 Evening everybody today. We're going to be debating is the solar system fake and to get us started us off Start us off. Sorry wits. It gets it is here and wits at the floor is all yours evening everybody today We're going to be debating is how long it's supposed to be. I forgot to ask This year well, we can the debate itself will probably try to roll it out like around two hours if we can It's usually what we aim for if it goes a little longer. That's fine But I was getting a little feedback there, but I think it stopped I'm not sure who it was, but we're good to go. So what's it 10 minutes on the clock? And it's all yours. Well, 10 minutes All right, I'm gonna actually try to keep up with it. All right So I'm gonna share my screen real fast Sure. All right. So we're talking about is a solar system fake basically geocentrism versus heliocentrism. I Didn't really have time to put a specific Presentation together, but I have a little something about it. I called this how Einstein's flip-flop barely who's the trick model I definitely can't cover all of it in 10 minutes, but we're gonna go through it So here's a quote from Einstein. It says while I was thinking of this problem my student years I came to know the strange result of Mickelson's experiment. That's the Mickelson Warley experiment And he comes down to say since then I've come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any Optical experiment though the earth is revolving around the Sun So he just straight up says I believe the earth is moving around the Sun But I can't actually detect it with any optical experiment So this is of course that test they shot perpendicular light rays They expected that there would be what's called a friend shift or an interference pattern of a certain amount based on the assumed Rotate our revolution speed of the earth around the Sun. They did not see this So what they actually said was that the apparatus contracted in the direction of motion With length contraction, so it just made it look like the earth wasn't moving It's called the most famous felt experiment in history because it was a quote-unquote no result Although if you look closely there actually was a slight friend shift. It was just nowhere near the amount expected So that's what he's talking about when he says well, we can't use optical experiments, you know optics being primarily lights So then afterwards Or after this test they basically had something on the table that they had to try to figure out and This guy sums it up pretty good He says the problem which now face science was considerable for there seemed to be only three alternatives The first was that the earth was standing still which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable this is Einstein the life in times and Copernican principle or theory is of course the idea that the earth does not occupy a special or unique position Here's Einstein again and the reason the Einstein's important is because his theory is still the mainstream consensus to try to claim that the earth is Flying around the Sun He says here that the struggle back in the day if it was heliocentric or geocentric seem it was meaningless Either coordinate system can be used with equal justification That's his claim because actually cannot be equally justified and we'll cover that tonight But he says the Sun is that rest in the earth moves or the Sun moves in the earth is at rest are two Equally valid statements. It's just about which coordinate system you prefer So here he says that the motion of the earth in space cannot be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments meaning no experiment on the earth So optical nor terrestrial experiments in that all attempts to measure the orbit of the earth around the Sun were negative and that before he put The theory of relativity forward. It was difficult to even come up with the reason why that was Here is Stephen Weinberg Well-respected physicist and he explains if we were to adopt the frame of reference like taiko's in which the earth is at rest That's the taiko brahe taikonik model and then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year Oh, wow, the galaxy just Executed circular turn once a year that just makes way too much sense. No way that's real And he just explains that even with relativity If you apply general relativity the enormous motion would create forces of kinder gravitation Which would act on the Sun and planets and give the motions of the taikonik theory And he explains that he brought this up in an unpublished proposition 43 that did not make it to the Principia He acknowledged that taiko's theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acts on the Sun's and planets I'm gonna try to I'm covering quite a bit, but I'm just gonna try to get through it. So Anyway, this is proposition 43 that didn't make the final publication Which is interesting and he says in order for the earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun planets Comments or is choir both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter In each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity and which the earth tends to the Sun and thus celestial bodies can Move around the earth at rest as in the taikonik system. That's Isaac Newton himself saying in fact, yes, the earth can be in the center Here is Einstein Which is very interesting in telling quote. He says but when I was a student I saw that experiments of this kind had already been made in particular by our compatriot Mickelson he proved that one does not notice anything on the earth that it moves But that everything takes place on earth as if the earth's in the state of rest So we can just get get this idea out that oh all science has proven that the solar system drill and we're flying around it That's absolutely paddling false Here's more. I'm gonna have to skip through some of this. Here's relational mechanics So there's two important things to be familiar with there's something called kinematics and dynamics kinematics is geometry basically so the Geometric paths that the planets move for example, that's called kinematics just the actual geometry in the path that they move Dynamics is what causes that to happen the force that would cost them to move now? Everyone knows that just with the term relativity you should understand There's a kinematic equivalence meaning if I'm standing on the road and I see a carriage go by it's like well The carriage can be moving or I can be moving that's basically the principle of relativity and so relativity says Sure, everything looks like the earth's in the center or not moving, but just because that's our relative position They're equally valid. So it's a kinematic equivalence. No one could ever dispute that that's actually the only way The heliocentric model has even gotten to this point is to claim that it's kinematically equivalent as in the way the planets move And we see them it works equally in both scenarios But there's also a dynamic equivalent. So if anyone's interested in reading on it up on it This is relational mechanics by Andrea Cease And he breaks down all the math all the physics using both Newtonian and I'm signing a mechanic showing that a hundred percent You cannot claim that died the dynamic equivalence does not exist He proves that it does here. He shows right here This analysis shows clearly that in general relativity kinematically equivalent situations are not dynamically equivalent What he actually shows here is that there's a problem with the relativistic approach. It doesn't work But I don't have enough time to explain all of that But basically says so if you let the Coriolis term become similar to the Lorentz magnetic force It might be called a gravitational magnetic field generated by the rotation of the set of distant galaxies Meaning that the angular momentum of all the cosmos moving around the earth will actually keep it in place And then he goes on to say the flattened figure of the earth, of course assuming it's a sphere Not what this is about or focalt's pendulum can no longer be utilized as proofs of the Earth's real rotation I've sent this to many PhD astronomers astrophysicists They've asked for the dynamic equivalence. None of them have come back with anything other than concession Here is dr. Luca Popov We got a few minutes left He wrote Newtonian Machian analysis of the neo-tikonian model of planetary motions where he breaks down again the math and physics showing that There is another interesting remark that follows from this analysis if one put the whole universe in accelerated motion around the earth The pseudo potential corresponding to pseudo force will immediately be generated the pseudo potential thing causes the universe to stay In that very state of motion without any need for exterior forces acting upon it So this is saying actually using the Newtonian framework All the physics all the dynamics is satisfied that the universe quote-unquote would perpetually move around the earth It would only need a primary mover An important part here is we saw that Einstein and Newton were explaining well if there was an Equal and opposite reaction or there was an additional force. Well, that's what you would have with the entire cosmos moving around the earth You would have a centrifugal force Right, so one might say oh, well the centrifugal force would cause it to keep going in a straight line But no, there's also a Coriolis force that's twice the magnitude and in this scenario It would be a real force as opposed to this pseudo fictitious force where all the inertial forces are fictitious in the fairy tale That is heliocentrism and so it would actually be twice the magnitude a radially inward Accelerative force that would keep it in place. All the physics are satisfied I don't have time to explain the the actual problem with Newtonian and I'm signing mechanics on the galactic scale But it's obvious everyone knows this for example If you have if you look at the actual galaxy rotations the Newtonian mechanics only yields about one tenth the value required to even satisfy the physics Here's Einstein actually a letter to Ernst Mach the Machia principle basically the one long story short 200 years it took 200 years after Newton for then Mach to come around like wait Newton didn't even consider the rest of the universe He only considered the solar system So therefore assume that if the Sun has a bigger mass we go around it if you account for the entire universe Which Newton literally didn't even count for it just assumed it was absolutely just like they are like a background Then the physics would necessitate you say that the earth could be in the center This is Einstein writing back to him saying yes, you're correct, and it would even actually drag the pendulum around And then this is him saying such relativity says there's no ether He gets over to general relativity and fit 1915 and he's like oh, I was wrong when I said there was no ether There has to be an ether and then he says the story of ether is by no means finished It's continued by the relativity theory so I got about a minute left So we're gonna move real quickly some people will say oh well in order for this to happen Things would have to go fast from the speed of light. That's impossible Relativity itself says that in the presence of gigantic masses that the speed of light could actually be superseded Einstein himself straight up says that According to the general theory of relativity the law of constant the constant see of the velocity of light Which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already Frequently referred cannot claim any unlimited validity so almost no one here has ever heard that but that's the truth That's Einstein's own words the speed of light is not definitive even according to relativity Here's a geocentric path just fitting right within a tourist field Here's the more geocentric passive planets and you see it has order and it's coherent it fits right within a tourist field Okay, so long story short there was an ether vortex measured and There's no answer for that other than the earth being stationary so we can get into it All right Well, we'll stop the screen share there and I want to remind everybody hanging out in the live chat right now if I sound a little grimy It's cuz I'm legit talking through a 1950s microphone. I left my new one at the jam space So Dallas, Texas, that's where we're gonna be here in a few days if you could stop the screen share there What's it? Oh? That's all right. I just have to pop the zoom open again to do that But yeah, if you want to end it on your end, that's fine, and then we'll get into the next part But yeah, Dallas, Texas where we're gonna be hanging out for our live debate con for you won't want to miss it folks We have our tickets linked in the description. I'm going to be there You know what's it's gonna be there Leo? I think is going to be the MVP of the day I think he's got a lot of debates going on Matt Delaney is gonna be there on raw David would All kinds of great speakers you won't want to miss it But in the meantime, let us know where you're hanging out We'd love to know where our Where you guys are tuning in from and where you're gonna be on November 4th when the debate con is happening? I'm in Nova Scotia right now. Where are you hanging out? What's it? Florida Florida. Well, you'll be in Texas in a few days. What about you T jump? Do you mind telling us where you're at? For the round earth. He's on the round earth Well, we're gonna hand it over to T jump on that. Let us know where you're at in the live chat and T jump 10 minutes on the floor Yeah, so the debate topic today is is the solar system real the answer is yes, the solar system is real There have been numerous Methodologies that have to be used in order to verify the existence of the solar system in astronomy this radio astronomy infrared astronomy Reflecting telescopes infrared radiation optical astronomy high-energy astronomy with x-ray astronomy cannery astronomy UV astronomy all these different methodologies can be used to Verify and validate many of the facts in the solar system that can be used to provide resilience to get the exact same results Around many fields in many countries of tens of thousands of different independent variables that can be verified all By these different methods to be the exact same thing and the flatters are like no, I don't understand math and science and stuff No But they can just cry all they want we don't really care because science makes discoveries flatter doesn't make discoveries So if you just want to go to Google Scholar, you can just start reading the papers Edge of the solar system large-scale chaos in the solar system abundance of elements in the solar system evolution of the solar system New blue gases in the solar system x-rays from solar system objects all of these are discoveries Which have been made and peer-reviewed by academic sources that can be verified with novel testable predictions. That's what real science is But if it's just making stuff up they say no, they use what's called post-hoc rationalization, which is objectively fallacious and The fact is that they are crank science crank scientists to use quote mining like as we saw earlier today Misunderstanding science misunderstanding math Don't verify the field don't publish peer review Don't do their own research and don't publish or do any discoveries If Flat Earth wants to be taken seriously, they need to make their own kind of a NASA Which makes discoveries equivalent to those made by NASA and other Scientific bodies around the world until they do that. They are a joke I'm going there All right. Well, I'll turn that pre amp back up so everybody can hear me again Or mind everybody once again links are in the description for the tickets to the live debate con And we also have a link to our crowdfund. You see the thermometer next to the screen there So if you donate to the crowdfund you can get all kinds of amazing perks like a one-on-one with James at the maximum level You know if you want to tell them how you can't stand to hear me talking in this old microphone You'd like to see me stop, you know, you can let them know Second to your down you can get a signed picture of your favorite speaker So definitely check out those links in the description. I'm gonna pull out here guys We're gonna kick it into an open discussion We'll put it over to you with it to respond to what you just heard there. I Mean, there's not much to respond to there's just a bunch of ad-homs and poisoning the well-falsed and Oh and red red herring because we're not talking about flatter We were talking about is the solar system real which is the idea that the earth revolves around the Sun With a bunch of planets in an ever-expanding universe That's the debate not about I think flatter. There's are stupid. You said something about no peer review I just showed you published peer-reviewed paper showing the dynamic equivalence and you said no, I don't like math and physics and stuff Okay, well, let's see if you can rebut the math and physics in so what what's wrong with the Newtonian? Neotyconian analysis of the dynamic equivalence or do you not know what that is and we can discuss? Absolutely, none of them support flat earth or reject the solar system. So that's the problem every single academic source agrees There is a solar system. That's the problem. So I don't need to discuss any of it I don't need to know any of the math because every single paper Academically published supports the solar system. So if you're quoting a paper that's actually published it agrees with the solar system I don't want to want to hear your misinterpretations and your misunderstandings of math. It's not really worth my time I don't really care what I want to see is I want you to build an institute like NASA Make discoveries under the flat earth. No solar system model Publish your papers and peer review. So other people can check them like NASA does till that are they don't care what you don't understand Yeah, I know I get you're projecting your own intellectual in that suit. You're gonna get really uncomfortable That's what's gonna happen, but it's all good. We can I'm gonna keep it cool while you're clearly about to get very uncomfortable Okay, so that's a published paper about the Newtonian Neotyconian analysis of the dynamic equivalence of a geocentric model and a Heliocentric model. I think it's very obvious that you don't know what that means. It's okay But if you just respond with more ad-homs, it isn't going to change anything It is a peer reviewed paper saying that if the earth is stationary and in the center and everything moved around it that you Can use both Einsteinian and Newtonian mechanics to show that it's perfectly Valid and here's the real kicker the geocentric model is more valid So if you want to talk about the actual subject, there's no way for like two straight hours You can just add on me, right? I mean you got to do better than that So like do you know any of this? Yeah, how about that? Let's do like this Can you give me one piece of exclusive evidence that the earth is moving around the Sun? See this is the example of the post-hoc