 Hey everybody, today we are debating Flat Earth and we are starting right now. We have you here for another epic debate. This is one that you know, here at Modern Day Debate we host debates on science, religion, and politics. We are a nonpartisan platform, which means we try to be as neutral as possible to give everybody a fair shake. And so I want to let you know as well, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. For example, creation of illusion this coming Wednesday and then tomorrow on secular versus Christian morality. So that should be a juicy one. And we want to let you know. No matter what walk of life you are from folks, for real, whether you be Christian, atheist, Flat Earth, or Glober, Democrat, Republican, you name it, we really do hope you feel welcome here. And so thanks for being with us. With that, we are going to get the ball rolling tonight. What we have is a fairly flexible format. We'll have about 10 minutes from each side, starting with Flat Earth Aussie. And then Amy will have her 10 minute opening statement followed by a discussion, which will be about 50 to 60 minutes. And then Q&A. So if you have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. And as well, if you happen to have a comment, super chat allows you to be or basically ask a question or make a comment toward one of the speakers. And they of course would get a chance to respond. And it'll also super chats will push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q&A. So with that, want to remind you or let you know for the first time, I put the links of our speakers down in the description. So that way if you're listing, you're like, hmm, I like that. You can hear plenty more by clicking on those links. So I do want to say thanks so much to our guests. We're thrilled to have Amy and Flat Earth Aussie. We really do appreciate you hanging out with us tonight. A good old Saturday night debate on Flat Earth. It's a true pleasure to have you on this pleasant night. So yes, thank you very much Amy and Flat Earth Aussie. With that. All right, cheers James and cheers Amy. Thanks for arranging this debate. Hopefully it'll be a nice cordial discussion. It is actually 11, 11 AM here in the real world. So I know the Americans a little bit behind, but that's normal. That's right. Yes. So yeah, you're ahead of the curve. OK, so we're just teasing. OK, so really excited. We really do appreciate both Amy and Flat Earth Aussie. They're honestly, they've been on the channel before. They're just really pleasant people. So we will start the timer up. So Flat Earth Aussie, the floor is all yours. Thanks for being here. All right, cheers. As I said, when we had a little discussion pre this debate, I haven't really prepared anything. That's my usual way of going into something. I'm always open to seeing what we can discover as we chat. But since I get to open this discussion, I may as well start with some very basic obvious facts. The very first one being the lack of detectable motion. Get a programming track. That one is a given. We have seismographs. They are very delicate instruments, and they will detect earthquakes. But as far as these motions of the Earth, some supersonic speeds, and that's just the spin alone, never been detected. Hence why even Einstein had to develop a whole new theory of relativity to say relative motion, because actual motion cannot be detected. Pardon me. So first story, we got lack of motion. Next of all, we have the basic nature of liquid, of liquid fluids of water. It does seek its own level. It fills the container. It cannot exhibit any sort of curvature as the globe Earther has to believe that it exhibits. It's just something that exists in their imagination somewhere far away beyond the horizon that we've never seen. So the globe is basically a literal fantasy made up by people who just don't understand basic perspective. Basic perspective is something anybody can easily observe, just even in their own room that they're in. You can see how as the floor moves away from you, it appears to rise upwards. The ceiling appears to go downwards and eventually they all reach a convergence point. The thing is when we're outside, in reality, the Earth is really, really big. So this upwards convergence point that we see, it's only a mere few miles away and that's what creates a horizon. The horizon comes from the term horizontal, which is something that most people really have a hard time grasping, is horizontal. They literally believe that it's a curve for some reason appearing to rise upwards until it reaches this horizontal point and then you've got a fixed physical curvature. And I've done multiple examples where you can prove for a fact, you can see it, that what you think appears on the horizon, where the curve should be starting, all you have to do is get higher and you can see that it's just surrounded by more and more flat and level water if you're looking at something across the ocean. It is not a curve at all and if the curvature existed, it shouldn't just disappear simply because you got higher. The other one that the Globes must cling to, another fantasy belief is gravity. They feel that the mass of the Earth pulls everything towards its centre, whereas in reality, we see that there is a universal up and there's a universal down. There is no anything being pulled around to the sides that just simply doesn't happen. So these fictional thoughts that people have to have to believe in a globe, when you analyse them logically and with the same mind, you realise that they're just completely and utterly insane. Everybody is on top because the Earth is flat. There is no curvature. Things do not cling around the edges of something just because they get further out of sight, out of mind. That's insane. I'm sorry that we were all brought up with the same fantasy that we believe we live on a spinning space ball in outer space, but we literally do not. So I think I'll just leave it with that for now and I'd love to hear your rebutt or what you have to introduce, Amy. You bet. Thanks so much for that. And one thing I just want to quick jump in. It could be my imagination. There might be, I don't know if it could be even my mic, maybe, is, do you know, does anyone know if their mic is maybe kind of scratching across their clothing or anything like that? Cause I feel like it would be my imagination because the chat didn't say anything. Can you hear me right now? Cause I haven't muted. Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? I can hear your voice, Amy. But I, I have a mute button on my microphone. So I just want to make sure. The rubbing, the rubbing seemed like it was gone. Yeah, I think my microphone let me be. