it. You have to have the pressure. 60 degrees temperature. Pithy response. It took the pressure to have the gradient. And apparently they just claimed that the Earth's atmosphere extends infinitely into space. How profound? This one coming in from Tim Pryor says, last one, all the flat earthers could do is talk about the globe. Not one piece of evidence for flat earth. Imagine that. Well, the point is that we were all brainwashed with the idea of a globe since we were children and we were taught that's what it is, even though it's antithetical to all evidence. The default position is at the horizon's horizontal. The Earth is a stationary topographical plane. Any claim antithetical to that has the burden of proof. We are saying that the default empirical position is reality. Except the default. Yeah, the default empirical position is all observations ruled out of flat earth, which is why since we actually started to become intelligent and grow intelligence, the flat earth model was superseded with a better model that fits reality in our observations. Why didn't you bring them measurements, Cass? Why didn't you bring them measurements? Well, I'm sorry, but Mr. Sands will put a balloon into space and showed you what it was. Into space? And then you said, oh no, there's a perfect amount of distortion which somehow keeps that string tight and allows the earth to be curved. And it must be that because I have a religious belief that the earth is flat and what I'm seeing on screen I don't like. That's what you did. Not projecting, dude. There's something coming in from. Actually, just to the side. Just to the side, James, this isn't part of the argument. I have said I've got the entire major playlist, loads of videos about it. I've also got the full data set. Anyone who's willing to have that just email me. I've got the full data set with all the telemetry. You think that's measurements then? Go back. Yes, it's measurements. Indie Tiger Sci-Fi reviews says, I navigated ships in the Navy, ships in the open ocean, follow a curved path to reach their destination. If the earth were flat, ships, hold on. If the earth were flat, ships would follow straight line paths. I just showed in my presentation that from cancer at the 80 meridian or longitude, you traveled north to get to Sudan right by the equator. From Antipoder, 23.4 degrees from Capricorn, south along the 80th meridian, you also traveled north to get to Sudan. It's actually fitted, it's retrofitted to match reality. How could anything work like that? From either side of the equator, we'd go, both people go north to get to the same place? That's crazy. Quick answers, Brian, the gray circle routes work on a plane, duh. This one coming in front, I appreciate your question. Nominal says, can we all take a moment of silence for Icarus? What's that? I'll try. This one, front. I don't know what that is. Lemonygem says, legit question for Whitsitt and Flatter of Tests. Do you guys have any quick bits of evidence? Four Flatter Earth, that isn't just debunking Globerth. Yeah, like literally all radio shots and measurements, all electromagnetic propagation over a Flatter Earth, all like, again, you can do mirror flashes over large bodies of water at the surface of the water, like on the beach, and you can see someone reflecting light off their mirror from many miles away when there should be a huge curvature between that. And that requires a direct line of sight. This one coming in front. I do level for a living, I'll make it short. Tim Shrier says, you get a fallacy, you get a fallacy, and you get a fallacy, pretty much the entire Flatter Earth argument. Well, if you use fallacies constantly, anyone that understands anything about intellectual form is it literally dismisses your argument, okay? So that's why I have to keep saying it. The fact is that I have to keep saying it, shows you how fallacious they debate it. What's the name of the fallacy for dodging questions such as why do electrons and protons get pulled in different directions? I didn't dodge that, watch it back. Well, I just wonder what the fallacy was because you committed that a lot tonight. I didn't dodge that, watch it back. Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it. Yeah, you dodged it. Cortex says, flat and glow, please explain the belt of Venus. Belt of Venus, not term I've heard before. I've got Venus behind the sun. Explain that on a glow. Venus, literally behind the sun. I've got two, on my video, on Flatter Earth test. Explain that in a glow-birth model, please. Oh, it's when Venus is asked for a phenomenon that's visibly visible shortly at before or after sunrise. I mean, yeah. The Belt of Venus is the pinkish glow that you get that's just above the Earth's shadow. It's the pinkish glow you get in the sky just above the Earth's shadow at dawn and dusk. Yeah, like a Tesla coil using a magnetic energy would ignite the neon gases. I don't know what the globe claim is. It's quite a simple answer to explain why you can see Venus. That's not the question. But you can only see it. Well, no, you mentioned it, though. You can only see it like that transition time between night and day. Have you seen the diagram of how that would look? And if you were on that transition line, on that terminated line, why it would be easy to see Venus? As you say, Brian, behind the sun or in the nighttime? It's an illusion. Two-parter from Tim Pryor says, oh, laughing my butt off. We don't know what the moon is, but we know what it isn't. This is Flat Earth logic and says, what about the rich people that have gone to space? How do they pay them off to be quiet that it's fake? What about the girl that went there, came down and said, I thought I was going to see the curvature of the Earth. How come they supposedly go into space and they only float for less than four minutes and actually they only show less than 30 seconds? If you think that proves you're a cyborg, you're very desperate and suffer from confirmation bias. Wasn't that one who went upon Richard Branson's right? Or was it in Blue Origin? Yeah, Blue Origin. You said that. That's because she just didn't know what to expect. She thought she was going to see the entire globe of the Earth. She was just wrong. Okay, we did it. You're an apologist. We can move on. You're an apologist. We can move on. What a mean apologist. It happens to be the truth. You're going to make an excuse for everything. Did she come down and say it was flat? What's it? Did she come down and say the Earth is flat? Did I say she did? No, she did. Did she? She didn't come down and say the Earth is flat. I didn't say she did. Did she? In any way, shape or form, did she come down and say the Earth is flat? This is a question for us, so I'll wrap it up. I said my point