rationalization I mentioned earlier All pieces of evidence can be explained by infinitely many hypotheses You can make up fat pixie leprechauns made the world five seconds ago and put delusions in us and that would explain everything Doesn't make a difference if you can explain the past day what matters is novel predictions flat earthers have zero Science has a million science wins. I don't really care about your non-published non peer-reviewed paper. That is fake It's not interesting to me at all. I'm not sure my screen since he's lied three times now So we're gonna literally just have to sure you can check go ahead So now we're gonna show the paper. That's fake the papers fake and it's not peer reviewed Just remember that's his response. I'll give you a second there to get your screen share Let me find it Excellent. I mean, I don't know what can you not just admit maybe you haven't read the paper, you know Like I'm pretty sure I debated the guy who wrote it actually Pop if you you debated a pretty sure astrophysicist. That's crazy You debated the piece. Yeah, what do you have the paper yet? You're gonna pull up the paper. Oh wait wait Can you admit you don't know anything about the paper? Are you gonna pull it up or not? Yeah, I've read a number of these fake published papers about geocentrism from a number of people on my channel And they're all fake so please pull it up. Okay, this is hilarious Yeah, let's bring up the paper and discuss It's all good take your time. I keep getting the screen switched over there Oh, I better get the ticker back on but once again Everybody hit the like hit the sub and we're gonna carry on here once Okay, so just to show the name of the paper will fast-capped looking my PDFs We'll show the name again because everyone's got Google Conveniently it is 2023 everyone's got Google. I don't know why it's not showing this screen share screen Here it is. Okay. So Dr. Luca pop it Newtonian mocking analysis of the neo-Tikonian model of planetary motions Just to make sure everyone's clear your current Roboto is this paper is fake. Is that correct? Yeah Okay, okay, and then let's go to the next one the next one here. This is an entire book Okay Relational my cat mechanics by on the seas publish papers. Is this also fake? Yeah, so the fake books aren't published papers so anybody can publish a book. Oh, you know, it's not just anybody It's a professor in physics Yeah, crazy people publish books all the time with it. That's not the color. Where's my published paper? I wanted a published paper in an academic there it is there it is So and we'll actually find the actual PDF and what's so funny is I actually talked to you said you debated this guy Just you're I was making stuff up But I actually was debated a number of physicists who claim to be flat earthers who publish paper So we're not talking about flatters. That was the argument. Yeah, I know you desperately want to poison the well Geo centers on flat earth same thing doesn't make a difference. They're literally not the same thing They are they're the same. They're just cranks who don't understand science. That's all that is Do you know what dynamic equivalence means? Dynamic means Variable system and equivalence means that there's some equal system between those two things That's what in the terms of heliocentric and do you have do you have any discoveries for me? There's a kinematic and dynamic equivalence. Do you have any discoveries? I want to discover You may rate is gonna get bad. Well, no, no, don't stop the screen share. I'm still looking up I still haven't found any I haven't found this paper in the academic journal yet Dude, and like I think it's crazy that you're this desperate, but So what I want to know though, I found papers saying this guy is a crank. This is a published paper in Cornell University saying he's a crank that I found In self-contradiction making, you know, do you know what the genetic balance hold on a second there? What's it? Let's let him speak for a little while Can you help me out? Is this guy debating right now or am I tripping or is he just insulting the whole time? Maybe you can help me out. Well, he has had a lot less time to speak as for right now So I'm gonna let him out of the floor where he had his thoughts. So over to you to jump So this is a paper that shows he's a crank Luca pop off has attempted to advance making physics by maintaining that the heliocentric system must be replaced by Tycho Breem's geocentric system we show that while geocentrism relies on max contention that accelerates a relative This contention is unstable because blah blah blah blah. This is just shows he's a crank. So yeah, he's a crank Do you have any actual discoveries for me? Yeah, so he's got nothing and and I'm not gonna lie like this is Maybe in self-contradiction. Mackie and G is where is the mod now space by Herbert's Harman actual published Peer you'd Cornell University only mod one way I guess t-jump has all the juice or something. No, I asked I have vast multiple times Do you have any discovery was on it? Can you just you look really ridiculous? You're interrupting and ad-homing the side of no Well, let's let's let them respond to that point there and we'll try to carry on from there And once again, if you can for our audience, so what's it tied into? How this shows that the solar system is fake just remind our audience how we're tying all this together, okay? This is bad this better change bro because I it's not worth my time to come here and do this to be Interrupted and insulted the whole time the student clearly. He's uncomfortable. He knows nothing about can you get on with a point? Cuz I know you don't know how to debate, but if you could get on at the point, that'd be great Okay, let's do you have any discovery just one second. They're T John I don't want to put you on mute, but I'll have to let them respond just right quick and then we'll pass back to you Don't worry. Oh, actually what's it? Okay, so all he's had so far is poisoning the well ad-homs red herrings and then a genetic fallacy So when we're talking about this published paper, he claimed there's none that exist and that that it was fake Now I've shown the whole room what it is. I now have the actual PDF pulled up as well It's a real paper by a real physicist Okay, and it has all the math and physics in it So a genetic fallacy is where you discredit the information or argument based on the source of the information It's very remedial. It's a very remedial fallacy if you want to actually dispute the Physics or math we could happily do that But I think that this is a tactic because you don't know them The point is that if the earth is in the center of the cosmos and everything was moving around it There is a dynamic equivalence. Do you know what that means? So which is again just showing he's ignorant of all of the topics all of the field He's saying oh, hey, look a crank published a paper therefore. It's correct. That's not how science works So he doesn't know that but again The thing I asked for is where are your discoveries? My discoveries nasa perseverance rover landed on mars in february Exploring the crater and has made significant discoveries including identifying the presence of ancient river deltas and collecting rock samples And we'll return them to earth. This is a discovery. Where are your discoveries? Okay Yeah, and like I can't believe you guys allow this but anyway Um, so we're not talking about flat earth. I know that this is your desperately. I asked a question You can you stop interrupting me? No, I asked a question. I want an answer to my question. Where are your discoveries? Okay, don't interrupt me. Be a big boy. No All right, if we if we do need to go what is going on because I will actually leave I'm this dude doesn't have juice over me where I'm like so beneath him. I can't speak Well, I was gonna say if we do need to move you are like a one minute back and forth If we need to move into one minute back and forth if you guys you guys are already well There's no back and forth. No, no, I'm not interested in hearing your words right now What I want is an answer to my question. Where are your discoveries? I don't want to hear people hear that like this guy Okay, where are your discoveries? You have to answer the question if you don't I interrupt you. That's how it works Where are your discoveries? But you ignored five questions. I asked so you don't have any discoveries And if I just listed one, why are you interrupting me again? Because you lied So I listed one perseverance rover discovered Significant discoveries including identifying the perseverance of ancient river deltas and collecting rock samples. There you go There is one discovery. So you lied. There's a discovery. Where are your discoveries? I promise you and I'm saying this so james can see it if the rest of this debate is this dude Condescendingly interrupting me every time I speak. I will not come back on modern day debate. That's a promise It would be better for whatever you're just so you know, just so you know, I promise because it's not answer the question I'm trying to I'm literally waiting for you to answer the question without without yeah without like I he praying analyzing Let's just see if we can answer the question and carry on from there guys You're actually advocating what he's doing. That's what that's pissing me off. I'm gonna leave Any day any day you've had five minutes, bro You said my discoveries. Where are your discoveries? Yes, first of all, don't interrupt me First of all, you don't have any discoveries. I literally just All right, just one second there tjm. We'll just have to let him respond So I quit so laughably immature Everything that you listed isn't exclusive to heliocentrism anyway So if I pretended, oh you have all those discoveries Oh perseverance on mars. Oh, there's a rover on mars. Everything you named isn't exclusive To heliocentrism anyway Okay, so now that we debunked that here are my discoveries the fact that in 1933 frissa wiki Saw that the actual relativistic prediction of the galaxy clusters needing 99% more mass than it was actually predicted Show that relativity cannot explain while the galaxies don't escape the galaxy clusters At one of the 20s At when Hubble's in the 20s show that actually that the the earth seems to be in the center even according to distant galaxies Not to update the model. There's two discoveries that completely neither of those discoveries So the first thing again, you just don't understand the philosophy of science Saying that something can't explain something else isn't a discovery. That's not how discoveries work Secondly, your first thing you said again, that's post hoc rationalization. You need to google that I know you don't know philosophy. You don't know science. You don't know math. You don't know anything But post hoc rationalization is when you say I can explain the data with something else So every time you say, oh that data isn't exclusive to your model That's just you being dumb because that's not how evidence works Everybody who knows basic basic science and basic basic like kindergarten leaven philosophy Know that you can explain multiple data sets with any different number infinitely many possible alternatives That doesn't make it not evidence with it. That just means you're dumb So yes, that is evidence that we've sent rovers to mars We have made discoveries that is not evidence of the flat earth or the your silly model And nothing you listed was actually discovery. What you said is it can't be explained by it That's just post hoc rationalization. What are your discoveries because I have something I'll list another one for you Phosphine and venous in september 2020 science is detected traces of phosphine and venous is atmosphere a potential indicator of biological activity Discovery by us not by you. Where are your discoveries? This is the most disrespect. I think I've ever been via platform. Don't interrupt me I know you don't have impulse control issues. Okay, so I did give specific discoveries. Okay in 1933 it was discovered by fritz zwicky that when he observed the galaxy clusters That it only had one percent of the mass predicted by Relativity to prevent the galaxies from escaping the cluster. That's when they then had to add Hawk come up with the idea of dark matter saying there was 99 percent of undetectable Undefined matter there that we just can't explain or actually detect. That's called a discovery. Do you understand t-jump? No, it's not a discovery. That's saying there's something we can't explain yet. That's called an argument from ignorance So saying here's a model This model doesn't explain this fact That isn't evidence of hypothesis b. That's not how evidence works. Again, this is you don't understand basic philosophy You don't understand basic fallacies because you're a fluff and so typical Simply saying this can't be explained by x is not evidence of y. It's called Basic argument from ignorance fallacy. So that's not a discovery. You again don't know what a discovery is I'll give you an example another example water on the moon ongoing research and missions such as nasa's luna Reconnaissance orbiter have provided evidence of water ice on the moon surface. That's a discovery Discovery boom fact about the universe discovered not something odd, but this model can't explain blah blah. No, it's discovery about the solar system by it not being You're literally lost. All right. You guys are taking about 45 seconds each So i'm gonna put on a 45 second timer each and we're gonna bounce it. So over to you. What's it? Okay, so it was objectively discovered meaning it was the first time it had ever been observed It was discovered. It was an astronomical discovery That the galaxy clusters they observed it in astronomy and discovered That the galaxy cluster Only had one percent of the mass it was supposed to have It was discovered the amount of mass in the galaxy cluster was a discovery just like edwin hubble Discovered no one knew this prior to edwin hubble finding it. That's why it's a discovery That the distant galaxies moved in relation to the earth Which is why why he then had to propose a new ad hoc explanation. Do you understand that those are discoveries? You're just gonna If you lift up a rock and find a worm that's a discovery That's phenomenal, but the topic of the debate is is the solar system real So when I asked for discoveries, I know it was tiny brain to understand this You need discoveries that indicate the fluff model, which i'm included in the helio the geocentric model the fluff model It's just the fluff model. We're gonna call it all the fluff model. You have to give discoveries that that model predicts or entails or indicates that model You haven't done this like all of the predictions about dark energy and the extra gravitational force of solar systems if a solar system is real If a galaxy is real that indicates the solar system is real This is not this is not debatable So you need to give a discovery that contradicts the solar system the heliocentric model and you're giving those that agree with it Okay, and this is and obviously I hope the audience can see this is called sophistry the intention to mislead the audience with Felicius arguments because he doesn't know about any of this So those discoveries were specifically Refutations of the heliocentric model I'll give some more though Which is that they've now had to update that the accelerative expansion model Which actually comes from the ebb and Hubble discovery of the fact that the distant galaxies moved in relation to the earth in a central position Which was specifically not predicted by the heliocentric model They proposed the idea of dark energy to now explain the space is expanding Superluminal speeds over four times the speed of light and they don't know what dark energy gets to this day A geocentric model has no problem It doesn't have accelerative expansion and everything moves in relation to the earth because the earth is in the center All astronomical observations ever show the earth in the center So everything which said is just painfully stupid Dark energy exists whether we're in the center or not So complaining about dark energy just shows he doesn't understand his own model because guess what? Everything is expanding out in every direction whether we're the center or whether the sun is the center So literally dark matter and dark energy tell you nothing about whether or not the sun Or the earth is at the center. So it was completely irrelevant both data sets for extra gravity in other galaxies And expansion of the universe are there whether we're the center or not He's just saying things that he doesn't like about real science and complaining about it and thinking that well He disagrees with it. Therefore it works for his model No, you need to provide evidence of something that shows The world earth is the center and not the sun is the center. That's that's your problem And we you don't have that we have sent Satellites that go around the sun land on planets get data and send the data back That's a discovery based on the heliocentric model. You have nothing Okay, and I guess this is gonna the whole debate is just gonna be him baselessly asserting victory and avoiding the specificity of the actual physics i'm bringing up because he doesn't understand it but We'll let the audience decide so again Even if I granted you that the probes went around the sun and people landed on mars and all the stuff According to relativity, you can't tell if it's you or the earth that's moving So even with the inertial forces in your model, they would be fictitious and a geocentric model They would be actual forces inertial forces. There would be a kinematic and dynamic equivalents So none of that would even be exclusive to the heliocentric model Secondly, when we specifically tried to measure the motion of the earth, it was always a negative result There's not one piece of evidence and i'm asking again Can you give one piece of exclusive evidence that the earth moves around the sun? Gravity there you go How about let's go to the another one. Um, osiris rex mission october 2020 nasus osiris rex spacecraft successfully collected a sample from The near earth asteroid binu. This is based on all of the equations that Demonstrates the heliocentric model that prove gravity goes inwards towards objects with greater mass Um, and this has been a discovery that's been proven So there you go done and again, you haven't given any examples of anything that indicates geocentrism Nothing you keep saying hey, here's facts about other solar systems about relativity Which doesn't say anything about heliocentrism. It's just a relativity can't tell the difference Great that isn't evidence of your model again. That's an argument from ignorance And which it doesn't understand basic philosophy and they say ah, but it can be explained by multiple multiple hypotheses Post-talk rationalization. So it's covered by basic philosophy 101. Which it needs basic education This is funny. Like all you have is atoms. Um, so the evidence is all astronomical observations ever show the earth in the center The current heliocentric model literally