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Okay. That's an impressive beard, by the way. And we'll, we'll kick it over to Amy. The floor is all yours, Amy. All right. Back. Yep. Okay. Can you guys see my screen? Give me one sec. I've just got a, for some reason I got pushed over just a bit. I'm almost set for you, Amy. Thanks for your patience. Oh, that's right. And while I'm adjusting this, thanks for your patience, Amy, almost there. Want to let you know, folks, we are on podcast. So if you love podcasts, check out your favorite apps and we will be there for you. Let us know if our podcast is not on your favorite podcast app and we will get it on there. So, and Amy, you are all set. Thanks for your patience. Oh, right. Welcome everyone to why the earth is round. Flat earth is existing all over the globe edition. So, we're here to discuss why the earth is round. However, I'd also like to talk about some underlying principles like our epistemology, the scientific method and our notions of skepticism. I'm going to start with the assumption that we're all seeking truth. Plus the history of discovering the shape of the earth began over 2,000 years ago. Pythagoras, known for the Pythagorean theorem, was one of the first to propose a sphere of earth. But it would be Aristothenous, a Greek mathematician who would first calculate the Earth's circumference. He did this by writing down the angles of shadows cast from an eclipse in two different locations, miles apart, and then compared the data. However, it was Aristotle, 150 years later, which added on to the mathematics to present empirical evidence. One of his observations was that the holes of ships dip under the horizon first, instead of in equal proportions like what we would expect with a flat plane. This was further proven by Bernard Magellan and Juan Sebastian Elcano, who ended up circumventing the earth by heading west and kept heading west until they started where they began. This would not be possible on a flat earth. Before I show two videos and introduce my special guest, I just want to say that I believe this debate is actually about trust and authority. And you know what? That's actually a good thing sometimes. We shouldn't just trust everything that people tell us and we should test our own arguments, beliefs, and hypotheses to see if they work. What grounds me ultimately as to why the world is round is the same peer-reviewed scientific process that allows us to create airplanes, cure cancer, and create condoms. So for any non-round theory to work, they would need a framework of facts that could be demonstrated time and time again like clockwork. With that being said, I'd like to demonstrate two concepts. The first is what are naturally gathering into round blobs in space. Is this supposed to be muted? I can't hear anything. Oh, you can't hear anything? No. Give me one second. It's just been quiet for like the last 20, 30 seconds. Got you. That's because I did not have shared computers out. So can you hear this now? Yes. All right, this is a water in free space. These are people floating in space and just letting the water molecules collect naturally. Milliseconds radially directed in from the side and look at the resulting waves. And there's a combination of surface waves and body waves that go through this sphere. We saw that in real time. Now we see it in slow motion. Starts off with a crater sending a droplet off and then a series of surface waves which come together at the antipoidal or 180 degree point from the impact and these waves collapse back down and go across the other side towards the impact point and water droplets in a bubble in a sphere. Here we have a sphere of water, 75 millimeters in diameter with an air bubble inside about 35 millimeters in diameter and we inject water droplets anywhere from one to eight millimeters in diameter into the bubble and look at resulting collision dynamics where they collide with each other and the walls. Most of the collisions result in an elastic collision but every once in a while a collision will result in a mass transfer across the interface and this mass transfer has a momentum exchange associated with it which will propel the droplets. Here a droplet is going in circular motion on the inside of the sphere, effervescent and acid tablet in a water sphere. Here's a sphere of water, 50 millimeters in diameter with an effervescent and acid tablet. Bubbles form rapidly from a chemical reaction. This is an example of heterogeneous nucleation where bubbles form on a solid surface and can get a momentum exchange and travel out into the fluid. The bubbles rapidly coalesce. Once they reach a certain size they seem to eat other bubbles at a faster rate thus growing larger and in this form of a bubble war you end up with a bipolar situation with two large bubbles that rapidly eat all the other bubbles and eventually you get a situation where one bubble dominates and all the other bubbles are pressed into an annular space. And all right and then we're just going to go and the second water is water bending on earth naturally because of static electricity with my thumb little one. Frostbite Theater presents cold cuts, no baloney. Just science. Hi, I'm Joanna. And I'm Steve. And this is a piece of PVC pipe. And this is a plastic cup that has a hole drilled into the bottom of it. So when I fill it with water it leaks out of the bottom. If I charge the pipe and then bring it close to the stream of water the water is attracted to it. That's because water molecules are polar molecules. Water molecules look a little bit like Mickey Mouse. The two hydrogen atoms are bunched up on one side of the oxygen atom. And while the molecule itself is neutral overall it has a positive end and a negative end because of the way it's shaped. Molecules like water that have an asymmetrical distribution of charge are called polar molecules. Let's say the pipe has a negative electrical charge. If I bring it close to the stream of water the water molecule flips so that the positive end is pointed towards the negatively charged pipe. Opposite charge is attract so the water is drawn towards the pipe. This is an experiment you can do for yourself at home fairly easily. All you need to do is turn on the faucet so a little bit of water comes out and then you place a charged object near the water. Any object that'll hold a charge will do like a comb. Or a balloon that you've rubbed on your head. Or a classic pen. Thanks for watching. I hope you'll join us again soon for another experiment. Let's make kind of a mess. It really did. See, make this work better. But it's just water. That's true. I'd like to introduce you all to the star of this debate. This is a fantastic type of channel that I'm subscribed to. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a live stream from the ISS if you'd like to join. It rotates in different sections, certain times when it's going into the dark side, but it looks like a beautifully round hail blue dot to me. It looks gorgeous. So yeah, this has been my presentation on why I think the Earth is round. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much, Amy. We will kick it into discussion mode here and want to say thanks so much for your question so far, folks. This has been amazing so far. So the floor is all yours, Amy, and Flat Earth Aussie. Oh, I can't hear you. I think, let me check if you've got yourself on mute, Flat Earth Aussie. Sorry, I was on mute. My bad. Some of that was seriously cringe worthy, I'm sorry to say. Like the whole idea of being in space, for example, like they say that the ISS, if it even does exist, is still in 95% of Earth's gravity. So how could things be weightless or microgravity, as they like to call it, if it's still 95% of the Earth's gravity? I mean, what are doing that, as they say, it still doesn't prove how a big giant molten spinning space ball turns into a sphere, as we know, like even Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about the Earth being oblately spheroidal, if that's a term. He says it's kind of like pizza dough, and we know for a fact, the more we spin pizza dough, the flatter it will get. So every argument that they use to try and prove why nature would turn something into a sphere is completely and utterly anti-everything we can actually observe. The more you spin it, the flatter it gets, but the fact that it isn't spinning, it is just naturally flat because of density and buoyancy is pretty much all we really need to know to understand the nature of all the laws of physics, which is no curvature is ever taken into consideration for any sort of engineering that's ever occurred. There's bridges over 100 miles long. And I don't think that's really like the whole spinning. I'd like to see the evidence of that. It's really what keeps the ISS afloat is that it's falling. And so it is the same reason why planets have rings is that you have material in a specific band that is not far enough to fall and not far enough to go away. And so it's stuck in this band where it is continuously cycling. And that's really what the solar system is, is that we are in gravity around the sun and then the moon is doing the same thing to us. And in between that, we have our own. I mean, that's where our satellites are. Okay, well, that's hypothetically what they say, but there are no demonstrable examples of something we can do that. Now, if we spin a ball around on a string, okay, that will stay in orbit around us. But if you let go of the string, the ball flies off in a straight line. Any example, we have a gravity pulling something towards something means they soon crash into one another and they stick. They don't just keep perpetually spinning around one another, there's no examples of that except for the theoretical made up stuff of what they say space is. And I don't think it's going on forever. I think it's going on for as long as it has forced, hold on, my cat, my bear baby. And a lot of the two first videos was really to show that water can bend, that it does bend rather easily, that the molecules collect and coalesce. And before we even go forward, I wanted to, I really wanted to get a number. If you have to put a percent to how confident you were with the world is flat from 0% to 100%, how confident are you at the world is flat? 101%. That worries me, that worries me. When people are that, when people are that, cause that means that you are convinced beyond such a shadow of a doubt. See, but even a hundred, is there even a room for that to become a 99%? Is there nothing in your- I grew up believing we lived on a globe. I used to watch the sunset all the time. My whole spiritual understanding of my existence depended upon living on a globe and it being such a unique special blue ball that exists in such this Goldilocks zone that is so unique that, yeah, you can't even express it in words. And to me, that was my whole understanding of like, who I am, what I am, where I live depended on the globe. So for me to then eventually discover that whole thing is complete nonsense. It's something that we're indoctrinated with as children to grow up and understand the nature of reality. It's a huge, it takes your whole foundation of everything you are and who you are. So to ask me, you know, if there's room for doubt, there's no reason at all why today I would stand here and declare that on the flat earth if I had any doubt whatsoever. Like to me, that would be, you know, you don't make a claim without having a knowledge and you don't get knowledge without having experience. And all my experiences have led me to this point where I no longer just believe in something because somebody told me it, I believe it because I know it, I feel it. You know, it's every essence of who and what I am is based on nature and the understanding of nature. And so to step outside of that and to believe in a fantasy, no, I could never go back to believing in a globe. Okay, I can understand that. I would say in relation to that, I'm like 95% to anywhere from 95 to 99, but I can be proven. I feel like a crack could be made if there was actually information or data in my view that would stick with the peer-reviewed community. We should always keep an open mind about anything and everything. And trust me, like when it came down to the globe, I, nobody believed the globe more than I did as I grew up. You know, people would say, you know, when it's their birthday, for example, I'd be saying, well, happy 15th trip around the sun. And they'd be like, huh? Oh yeah, because that's what we believe the Earth is doing. We're going on trips around the sun. So every year is another trip around it. That was my whole mentality growing up. So for me now to realize that the sun is actually going around above us, like the hour hand of a 24 hour clock, that's how we get the local 12 PM. That's how time zones work. Everything makes so much more sense on the flat Earth. There's something with the globe Earth because we're measuring an exact 24 hours every day. That means one spin of the Earth in the globe model. But if the Earth is going around the sun, and if it's going the exact amount of time each day, then that means that we'd be out of reckoning with the sun by four minutes per day to the point where every six months, day would, you know, midday would be midnight because we're measuring the exact 24 hours per day. That's a simple logical deduction. You know, you can just draw that on a flat sheet of paper, put the sun in the center, put a ball spinning exact like a clock, use a clock, that's perfect. 