very simply. The fact they supposedly went to space. So no, she didn't say the Earth was flat. She didn't say it. Thank God. The fact they supposedly went to space, but Neil deGrasse Tyson, the scientific communicator, put out to the whole world says you would never see curvature from that height and they claimed to have only floated for a couple minutes. It's hilarious. People think that proves the Earth is the ball. So no, they never said it was flat. You can't. You got to always try to use your sophistry at the end, but all the viewers are seeing through you conspiracy gats just in case you were wondering. Except for the zealots. No, they didn't say it was flat. Thank you. You can see through you've been exposed there. So no, thank you. They are speaking to the globe, bro. Werner von Braun, Walt Disney, Stanley Kubrick, pictured chilling together equals NASA. How much do you know about your space agencies? They'll whistle right past it, man. Justin says, James, you should get with it and Darth Dawkins to debate. I don't know if that's going to happen. Tim Pryor says, what about the rich people that have, we got that one. Skye Sion says, cats, they said the gyro shows the rotation of the stars, not Earth. If you can't be honest about that, how can we trust anything else you're saying? Specifically, Brian said, specifically, and if you wind back, specifically, he said, the ring gyro shows rotation of the Earth, specifically. You are a liar. Well, I tell you what, Brian, you can put that on your channel. You can go back through this debate and you can see what you said and then you can put it on the channel. And if I'm wrong, I will take my channel down. How about that? Let's put some money on it publicly. That's a bit. That's a bit. I just told you, I bet my entire channel. He even said that I said it. That's not enough for Brian. He even said that I said it at first, right? So it's like, if Brian said something to the effect of, well, you guys say that it shows the Earth's rotating, we get it. And then you're like, look, he proved it, whatever. You know, it's obviously was 100% dishonest. I can assure you that. But he's bet his channel. Brian, he's bet his channel. I'll bet my pinky toe. And I'll chuck in a five or two. I'll give you a five. I will publicly put up my pinky toe, but you hold him honest. We already know the next one. This one coming in from Delco says, when making very small printed circuits, electrons now physically jump from one gate to another. Physically, please actually explain and not do the, no, oh. At least show me an electron falling through the air. All he talks about is electrons and protons with gravity. Dude, that's what holds matter together. He said it a hundred times, bro. I can't wait for your channel to be deleted. Brian, I don't think you know what an electron and a proton is. You don't either. That's negative protons. Who's that question? Who's that question for? I don't know who it was. They said, when making very small printed circuits, electrons now physically jump from one gate to another. Physically, please explain how this happens. Yes. The Heidringberg uncertainty principle. You don't know what that means. So actually, it's all that means. Oh, I don't know. Sorry. Was I not answering the question that was asked? I don't think so. So you can just shut off a second. Basically, the position of an electron in the electron cloud is essentially a probability. And that probability, when you get two places that are close enough, the probability of an electron existing in one place and another place can result in it's not like a fixed position. So an electron can suddenly kind of appear to pop over in this direction. But it's just a probability distribution. Science. It just means you can't isolate it. Science. But also, we can see them, Brian, in a cathode or a oscilloscope. So we can manipulate them with an electric magnetic field. Or 100 million times smaller than that. That's how white televisions work, Brian. 100 million smaller than that. They have shirts with minus signs on them. Tim Pryor with another two-parter says, when are you guys going to start using Flat Earth technology? I mean, we're so dumb and all. When are you actually going to contribute to humanity? And people have literally done facial recognition on the astronauts. A couple were brothers and the others were just coincidence. Debunked, do your own research. You ding-dong. They objectively claim that there were twins on there. And if you want to lie about it, it shows what you guys have to do. Secondly, all technology is flatter. If that's hilarious that you guys say that a plane is engineered to fly over a flat stationary plane. No, it's literally engineered to fly over a stationary plane. When we use electromagnetic weapons systems in the military over a flat stationary plane, this is objective. Now you guys can say it just accounts for it magically or whatever. But we already have. You have to account for the Earth being a stationary topographical plane for a majority of actual technology. Thanks. Quantum physics does not agree we're relative. No, no, no. All of our technology is quantum physics, not relativity. You're talking about the whole thing, assuming a rigid aircraft of constant mass over a flat plane. That's a model. Aircraft are not rigid. They bend and flex. They're not constant mass because they use their fuel. And the Earth is not flat. But it makes no difference when you're flying. So why take it into account? Oh, it makes no difference. You do engineer like it's fine. Thank you. No, a plane couldn't give a shit what the topography of the planet is underneath it. What plane cares about is the the earth pressure at that altitude and the velocity that it's flying through. That's what maintains the altitude of a plane in the air, isn't it? Horizontal layer. The plane doesn't grab at the ground. Yeah, you guys are such sofas. It's horizontal layers of a stationary topographical plane. Horizontal layers. It's admittedly, the globe claims that it's just like it was a stationary plane because gravity takes care of the rest. That's objectively the position. You did engineer it like it was a flat plane. You can deny it all you want to. No, there's no engineering of a plane like it's flat plane. I've just said that the plane flies through the Earth and its altitude is dependent on the speed it's traveling. You always got to get the last pressure around it. Simple as that. You can misrepresent that, but that's like saying it's I just refuted you. You're going to save your flying over mountains. I'm sorry, but we're not too far from the end. So we're going to move through these really fast sky. Sion says, CC, why do you constantly straw man and blatantly lie about what it is