says yes it looks like we're in the center and that all astronomical observations will look like we're in the center because The universe is accelerating and expanding in all directions And it uses the analogy of like an ant on a balloon that's blowing up And since the balloon's so much bigger than the ant as it looks around it thinks it's in the center But it's actually not in the center It's just expanding in all directions or raising in a loaf of bread in the oven Which is the infamous example that Hubble gave to explain the distant galaxies showing us in the center When you say I have no evidence here. It's in the center. No, literally all astronomical observations in the history of astronomy Show the earth in the center your model claims. It's just an illusion. That's a fact That's like the dumbest thing I've ever heard if you turn your head to the left and the right Guess what you're going to appear in the center because you can only see the same amount of distance in every direction So it looks like you're in the center Is that evidence you're actually in the center of the universe? Because when you look left you see a hundred feet when you look right you see a hundred feet. Are you in the center? It's it. No, that's just dumb It's dumb to think that because when you look in every direction and we have a certain Maximum distance we can get information from light coming from different directions that therefore we're in the center Because as far as we can see in every direction It's the same distance in every direction because that's how eyes work. It's it. Good job Again, you need to provide evidence and discoveries geocentrism and you haven't I'll give another one for heliocentrism um In clydia's ocean in the casini spacecraft before its missions in in 2017 found evidence of a global subsurface ocean beneath the icy shell of saturn's moon In clidius with plumes of water vapor erupting from its surface Heliocentric discovery that debunks flat earth and geocentrism This is so funny. This is awesome. Actually now that I think about it This is going to be recorded forever Um, so he said gravity proves heliocentrism I just showed that there's a dynamic equivalence using both newtonian and einsteinian mechanics All this is apparently something he's not understanding but that is what gravity is So there's newtonian and einsteinian gravity There's a dynamic equivalence of both newtonian and einsteinian And I've also explained to him that using either one of those if all these claimed missions Which I don't believe in them and yours appealing to the idea that it happened Even if it did it isn't exclusive to a heliocentric model He skated past it and he just keeps reading off like wikipedia Names of missions. That's literally all he has and third. Here's a huge piece of evidence Cosmic microwave background showed that there's actually an anisotropic distribution and inhomogeneous Anisotropic distribution of the background energy that intersects on the earth It's it's coined the axis of evil And it's a non-local 23.4 degree tilted anisotropic distribution that intersected on the earth And to this day in 2023 there is not one single explanation of how it could possibly exist other than the data must be wrong Actually, there's like a dozen of them. Just google the wikipedia. There's a number of explanations on that None of it is spectacular. None of it is Indicative that the world is the center of anything not at all just like how in a galaxy notice If it's a disc shape There's a center of it because gravity spreads out in a disc shape just because of how things hit one another So the fact that we're on the disc in Galactic universal sense in the same way we're on the disc in the galaxy since again, not surprising at all fully explained Not an issue. This is why no one takes flat earth and geocentrism. Seriously. It's a joke I'll give another and again which it keeps confusing the the post hoc rationalization fallacy of saying Ah, but it can be explained by both data sets Again, that's just wits. It doesn't understand philosophy or science So we can throw with the target in the garbage because it's what it is It's garbage is crank garbage because they don't understand how post hoc rationalization works I'll give another discovery given by actual science of heliocentrism Kiber belt objects new horizon spacecraft having flown by pluto 2015 is now exploring other kiber belt objects shedding light on nature of these distant bodies There you go. That's a discovery heliocentrism wins. What is what is wits its discovery? Uh, god, no, uh, I can't I can't understand stuff from the Yeah, uh, just more projection of his own intellectual ineptitude But again, there's a dynamic equivalence and a kinematic equivalence According to your own model with either Einstein or newtony, whichever one you pick Of course, now people are proposing modified newtonian dynamics because relativity doesn't work Because dark matter halos is shown that dark matter cannot exist because there is actually no viscosity or resistance whenever the galaxies collide All that's over your head doesn't matter the point is that all of these missions Which I don't believe in nor do I have to nor is it legitimate intellectual evidence in a debate because it can't be independently verified If I were to pretend they were all real objectively They are not exclusive evidence of heliocentrism because relativity says there is a kinematic and dynamic equivalence You wouldn't know if the earth is moving around the sun and the sun is moving from the earth as you went out into the solar system None of those missions would be evidence of anything He also just claimed there were responses to the cause of microwave background But there's not there's anisotropic distribution called the axis of evil that is centered on the earth And there is objectively no explanation from a heliocentric position. Let's see if he can actually respond with specificity Project nihilists, uh put a very prescient comment in the in the chat first law of fluff all their sources disprove their claim Phenomenal absolutely true So again, I he just needs go he needs to google what the problem undetermination is because he doesn't understand that him saying Ah, but it can be explained by multiple data sets is called making shit up. It's all this making shit up Not evidence. We don't care if you can make up fancy farting leprechauns like the geocentric model to explain data Anybody can make shit up There's gods that do that It's not evidence. So again real evidence Um solar probe parker the parker solar probe launched by nascent 2018 has been studying the sun's outermost atmosphere And solar wind providing crucial data about the star's behavior Discovery heliocentrism. You're done gravity is Working just fine going towards the sun, which means we're going around the sun and simply saying but I can explain it with my magic farting leprechaun geocentrism Well, we don't really care. What are your discoveries? Oh my god I gotta say i'm reading the chat too and it's great There are people that are actually pretending you're winning and you like you you don't even understand what i'm saying to you So yeah, there's a newtonian macian analysis That's published explains all the math and physics as well as relational mechanics And you can apply newtonian or ion sign in gravity to show that in fact the earth being in center is equally valid But the problem is that if there's a kinematic and watch he will never respond with this He's going to list off another mission, which I've already explained that isn't exclusive to heliocentrism He's going to ad-ham me some more. That's all he has is sophistry. He's a he's a textbook sophist watch He will never answer this any evidence watch this There if admittedly from your own paradigm with the top levels of physics steven hawking albert einstein every top level physics You can name you don't understand it, right? If there's a kinematic and dynamic equivalents in validity of a geocentric and heliocentric model But the geocentric model does not have the dark matter and dark energy problem Wouldn't that mean that the geocentric model is more viable? You'll never answer it. I could ask it for 30 next turns that are up That's because you don't understand the question So the equivalence you're saying is that both the heliocentric and geocentric model can explain the data That's the equivalence you're arguing for the the dynamic stuff is just you making crap off It doesn't apply to anything. You actually need a noun to say this is dynamic an equivalent You can't just say dynamic equivalents. That's not a thing There is no such thing as dynamic equivalents because there's no noun there to say what is equivalent You say like the mass is equivalent or the the momentum is equivalent Noun there you don't understand what you're talking about Secondly, the geocentric model does have the dark matter and dark energy problems because those problems have nothing to do with the orientation Of whether we go around the earth or suns completely irrelevant dark matter is the fact that there is more Gravity in a galaxy that isn't the solar system That's very very far away from it doesn't make a difference if the gives the geocentricers or the heliocentric model The mass in there is more than it should be There's no difference. Geo heliocentric is it makes no difference same with dark energy No difference. So which is bringing up problems of science that he doesn't understand Didn't actually explain he failed to explain how these indicate the geocentric model. He didn't explain this at all He just says problems in science Yeah, the reason these are like kind of nuanced higher level subjects that t-jump doesn't understand the first thing about So it's kind of difficult, but it's to really go into the depth But when I'm talking about first wiki 1933 it was a dark matter. You can look it up It was discovered that relativity was off by 99 with this prediction Geocentrism doesn't have that problem because there is an ether Right, and if you look at michael simorley the only reason ethers though now is because well if the earth is orbiting There can't be an ether. Well, the earth isn't orbiting. There's no evidence for that ever the default position is that we're in the center That's what all empirical evidence shows. Occam razor necessitates We say that so to prove that it's the other you would have to actually provide evidence Anyway, so the ether gives a substantive quality. Therefore, you don't need dark matter Also, the earth being in the center you don't need An accelerative expansion and that is called the Hubble constant Okay, because Hubble discovered that supposedly the universe was expanding It was the only way to explain why it looked like the earth was in the center of the universe No matter where you looked so it said it was expanding that's Hubble constant Then you have cosmological constant which is the energy required to make it expand at that rate Which is now over four times Okay, okay Doesn't need the dark energy because there doesn't need to be an accelerative expansion Okay, let's break this down for for this childlike logic The Hubble constant what we're measuring is the change in the light frequency as it gets farther away, right at red ships It gets farther away farther away. It is the more red ships, right? That's what your model claims. Yeah Right and that and that data is the same Regardless of whether we're in the geocentric or the heliocentric model Wherever we look it's more redshifted the farther away it is, right? Nope what No, how Because there are certain observations that are more local that have more redshift like supernovas Clearly, but that's not the question the question is is do the farther away? We look is it more redshift it's saying there's a closer thing that's redshift I didn't care that wasn't the question the question is is does the farther away we look Things always get more redshifted further away. Yes, and that's the same on geocentrism and heliocentrism It's still the same, right? Well different explanations, right? So light attenuation causes redshift electromagnetic retardation. That's that's that's not the point Both have the same problem That's the dark energy problem. Both have the same problem Whether you call it something different doesn't make a difference both have the same problem You said you explain it in a different way That's fine. You can make up some farty fairy dust to make it up But that means yours is worse than the ones that are based in real science Dark energy makes novel predictions based on the things why we explain it as Something like the expanding of spacetime your magic fairy dust from geocentrism does not the ether magic fairy dust It does not explain anything It doesn't actually mean anything to say there's an ether there that doesn't solve the dark matter problem That doesn't tell us anything about the dark matter problem. You're just saying there is space goo space goo That's phenomenal But that doesn't solve the problem You still have the problem and you still have to make something up to solve it And the thing you're making up has no basis in reality. Therefore yours is worse Yeah, it's funny. What do you call it like magic fairy dust or whatever dark energy? Is not even defined in the top levels of physics So to pretend that somehow that is Significantly more superior than ether is laughable because actually I'll quote Robert Laughlin from harvard university that specifically does this He's a quantum vacuum physicist specifically He says there is for sure something in the vacuum akin to an ether and whenever it's hit or excited Strong enough that it then begins to actually manifest that in the material world as matter So he says if you hit it sufficiently enough and I could do all kinds of things quantum is acknowledging quantum foam All kinds of things that there is in fact an ether We know there's an ether but heliocentrism can't have it So what it does is says the quantum realm is different than everything else because you can't have an ether on the cosmological scale Inside the heliocentric model. That's your own problem But whenever he said that ether was somehow like fairy dust It's so funny because everyone knows that dark energy is not defined and no one knows what it is In fact, they looked at the quantum vacuum. It was off by 10 to the 120th Power for the amount of energy needed in the universe. So they can't even come up with the theoretical what it could be It doesn't make any novel predictions. No one even knows what it supposedly is It's just needed to explain how the universe has to be expanding over four times faster than the speed of light An electromagnetic rate retardation explains redshift on a geocentric position. You don't need expansion So you think when scientists use the word dark energy, they're referring to something Like there is a thing They are referring to there's like this new thing that they think it is that is that what you think They're referring to when they say dark energy Yeah, a specific type of energy is what is proposed to be. That's right. No No, oh my god, that's so stupid dark energy is a label for a phenomenon that we don't know what is the cause of That's it. That's dark energy. The dark there means we don't know what this is It is not a new kind of energy. It is not a new kind of particle We're not saying that when when scientists say there is dark energy What they mean is there is this data that we see and we don't know what it is So the geocentric model has the same dark energy problem It is a thing that we see and we don't know what it is. That's it. That's all it means to say dark energy It's all it means to say dark matter. We're not actually claiming is this new thing that is the dark energy It's the dark in like no, it just means unknown phenomenon Which we labeled this that's it So the geocentric model and the heliocentric model both have the dark energy problem because there is a phenomenon We don't know what it is and this is the label for it called dark energy It's not an actual claim of what it's supposed to be made of with it It's just a label for the unknown phenomenon. All right. What about this? Don't you get before we kick back over to wits it we got about 20 minutes before we go into q&a and Let me know what you guys are thinking if you would prefer me to be off the mute when i'm doing the timing Because some of you guys are in the live chat saying you're muted mod But I intend to be muted because i'm just a sophisticated timekeeper right now To keep things fair. So back to you wits it and you can let me know in the live chat. What do you think? Okay, so you saw how condescending he was when he was saying you don't even know what dark means It just means we don't know what it is. Okay. What it actually means Is it does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum? Dark means it isn't visible with lights It doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum because we we haven't been able to detect whatever it is So we call it dark because it must not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum It doesn't mean we don't know what it is. It means it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation Okay, and when it comes to dark energy in dark matter and he's trying to he's gonna try to play it off Like he that's what he meant to say right? That's what he was saying when it comes to dark matter dark energy It is a specific either something that has material characteristics and something that has energetic characteristics But no one knows what it is the geocentric model does not need that and it's 96 percent more viable because of that You'll never specifically rebut it. You can't there is no rebut uh So the level of stupid is cringe here like Wits it literally said It doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field. This is great. Right. Does that tell us what it does do? No, so so here's the thing. It doesn't do great. Does that tell us what it is? No, so so my claim was it's we don't know what it is and he said We don't know what it is and we don't know it doesn't do this Okay, is that is that claim we do know what it is? No, it's a claim. We don't know what it is. We don't know what it is We don't know What it's made of and so we label it dark energy If it interacts with the e m spectrum, we know what it is. We have some kind of data for it We don't have any data for it. That's the dark energy and dark matter problem We don't know what they are. We know some things they don't do We don't know what they do do and so there is a data set that we don't know what it is and we need to explain it Guess what? Geo's interests have the same problem. They just explain it with magic space goo There are explanations for dark matter like wimps. Wimps are a potential explanation of dark matter We don't call wimps dark matter because dark matter is a class of an unknown wimps Are a potential explanation for the unknown magic either space goo is a different potential explanation of dark matter Both have the problem of dark matter and both have hypothetical solutions Which it just doesn't get the basic problem of what