12 o'clock at the top, six at the bottom. And every time it goes around this middle point, then the midday is going to be facing a different direction from what it was the day before. But, you know, if we weren't measuring an exact 24 hours in a day, then the globe could possibly work. Because we measure an exact amount every day, it proves that it's the sun moving around above us and not us moving around the sun. I would like to see, I'd like to see data for that. Are you suggesting that the sun rotates around the Earth? Not we rotate around the sun? It rotates around above us. I'd say the sun goes around the equator. So the equator is the circle the sun takes and the seasons are caused by the sun moving up towards the northern summer, which is our winter. And as it comes back down, it creates the southern summer. But it's still going the exact same size circle around the equator all year round. It's kind of like spiraling like a spring. And because it gets further away, it makes it appear to take smaller circles. And when it gets closer to pierce, it goes bigger circles, but it's still going the exact same size circle all the time. Hence why it's the same time, even though it appears to take different sized circles. So let me just take this from another perspective. Let's put this in a game design or a simulation perspective. Say we're trying to make a day-night system where we have a sun giving days and nights, days and nights. I do not understand how, and not only don't understand, but have made day-night cycles before where it has to rotate around the thing that you're doing. I like, at least I'm trying to figure out how- This way, this way, not that way. This- It's staying perpendicular, I mean, parallel to the ground the whole time. So you're saying that, okay, so you're saying there's a top of the earth, right? And that's where everything is. And then there's a bottom of the earth. Yeah, everything's on top. And we don't live on the bottom. What does the bottom look like? Who knows? Like, I'd say it's just more and more density. It might be just floating in water. Is the bottom flat? We don't know. I mean, all we know is that we have a water level and we have land that's higher than water level. What's beneath that? We don't know. We know more about what's in space, so-called space than we do about what's down there. I agree. That's another thing I want to talk about in space. The furthest we've ever dug is only about eight miles. And it reaches such a level of density. We just can't go any further. So we really don't know. Not 100% natural. But so you are saying you have a good working knowledge of what it's like on the top. But the bottom is just a mystery. Doesn't that seem a little like you're prioritizing the stuff where we live and kind of forgetting? Yeah, yeah, because what's really important is where we live, where we don't live. That sort of stuff isn't even relevant to our existence. We'd rather know things that are real to us where we really exist, what's important, where life occurs. That's what's relevant to us down there where there's nothing. Who cares? It's not really. I mean, on a human level, I agree with you. But the reason why I think the gravity model is so strong is because it works universally. It works whether we're on Earth or on Mars, whether it's a solar system billions of light years away. If that's the case, then why do they have dark matter and dark energy? They actually need that to be 70% stronger than gravity. They take things from colliding together into a singularity. So gravity fails on every level. That's obvious. They're more descriptive than they are prescriptive. As in like they tried, they did experimentation. And what they found is they kept on finding a force. And we don't know what that force is. Dark energy is tearing this apart. It may be the thing that started inflation. It's pushing us away, which is why I wanted to ask, do you believe in things like Hubble's law? That's one of the core tenets of Big Bang cosmology, is Hubble's law says that everything is being pushed apart. All the galaxies that we see are redshifted, meaning that it's in a frequency that's moving away for us except for Andromeda. Andromeda is blue shifted, and it's coming towards us. That doesn't resonate with me for one second. I think everything, as we see, is pretty much fixed. Polaris is fixed. The stars rotate as a fixed body around it. We almost entered into this ideal day discussion before, which was what most globes will fall back to to describe why day and night don't change place every six months, because they'll call the sidereal day 23 hours, 56 minutes and four seconds. But that's just the motion of the stars. And that's why we can detect the motion of the stars. They still come back to exactly where they were in 365.25 days. That's how the sidereal day measures the year. The sun measures the day. The moon measures the months, because the moon goes 50 minutes slower than the sun goes around us. So that's why we see the phases of it being lit by the sun. But these things are constant. They don't change. They have been with us since forever, and they will probably keep on going forever. The whole idea of the expanding universe is another one of those things that is required to make us think we live on a globe. But once you dismiss that insane idea and just consider the fact that there is one physical plane, and we are on it, there are nothing else is physical. Those planets are just lights. So how do you explain that everything is redshifted, that all the other galaxies are redshifted and appear to be moving away from us? I just consider that to be nonsense. I don't see that as something that actually does happen. Then we need to take a step back. We need to go to meta. What is your view on scientific method? The scientific method is to, first of all, A, make the observation. Second of all, secondly, then, you theorize as to why it happens. But you don't question that it happens. Like we see a thing fall down in the medium of air, and so we say, well, is it a