saying? Like we can't see it happening. Well, there is no straw man in line. So let's just review all those points. That's a good play star. So which it started at the end, let's go from the end, was talking about electrostatics being the reason things go full. And though when I brought up the point that electrons and protons are different charges and we're moving opposite directions in an electric field, he didn't even want to mention that. So he wanted to, that's not a straw man for me. He literally wanted to ignore it as much as he possibly could. When we were talking at the beginning about the earth being observed moving around the sun, all which it wanted to talk about was Lorenz contraction and the interferometry. He didn't want to talk about any other observations. That's not a straw man. That is exactly what he did. So he's very, very selective. That's not an ad home. It's not a straw man. It's exactly what he's done. This coming in from, do appreciate your question. Dave Hinkle says, global eavers, please provide a demonstration of measured earth curvature over a body of water at least 10 miles, clearly showing the approximate 66-foot drop. Never been done. We've had that one James. We've had that one, that's repeat. Sorry, I thought that seemed fine. Yeah, you skipped that one. So they want to skip it again. This one from Tim Pryor. No, no, I fully answered actually. All right, Brian's a joke man. I shouldn't have done this by fault. Okay, cool. All right, Tim Pryor says, witsit, millions of people have jobs depending on gravity's existence. Please provide evidence that I'm wrong. $200,000 or $2,000 if you can. Yeah, well, that's just an anti-flatter earth earth so 100% will not pay me, but gravity as little g is downward acceleration agreed upon average of things falling down. That's the effect of quote unquote gravity. So yeah, we do use that, right? We use an agreed upon average of constant value to make the equations balance out, but that doesn't prove the claimed cause of the downward acceleration, which is the bending and warping of space time. So yeah, I can use a kinematic equation with height, time and initial velocity to solve for downward acceleration or little g that we can use for different types of engineering has nothing to do with the cause claim of gravity. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Delco says last time witsit was on, I asked him to explain my dad and his private visit to past the 60, would you like to update your script witsit? He went on an approved route. So you can only go where the government says if I have 100 acres, I have hidden treasure on one of the acres and I say, you can come see if I have treasure, but you're only allowed to go to five of the acres. You can't say you know there's no hidden treasure on my land, that's stupid. They only let you go where they say you can go. It's very simple. If you have to lie about it, it shows you're dishonest overall. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Steve 6464 says what was that NASA person's name that was in Antarctica? David Beverly Jr. Nominal says, Mr. Sensible, how do you differentiate the rotation of the earth versus the rotation of the bullet to prove Coriolis? Please and thank you. The rotation of the bullet, you talk, I don't have any shooting experience because we don't really have guns here, but you talk about the rifling that caused the bullet to spin, I don't know, but a long distance sniper will have to account for the direction he's shooting, north, south, east, and west, et cetera, as well as weather effects because there is a measurable Coriolis. There are videos on there with snipers showing the different shooting north, shooting south. Coriolis actually also happens east to west. I think it's called the Etrus, I think that's how I say it, EOTVS, Etrus. Bro, can I please just say this because it's really cool. I think Brian was about to say it. The dude just broke the longest record. Jared reached out to him, he told him that he's never counted for Coriolis on his left, he just shot something 4.83 miles or something, did not count for Coriolis. Jared just talked to him in all directions. Okay. The bullet was in the air for half a minute, bro. Half a minute in the air, dude. Yeah, well, I don't know anything about that, but that doesn't mean you can't hit anything, but if you want to be more accurate and hit things more often, you're gonna have to take account of Coriolis. Okay, he was just accurate for five miles. All it is, is you're moving from an area at one revolutionary rotational speed to another of a differing rotational speed. It's the equivalent of stepping off of a moving train onto a platform. You maintain your momentum as a train rolling past at 20 miles an hour. You step onto the platform, that platform zero. You will go tumbling ass over tip because you've maintained your momentum. That's an equivalent to Coriolis. We get the principle it doesn't happen in reality. We get the principle it doesn't happen in reality. Well, that question was to me, so I get to finish off. Unfortunately, you can say that, but you're wrong. This one from Tim Pryor. Several parters says, I got it. No answer to my question. Go figure with it. Sorry, I must have missed it. $1,000 for one flat earth proof. Now, dodge. And then said, dude, instead of saying it would take too long to explain, just say you don't know. Seven inches, seven inches, 16.8 miles. Stop boasting, bro. That's great, buddy. Mirror flashes over large bodies of water require a line of sight. Give me my money, bro. You guys owe me three stacks already, bro. Come on, bro. Pay up. I got a baby on the way, bro. Let me get my bread. Sunflower says, can we all agree you lose credibility for vaping? Tim Pryor says, thanks for proving my point, again, evaded flat earth evidence. It's funny you believe Neil deGrasse Tyson on one thing, but not others. You cherry picking son of a bitch. That is hard. In all or nothing fallacy. Mr. sensible, why would you agree with an all or nothing fallacy? It's very rude. That question's to Mr. sensible, because Neil says, that stuff is flat if you're 2 millimeters above this beach ball, 60 miles in the air. Yeah, it will look flat to your eyes. I mean, we're talking about what is a small amount of curvature that would be hard to see visually. As I said earlier, even with a still, and you won't have that still if you're floating in a balloon like Felix Baumgartner, even with a still, it is hard to see. That's why I compress it, compress the image side to side to accentuate it to make it easier to see. The fact is, they're really effective there. So that can't be a circle of sight, by any chance. No, no, no. Why is that fake Austin? Because you have to compress it. So there's