dark means in physics All right, a little extra time with it The audacity for him to act like I don't know what it means when I actually had to correct it He said that dark means it. We don't know what it is That's objectively not what it means in physics It means it's undetectable due to the lack of interaction with the electromagnetic spectrum I mean, I get it. You're coping. I get you're coping. It's okay. I'm detectable Here's the reality. It's stopping right to me synonyms. Synonyms undetectable. Don't know synonyms. Those are synonyms with it Okay, thanks. Yeah, so and he said it's just a phenomena. We don't know what it is I was like, okay. Well, no, like for example with dark matter. It has to have material characteristics Wimps is a claim that is baryonic matter. He doesn't even know what this stuff is He's just like googling like catchphrases and so he doesn't know any of it But it's a claim that it's super like a small baryonic matter Right that we can't really detect from these distances. Okay, that's the claim But it's also been thoroughly debunked I would also like to point out and you can go to my channel and learn all about this What's it gets on I cover this on relatively speaking show, right? But there are many physicists coming out saying it's like basically split camps now. It's like, okay Relativity so bad dark matter so bad We had to do with it modified Newtonian dynamics might be the better option because dark matter doesn't work Because the dark matter halo show that there's it actually doesn't match the predictions My point again though is the geocentric model doesn't need dark matter or dark energy Which means it's 96% More viable than the heliocentric model Again Which it is just kind of just blatantly dumb here dark matter isn't a thing. It's not a thing. It is an unknown Phenomenon which could be explained by a number of things which it explains it with magic space goo. That is dark matter in his world Magic space goo ether is dark matter. So dark matter does exist on geocentrism Would you disagree with it? Do you think that the geo the problem of dark matter that the data we see You solve that by saying there's magic space goo, right? No, I don't have a problem with dark matter. I don't need dark matter You need dark matter is a set of data. How do you explain the set of data? What no, it's a set of data assuming relativity true No, it's a set of data. Well, there's no assumption there. We we look at galaxies. There is More mass than what would be expected That's it You explain that right you think the magic space goo holds it into place Right, you think the magic space goo holds it into place. So you have a you have an explanation of this data This is crazy So yeah, yeah with the galaxies I explained it right I explained that Um, they made the observation that the galaxy should be leaving the cluster The reason that there's not enough mass there. Well, how do you determine not enough? Well, you have to have something that's giving you a prediction that there should be this amount and there's not that amount That something is relativity That's why many people are proposing modified Newtonian dynamics to replace relativity to do away with the dark matter problem because assuming dark matter Even though it's undefined It doesn't work with dark matter halos and galaxy collisions and merging that oh for sure So you were wrong again The reason dark matter comes from relativistic assumption Now, let me say this one more thing the earth if the earth is in the center when we make all our observations We'll probably see that it looks like the earth's in the center. The helicitor model says oh, it's expanding That's why it looks like that. That's why you need dark energy, but we don't do you not understand the concepts? Again again, uh, so witz it is dumb dark energy is a phenomenon that when we look further away We see redshift you see that in both different ways to explain it Is having the same problem and explain it with different hypotheses. That's all it is Which it just doesn't get this i'm going to go back to actual discoveries that actually matter because which it's saying is stupid uh, ganymede's magnetic field in june 2021 the juno spacecraft orbiting jupiter discovered that ganymede one of jupiter's moons Generates a strong magnetic field making it the moony moon the solar system known to do so discovery made by sending satellites around planets and stars using gravity using the general special relativity To accurately send things into space and make testable predictions and confirm them something that Flurfs have never done We need discoveries nothing which it has said is a discovery nothing Nothing which it has said is anything a fluff or a geocentris nut has ever done to make a real discovery in the world They're kind of like idealists they like to think in their big chairs about big fancy words They don't understand and then hypothesize about explanations and then never do any tests to confirm it And so until they actually build like a nasa where they can do tests in the universe and confirm it with stuff They really have nothing but armchair making stuff up So basically all he's resorted to and it's really what he started with is a bunch of fluff I hope that obviously the audience whoever's claiming i'm getting wrecked is just super biased I'm I've invited you to have intellectual specificity But frankly it's very obvious that you don't know about this stuff So you have to resort in this like fluff's office or it's whatever But i'm trying to point out that all observations show at the earth's in the center the heliocentric model of 2023 agrees with that So that's retrograde parallax the planetary motion of the like the orbits of the planet all of that Looks like the earth is in the center according to your own model They claim the reason it looks like that is because the universe is accelerating and expanding But we have the hump Hubble tension problem the inflation problem the like the uh horizon problem the flatness problem We have the dark energy and dark matter problem in your paradigm now in a geocentric earth The reason it looks like we're in the center is because we are and we don't have any of those problems Which means objectively it's more viable So again, I already debunked witson on this. Uh, he doesn't understand post-hoc rotation He doesn't understand undetermination the fact that you can make up Harding fairy dust explanations of other data doesn't make yours better. It just means you're making shit up I'm ready to go to q&a I'll bet you are Dunked on you enough for the day. I'm good. Everyone knows that you don't know anything about all this Except I corrected you multiple times closing remarks though I'm gonna come off the mute right quick. I usually do them after the q&a just because uh Sometimes we get into a lot of back and forth if we missed it throughout the open discussion Because sometimes people ask really good questions and we can you know get into some of the stuff that we didn't get into during The debate so anybody watching in the live chat right now hit that like button share this out in those contentious spaces That you like to have these discussions Uh, me and osian are going to be doing an after show uh over on matters now So you can hang out over there. These guys are welcome to join us as well We're going to run into our q&a, but i'm also going to do a little uh a little extra housekeeping here And remind you once again that our tickets for debate con 4 are linked in the description So if you're seeing double it's because wits it's going to be there and he's going to be debating leo Uh philius, uh, who you're going to be debating a couple times too. Aren't you wits it? I don't know. I don't think so. No, okay I thought i'd seen your face a few times. Maybe it's just because you're a popular guy There was another one tentatively, but you know people people get scared to defend atheism nowadays, so Oh, no, somebody got scared. Well, that's no fun Well, either way, uh, if you're seeing double us because wits it down here He's going to be debating creationism versus atheism against leo philius You're not going to want to miss it So get your tickets in the description below if you're going to be in the dallas area and you can make it And let us know in the live chat if where you're at right now We're going to be hanging out in dallas, of course for the convention It is all going to be streamed live for free on youtube as well I know shooting ourselves in the foot a little bit by just offering it to you for free But that's how we roll here at modern day debate if you can't help us out by being there for the live event You can't purchase tickets. You see this little crowdfund. I'm moving around over here That's that's a little indicator of Another thing we have going on where you can donate to our crowdfund and get access to Perk such as a signed picture of your favorite debater. So without further ado Let's go into the q&a and see if we can stir the pot of this discussion everybody All right, run Boston bear for 499 says What's it brings the truth if you reject it the programmer is strong with you We don't live on a spinning water ball. I recommend investigating Thoughts on that Yeah, I mean the truth is most people just it's easier to be like ha ha you're dumb Ha ha you think you're smarter than scientists and you know, it's maybe the truth is not for them I mean, you know I encourage you to not worry about what other people think and consensus has consistently been wrong about pretty much everything Even within quote-unquote currently accepted science So just research things yourself thoroughly because attacking other people and belittling them and pretending That you know things that you don't Is not really going to do anything even if you convince other people like you should be worried about truth for yourself It's good for your soul Any thoughts over there tom Uh google the properties of quack science if you just google like the stages of quack science You will take like four or five sentences out of what wits had just said or I think half of them Okay, well, let's carry on there gents. Uh osian talk says tom will always have enough hair for a comb over um I I don't usually read comp comments about someone's physical appearance But I I think we're all over 30 and we all have got a good hairline going on like Rocking it fellas rocking it. All right run boston bear for 499 news flash in austin's opener He wasn't just making stuff Check everything he said and it'll hold water. I think they meant just making stuff up Check everything he said and it'll hold water. It may also set you free from deception So you got a fan with run boston bear thoughts on run boston bears input there wits it Yeah, shout out to run boston bear. I just kicked it with him at flattoberfest in vegas. He's super cool, dude That's my homie. He's a legend. Um Yeah, I I I will say right. This is uh A conversation that requires some time So for me to try to unpack it in 10 minutes or someone that's not like really trying to be honest about the Fake information in the heart of it. I mean, it's it's more than that But uh, do look up the stuff look up the papers look up the books read the math read the physics And I have a show called in the field where I have astronomers astrophysicists different people with credentials on And you can maybe just glean from those conversations two or three hours In fact, I'll take this opportunity to say I have one On the first we're going to talk about the aether vortex and this is a Legend that's going to be on there. So yeah, just just you know, invest the time Required because all good knowledge requires some time Any thought on that tom aether vortex or uh conversations with those individuals people have gone through the science with wits at many times like cats And they've shown him that he knows absolutely nothing and that all of its sources debunk himself But it's not really worth the time All right. Well, let's carry on from there then Thanks everybody for hanging out in the live chat And if you are hanging on live chat and you're enjoying what you're hearing from either of our speakers They will be linked in the description Uh, so if they're not linked now, they will be linked post the debate also in our podcast because all of these debates get Uploaded to a podcast form within 24 hours. Uh, so if you're watching right now and you're in a live chat hit the like button I see we're sitting around uh 250 Is there any way we can work something out where I can go downstairs And like fill my glass and pistol fast and then do that like if there are questions for him Like yeah, it'll be like just a couple minutes austin You hit me in a soft spot. You rhymed. Okay, like I'm sorry. I got fly you fool. Fly. It's all good Do the lid gandalf for you. All right. See you in a few. All right. So, uh, let's see what we got here, uh for t-jump Yeah, and you know why they couldn't fly on the eagles because the eagles would have wanted the ring as well There you go. All right. So that's your lord of the rings input This one went from run boston bear and I might take one out of witsits chapter here Uh and give you the floor for a second here t-jump All the discoveries you keep listing are biased in philosophy that infinite space is real. It's not No one has played golf on the moon Yes, they have but none of the discoveries I listed are contingent on infinite space They don't care whether space is infinite or not. All they need to do is Have it's contingent on the ability to launch shuttles and Things across the solar system like across the sun through gravitational trajectories in order to land where they want them to land That's all you need for these discoveries. You don't need any infinite space stuff All right, ryan do some housekeeping from yahoo again. Yeah. Yeah, I did. I thought I did the housekeeping I'll remind everybody once again. Uh tickets are linked in the description now We're going to be in dallas in texas Uh, so let us know in the live chat where you're hanging out. I'm in novus kosher right now We heard from both of our speakers. You can go back in the video. Uh, I pitched it at the very beginning So, uh, we know where everybody's at. Um, but I can't remember where everybody's at. So, uh, don't count on me Let's carry on with the q&a. I'm just going to search for another one here For you lj. Hey, you made it. This is the right time for you You're always commenting on the space debates always making space comments Uh, I'm really glad to see that you're here and uh, this this will hopefully keep us in the zone He said brainwashed T jump Well, that seems real on the money, right like good good stuff there lj If the moon was physical and asteroids were real We'd have videos from earth of asteroids hitting the moon by now Why don't we have one? I think actually I might read that just one more time just because wits. It's here So first to ut jump, uh, and then I'm going to take my opportunity He says if the moon was physical and asteroids were real We'd have videos from earth of asteroids hitting the moon by now. Why don't we have one? Over because the face of the moon that's facing the earth Is in between us and so if there is an asteroid That was going to try to hit the side of the moon that was we're looking at It would have to pass the earth to do so and the earth is a bigger gravitational fourth And so it would hit the earth Which means asteroids are more likely to hit the back of the moon or the sides not the part of the moon that's facing us Makes no sense Okay. Yeah More likely doesn't mean it should never happen, but anyway, we have lunar waves and uh They have no answer for lunar waves and they've been captured with some of the the nicest telescopes that exist Um, they claim that it must be a jet that flew by well That's crazy because we've been recording the sky for the last five hours. There are no jets no planes There are lunar waves and actually we've seen that there are waves in the entire sky now in space quote unquote, but uh Yeah, you know, I mean the moon is not what you think it is And if you really think some masons pulled their masonic flag out on the moon in 69 and read a bible verse and haven't been back in 50 years Then this conversation may not be for you Like lunar waves you think there are waves on the moon's surface or something No, no, like we've actually observed and recorded the fact that there are waves that go across the moon Yeah, so you think that you think there's waves on the moon surface. Okay. I don't I didn't even say the word surface Why would I say such a word? Lunar waves are a real thing. Have you ever researched them? They are not a real thing. There are no but you've never researched them, but you know, they're not a real thing That's crazy Just google lunar waves like literally nothing comes up. It's not a thing. Yeah google Yeah, because google doesn't hide stuff Google's your best friend. Trust me tjom knows he's seven boosters deep. Well, I can I can Just look up all the other conspiracy theories. Look, we get it bro. We get it. We're getting you're waiting for Let's be careful when we say on the air just because we don't want to get this demonetized fellas All right crow those things crow triple seven so crow with two r c r r o w Triple seven lunar waves. He's got them documented many times Is that a published journal? I'm gonna go with no good one It's pretty good burn actually honey is I could show you some public journals That would make you regret your decisions the last three years. You wouldn't want to read those You would just as soon as I give you the published paper Just like earlier when I showed no, that's a real published peer reviewed paper Objectively then he says oh, let me google how he's a quack So they immediately shift the goalposts to oh, well, let me discredit that person with the genetic fallacy So all it is is soffa street It's always an attempt to like dismiss the info because if they actually have to talk about the information and the evidence They stand no chance. They're uninformed So it's a tactic and and I think that real truth seekers will clearly see that that's the case and if not, I don't care Well, that's that's what flat flurfs usually do they ignore the actual data that's being presented and say Ah, you're just you're just not looking or not paying attention better bed No, uh, no, that's all they really say and then mischaracterize the opponent's position because that's all they can do Like I actually give discoveries and they do nothing but post-hoc rationalization And he says, oh, but you haven't presented any real It's just a fluff tactic. Let's move on from there. We're not all right, so I do want to ask very quick. Uh, we got a couple spicy ones here in the live chat. All right. You fellows are good for it. Are you? All right news flash austin's opener is utter nonsense. He's just getting stuff wrong Please check everything he said. It will set you free from cults and conmen Uh, it's from kango 44 thoughts. What's it? yeah, like All that t-jump said the whole time all that the chat said the whole time and all the super chats will say is That i'm