force, or is it a lack of a force that stops it from falling? And so we say, well, if air is lacking the density, then it doesn't have the force to stop it. But the ground has density, and that is the force that stops it from falling. But apart from the ground, it would probably keep on falling. So basically, we make the observation first, and then we develop the theory. Whereas the idea of gravity is to say, well, we've ignored what we can observe. We're making up a theory to why a belief can work, and the belief is the globe. And it requires a made-up force, and then it requires more made-up forces to stop everything colliding into the singularity that it invented in the first place. Whereas if you just observe reality, you don't need to make stuff up. So to summation, are you a fan of the scientific method? Do you think that it gets you to truth? Sorry, you can't add a little there. Do you think that the scientific method is a process that can help us distinguish what is true in the natural world? Well, yeah, obviously, it's observation of what exists. But once you start making things up about what exists, that's when you start entering into the realms of pseudoscience. But scientific method should be real and apparent. Say that again. The scientific method should be real and apparent, not something that exists within the realms of the imagination, like curving water somewhere over the horizon. But you would agree at this point that you at least saw two different videos of water curving. Water droplets, you know, with surface tension, absolutely. But that's got nothing to do with the standing body of water. And I think you also brought up that one that used static electricity. I wasn't really paying too much attention then. I got distracted. But the static electricity thing is still with moving water. We're talking about water when it's standing still. And when you've got enough volume, it will naturally see, can feel its container, and it will be perfectly level. And it's something we've been using for thousands of years to define what level means is the nature of water, liquids. It's standing still relative to the fact that it is stuck. So it's a container, and it's pressed. Generally speaking, it's that gravity is pushing it down. And almost always what happens is that gravity pushes it down until some other force begins to push back. So an example is star fusion. So our star is locked right now. You say, why is it just standing there? And it's because gravity is pushing inwards, and yet the energy that it's creating in the center is pushing outwards. And so you have this equilibrium where the two forces are fighting against each other. Now eventually, the star is going to run out of energy. When the star runs out of energy, gravity wins. Gravity pushes it, and you generally have a red giant if it's not big enough or you have a supernova if it's big enough. Well, that's still entering into the realms of hypothetical stuff that we can never really prove. I prefer the scientific method means to observe reality. Well, as far as I'm concerned, stars are actually a sound vibration in a different matter or different material, something we call as an ether. Like a star in a jar sort of thing, it's a vibrational frequency. That's what creates light. But that's entering into another realm far aside from what you believe in the concept of ether. And you're saying that gravity is a force. Well, you're sidestepping the issue. We're talking about water being level. So water has a mass. It has its own mass, but because it's a fluid, that's why it spreads out and it fills the container. It's not because there's a force pushing down on it apart from its own mass and the resistant force of the container. So the only force that exists when it comes to anything in the physical realm is actually resistance. It's not a pulling down because of mass. It's the actual resistance of the force. And so if the medium is lacking the resistance, which generally speaking, we talk about air, it doesn't have enough resistance to resist something with mass on falling through it. And that's what causes it to go down. And down is a very specific direction perpendicular to the level. That is not sideways or perpendicular towards the center of a ball. That is just a theoretical imagined thing that we can't observe. What we can observe using the scientific method is perpendicular down. If you apply a different force to it, yes, maybe you can push it sideways. But that requires another force apart from nature. You're saying it's been pushed down. But if it was a flat earth, wouldn't there be an equal and opposite pressure on the bottom pushing up? Wouldn't there be like, wouldn't there be a pressure? That's what I call resistance, yes. And resistance comes from density. So the density of what's beneath us is what holds everything up. There's no downward pulling force. It's just resistance, resistance being the force. So the different medium, gas, liquid solids, they react according to their density. And so something that's more dense displaces something less dense until it finds its level and has sufficient resistance to stop it falling any further. The density tower proves it. The air bubble rising in water proves it. The helium balloon rising in air proves it. It's no pulling force. It is just a density. But then when you have a balloon, the helium once again fights it. It is stronger than gravity, but it's not. But a balloon won't also go out into space. It doesn't have that much space. It's just because it's less dense than the air. And so it rises up in the medium of air because it's less dense than it, which is why we have a pressure gradient on all levels. That's something that naturally exists. But if we're in a vacuum of space, the pressure gradient could not exist because you need something to contain a pressure gradient. So if we're not contained, it's just naturally existing because everything exists according to density and buoyancy. Without that container, if we're in a vacuum, the air is going to immediately seek to balance with the less dense environment. It would just happen in a nanosecond. We wouldn't have an atmosphere and then water, because it boils in a vacuum at room temperature, all that water would be gone, would be as barren as the moon, just like that. But the fact that all this stuff exists in this pressure gradient can only happen for one reason. And that's because there's a universal up and a universal down. Well, how about the fact that it seems that sediment, and just like you said, just like different elements