even slight convexity imposed by the angle of view. So if you were looking at something really, really tiny, if you use a microscope, does that make it fake? No, you're just using a microscope to accentuate what's actually there. There's a circle of sight even in a microscope, especially in a freaking long range. It's a circle of sight. OK, the question was actually to me. So I'm just going to. This is the answer to your question, Mr. sensible. If you have just a slight bit of convexity imposed based on the angle of view or the lens, rectilinear lens, which you admitted earlier, it does do that. When you compress it, it will exaggerate that slight bit of convexity. If you want to pretend that it somehow proves you're it's curved, then you can go for it, man. We'll let the audience decide. Right. And I'll finish by saying it's barrel distortion. The distortion is grates at the top and the bottom. And if that horizon was flat and that curve was caused by the lens, then those strings would have been curved. And as they're in a more distorting area, they would have been even more curved. You can't have it both ways. Tim, but apparently there was some magic optics going on that allowed only. Are you talking, man? The question was for me. Oh, hey, I'm sorry. I'll let James go on for a while. It's just lame and annoying. Actually, I'll use this time to say the guy said the electron question was for me. Actually, as pseudoscientific, you should look into Charles Protostime. It's terminal in one unit line of dielectric induction. They claim that electrons are actually point particles with no size or shape. And they claim that they're density clouds that are nowhere and everywhere at the same time it's all pseudoscience. All right. This is coming in from Duke Brigitte, Tim Pryor says, and planes being designed literally have to formulate gravity into it. Now what? And then said, the fact flat earthers think they're smarter than billions, says a lot. Kitten videos millions of views, but no flatter channel. Wonder why? You're basically bragging about them admitting that we censor us. They admittedly censor flat earth and you're bragging about it. And then these people literally only have a channel because they attack flat earth. And they get propped up by the algorithms. And you're going to brag about us not being seen. That seems like insane to me. Oh, and then planes accounting for gravity. Again, that's the same thing with little g-down or acceleration. You can use a kinematic equation that doesn't use a radius or a mass. It has height, time and initial velocity. It's nothing more than the effect you're claiming to prove the cause. Well, you're only so late show. You don't seem to be very censored, do you? Your channel isn't closed down. As long as you follow YouTube rules, you can say it. Discord was shut down last night. Dude, censored means that we're prevented from being seen fairly and they admitted that they did it. You don't have to literally disappear off YouTube to be censored. Go look up what the word censored means. Read the definition. Preventing us from being seen fairly is suppressing us. That is censorship. They might not be pushing you, but they're not suppressing you. No, they are suppressing. If you Google my name, you'll find a YouTube video with 50 views instead of finding mine with 21,000 views. Go try. Boo, Marvel Sciences, Whitsit. In the Airman's Information Manual, where does it say planes are designed to fly over a flat stationery earth? No. So literally all of them say. Well, yeah. So literally they all account for a flat stationery plane, earth, model, like a flat stationery surface. The claim is that what it uses rigid and blah, blah, blah, blah, rigid aircrafts is to simplify the math. The fact of the matter is though, when you fly the plane, it's always flown like the earth is stationary and flat. This is objective. The globalist position is that gravity pulls it down perfectly so that you don't have to account for it. I just now talked to an air or a pilot the other day. It always looks flat when you fly. You always fly like it's flat. You go up and down in the layers. Horizontally, it's just objective. So the question was, in the manual, does it say that planes are designed to fly over a flat earth? In every single design, every single manual that explains the design. It's not in the manual. It's not in the manual. Every single manual that designs it ever. Every single. So in the manual, it says the plane flies over a flat earth. Delco says the election question, the electron question was for Whitsitt about gates. Now let me go back to that. That was in particular, they said. Sorry. It was about electrons jumping, wasn't it? Yeah. That's right. They said, here it is. When making very small printed circuits, electrons now physically jump from one gate to another physically. Please actually explain that. Yeah, we had that one. No, but you took the answer and you explained that. It was actually a question for me. It's Austin's question. And the answer is, unlike him saying uncertainty principle, that is what quantum mechanics says, which is that you can never be certain. It can be everywhere in superposition, blah, blah, blah. The truth is that the electron is actually not a physical particle, a physical charge carrying particle of matter. That's a hundred million times smaller than the atom that can never be seen or isolated and has no shape or size, but still has mass. The truth is that it's the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric conduction. The ether was thrown out and then they threw out all of ether physics because they had to save the heliocentric model whenever the Mickels morally happened. And now quantum mechanics is slowly but surely debunking all of particle physics and they're just trying to cling on to and come up with a new theory because they can't look past their scientism religion. So the truth there is that electrons display wave like and particle like behavior. You can do the double split experiment with electrons. That is, you know, that's just a fact. I don't know what fairy tale world you're living in there which say, but that is the fact. That's just, that's called a paradox. You're claiming a duality existing that electron is both a wave and a particle and they're different things. Waves are not things, they're types of motion. Your way over your head, waves are types of motion. I can wave my hand, I can't hand you a wave. And the double split. If you don't, if you don't, if you don't understand what wave possible is, that's fine. If you don't understand what wave possible is, that's fine. We've got to get, article physics has been deep wrongs. The prediction for magnetism for example was long. Thanks for saying your input