wrong. They'll never offer specificity, but you can go research it, right? I just now actually quoted In context, it's not just misquoted quote mind in context a person that was personally friends with einstein that that covered Relativity and taught it at university for 20 years one of the most well known and established relativity experts ever Explaining what I was claiming, right? I've given you all the math all the physics it all checks out So if you actually do go verify What i'm saying that there's a kinematic and dynamic equivalence you will see that it wasn't nonsense But I will say last thing it is a very effective tactic and I will also concede t-jump is Really good at it. He's really good at it one of the better ones. They even got me flustered at the beginning, right? Which uh, you know, I'm sorry for he's really good at it If you just baselessly claim victory in a convincing manner void of substantive specificity It can lure in those not in the know But you can look at the power point look at the specific claims I know I had to go fast and go fact check everything I said and go look at in the field on my channel You'll see I'm talking to phd astronomers that disagree with me about it And they're agreeing with what I said in my power point which goes to show you that that super chat is just a lie Well, I don't need to defend myself actual science and actual philosophy work just fine And so since he doesn't know what a post-doc rationalization is or what under determination is I debunked all those arguments like way way earlier on in the debate And there was nothing left just to give actual data and then show how the actual data compares to Flurf data and then will the actual data wins and that's that's all there is to it That's why he avoided the data like the plague, bro I crushed your you don't have any data you have they can't explain it all post-doc rationalization. Good job. I already debunked that one, bro You got not Been answered asked and answered many times by people who've actually researched this you just go ask cats He'll do he'll demonstrate it for you easy We do have non CGI videos of space. What are you talking about? We'd love literal pictures of actual space from space Oh, okay Oh, sorry last three questions have been muted says ozzy and yeah, sorry about that everybody I might have hit that when I ran off to use the ol You know how what So the first one was from congo. You could check it out in the live chat But we were just answering lj's once you realize seawater doesn't curve you wake up from global religion T job at what size do you observe flat bodies of water start to curve? And then the next one was from lj. Why do we have zero non CGI videos of space in 2023? Uh, so I didn't know I didn't I didn't know if you'd hear my toil flushing. Come on now guys I got to be classy here. All right over you. What's it as I mentioned that right? he jump said that we do have them and He said I promise I'm right scientists agree with me And which it just doesn't understand there. We'll save some time. Um, I I will say What I've discovered is there a lot of people say oh awesome scared to debate flat earth now So he talks about geocentrism No, what I've discovered is the people that just spew these remedial ad-homs and stuff like that about flat earth They're also not willing to be intellectually honest about geocentrism so like why even discuss something as like Like worldview altering as flat earth Let's start with the fact that you can't prove the earth is in motion And your own model your own physics Relativity says that you cannot And if someone can't be honest like well, yeah according to relativity the earth could be in the center of the universe If they can't be honest about that then why would I discuss something else with them? So Just to clarify and that's why I was trying to explain to him Even if you believe in space missions and you believe in all this other stuff According to your own models physics or claimed physics anomalous physics It could be geocentric and I encourage you to open your mind and think about that, bro Think about it and then go read Stephen Hawking stubbornly persistent illusion who says oh well We choose the idea that we're not in the center based on humility and philosophical preference And that's not science, right? And so I just I just want people to know the truth and make their own decision Um, but anyway, there you go. Any thoughts over there could be magical farting fairies therefore magical farting fairies Good job. I love it. What's it? Dark matter dark energy And the big thing Well, let's carry on there fellows congo 44 once again and I'm going to keep an eye on that mute button everybody You know, I haven't done that in a hot minute. It must be because t jumps back and he's just he's pulling me back in the old days I think it's been seven months since t jump has been here Uh, you know, we're glad to see you back on the forum And uh, hopefully we'll see you back for lots of more juicy discussions congo 44 for five dollars says question for witsett Have you done t jumps moon radar experiment yet as a truth seeker? I would think you would want to do it as soon as possible Uh, no, I haven't done it because it wouldn't mean anything to me because if the if the radar claims of the moon are true Which if you actually I don't anything about t jumps experiment But um, I would like to see them shot at the moon and away from the moon But if the moon is plasma for example, it could be many things then the ionization of the plasma Would still reflect the radio wave depending on the megahertz of the the frequency meaning if the radio frequency Is equal to or lower than the ionization or the frequency of the moon Then it would in fact reflect it back Which is of course the globe models claim to try to save it away with the ionosphere from radio waves that go too far Right and this is a well-known fact in physics in the lab that if you have like ionization So plasma is just ionized gas and you shoot radio waves at it If the frequency of the radio wave is equal to or lower than the frequency of the ionized gas It will reflect it back Right and then the duration of signal is how they claim to determine the distance But if their assumption of the medium is wrong Which it is in top level of physics is now saying dark matter superfluid and maybe more dense and spaceland We thought blah blah blah if the medium is different the duration of signal is different thus your distance Interpolation is different now. I know some of these concepts are new to people But just just digest what I said and research it. It's certainly not words out Any thoughts tjohn before we move on word solid absolutely word solid The experiment is real simple if you bounce radio waves off of the moon and they bounce back to you Then the moon's round and you can tell the distance from the moon From wherever you sent the radio waves and if the distance is approximately the same from anywhere Where you send it from the moon then guess what the moon's a globe Because if it was flat you'd get vastly different distances when you bounce radio waves off of the moon and get them to come back Very simple experiment Which it just spews word solid of things He doesn't understand to try to cover up the fact that he doesn't actually have an answer for any of the actual simple science He avoided everything I said because I literally just addressed it Except you didn't address that the ionization of gas The frequency will reflect the signal back if it's equal to or less then avoided it and you avoided that That doesn't address the problem with it You avoided that the assumption of the medium is required to determine the distance with the duration of the signal And that's because I have a very curated answer that you cannot rebut and are ill equipped to rebut so it's okay What you said was so innately stupid because you don't understand the actual problem The reason you bounce radio waves off the moon is to measure the distance and so you bounce them from different places So none of that shit you said matters because it all of that affects the radio waves in every direction the same And so you still get to be able to triangulate the distance to the moon is equivalent from each different point you measure it Which means guess what world not flat bro No, it doesn't mean that because the moon has a position and if the ionization frequency is equal to or less If the signal scent is equal to or less then it will reflect back To you and then if you are making an inaccurate assumption of the medium Which you clearly are if you even research that would you have it Again No, no, no, that's that's all solved by if you send the same radio wave. All right, just one second Right now it's very simple Send the same frequency from multiple different locations It'll affect whatever the gibberish nonsense word salad You said the same in both locations and guess what if you get the same numbers world not flat bro So all of the stuff you said is invalidated by the method of the experiment I already proposed you just don't understand it because you don't understand basic science And first of all the test obviously hasn't actually been done Secondly, even it literally has been done even if it had no Yes, yes, it's called. It's called ham radio experiments. He's literally have been done Many many times every year What are they called moon to earth moon to something You're called like yeah, like moon bounce so Yeah, but look here's the deal It doesn't prove the distance Because you assume the medium Okay, let me explain to the room 30 seconds the way that they are claiming that you determine the distance to the moon with radio waves As you send a signal and it bounces back. They say okay, it takes 2.2 seconds So since we know space is a vacuum Okay, we can know how fast that radio waves propagate in a vacuum Therefore if we take the 2.2 seconds use the assumption of a vacuum We can tell you how far it's traveled do that vacuum because we know the rate of propagation of radio waves to the vacuum If the medium is something else for example more dense Then it would be closer and your assumption would be incorrect As well as it doesn't even have to be solid matter to bounce the radio waves back Because just like the globe claims with the ionosphere if the ionization of the gas again, none of that matters with it I already did all of that nonsense. That's irrelevant to the experiment The experiment doesn't care what the moon is made of the experiment doesn't matter What how far the moon away is what matters is is the distance to the moon the same Or different from each point you test the experiment if the moon is here and you measure it from here It's going to be closer than if it's from here and you measure it So if the distance is vastly different world flat if distance the same From everywhere world round it doesn't matter what it's made of it doesn't matter how far away it is None of that gibberish word salad you said was relevant to the experiment was that you just don't understand basic science And of course, it wouldn't even be the same on a globe that goes to show you there'd be a slight difference on a globe Oh Flat earth would be a big difference way why how how close does flat earth claim that the moon is For your voice like 6,000 miles or something You just say you have to straw man you project there's lots of people who've planned out You projected earlier saying lots of crazy flat earthers you projected earlier seem to have to mischaracterize your position But that's all you can do It's sophistry and next one is coming in You have no chance Why haven't you done the experiment with it we we've had a wall here Is it exclusive evidence and you should go back and watch the debate take notes and research the term since you Just about you and you're done. Okay next one is coming in guys from a congo 44 You know, you gotta like the spirit of these two fellows here having this discussion So hit that like button if you haven't already We're having a good time having this discussion back forth next one's coming in for you T jump it says What's it? Do you understand neutrino detectors completely debunk you? Maybe t jump could explain it to you so we'll put it over you t jump Do you know what neutrino detectors are He's probably referring to the experiment where you can send neutrinos through the planet and like Receive it on the other end and so you know that the world is round because If you're like shooting a gun down and and someone detects it on the bottom Then they must necessarily be below you As opposed to the world's flat it wouldn't work Probably what they're referring to Okay, so what he's clearly talking about is they claim to be receiving neutrinos from the sun underneath But if you actually look at it what they do is they interpolate the data through a model They assume the position of the sun and actually run it through a graph that organizes the colors based on the assumed distribution of Neutrinos which of course they claim can potentially go fashion the speed of light and pass through all matter And they don't know exactly what it is and they can't even interpret Exactly how the machine itself is receiving it because they don't know exactly what neutrinos are and top level physicists We'll tell you all of that but I would like to point out all the super chats T jump the entire debate all he could bring up is flat earth flat earth flat earth flirt flirt flirt because They could never debate geocentrism. I would dunk on all of them 500 v1 They don't even know what the kinematic dynamic equivalence is. They don't know what the neotaiconic system is They don't know what the newtonian analysis is. They don't know anything. They blindly believe the consensus Okay, that's why all these super chats are about flat earth all that t jump is talk about is flat earth because they Can't defend that the earth is a tilted wobbling spinning ball revolving around the sun in space They can't defend heliocentrism because their own model says oh, it couldn't be in the center We have no idea So I just want to the audience to keep an eye on that Everything they talk about is flat earth flat earth so that they can discredit me Right, they can poison the well and discredit me because they can say flat earth is so stupid Let's avoid the fact that austin absolutely intellectually eviscerated t jump when it comes to geocentrism And he avoided it with all Specificity the entire time, right? So just it'd be cool if you guys can talk about the subject But you can't I don't think you understand how Anything about because when I say flat earth i'm collectively also referring to geocentrism as both equally stupid So anytime I refer to flat earth it also covers the topic of geocentrism So everything I said debunked all of your arguments And all of the flat earth arguments in addition to those how do you know the textures debunked geocentrism? Uh, well the dead they don't that was my oh, how does the moon bounce debunked geocentrism? That was from a question not during the debate. Okay, so nothing you've said Which is stopping stupid for a second the things I said during the debates. We're debunking your geocentric nonsense and your flat earth nonsense name one you said the things The things in the q&a which also address flat earth questions because you have stupid flat earth beliefs in addition to that Are not necessarily related to the debate topic, which was during the debate So during the debate I debunked all of your dumb geocentric nonsense and your flat earth nonsense with all of my arguments And then we address some other stuff from the q&a as well, but you don't understand how words work So you have a problem intellectually with how those relate Last there's a proportionate there's a proportionate relationship between his uncomfortable Uncomformality and ineptitude and insecurity and insults So like I don't understand how words work. I'm stupid. I'm dumb all this stuff That's it's proportionate relationship to how ignorant he is as he projects Because if I went to ask him name one thing specifically you said that debunked geocentrism He's got nothing. He just started listing off missions and he all of those missions Yes, sorry all those I don't mean to cut you off here just to kind of focus in on what we're doing right now With the q&a. I know that he's uh implicated you a bit there and I think he kind of Well, just to give you like a five second response Well, I I'll definitely make predictions which are successful. There you go. That debunks geocentrism. Okay, so I'll let you make that point That's fine But I do want to ask what's at the question here from the super chatter and sorry There was a fly that was bugging me was trying to mic pence me there for a second And I wasn't gonna let it jump on fire like bro If you think t jump is like Winning this debate like I hope that you stay in your state of mind because it's just pathetic So I do want to ask the question from congo here and then we're going to move on So what's it? Do you know what the so do you understand neutrino detectors completely debunked you? I'll give you 10 to 15 seconds to kind of wrap up this question here and then we'll move on to it I explained it. I explained how they don't I explained that neutrinos are a phenomenon that no one can fully explain They claim it goes through all material it may go fashion the speed of light We don't even know what they are all top-level physicists will tell you that and whenever globe earthers bring it up Which is a diversion away from tonight's subject because they can't defend heliocentrism like I explained They claim that it's because we see the sun through the earth But actually if you go research the papers and read them, which I have they actually run the neutrino observations and data through a certain algorithm and then they start to throw out all the stuff away from where they assume The sun is through the earth and then they create a graph and a visual illustration from that That's what actually happens And no one will actually address that All right. There's next one coming in again for you with it from Wade Eberle Uh, why do the apparent epicycles of epicycles epicycles of the planet's motions fit so neatly into ellipses Uh, when we center our perspective on the sun Yeah, that looks like a bunch of typos to me. I'm sorry Well, actually this is just a fact that whenever heliocentrism was first proposed because what had happened was they took Taiko Brahe's data observations and model, which was a geocentrist, right? They took his data and then tried to make it a heliocentric model with Copernicus They had to add significantly more epicycles to the heliocentric model to make it work So it's funny. So both systems have epicycles and that's because if you look at the tourist field There are naturally epicycles within that elongated sphere that that is the tourist field, right? But whenever heliocentrism tried to take Taiko Brahe's data and make it a heliocentric model It had to add significantly more epicycles to make the math work So it's actually significantly more complicated and works way less efficiently than a geocentric central