that float, they seem to naturally sort themselves out, naturally getting pushed down according to the density. So we have a molten core. Why would we have molten, what is generating a molten core in Flatter? Is the- There is no molten core. That's crazy. The molten core is in sanity. Like seriously, if it was molten and heat rises, the heat would be expanding outwards at all times. It's just an insane belief to think that we have a molten core. Like for an- No, you just need rock layers to not- Deep down under pressure, we have molten rock, which is lava, and that seeps out through volcanoes, but there's no molten core that's- So where's the lava come from? Well, underground, if you've got great pressure, great pressure creates a high amount of friction. Great pressure. Friction creates heat. Okay, great pressure. And the heat has to escape somehow. Wait, what kind of great pressure? That's to me. Pushing down. Yeah. The more mass, the more it's pressing down. That's why we have a pressure gradient in air, in water, and underground. And eventually the energy has to be released somehow. Just to ask, do you believe in, so what you did, because you used that, you do believe in mass and all that, do you believe in atoms? Do you believe the smallest scale, even though we can't see them? I'm a little bit undecided about that. I think that it's probably a made-up thing. But when we enter into that sort of discussion, we sort of enter into another realm where science now seems to think that on the smallest of smallest scales, things look more and more like a pixel. And that could be just because we use computers, I guess. But if you live in a pixelated world and that sort of does bring up that whole concept of it being a simulation in the first place, and I prefer not to go down that road. I like to think that it's an organic real world. And we don't all just live inside a big computer. But it's possible. Let me go back to our original question on what got us here. You said you used to be a glober. You're like, I want to be a glober. I don't want to be out there getting flack or telling the truth. What has that set you on this journey? What was the first crack? What made you like, oh, that's a little weird. This. I don't know if that'll show. See, I love the ages. Yeah, it has a chapter in here. About the Tamarack Mine Mysteries. So anybody that does a bit of research into the Tamarack Mine Mysteries, there's not much you can find online. I've read this entire book on my channel too, if anybody wants to see what's inside of it. I've read it all out loud. Talks about all sorts of things. But the main focus of that book was it was talking about the earth being hollow. And the author believed we lived on a planet still. But he believes it was hollow and there might be other races of beings that come from the interior of it. But the Tamarack Mine Mysteries, they did experiments where they hung plumbob down towards the center of the earth, which is the accepted thought that a weight will fall towards the center of gravity. And what they wanted to do was to get a better idea of the size of the earth is they thought, well, if they did two mine shafts a mile apart and hung plumbob's a mile deep, that will give enough measurement to be able to determine how big the earth is. And the consensus was before they did this is that it curves about eight inches per mile squared. But when they did the measurements, they found it was eight inches further apart at the bottom than it was at the top. So that's what got my mind ticking way back when I first read that book. I was only about 18 or 19 years old was, what the fuck? How could the earth get bigger towards the center? It doesn't make any sense. Are we on the inside of the earth? Which gives a lot of credence to the people that believe we're in the concave earth. And for many years, I did believe in the concave earth there enough. I thought, well, the whole universe could just be a hologram inside the earth. We don't know. These lights that appear really small to us, maybe they are really small. They are exactly as they appear. They're not millions and millions of miles bigger than the earth sort of thing. That's what first opened my mind up to questioning the nature of reality that we live upon. How I came back to flat earth reality was simply. Oh, and wait, just before we go. So that is what made you start questioning the mainstream narrative or whatever. Yeah, yeah, definitely. But that didn't make you flat earth. No. No, no. Okay, gotcha. That made me a whole lot better. So what led you to flat earth? Well, it was the inevitable conclusion of questioning the nature of reality. Like my father-in-law was a merchant sea captain. He spent his whole life at sea. Well, a lot of it, maybe in the wolves and stuff, but he was a sea captain. And one day he told me over a quiet breakfast, he says, he believes the earth is flat. And to me, I thought that was the most insane thing I'd ever heard. All I could think of was, well, there's water just running off the edges and stuff because I still believed the whole outer space thinking. But eventually there was another friend on Facebook who I've no longer friends with for some reason or another, but he was the one that led me. He said he believed the earth is flat as well. And I thought, shit, I like this guy as an intelligent person. I'm gonna look into this and I'll prove him wrong. It will take me nothing. And that's how most people will become flat earth. Because they think that it will be easy to prove it wrong. And since you start looking into it, you go, holy shit. There is no evidence that we live on the globe. It actually becomes one of the most insane things. And once you become a flat earth, you think, how could I have ever believed I actually lived on a spinning ball hurtling throughout a space. It really is insane. But we get indoctrinated with it from such a young age and everybody that teaches it, they believe it strongly. We got no reason to doubt them. We never really question that. And we just accept it as a given. But it's only when you really, truly get down and start questioning it, that's when years have to become a flat earth. And everybody looks at you as, are you crazy? They treat you like an imbecile. They insult you. They do all sorts of rude things to you. You're a fucking maniac. You name it, I suffered it all. But I'm a trooper. I only care about the truth. If the earth was a globe, I'd be happy to go back to believing that. But I can't say any evidence for it. Sympathetic to that line. That line I'm sympathetic