was very well, very well. Shut up dude! You know, if I get the final word, I'm going to expose you like Matt, the prediction from particle physics for magnetism was wrong for example. So they came up with virtual photon just a concept to fix the math. This happens with electrostatics as well, the exchange of virtual photons. We could go into depth. I'd be happy to have you on, but it seems like you can't debate. So it's all good. The truth is that particle physics is being debunked and it's well known. And to claim something's both a particle and a wave simultaneously is contradictory and paradoxical. It's good you're on the case. They says with it will, we could debate here for a thousand dollar prize if he debunks any of my two points. Let me guess that it's up to your subjective recollection whether or not I debunk it. So it seems like a rigged bet, huh? Do people do that? This one from Jim Pryor says with it, congratulations, you degree gravity works, but you, I think they meant to say you deny gravity works, but still congratulations, you degree gravity works, but still deny it. Are you agree up here? Yeah. Yeah, so like I agree that the effect is real. So like the conceptual convention of 9.8 meters second square, which is treated as a constant for values of math and replication, which is not actually constant. Yeah, of course I agree. We haven't agreed upon average, a convention of things falling. I dispute the cause claim that things that cause that is the bending and warping of space-time. Again, you can actually use science and prove that electrostatics manipulates vectors. So I don't dispute the effect quantification. I dispute the cause claim. Does that electrostatic thing, does that electrostatic thing require certain amounts? James, they're addicted, bro. Yeah, but Austin, I'm just addressing that. You're saying about it and I can accept that we don't know what the cause is for the gravity. There's a couple of explanations. You've come up with electrostatics. Does that rely on the mass of the object? I don't think it's directly proportionate to mass. No, it's actually just an electric bias on the earth. And so you're trying to straw man my position. No, no, no, that was just to gain understanding because my question is then, how does that affect the Shehalian experiment where they measured the deflection of a pendulum towards a mountain? It actually doesn't consistently always happen and that still is intrinsically electrostatic and it's not directly proportionate to mass consistently. So he doesn't know? No, I do know because it's intrinsically electrostatic and all attractive forces are on the intermolecular scale, are attractive and I mean, are electrostatic in nature. And that's 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity claims to be the medium electrostatic even in a vacuum, even a vantograph generator. Please don't say anything back so we can wrap up the debate because I'm going to not let you guys lie to the audience to end the debate. No, no, no, they don't say electrons get pushed away in electric fields. Rain check, rain check. They measure the rate of the mountain and that agreed with the effect as predicted by gravity. This is a question that just came in. Thank you, gosh, come on folks, you can't take anymore. Delco says we have third party judges for the debate and if you lose you pay nothing. It depends on who the judges are obviously, can't be like anti-flatter. Does that make a living off hating on flatters? It's going to be conspiracy cats and Mr. Sensible, he said. That's super good. This is what Tim Pryor last one says. If they censor you, then why could I sell? Still see, still find you ding dong. Still find you ding dong, thank you. Because again, censor doesn't just mean deleting you off the platform, although a lot of my stuff does get deleted. Also means suppressing something. And so we are admittedly suppressed. And then the anti-flatter there's a propped up and you know how it goes. I want to encourage you folks, check out our guest links for real. We really do appreciate them. There are 700 people watching. So I've got to ask you, have you already checked on the link? Because there's got to be somebody new here that you heard of and you're like, oh, it's like interesting stuff. You can click on their links below in the description box. And if you're listening to this via later on the podcast as well, you can click on their links in the description. This one from Tim Pryor says, no, they're just not going to promote nonsense. You're not censored anybody can find you. All right. Again, can I just say this? Can I say this is important, right? They're censoring all kinds of truth now. I got to close it out with this. You got to just keep speaking the truth no matter what, right? Because if the algorithms were fair, the fact that I have like a 90% viewer duration and my amount of viewer retention is astronomical compared to 99% of audiences on YouTube and content makers should tell you right now that we aren't being fairly equipped with the algorithmic prop, you know, suggestions. So that's the problem. So that's called censorship which is suppression, but whatever, speak the truth regardless, don't cut to censor consensus. You got it. It could be globes just in it for the comedy watching you, Austin, of course. Is that the non sequitur I'm censored? Truth is censored, keep speaking the truth anyway. Whatever. All right, I should say. All right, folks, our guests are looking to the description. What are you waiting for? You can click on their links right now. Culture cats, as well as Mr. Sensible and Flat Earth Test and Wet's It Gets It are all in the description box right now. What are you waiting for folks? Click on those links. We appreciate all of our guests. So huge thank you Wet's It Gets It, Flat Earth Test, Mr. Sensible and Culture Cats. It's been a true pleasure to have you guys. My pleasure. My pleasure, thanks for having me. Thank you. This is a wild one. You guys make me laugh. I love your passion. So stick around folks. I'll be back in just a moment with updates on future upcoming debates. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here. I want to say seriously, we really do appreciate our guests. I want to say whether you be a Flat Earth or a Global Earther, hey, you can check out and try to understand their views at their channel, especially in light of what was said at this debate. We do highly encourage you. You can click on those links below. We really do appreciate our guests. And one way that you can support them is through, yeah, by clicking on their links, checking out their channel, and hey, maybe you'll stick around and you'll really enjoy it. You'll be like, hey, that was awesome. I'm gonna stick around here. It was fun. So I want to say though, my dear friends, let me fix this here, almost there. Thanks for your patience. We are excited to have you here. No matter what walk of life you are, whether you're a Globe person, a Flat Earth person, whatever it is, we appreciate you. We really are glad that you hang out with us. Seriously, tonight I really enjoy it. These guys just, I love their passion. I love their energy. And these guys do have passion and energy. They're just fun and they make me laugh too. Like there's a number of times where I just, I'm like, this is a fun community. So we hope you've enjoyed this folks. Want to let you know about some sweet upcoming stuff in particular, my dear friends, if you did not know this, this Saturday is our second big conference. It is a full day of debates, seven debates in particular. My dear friends, this is gonna be huge. I am absolutely pumped. You have got to check this conference out. And you might be like, James, what, what conference are you talking about? Well, let me show you just a couple of things. We are, as you can see on the far right side of the screen, doing a crowd fund. We are 72% of the way, as you can see on that meter on the far right. And that is regarding raising funds for the venue. So the venue by itself, we're shooting for the goal of $2,000. That covers most of the venue costs. It's actually about 3,000. It's just shy of 3,000. But that gives us a safety cushion because we are selling tickets as well. That is frankly the main source of revenue, but nonetheless, the crowd fund is a helpful safety net. And this is voluntary. So in other words, I've got to tell you all the debates this weekend, fully free. You can watch them live for free. So it's not like we've done it before and we're testing out different things. So we might go back to this model. We used to do it where half of the debates you would have to throw in a minimum of $3. And in that case, you get to watch them live for free. And if you didn't, you'd still get to watch them. It was just that they'd be released a day later and you get to see them. The way or the reason that we do that or have done that in the past is because it helps us raise funds to cover the costs. Last time we broke even. It was almost exactly even. I think it was a small loss, but we're okay. It's an investment in the channel. We know that people really enjoy these in-person debates. It's a lot of fun. And also it's a lot of fun for people who might be able to go there. That's why I'm gonna link two things in the old chat. In particular, let me first link, my dear friends, the tickets link. So if you happen to be in the Texas area, for real, especially Dallas, Fort Worth, highly encourage you check out this huge debate as it is going to be monstrous. I should say this whole conference. But not only that, as I mentioned, the crowdfund. So that link to tickets is in the description box. In addition though, the link for the crowdfund is in the description box as well. In fact, I'm gonna put that into the old live chat as well. So if you can make it in-person epic, that's amazing. And we were excited to have you there if you can because it seriously is gonna be really fun. But if you're like, no, Jesus is way too far, but I'm willing to throw in like three bucks because I plan on watching the debates and it'll be really fun. And I'm happy to throw in a few bucks just to help support the cause and because I appreciate you putting these on for free. Because you guys have got plans. This Saturday, I'm telling you, it's going to be huge. And so Trish in live chat is like, no James not paying for debates. But I gotta say, Trish, one thing to consider is, let's say that you watch the debates this weekend. We're saying, hey, we normally put them behind a paywall. That's what we've done in the past. But we're saying, hey, this time are you willing to meet us halfway, throw in a few bucks? Now maybe you're like, I'm not even gonna watch them. Like, all right, fair enough, then I can see why. But at the same time, if you support the vision of a neutral platform so that everybody gets their fair shot of making their case on a level playing field, that's another reason where it's like, hey, for less than the price of a cup of coffee, you can help support that cause as we try to do that as best as we possibly can. But like I said, this is a way in which we say, hey, there's no paywall at all. None, this time. Now we might go back to that and it just depends on what works best for the channel. So in that case, it might be that Trish, it might be that it might actually be behind a paywall and which case you won't be watching them in the future if that is the case. So in this case, we're saying, hey, it is free to the public, but we wanna say if you are up for it, we do appreciate any support as it really does mean a lot. And so let me show you some of these things. In particular, DebateCon Part Two is our second conference. The first one was in January, it was a huge success. People loved it and were like, hey, let's do this again, we can do even better. And this one is even better. We expect that it may actually sell out. That's why if you wanna buy tickets for in-person debates, highly encourage you to check it out. For example, you can see on screen, these are some of the epic debates that are gonna happen. For example, in the far right of your screen, this is one of the big favorites, Aaron Raugh and Daniel Hukicachu. Seriously, it's gonna be massive. That you don't wanna miss, my dear friends. We are absolutely excited about it. So, among others, you can see on the far left side of the screen, Destiny versus Nuance Pro. That's on whether or not Biden is doing a great job or not. That's gonna be a juicy controversial one. Not only that, but in the middle of the screen, Matt Delanty versus Destiny, the unstoppable force versus the immovable object. We're absolutely pumped for that, you guys. Seriously, that's gonna be an epic one that's on the bodily autonomy argument. We are thrilled about that, seriously. It's gonna be really fun. So, not only that, let's see if I got this right here. Bear with me. Thanks, Tim Pryor. Appreciate your super chat support. It really does mean a lot. And, Malavius says, I'll be supporting no matter what decision you make. Appreciate that. Seriously, it really does mean a lot. Do appreciate it in live chat. It says, have you considered contacting Tim Pryor about being a debate con super sponsor? I hear he's loaded. That's funny. Appreciate that. And not only that though, my dear friends, you've got some amazing stuff coming up. So, let me show you. For these debates, you might be thinking like, oh, okay, it's an in-person debate conference, I get it, but what is the crowd