position Okay, but you know, who cares about facts, I guess All right, let's try to get through this next one a little Bit quicker, I guess because uh, oh, I guess I mean we still got like a 30 minutes before we'll get to that two hour mark that I kind of Set that we'll try to get you guys out of here Um, but I'm just trying to reneg on saying this name. It's swampy pubes What a fantastic name you have just like go wash up or something and change your youtube name. Anyways, uh, Winston, I disagree with you Uh, just about every single belief you hold, but I have to admit your new setup is noice, dude Ah, thank you, brother. What are you rocking over there? What's going on? I like the I like the chairs in the background there. You see those guys. Yeah, I like that I haven't actually even like Thank you. Got your nose. All right. No, I'm gonna get out of there. All right. So, um With uh, so next one lj brainwash tj if the moon was physical and asteroids were real We'd have videos from earth of asteroids hitting the moon by now But oh, yes that one while he was out. Yes. Sorry. Uh, osean talks What journal did pop off of publish in pure review means that other scientists validated his results and not just Published in a random paper. I don't see it. That's for you with it Yeah, so I don't I don't know what it is because for some reason my my acrobat is not loading But you can look up newtonian mocking analysis of the neotikoni and model of planetary motion Um, it's the european journal of physics I wonder if that's good enough. Is the european journal of physics good enough? I wonder no now that it's the european journal of physics Okay, and he's well accredited Now we have to try to discredit this guy because it is peer reviewed with a very renowned journal of physics So that's called shifting the copos and a genetic files All right, if you see me smiling, I was just reading some of the live chats there. They're kind of fun. All right, so let's carry on Um, any thoughts on your side there t-jump while I scroll up here or carry up Yeah, it was peer reviewed and debunked. So He's right that it was published and peer reviewed and then debunked So that was kind of I maybe I should have clarified that it had to be peer reviewed and then accepted Like supported confirmed Like yes, you can publish papers and journals and get them rejected. Sure. Okay. Congrats Oh, let me actually let me point this out because let's be real. He has he's never read the paper It doesn't know anything about it. He claimed it was fake now. He knows all about it He doesn't know anything about it, but it wasn't debunked everyone concedes the paper's accurate He didn't even propose that the no stopping her up to me I literally gave you an example He even proposed that the earth was geocentric. He just said look at the newtonian Neotyconian analysis Mathematically and physically and you will see there is an equivalence of inertial forces And everyone conceded that that is in fact true. That's why it got published in the european journal of physics No, that's not how publication works. You never read it Let's let t-jump respond with it. We've got let's educate with it on basic publications There are lots of publications the fact that it was published does not mean everyone agrees which it doesn't understand science number 3037 and when I actually gave the cornell university response to this paper that shows actually debunked and wrong Uh, I think apparently he just ignored that. Maybe he didn't hear it I'll give you again in self-contradiction maccheon geocentrism entails absolute space by herbert hartman This debunks everything in that paper, which is why it is rejected. Um, the fact that you got it published Good job. Good job fluff But it's rejected by the consensus and I forgot I should have added this in If you get peer reviewed published papers, they have to actually be accepted by the consensus not rejected by the consensus That's important. You can publish papers and journals all the time. There's an entire journal about parapsychology Good job. That doesn't mean people agree with it. It's just junk science Dude, it's so funny. You've never read it. I read it. It doesn't actually invoke absolute space So you just got absolutely destroyed by any true intellectual that goes and reads the paper I don't think you understand my words work. Stop interrupting me This specifically denounces absolute space and says that that was the the lethal assumption of newton To assume that there was absolute space Which of course on science said that there was not and in fact This says that there is angular momentum of the entire cosmos going around the earth result. How are you so bad at this? See it's like i'm just talking over your head. Let's be wrong Yeah, yeah, so the paper specifically says his claim that it doesn't entail absolute space Is debunked by his own paper because it's a self-contradiction like literally the first word in self-contradiction This paper which claims that there is no absolute space actually entails absolute space Please learn words. It does not no, please academic peer reviewed paper Cornell University Actually are actually accepted by the consensus. Really? Did you did you pull the consensus? Yes? Just confirm your bias. So I did I pulled the well I talked to 10 physicists personally that No, listen that admit that the math and the physics are completely viable and accurate But you you know all the consensus and you've never even read the paper You're laughably a sophist. Did we can did did you forget? Probably a termination. Did you forget the problem under termination? You can make up parting fairies to explain everything. It doesn't make a difference. It didn't do that It used a Newtonian mechanics. All right, we're moving on fellas to the next super chat hate stairs coming in Act like this dude is winning this This is not so bad. He says good job. Ryan keep up the good work I I have a I have a super chat guys. Look somebody's complimenting me. You know, I like that. That's fine Ask debaters. Do you know the law of flat earthers? There's own citations contradicts them and you know, it's good ones. They don't they don't they do they do They literally don't though They literally do though. So wait, wait, wait, wait. Hey, watch this I'm gonna expose you because I've been pretty nice to you. Frankly. You have no idea. Hey t jump According to relativity, could the earth be in the center of the universe kinematically and dynamically? Yes or no kinematically and dynamically are not actual things in relativity And relativity is indifferent to the position of the planet doesn't actually say anything about the position of the planet This dude just said that kinematically and dynamically aren't actual things in relativity kinematics about the geometric path And dynamic is about the force that causes the path if you knew the first thing about astronomy and astrophysics and Relativity you would know that there's a concession of equal justification of coordinate systems due to a kinematic Equivalence and then if you actually examine the mathematics and the physics of relativity There's a dynamic equivalence meaning the force that relativity invokes the force that isn't a force that acts like a force Actually can be equally justified on a central position Which is why Einstein himself said everything occurs on the earth as if the earth's at rest And it's just equally valid to say that the sun moves around the earth or the earth moves around the sun So I already debunked you and he's just spewing more word solid like again Kinematic is not a thing kinematic is a relation between two other things you need nouns there You can't just say kinematic is not a thing dynamic again not a thing You need nouns there a dynamic relation between two things He doesn't understand physics and he doesn't understand relativity and I answered his question Which he said I wouldn't answer because he doesn't understand basic science Kinematic and dynamic equivalence within the heliocentric and geocentric model according to relativity You don't even understand it's obviously based on the relationship of different bodies That's what the heliocentric and geocentric model is. It's a dynamic and kinematic equivalence His rebuttal was those are not things Okay, perfect. I told you I would expose you You didn't good job you failed objectively just you say there's a the dynamic equivalence between This you need a noun there. This needs to be a noun. There's no noun. It's just an adverb or an adjective It doesn't mean anything. You can't just say adjective Adjective coping adjective Adjective you know our own before the adjective. We're gonna move on to the next super chat there fellas Keep them coming in. There's lots of super chats. I'm gonna set a 45 minute timer. I think here once again because that's I'm going in like 10 minutes. All right. So that's a good idea then is then I'll set a timer You better get out of here, bro. Um, we're gonna skip some of these ad hominy ones then guys and just move into the ones that are Substantive and I'm gonna try to shush while I look for them um Run boston bear t jump all the discoveries you keep listing are biased and philosophy that infinite space is real It's not no one has played golf on the moon You already read that one. Oh, wow. Yeah Well, there's so many people coping in the chat, bro. That's crazy. That one's why are you seeing my insult? I said you're coping. You can't steal my answer. I was talking about I'm talking about how like people are pretending that you even got close to rebutting anything. I've said all right I said, we're gonna stay away from understand words better than witsit. Congratulations. Let's stay away from ad hominy stuff We're gonna focus here guys Lj more than that. How did t jump isolate gravity from electrostatics 45 seconds t jump What's what? What's the relevance to the question? I don't understand the question. All right. Uh, maybe you can give us a little insight I'm gonna pause the clock. Uh, what does lj mean when they say how did t jump isolate gravity from electrostatics? Okay, he's saying electrostatics is 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity is even claimed to be and it's All material is intrinsically electrostatic because all molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature So if you're going to claim there's an additional force there that does the same thing as it How can you isolate gravity from electrostatics if it's ever present? That's his question Oh, so yeah, that's easy gravity is 40 orders of magnitude weaker than the electromagnetic force And so if it was electrostatic everything would be crushed together very quickly So we can definitively show that it's a different force with absolute certainty And if you don't know that you're dumb dumb as rocks All right, next one answer It literally just did Someone thinks you did okay next one coming in donate to my cash app so I can make what is your name? It's too long. I can't read it. I need five hours of this guy because apparently people think he's really doing something Can we set up a five hour debate t jump? We'll put some money on the line like like just automatically you get paid Five hours, but it has to be like time. You can't write like it paid. Yes paid. All right, cool Let's just play poker on the air guys. Come on. I think I can get awesome clips, right? You're gonna go viral, bro. If we can get a five hour stream out of you Austin you can't explain the basic observation of boats disappearing over the horizon bottom first Your only response will be to lie and say it doesn't happen. I feel bad for poor wits at jr I didn't yeah, that's a little I always have to talk about my beautiful 10 month old baby because they're talking about people's children That could never even get a female. Yeah, but anyway, um That's also again You're so obsessed with talking about flatter because you can't defend heliocentrism And I think it's pretty telling that not one response not one superjack can defend heliocentrism It's always about flatter anyway. Yeah the actual angular the angular resolution is relative to the reception and propagation angles Of what you are observing and so if you're on the surface and you're six feet above it But there's a hundred foot building with the bottom of that building or the bottom of a boat is closer to Your eye level which means that the propagation reception angles fall below the resolution angle quicker This is very simple And of course the attenuation rate is higher at the bottom of the atmos of light because of the turbulence and the absorption rate due to the density of the medium All right word salad 30 seconds on this one Whisco mat is off topic, but uh, I'll give you 30 seconds I bet t-jump believes a phone call was made from the moon to the white house in 1969 and that is believable We lost technology to get back there I have no idea about the phone call. I really don't care. We have Into the moon. I don't care about whether or not there was a phone call. I really have no position on All right, what's it? Why do sorry? This is also from a whisko mat and thank you also I should say to congo 44. I'm sorry. We didn't read your question because it's ad hominy and crackling crow Just send a winky face winking you back at you You know good-looking Super chatter. Thank you for that. All right. So whisko mat says what's it? Why do some physicists say there is a crisis in cosmology? um Because relativity doesn't match the actual observations So you have the dark matter problem supposedly makes up over 80 percent 83 percent of all matter in the universe But they don't know what it is can't define it And then whenever they actually look at dark matter halos and galaxy doesn't match the predictions Also, you have the flatness problem that has to require like uh mathematically impossible odds to have the perfect Energy density for the universe to be flat. That's called a fine tuning problem I could go forever But basically the cosmological crisis is that they can't explain the dark energy problem or the dark matter problem And that space has to be expanding and accelerating four times the speed of light Four times faster than the speed of light and they can't explain the causal mechanism or the actual energy For that expansion and they also have a Hubble tension problem where the actual Rate at which it supposedly expands doesn't match with their different methodologies Which they used to determine distances and everything else So they're in a true state of crisis because they have no actual causal mechanism for gravity They can't explain dark matter. They can't explain dark energy and many other things There you go. Oh, well, you were right at the end there. So Uh Yeah, let's continue on there. There are actual things we actually see and we can't explain them. Oh, no See, that's all he's got science doesn't know everything yet. They're like, no, no It refute your model. You can't offer specificity. You're out of your league. Let's move to the next question All right, they can't explain it. Therefore. I'm right argument from ignorance No, it refute your model. You'll you'll catch up one day, but you'll just never actually publicly say All right, my my my uh Is mine come out with a new booster bro. All right, let's continue on Maurice Smithville has teach up ever had a debate where he doesn't call the other person an idiot So they're accusing you of making too many ad hominems throughout the debate Any thoughts on that and then we'll move on I exclusively call people idiots when they are Significantly intellectually beneath me and not worth my time to actually do any research So I do lots of actual real debates with like real professors who are really actually intellectually Valid points, but which it is not that makes up both crap science numbers and doesn't understand things And it doesn't actually do research and doesn't understand criticisms. All right doesn't listen to people We actually I'm sorry to jump. I won't let you just go on a big You're a calc man about we've millity, bro. You guys you guys got all that out. I saw one of the questions I'm gonna go grab a book. Okay. Go ahead next question for me. It's right right there but uh No, the next one's for T jump. So you go ahead and uh, yeah I was gonna say I think you guys have kind of you've been at each other quite a bit throughout the debate So I think everybody knows how you feel about each other's thoughts Uh, you know, nobody's confused about how uh, how you feel about that. So Donate to my cash app says another one for t-jump austin witless got schooled So you got a fan there. They just came in to say that and have a little fun So, uh, thanks for that. It's ninja wits. It is out of his depth quick. Get him a life jacket Well, gee now I'm reading all the ad hominem ones. He's going to come back and be like ryan you You said All right, uh base theory says after show on my channel base theory Oh a dual after show so you can join base theory on his after show or base theory I mean if you want to join me and oz and over on matters now I'm going to put the link in the live description here in just a moment So, uh, if anybody wants to join us over there, uh, they're more than welcome to it and we'll talk a little bit about, uh What we witnessed here as far as this discussion What did we witness everybody? What went down? Now which has returned for the book? We shall return to our epic live discussion. So, uh Welcome back. You wanted to show us the book Yeah, someone asked about books that they can read from based on the stuff I'm saying So I'm going to run through a few books super fast because these are fire books So this is Robert labored harvard harvard university. Uh talks about how a ether is inevitable a different universe Uh, yeah, frank woke was like nobel prize winner, uh lightness of being also talked about how his ether is inevitable Uh, he's a quack longing for the harmonies also by frank woke is that explains that everything's intrinsically vibrational and results in an ether Seeing red showing that the red shift distribution of the universe is distinctly impossible within the heliocentric model Um, that is by halton arp and then this is the middle some early experiments And this is the stubbornly persistent illusion by steven hawking himself, which is a forward of vinesign or basically, uh He writes a forward and then puts all vinesign's quotes supporting it Which is that the stubbornly persistent illusion that the earth is in the center of the universe is unavoidable All right, uh For harry potter we need more more useful information. Yeah, steven hawking steven hawking is harry potter perfect rebuttal All right. So, uh, from what I know t-jump doesn't have much time So let's try to keep it to 30 seconds here going for it t-jump doesn't even realize Geocentric doesn't need dark matter. So him explaining it is just irrelevant is another win for witset 30 seconds t-jump to respond Again dark matter is a phenomenon We see something happening and they need to explain that somehow they explain it with magic space goo So that that is their dark matter. They have magic space goo is their dark matter the