to. Being a truth. I'm just here for the truth. Yeah, that's it. And whatever it leads you to, you just say, well, if that's what it is, that's what it is. If everybody thinks I'm insane because of it, so be it. That's their problem. They're the ones suffering the insanity. Not me, even though they try to project it onto me. Yeah, I'm a realist and I'm a trooper. I don't think you're insane. I know I'm not insane. Okay, that makes sense. So bringing it back then, and we're looking at this earth that I'm not sure what the bottom is. I wanna know, how come a common question that got brought up, how come the other planets appear around a sphere? Why is it that all these objects in the universe appear sphere? What is it about the earth that makes the earth so special that it gets to be flat? Okay, well, I reckon the only thing that we can claim is actually spherical is the moon. And so far as we know about the moon, all we ever see is the bottom side of it. So we've only ever seen the one side. We claim that it's spinning just enough so that it keeps shining the same face to us. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing else that we can visibly see outside of the earth is actually a sphere or actually terra firma. They just light in the sky. Have you seen pictures of Jupiter? Like pictures of Jupiter and Neptune? We have really good spherical pictures. Yeah, but most of the ones that they show to us then become projections or cartoon images. They're paintings. They're man-made images. When we look at it through reality, through a telescope or a highly advanced camera like the Nikon P900 or P1000, we see them to be shimmering lights. We don't see them to be physical terra firma. Now, if we could actually travel to them and land on them and say, wow, this is solid land, I would then change my mind, but we can't. They are lights in the sky. Now, exactly as they appear, they are not terra firma. The moon, I believe, is possibly or is probably physical. So why the moon? What makes the moon special that it gets to be round? Well, it's the only one that we can physically see and see how the sunlight hits it at various stages through the phases of the month as it gets nearer and further from the sun. That we can see the shadows in craters, which I've always suggested were formed more as bubbles bursting in a molten surface as opposed to being hit by something else physical. It shows itself to be round and spherical and physical. Nothing else does. Yeah, I agree that it looks spherical, but wouldn't that mean that there has to be, even if we don't know it, there has to be some force that made the moon spherical. There has to be some reason for why it's a sphere. Yeah, well, I get laughed at quite a bit because the theory I came up with, but I suggested it come from Earth, it was made on Earth, probably by genetically bio-engineered beings that were giant in stature. Hence, I get laughed at, oh, you believe giants, blah, blah, blah. But yeah, I believe giants. You know, I don't laugh at anybody. I've heard so many claims at this point, I'm just here to love. Yeah, well, my theory is we know about magnetism and we know about diamagnetism. So magnets repel just as much as they attract. So whatever the moon was made out of, as it cooled, the magnetic properties kicked in, which was what keeps it diamagnetically opposite to the Earth and because the ocean's being made out of salt water, they also have electrical properties and that's why the force of the moon going around is being repelled from us, pushes tides around. You know, I think that's the only explanation we have for tides. On the globe Earth model, they say the moon pulls tides, but we've got one moon with one mass and we've got two tides every day. Only on a flat Earth does that make sense, where the moon, the repelling force keeps it aloft, pushing the tides around. As it reaches a continent, then the ocean obviously then wants to naturally rebalance. That creates the secondary tide back on the opposite shore and by that time, the moon comes back around again and starts pushing the tides around again. There's no explanation for that on a globe. There's like a Bill O'Reilly quote in my head. It's gonna be like, tides go in, tides go out. You didn't explain that. So you actually are open to the fact that, because that's how our current model, at least from the gravity physics standpoint, is that the Earth actually formed as kind of like a leftover stuff from the sun's formation and then the moon formed from stuff from the Earth. And so, I mean, if you're saying that the moon could have came from the Earth, that at least is partially similar to the globe model, but it's generally that there was something happen that flung material up into the air. And then once again, just like gravity, there was stuff in our area and it coalesced into a thing. You do realize, of course, how your description of it is so extremely unscientific stuff happened and something hit it and flung it up. It's the most unscientific method you could come across. And I've been looking really long enough as to the origins of the moon. And so when you understand it from the heliocentric perspective, they still have no idea. And they still can't even explain why it exists. It would be like a meteorite that hit and blew stuff into the air. And blew stuff and it formed into a perfect sphere. Yeah, but it formed into a perfect sphere. When do you ever see chaos, a chaotic event create perfect spheres? And if you look at the moon's surface, I mean, it only looks perfect when you zoom out, but as soon as you zoom in, you see all the imperfections. Yeah, but even the caters themselves are almost perfectly spherical. Like they're round anyway, like not spherical because the sphere is obviously globular. But the craters themselves, if they were created by a chaotic incident, like as I say, a meteor striking, they should be hitting at all different angles and be all sorts of crazy shapes. But nearly all of them are perfectly round or circular and they all have this little dot in the center, which is exactly like you see happen when say a bubble burst in hot mud or some sort of molten material. So to me, the moon is created as a molten ball on earth and then as it cooled and rapidly rose and set, those bubbles set in the place and that's what gives us the craters as we see them. To me to be a chance reaction of chaos, it's too impossible to create a perfectly spherical ball of the moon from a chaos random chance of a meteor hitting the earth and blasting it off. But the reason why it makes these, quote