fund exactly? Well, Indiegogo is what we use for the crowd fund. So, this is just like Kickstarter or GoFundMe. It's just a platform that's set up so that people can make these donations. And it's so easy, because you might be wondering, like, oh, is it easy? I mean, do I have to create an account and put in my email and all that? No, actually, as you can see on screen, you can actually sign in with Facebook, for example. It is a breeze. You can move on through, super easy. And we do appreciate any donation as the smallest perk, as you can see on screen is just, if you look, like I said, less than the price of a cup of coffee. If you put in three bucks, that really does make a difference. So, we do appreciate that. And not only that, let's see, where is this? There are other perks. So, for example, the top right of the screen right now, let me update it. You can send a super chat in. You're like, well, can you do a super chat if you don't? Well, here's the thing. You can put in super chats during these debates, but we can't guarantee that we're gonna be able to read them. It's not for sure that we're gonna have the time. The reason is the in-person audience is like who we actually prioritize, because they bought a ticket to support the event. So, super chats might get read, but I would say don't count on it if you put in a super chat during one of those debates. But you can guarantee that you can have one of your questions read by putting in the Indiegogo at the, as you can see at the top right of your screen, at the $50 level, we'll actually read your question before the in-person audience asks their questions. So, that's a cool perk, in case you wanna be sure that your question gets asked during this huge epic event. But not only that, you might be wondering, well, James, have you ever done this whole crowdfund before? I mean, was it successful? Yes, absolutely. In particular, we did this to raise the honorarium costs for Dr. Michael Shermer and his epic debate with Mike Jones on, is Christianity dangerous? That was about a year ago, or almost a year. Then, we also did it this spring with Matt Delanti versus Dr. Kenny Rose, that was another epic debate, as well as DebateCon. This was another huge debate, or actually, yeah, that's right. So, it's been about two years almost that we've been doing this crowdfund strategy, and it really has helped a ton. And so, that's something that we're excited about is we wanna say thanks for all your support. You might be wondering, like, James, I wanna watch the debates, but you know, I don't even believe that you have any costs. I think you're just making it up. You just wanna take all the money and you wanna run off to Florida. Here are some of the costs, because the truth is, if you wanna do something, like, let's say, host an event like this, I wish we could find a free venue. Once in a while, if it's a religion debate, like, religion, atheism, once in a while, we can find a church that's willing to host it, even then, sometimes. Like, Unitarian Universalists, we had to pay. But sometimes, we find a church that's like, hey, you can do it for free. In this case, we couldn't find that, because with political debates, they're kinda like, eh, we're not really into the whole political thing. So, here's our budget. As you can see on screen, the blue chunk there is the venue cost. It's pretty big. So, the venue is actually pretty pricey. This time, the flight costs were actually pretty significant. So, you can actually see those in gray. Those are actually bigger right now. I don't know if you guys have seen the flight costs are more than usual. So, for example, we're flying in Destiny from Miami. We are flying in actual Justice Warrior, a.k.a. Sean Fitzgerald from New York City, Jackson Henkel from out in Los Angeles. There are a lot of people that we're flying in. We're also covering the gas for people who are driving. So, for example, Nuance Bros. driving from Houston. So, that's about, probably about like 290 bucks, maybe 300 bucks, just for gas. Also, hotel nights. As you can see, speaker hotel rooms, the orange chunk there on the pie graph, that's another cost. And you can ask the speakers if you have any dollars for your, like, James, like, that's what you say, but I'm a skeptic. I don't think you're actually paying. You could just ask the speakers, like, hey, did James actually put you up? Just send him an email if you want or tweet him, whatever, is, yes, we actually do foot the bill for these costs. And so, this is a big leap for us. A lot of people are like, James, but you're old money bag, James, like, I'm a grad student, actually. So, I probably make less than you guys out there in terms of grad student, like, salaries are pretty small. So, on average, I probably make less. I'm okay because, trust me, like, we've done this before. I feel really confident about it, so I'm not trying to scare you and be like, oh, you know, we're in trouble, and you know, be afraid or something like that. And poor James, that's not what I'm trying to do. But I'm trying to say, it is something where it's like, this is, for me, a financial kind of a risk. Like, we're taking a leap here. And it's something where it's like, yeah, like, this could kind of crash and burn it, like, when we do this. We don't think it will, it's calculated risk, but you are saying, hey, if you love this channel and you feel like you get value from it, and you're like, hey, I like the vision, James, of providing a neutral platform so that everybody has their chance to make their case on a level playing field, which we really do try to do. We try to do it right down the middle as best as we can. We're not perfect, but that is important for us to be like, globe earth, flat earth, Christian, atheist. We really try to do, be impartial. My goal is that people wouldn't even know what my positions are, that it would be so impartial that people would be like, James, are you a Christian, an atheist, flat earth, globe earth? Like, we really want it to be that fair. So if you believe in that vision, if you think that there's value in that, or if you're like, man, I watch your debates a lot, I enjoy them, and I even, you know, would enjoy watching them this Saturday, we do appreciate anything you can give. But in either case, maybe you're like, man, I actually can't right now. It's something that I can't do. It's, you know, whatever reason it is. Still watch the debates, enjoy them, and don't feel guilty. Like, we're happy to have you no matter what, seriously. So I really do appreciate you. But yeah, like I said, we're just saying, hey, three bucks, less than the price of a cup of coffee. So that's the trick. Do appreciate it says, do you pay yourself too, because you should. Amazingly, for the first