extra stuff there That explains the orbits of the planets around galaxies is space goo There is they're also claiming there's extra stuff there We don't know about and it's space goo ether like I don't this is not a hard thing to understand The flurfs and geocentrists also are explaining dark matter with something else They just don't they just somehow claim it's not the same problem. All right. That's time there So next one whisco mat t-jump. I have never seen someone act so smog While all of his arguments are fallacious appealed with orty appealed to cons consensus ad-homs et cetera So you got another Critic in the live discussion there any thoughts for them before we move on I will appeals to authority and consensus are only fallacious if they're not actual authorities And so appealing to the actual authorities isn't fallacious stanford socket beauty philosophy on fallacies number nine, I think Oh, yeah, if you think that it's automatically a valid argument because your perceived authority says it It's intrinsically fallacious the evidence has to support it. It's pretty simple. Well, that's that's actually true Which it is correct there the reason their authorities is because they make the discoveries Who are not the flurfs or geocentrists because they don't make the discovery I like the point also that like with the dark matter thing, bro Like you're just completely off the mark if you assume relativity then dark matter has to exist That's why many astrophysicists are proposing modified Newtonian dynamics to replace relativity So that it does it need dark matter geocentrism doesn't need dark matter at all And there's a variance of potential explanations without it done. Yeah, right. It needs space goo ether, right Geocentrism can use that. Yes. The vibratory oscillations of a background medium resulting in that explains the same data that I'm over your ad bro. Let's move does that explain the same data dark? You don't know is that a yes or no? Well, uh, no does does the space goo ether explain the same data dark matter is meant to explain Well, no because dark matter explains the leftover from relativity The data to explain is the stuff moving in the sky Relativity doesn't work. So you need dark matter if you throw dark matter out you can explain all the answer in this guy All right, we're gonna move on to the next question there guys. Yeah hooligan is coming in. We're two dollars canadian An ontarian fella who has been co-modding here on modern database. So give you a hooligan some Yaha is in the live chat there. He's fantastic fella and really easy to get on with as all of us Canucks seem to be Generally except for, you know, the ones I know I guess besides myself, right? I'm I'm I'm all right, right? And you know, I'm not one of those awful canucks. Am I? Yeah, yeah, I'm see really all right. So yaho hooligan. Thank you wits it and t jump for the debate I have no problem arguing for atheism says ozian talks, which is where we're gonna have our after show I'm gonna link that in live chat in a second here. Esteban illbacka wits it dark energy is what we don't know with the physics we do Relativity it can be explained by modifying or rewriting relativity Gravity is the thing either way geocentrism can't handle that Okay, it's so funny that you guys say things you don't understand. Okay I was getting ready to read that. I was like if you assumed newtonian gravity if you assume dynestinian gravity Both of them when necessitate you say the earth could be in the center I gave you the papers the math and the physics you guys will never rebut it I've given it to many asherf is in addition. Okay, they're modifying newtonian dynamics or replacing relativity because it doesn't work Well, if the earth's in the center, there's a variance of issues our variance of examples of things that could make it work I can give you Go to my telegram. You'll see all the links all the information go to my youtube, right? But for example, if quote-unquote gravity is simply an emergent property of the Oscillations of the fluid like background medium that would explain all the observations And this is an astrophysics professor at the university at a university in australia explaining that it would be akin to an ether Turns out maybe we overlooked it the whole time. These aren't just random quacks These are lifelong experts and the evidence supports it I encourage you to not listen to someone just claiming that the archaic 1905 example is still true and doing jump into 2023 and look at the evidence All right, uh, so before we move on here. We got quite a few more super chats T jump if you did need to jump out for a second there And have a bathroom break like we all did or uh, I gotta go. I gotta get I've got dinner plans You've got stuff to do. Okay. So, um, yeah, how long do you have potentially to go through the rest of these? But you know Not any time at all. I gotta go like no All right. Well, that's all right then, uh, big brown virtual applause for t jump t jump before I let you go I'll give you the floor. Um, you know one to two minutes closing statement Potato Thank you. Good night. All right. All right. Cool man. Like hit me up. We're gonna do the five hour stream Pay me. You gotta see me the PayPal first the money Bro, check this section. We're gonna start a little fun We'll throw you a few hundred bucks and you gotta sit there for five hours And you gotta talk about all these different things and then we're gonna just clip you up and go viral if you're not good All right, perfect, bro So you gotta go with the man. All right. Enjoy your uh, your date their d jump and thanks for coming out And uh, it's just me and you there now. Uh, what's it? This happens awkward me Hey, bro, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was being so like intense earlier I was like, I'll leave modern day to be aware But like dude, I seriously I had a lot of stuff going on I took this debate last minute, you know, and I'm like, bro, if I can't talk, I'm gonna get triggered But you you pulled through bro. You made sure that we were both able to talk. So. Oh, yeah No, I'll never let you down in that regard, buddy, you know, I don't want you to think I was like mad at you I just had to like say something because I was getting I'm like, bro No, I was I was trying to weave through it. I was like, okay Is he is he talking to t jump or is he talking to me because I was like, I You know, there's there's only so much that I can do so I you know, I gotta try to make sure that everybody is And getting an honest representation of your guys You know in the way that you you as individuals interact on these subjects. I think that's the I prefer back and let's you know because like if you can just concisely back and forth you get to a lot more info But that was just wasn't it wasn't happening. So I appreciate you Bring an order, brother. No problem. Uh, yes, it got smoked Well, let's uh, yeah, we'll hyper analyze the debate in the after show if you want to join us over there What's it? Uh, are you going after show where? Me and ozzie and we started a new show called Matters now we finally just got the tag all figured out. So I'm going to put that in the live chat and you can join us over there And ozzie and would actually I think be really excited if you did join us. So I'll chat with you guys for a little bit Yeah, I don't I don't know what the what's the channel? I'll I'll put it in the live chat before we disconnect on the stream here But let's carry on with our super chats here. What's it if you don't mind Um, you good with that? What's it if we want to go through a few more of these? Yeah, yeah. All right, thanks, buddy All right, Nathaniel from 999 wits it is the best of the flat earth debaters by a mile can help but wonder What kind of legitimate legitimate scientific learning or process he could be involved in if he didn't waste it on such nonsense? So they backhanded. Oh man. Sorry about that. That's cool. That's cool um Yeah, well turns out bro that Most of mainstream physics in 2023 is very limited and confined due to philosophical bias that people don't even know are there so I'm glad that I'm not inside of that if I if I had of like I I'll be honest, bro. I got a college Scholarship playing football. So it was like half athletic half academic and I just partied I could even go to class or whatever But if I had of like been responsible and got like a physics degree, I might have been lost in the sauce I may have been like, yeah, you know photons lightweight wave particle duality, you know I mean, oh man. Have you guys heard about the galaxy distribution? Like I don't know, right? So I'm cool with it. I'm content with it And I will say I I kind of see where you're coming from I don't think that dude is I think that that probably took a lot from that person to try to Tip his hat to me And he had to finish it with that but I appreciate the compliment. I know where you're coming from and uh, why you had to present it that way, but I think the Yeah, the truth always has to step outside the box. So I'd rather do that Well, let's read this next one here Dillonneau says what's it? It doesn't matter if something can be explained in different ways What you need is to provide a model that you can use to make novel testable predictions You don't know what evidence is. All right. So thoughts there. What's it? Yeah, yeah, uh my prediction From my model is that everything that we ever observe till the end of mankind's history Will go around the earth Everything will move around the earth And everything will complete circuits within a year So everything in the sky is on the same yearly cycle Everything will move around the earth forever. That's my prediction. Okay Coincidence that's what we've observed forever and that's what we will observe forever. Okay. That's what that's just how it goes So the actual default position based on all peer equivalence is that the earth is in the center, bro If you think that it's actually flying around the sun. It's just an illusion. Just give me some evidence Stop ad-homing me. We could maybe make some progress, but The evidence doesn't exist next one Ben look for ten dollars Witsett and his camp have not actually produced helpful predictions and or discoveries that have projected science forward I would really like witsett to address this point specifically. Well, you got him here ben actually all have all predictions All scientific advances assume that the earth is stationary in the center all of them Literally everything even if you believe in satellites and you believe in missions in space if you believe in anything Anything if you believe in UFO everything, bro Like plane advancements the the little triangle little ufo johns, which my friend has seen is pretty crazy You know i'm saying they're not unidentified just to military classify them What i'm saying is all that assumes a stationary earth everything if you believe in satellites They assume to earth centered earth fixed coordinate system with the universe moving around it causing real inertial forces in their math Everything including the fact that there's a ether drift and that gps actually utilizes a preferred direction of light that goes Faster in the same direction the sky spins and gets faster the higher you go All of that assumes the earth is central and stationary so Literally every piece of technology ever has assumed the earth is stationary in the center and your model claims Well, yeah, you can treat it like that you have to treat it like that, but it's just a stubbornly persistent illusion It's just an illusion So it's an ironic question and you won't accept it because you're going to start suffering from cogniz or whatever But that's just a fact bro like every technology assumes the earth in the center of the quote unquote universe All right. Well, let's uh, here's what i'll do. I'll put on that 32nd timer again. We'll try to get through these There's a there's a lot of them actually I'll keep it really concise a lot of people are excited about this debate between you and tj I don't want to be here forever either. Yeah, it's all good I was going to say you might underestimate how many super chats gay man, right? Guillotine wits it drops big science words into his conspiratorial nonsense to pretend one He understands the concepts and two science is on his side 30 seconds Yeah, people just say that I pretend but they'll never actually specifically say Oh, this is why you are wrong about this phrase or this principle Go look up what I said slow it down if you need to and look up every single word every single principle You'll see it's all in context. It's all legitimate. I didn't make anything up I did thorough research. You can go to my channel to check it out All right, beautiful. Nice and quick. So John Carpenter if heliocentrism and geocentrism Ism can be explained equally while using dynamic equivalents How does the geocentrism geocentric equation remove the need for dark matter 30 seconds? Yeah, because um, the reason that we threw out the ether was because we did the Michael Simorley and it didn't detect the earth's orbit So they said oh well either the earth is stationary or there's no ether So they threw out the ether and they came up with all kinds of crazy stuff that things contract, but you can't tell time slows down But you can't tell we don't have to do that if the if we just accept the very precise Interporometry measurements at the earth is stationary then you have an ether background Which is what quantum physics has proven definitively at this point Then you have a substantive background and you don't need dark matter nor do you need dark energy The only reason you need dark matter is because it has to be emptiness and nothingness All right, David coming in with it explain how the michelson moorley result and the michelson-gail pearleson result together a wreck heliocentrism 30 seconds michelson moorley was trying to Detect the orbital motion around the earth and they got a no result Although it does did show an interference pattern It wasn't what was predicted michelson-gel pierce and showed the sidereal rotation So the daily rotation of the sky for example, which is 23 hours 56 minutes 4.1 seconds It measured it perfectly with the assuming the ether within the technology So if you have doesn't measure orbit measure sidereal rotation Then the only feasible explanation is that the earth's not moving But the sky is moving and there is no orbit to motion Beautiful I think when I said time you were just ready to wrap up anyway So hopefully I didn't interject and people can hear you Ben for five dollars I'm going to give you a break here and just read some of these nice fan chats Flat earth is the red pill it keeps you safe from the globalist agenda It kept my blood pure so you got a super chat fan there and that's his first super chat So ben felt very inspired by what you were saying and decided to give us first super chat So thanks for that. Thank you so much. Much love brother. No third super chat. Oh my goodness It gives us the third super chat still an early one. I was going to say I got to read those They give it the celebration for the third one. Look at that Proud fluff wits. It just gets it. They don't get tired of getting flat smack level heads flat earth fridays Wits, I think has stepped out for just a second again. So I'm going to take an opportunity I'm trying to find my charger, bro. Um, oh, yeah flat flat earth flat earth fridays on twitter I can hear you if I'm just going to try to find my charger It's in this big pile over here flat earth fridays on twitter shout to them They're a bunch of legends and uh, I vibe with them tough So if you know you want to go debate it you want to go talk about it every friday I think it's roughly 8 p.m. Eastern and it goes for many hours on twitter spaces flat earth friday shout out to them They're legends All right, excellent That's for t-jump t-jump And wits it I have done t-jumps ham radio experiment. You can too bro I explained how it's not exclusive and it was hand-waved dismissed and I've been trying to get an answer to it for five years Which speaks for itself. You guys can't rebut it. All right next one wits it It doesn't matter if something can't be explained in different ways. Sorry. This is from dillano I should give the name first dillano. Thank you so much for your super chat wits it It doesn't matter if something can be explained in different ways What you need to provide is a model that you can use to make novel testable predictions You don't know what evidence is Yeah, but again I explain that the geocentric model predicts that everything including distant galaxies will move in relation to the earth The heliocentric model actually predicted the earth in a tiny little insignificant corner tucked away And it doesn't matter and you'll see redshift blueshift random motions everywhere We actually saw that everything moves around the earth you updated your model to say. Oh, it's an illusion. Yeah, I promise It looks like that, but it's not like that. So the novel prediction Burden is on you because all actual evidence matches our prediction And of course mine is that there's no dark matter There is no dark energy the earth in the center and everything we ever observed for the rest recorded history will show The earth in the center. It's very simple. You just don't want to accept it All right next one coming in congo 44 witz it is pretty arrogant to think that people have not done their experiments I have it takes about an afternoon to debunk almost everything you said in the last five years Thoughts witz it there for 30 seconds. There's another baseless claim for substantive specificity I explained the moon balance and then the fact is you can't even explain how uh radio waves over 100 A megahertz which is far beyond the supposed ionosphere that reflects it down and saves the globe Go over 2,500 up to 3,000 miles, but it would penetrate the ionosphere. Thanks for playing microwaves also do line of sight Uh beamed divergence of less than a meter down to 1 millimeter And there's no diffraction no bending no refraction and no bouncing off the ionosphere We refuted the globe in many ways and that's not what this was about, but thank you for playing already Justin come in for 10 witz it you make assertion claim statements that things debunk something Does not make the case You haven't defended any of the claims you make you just assert them trust me bro plus Wrong jargon in quotation. So you see how every single supposed debunk of me has nothing specific in it Because everything I said specifically can't be rebutted I think that an intellectually honest audience member will see that none of it's being if you can tell me Oh, but the physics says that actually the inertial forces don't work the way that you say I will rebut it But you'll never do that because you can't do that And the fact is that your own model with Einstein or Newtonian mechanics necessitates a kinematic and dynamic equivalence If you're not familiar with those terms, it's okay. Just go research them. They're simple I defined them in the opener and I encourage you to research it more the truth is that Your model's