one, the only like compensation that I received was just through, and it really wasn't because it had to go toward the cost anyway, because we needed the money to cover the cost. It was the additional like ad revenue on YouTube. And so this one, my hope is that we could cover the cost and that like I would just be benefiting from the extra ad revenue, et cetera. Cause some of the debates will have super chats come in. So if that happens, then I'm counting on the super, like the YouTube revenue. But right now we want to, if we do have money extra, we want to use it for future debates, like future events in particular, like in-person events. If we have a cushion, cause last time we broke even, so we didn't get to that cushion point, cause we were hoping that we'd have maybe like a thousand or two thousand extra left over that we could say, okay, we're gonna put that towards the next one. We broke even, and don't get me wrong, breaking even I think is actually good. It was our first one. It's kind of like, hey, it's not bad. I mean, to break even on your first one. But nonetheless, my hope is that we can do that this time where we save extra funds and then we say, hey, let's put them for the next one. So we do plan on doing more in-person debates. So that's for sure. Paul says, what's the best way to donate? Thanks for asking, Paul. The crowd fund was just linked at the top of the chat right now, and it's also in the description box, is the best way to donate. So it is the smallest percent taken away. So in other words, like YouTube, it's cool that YouTube has the Super Chat feature, but if you put it in a Super Chat right now, like let's say it was 10 bucks, like YouTube actually takes three bucks out of that, roughly. But if you put it into Indiegogo, basically, I think it's like they take like 50 cents. So it's nice that Indiegogo, they take a smaller proportion, a significantly smaller proportion. So thank you for asking that, Paul. But glad to have you in the old live chat. Dave H, glad to have you here. Ryan, glad to have you with us. As well as one, Uber Fried. Thanks for coming by. I see you there in the old live chat. Oli O-T, thanks for coming by. As well as Ryan and Pizza Sauce. Glad you're here. Joa Prates, let me know if I'm saying it right. We're glad you're here. Mr. White, glad to have you with us. Living Room Speakers, thanks for that feedback during the debate, letting me know that Mr. Sensible was waiting to speak. I'm glad you let me know that. And let's see. I'm pretty tired, you guys. I can't believe those debaters have got so much energy. Toward the end of this, I was like, oh my gosh, these guys, these guys are like super high energy. Dingley Bombas says I just donated on the Indiegogo. Keep up the good work, based middle guy. Thanks, Dingley Bombas. Seriously, we really do appreciate it. This is exciting for us as this is gonna be huge. For me right now, I'm just super excited to go there tomorrow to Dallas. Because tomorrow I'll go, in the morning I'm gonna fly out from Denver and I'm gonna go there and we're gonna start setting up shop in the afternoon at 2.30. We're gonna go through a building orientation and it's gonna be fun. So I'm excited about that. But yeah, we appreciate all your support. It is at this point, it's only maybe 29 hours that the crowd fund is still up and then it is done. So this is like your last chance if you're kind of like, yeah, I was thinking about it. Like hey, now's the time to do it. We appreciate your support. Trip Canada says the globe is a chicken nugget. Thanks for letting me know that. And let's see, Dingley Bombas glad to see you. Yeah, I appreciate your support. Seriously, it really does mean a lot. Do appreciate it says, holy smokes, three out of $10. Yeah, YouTube takes a chunk out of super chats, like 30% almost. In fact, I think it's usually 30%. It vacillates to a small, for some reason it's not even a strict percent. It can change. I don't know why that is. But it depends on like, I think the amount given or something, but yeah. Chris G, I see you there in the live chat. It says, woo woo, ready for Saturday. I am pumped, Chris, seriously. And yeah, Chris, we've got so much to talk about. But we have time tomorrow where we can hammer it out. But I'm so glad to see you. Chris, is it too late for me to call? I feel bad, I've been calling you. Chris G has been helping immensely. Like, and to the point where that's why I'm like, Chris, I'm so sorry I've called you like a trillion times this week. Because I can't do this alone. There's no way, like, and that's why I appreciate you, Chris, seriously. But yeah, Chris G, glad to see you in the old live chat. Alan Norstrand, glad to see you. Says, great debate. Thanks for saying that, Alan. I'm so glad you enjoyed it. And I really appreciate the speakers. They're the lifeblood of the channel. They make this fun. Seriously, they make it a blast. So, do appreciate it. Says, we appreciate you, James. Thank you for that. Seriously, that means a lot. I appreciate that. And Chris G says, yeah. Says, nah, man, I'm up all night. Okay, cool. Wait. Oh, okay, cool. Okay, then I'm gonna call you. But yeah, so I'm gonna call Chris, everybody. I gotta go call him. Let me see. I'm gonna do this on air. Isn't this great? But yeah, it's a... One time it was funny. I called someone. And when I did, here's what's funny. It went to voicemail and it was like, so and so is not available, or like the number you're trying to reach is not available. And you know what? It reads out the number, like of the person that you're trying to call. So it'll say the number you're trying to reach. Four, three, two, eight, seven. You know, it read it out loud so that I accidentally docked somebody's phone number during the debate. It was a debater who was like, I think they showed up later something. But anyway, Olivia says, have you heard back from Professor Dave yet? Not yet. I appreciate you asking. I haven't actually reached out to him for like months about a debate. I can't remember who the last one was. I can't remember the last one that I reached out to him about. I think it was maybe creation evolution I can't remember. But I wanna say thank you guys for all your support. I love you guys seriously. It really does mean a lot. So I'm so pooped. What about you guys? Dingley Bumbus says, whoa, call-ins, new content. We might try that. At some point, we're gonna see. Davey says, James, hope it was the sex that you were calling. No. But you guys, I love you seriously. Thanks for your support. I'm gonna see you guys next time. Keep zipping out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Dewey Khan. Dewey Khan, this weekend. We're thrilled folks. Have a good rest of your day. Hi, Chris. I hope I didn't wake you.