falling apart. It's in a cosmological crisis. The geosatric model doesn't have the dark matter or dark energy problem It's just chilling as it always has been and always will be All right, Charles Lainer coming in sorry new to this type of debate probably has been stated before but with it How do you how does your view account for celestial navigation? Okay, so that's another flat earth question But it's that we actually see in the hemisphere So we have an azimuthal growth of vision the actual curvature of our limit Which you can simply understand this go out to the ocean I was just at the ocean the other day go look at the ocean because I was paying attention, right You have peripheral vision. You know how you can't see all the way to the left and right? You have a limit We'll look out at the ocean what you'll see is it looks like a giant circle around you It's not because of the curve of the earth Even if you thought it was a globe because it's way smaller than that you have a curve around you Okay, we have an azimuthal grid a hemisphere of limit around us And so we see everything within that limit the globe says. Oh, well, no, there is no limit We can see forever we're superman We see in perfectly straight lines and that curve is because the earth is curving So if you understand that we don't see forever then it explains everything including celestial navigation You map map it in an azimuthal grid All right, so a little chance for you to take a break here and I'll read some of these Super chats that aren't directly to you. What's it? Yeah, you can take a chance to look for that charger buddy if you want look for your charger. It's fine What's it grid job as usual with this debate keep it up T jump the clam chair kills me every time Next one says T some just says debunked without any specifications followed by an ad hominem So T jump if you're watching this afterwards, you know, maybe you'll have a live Aftershow and you can respond to Robert Tozzi, but I did want to read your super chat there. Just uh, where's Kevin? With a little break there swampy Gross old nasty pubes. I'm donating just to make ryan read my name again Great job tonight gentlemen and ryan too. I guess well, thank you. I guess To you swampy old nasty Raggedy old anyways Just remind everybody since what's it's looking for his charger there. We do have our tickets linked in the description To debate con four. So Dallas, Texas is work. We're going to be Hanging out if you haven't already checked out the tickets in the live description If you're in the area, uh, I would encourage you to do so We're going to have a wits it there if you enjoy what you're hearing here tonight He's going to be hanging out to debate with leo filius Matt Dill honey is going to be there along with our own rod david wood Along with um, andrew, uh, wilson from the crucible and a couple other people as well I was going to say I got to bring up the promo here. Destiny's going to be there. Yes, of course So, uh, I see there's 800 odd if you watch and right now hit that like button if you haven't already We're just getting through our q&a here and trying to Get through some of the ones that aren't directly related to t jump the next one. It was from run boston bear Hey ryan. Thanks for modding and being a lighthearted person Well, you're welcome run boston bear. I am a pretty lighthearted person Generally, I feel like if we ever get to the point on modern day debate where I need to really drop a hammer Everybody's going to be like, okay. If ryan's upset Then then something must be wrong I'm hoping that that that that will be the follow-up after a hearing wits it many times You must realize the earth is not a globe high five says run boston bear Uh, so that one was also a compliment for you there wits it He said after hearing wits at many times. You must realize the earth is not a globe high five So high five to you there, buddy space miner says our reviews of a pier Required to have a peer review also to be considered a proper peer review So we're 10 minutes over and we're going to try to wrap these up quick guys Many physicists peer review the newtonian neo tyconi and analysis of planetary motion They acknowledge that the math and the physics all work as well as relational mechanics I personally sent it to a phd in physics and astronomy or phd an astronomy a professor He runs a planetarium. He came back and told me yes all the math checks out is legitimate I have a couple questions So the truth is that the math and the physics is indisputable and that all the peers acknowledge it They just disagree with the conclusion based on philosophical grounds I encourage you to read the paper if you don't know about some of those terms because you're not well researched Go watch in the field wits it gets it next episode on the first absolute legend coming on you should check it out All right next one coming in here wits it Yeah, he had said great job as usual. That's from t baggins Uh, that's a lot brother. Oh, I met you bro. Much love, bro And yeah, it's always fun when we see people that are in the live chat that we've met and hung out with Eric william may wits. It crushed it as usual t jump never researches never heard of lunar wave Anormy taught me about lunar waves eight years ago Uh a ghoul. Oh, there's the canadian coming out in the og All right. Well, let's move on there since that's mostly towards you get out of that place, bro Come to freedom, brother. You know florida. You can hang out, bro. I got a pool You got a come to freedom Uh, we won't talk about that right now. All right, so come to the after show we could talk about what I uh, how I feel about Where I am a alexander l wits it draw a diagram of how a boat goes over the horizon Uh, the boat goes over there. Okay As the boat leaves because I live right by many oceanic horizons Okay, the boat it goes away and then it starts to disappear from the bottom up How far away it does that changes based on the day The bottom layer of the atmos is the most dense so light gets absorbed in that portion of the atmos Faster it's called attenuation because it's more turbulent and more dense Also the ankle of the light that you're receiving is smaller at the bottom of the boat relative to your eye level So it drops below the resolution angle due to the reception and propagation angles sooner Just look up the terms. I love you guys. It's very simple if the earth was flat The boats would have to disappear from the bottom up and if you can't let go of that I'm sorry. I still love you. All right, balthas Balthasar says for 499 the fact that there's a global flat earth conference Amuses me global and flat a global and capital letters. So they're kind of making a joke. I think about that It's called international and if you went there, I promise you wouldn't be acting near as bad Like that's the right the reason that none of them do come Danny Faulkner came and didn't say a word the whole time my presentation He didn't have a word to say didn't have a word to say after because you guys talk big on the internet But while you come where there's 500 of us just chilling showing love hugging everyone everyone's laughing Everyone's having fun different points of view but still accepting each other If you guys come and try to act like this We would just chill and laugh and intellectually eviscerate you guys would never come. So I mean, I hope you guys Maybe man up next year. All right, Pythagoras. Do those books say the solar system doesn't exist I'm not sure what books they're referencing, but you go ahead there. What's it 30 seconds What the book what the book says like for example specifically this one suddenly persists an illusion by Oh, your books that you brought up. That's of course. Yes. Yeah, what it says is Well, the earth could be in the center and the solar system the soul Lore system that lures your soul into insignificance and unimportance Actually isn't exclusively true and that the evidence shows the earth could be in the center And then what he says in this book and I think it's on page 200 something is well I believe that we're not in the center based on humility because I think it would be more humble to think We're not special and in the center. So that's what the book said. All right. So I'm gonna I'm sorry if I skipped a few of those ad hominy super chat So if you're in the live chat right now and you're like you didn't read my super chat It's probably because if you read it, uh, you weren't being very kind and we're trying to keep it substantive Well, we get to the end of the debate And I'm gonna shush now because I'm wasting more time. Simon allen. How long does it take for the sun to orbit the earth? The same amount of time that they claim the sun moves around the earth every day Okay, it's guys 26 24 or 23 hours 56 minutes 4.1 seconds, whatever We have side derail rotation and technically you have the side derail rotation the solar rotation is slightly different But within just a very small amount everything moves around the earth every single day Just constantly moves around the earth every single day and there's also an annual cycle of distant galaxies that create circuits And they complete their circuits once a year. So everything moves around the earth There is no evidence that the earth's moving around the sun. It's very simple and the the sun completes its, uh Its movement within the ecliptic once a year very Excuse me. All right. So earth first space later heliocentrism requires proving you can violate Structural laws like fluid statics and gear gas pressure, which is impossible Yeah, exactly necessary and to seem to gas pressure is physical containment You can't have a gas pressure system which people claim that somehow at most doesn't mean gas even though it means air Which is defined as gas by definition adjacent to a near perfect vacuum without seeking equilibrium and filling the available space It requires all kinds of anomalous physics. I call the heliocentrism model anomalous physics It's like, oh, well, sure physics is like this on the earth, but I promise out in space and with the globe It's different. It's an anomaly So yeah, you have to just you have to just want to believe it because you're scared of what people may think And I encourage you to free yourself from that bondage because it's just not a good way to live Erica belding says what's it? You say gps requires a preferred direction for the speed of light Reference and citation, please Yeah, uh, you can look up, um Ron hatch who is actually brought in to correct it. You can also look up I think I may have showed it in my presentation. If not go to my telegram t.me slash with it gets it um And you can see i'll drop it in there after this but We have many different observations and experiments that have measured the fact that the light propagates faster lower and higher I mean, uh, uh in a certain direction and higher as you get higher to the sky the light goes faster And it goes faster in the same direction the sky moves and the actual gps Which I will drop those links in as well and ron hatch just demonstrated this definitively Uh gps has to account for the speed of light being faster in that direction because when it sends out the gps signals It's actually different duration of signal in the direction Of the same direction that the sky moves So it's fascinating and you've never been told that because it's it's uncomfortable for the modern cosmology All right, let's move on to the next one here. We're getting near the end there witsett and then we can, uh, Uh clear on out and uh clean up here. Let's see Melagon says, uh, what's it listening to you is like an asmr drivel Sorry, what? Um, yeah, that's kind of just an ad homin the asmr drivel. Well, you know what, you know what, um You know what asmr has its own place guys, but I don't know that is what we heard here It's it's like a thing that puts people asleep. It took me a second to realize it was like asmr I I thought that might have been a technical term for a second there and then I remembered my wife Talks about that every once in a while. You're coping brother. I'm sorry. All right, so Oh, no, they're coping. No, no, no, no, I yeah, I'm just saying I'm sorry that I read that out loud You agree with that bro. I don't care. I was skipping those ad homes Balthazar says as someone who has actually derived and utilized all the einstein and newtonian equations from scratch And actually sent the cuba sat in space. This man has no idea what he's saying anything to say to balthazar Wait, wait, he said they he said who did it? What was the beginning? Oh, let's see. Let me just all right scroll up here I almost lost it there as someone who actually derived and utilized the einstein and newtonian equations from scratch And actually sent a cuba sat into space Cuba sat is how you say that Yeah, kubesat. Okay. This man has absolutely no idea what he's saying and he thoughts for balthazar there Yeah, he just baselessly hoping people are wooed by the fact he claims to have sent a satellite somewhere But kubesats aren't even impressive bro. Why would you come in public and flex kubesats? It's super weird to me But anyway, I guarantee you that in your equations you accounted for inertial forces and you used an earth centered Earth fixed coordinate system I know that for a fact because I know people that I've seen that sent up kubesats So and I've actually read through nasa's own equations for satellites So you have to assume the earth is centered and in the in the fixed position And then you use inertial forces as if they're real but claim that they're fictitious So I know exactly what I'm talking about and there is a newtonian einstein and kinematic and dynamic equivalents All right Last two questions. What's it only in your dreams did uh, no, no, no megaline. I'm no, I'm not going to finish that one But thank you for your super chat John says for $1.99. Do you follow q? No Do they mean like cubanine like down in america in there? Yeah Yeah Not my thing, bro Like oh the government saying send your hands and trust the government Look up operation trust. It's been done before in russia All right, last one coming in and balthazar the math for predicting all celestial motions goes from being super simple In a heliocentric model to absurdedly complex with a geocentric model I'd love to see him even try to properly derive anything Thoughts on that before your ending statement. That's the end of our super chats everybody. So let's stop them from coming in It's just another script if you actually read the papers You'll see that the math is simpler, but they won't actually read the papers because they're uncomfortable But I explained earlier that they took taiko brahe a geocentric model And then they took all his data and tried to make it heliocentric You got caperna cus they had to add more epicycles to make it work Which means it was less elegant It was less adaptable and it was more complicated in addition to that all the math is very simple because there's a dynamic equivalence If the earth is in the center So you said you'd like to see me do it I just gave you the papers that literally do it relational mechanics by andrea cease and luka poppett wrote the newtonian neo-taikonian analysis For planetary motion. Okay, it breaks all the math and physics down. It's very simple It's more simple more elegant and more adaptable than the heliocentric model But I bet you'll keep repeating that script because Frankly, that's all that's all you have is just to claim that it's simpler All right closing thoughts there would sit on our discussion tonight yeah, um Unfortunately, we weren't able to get into a lot of like the real like need of it Like the real specifics when I was talking to t-jump. I wanted to get into the specifics of it But let me break it down real quick. It's really simple. So People back in the day they thought that the earth where it was a plane Then they thought oh no, it must be a ball because the perfect shapes of sphere That's the greeks Then they thought it was a stationary sphere for many years and then they got to the point where they said Oh, actually the earth is tilted wobbling spinning and revolving around the sun and that's a sphere, right? And so then we fast-forward to where we started making Very big advancements in technology and telescopes and stuff and we were like, okay Well, if the earth is this little tiny rock in this insignificant corner tucked away Then we should see things moving everywhere. I shouldn't care about the earth at all We should see redshift blueshift left right up down every right that was just the heliocentric models predictions Edward Hubble saw wait a minute everything we see no matter how far out we see no matter how good the telescope gets It all moves around the earth everything Including the distant galaxies and they spin once a year and complete their circuits all moving around the earth So they had to update the heliocentric model to absorb the idea that all observations would look like we're in the center They changed it. They moved the goalposts in the early early 20th century And they said oh it's accelerating spinning in all directions. Okay, and there's many different things We've done cosmic microwave backgrounds. I have shown that actually the earth is in the center based on the anisotropic distribution centered on the earth But long story short in a very simple way all observations ever show that the earth in the center The heliocentric model says that's just an illusion So you have the burden of proof to claim that it's actually the opposite of what we see now if we compare the two The heliocentric model needs dark matter and dark energy to even potentially possibly theoretically exist The geocentric model doesn't have those problems Because it's just in the center. It doesn't need accelerative expansion So therefore the geocentric model is objectively significantly more viable than the heliocentric model All right Well, we're going to close it off there And I'm going to remind everybody that we have our tickets linked in the live description for debate con for What's it's going to be there is debating against leo is going to be a great time So you won't want to miss that So if you're going to be in the area get your tickets. Let us know in the live chat where you're at We always like to know where people are hanging. You see that little the little thermostat on the side there of the regular video that we had up Before we turned into just a regular zoom call That's a representative of our crowdfund and that's also linked in our description where you can get access to all kinds of amazing perks If you can't make it in person, but you also want to support the event So I will let everybody know that we are going to be doing an open panel after show So if you want to come in there and let us know what you think of the discussion I'm going to put the link in the the live description and remind everybody that you know Keep sifting the reasonable out from the unreasonable and thanks wits it for being here big virtual round of applause for wits it And we'll see you guys next time Yeah, much love Cheers, buddy All right, I'll try to jump on I'll try jump on it