unquote, because they're not quite perfect, but they're round enough is because it's a force pushing from all directions. That's what you would expect if you have a force. Yeah, but okay, when have you ever seen an example like in a war zone where bombs have been going off, where all these bombs have actually made spherical impressions on the earth? It just doesn't happen that way. We like to say it does, we like to think it does, but in reality, when we actually observe and look for examples of it, when chaos happens, it ends up chaotic. When nature happens in its own fashion, we get things that can appear perfectly spherical or round, but it doesn't happen like the bubble. If a bubble forms, it basically forms into a sphere, but a drop of water doesn't. It's a teardrop shape. It's got the pointy end at one end and when it hits the ground, it flattens out. But that bubble forming in the surface and popping, that creates a perfectly round surface. That's when you get the even pressure, but not from a chaotic, random, disastrous event. I am always skeptical when I hear the words, random, chaos, nothing, those words, because I never hear the atheists with skeptics. But this is what the whole Big Bang Theory is all about, random chance, chaotic explosion. Not that I know of. I know that the creationists use those terms, but I've never heard scientists use those terms. No, because they obviously, I mean, yeah, you don't invent a telescope by grabbing a lump of clay and looking for it, do you? To invent a telescope means you have to use an intelligent design. So everything that has some sort of intelligent design behind it must have been intelligently designed. That's the simplest thing. That's a tautology. Anything that has to be intelligent design. Well, but we can't even come close to, say, inventing a mouse or a dog or a cat. These things have come from other mice, dogs or cats. We can't just invent these things from scratch. Everything that exists, that's a living thing, must have had some sort of highly advanced intelligent design behind it, well before we've come along and start messing with it and observing it as mere humans. It's way beyond our level of intelligence. So from my, at least from a designer's standpoint, complexity is what you don't want in a design. When you're designing something, you do not want the design to be complex. You want it to be simple. And so the fact that that life is complex is evidence that it was not designed and that it would not have a designer. Ah, that's crazy. That's crazy. I creationists don't hear that often, I find. They need to hear it more often. Okay, so if I was to invent, say, a motor car, I know for a fact it needs a motor. It needs four wheels. It needs some seats. It needs a steering wheel. And would you want to design a complex steering wheel or would you want to design a simple steering wheel? That's right. That was the question. Simple or complex steering wheel? Which would you rather drive? Handle-bike or handlebars or a wheel, I don't know. Anything that drives the wheels or steers the wheels would work. You know, it's kind of simple, right? You don't want to like, wouldn't want it to be really complex. If I was on a bicycle or a car simpler than the round wheel of a car. Well, no. The reason they stuck with the round wheel. What I'm just trying to get at. Because being slightly more complex makes it more efficient and more easy to drive. Do you think complexity adds efficiency? You think the more your life gets complex, the more it's efficient? Well, in a sense, yes it does. Because otherwise, why would I guess you used the handlebars? Back on subject, it wasn't me this time, I swear. I love you, Ozzy, you're fun. Sorry, what was that, James? If we, just to tie it back to the core issue, just wanted to redirect, and then maybe in about five, maybe five to 10 minutes, we'll probably go into that Q and A as usual. Hey, but it's been fun. Yeah, well, I had a feeling that, you know, Flat Earth is eventually going to lead back around to the fact that we must be intelligently designed. So, it's all part and parcel of the same thing. Even though I don't think it's tied, I know correlation is not causation. I find that the majority of the Flat Earthers are theists. That doesn't mean they're all like the hardcore theists, but I have just found a stronger correlation for some reason. Yeah, yeah, like, I definitely don't appeal to another authority figure, like, for example, the Bible, in order to have my beliefs. You know, I would read the Bible, just like I'd read, you know, Secret of the Ages. I read all sorts of different things to then form my own beliefs for myself. So, some people, unfortunately, just stick to one leading authority, and they use that to declare that's why they believe in something. And I refuse to do that. I, you know, I'd like to be really widely read in as much different information as possible. That way, I can form the most coherent beliefs. I think that's an awesome answer. I get that. I want to go on one last thing before, just on the social issues, because it's not really a scientific thing, but just from a logistics standpoint, we've had many people who were enemies. If you would think, never agree on anything, use the science to do things. So, for example, when the Soviet Union was at war with the Western powers or whatever, you want to call America, it might be specifically, and we were going back and forth, regardless of whether the two sides hated each other, they both were like, okay, but we know the science. We're not gonna, we're gonna race each other and try and get on the moon. We're gonna use spaceships. And that kind of adversarial relationship hasn't eased a little bit, but not only that, but like the private and the public sector. You know, like, how does Elon Musk, who is constantly railing, you know, against him, he'll say whatever the freak he wants, he'll talk if the government puts a regulation, he'll be like, screw them. I'm going on Twitter and telling them about it. How is it that all these people, Democrat, Republican, theist, atheist, communist, capitalist, how is it that all these people who hate each other, will even go to war with each other, use the same science to get apparently results? Okay, well, say where you come in from with that idea. And I think that it's, it's opening up the imagination towards then comprehending what is really going on. And I think that what is really going on is that all these so-called governments and different nations, they're all figments of the imagination and they conjure up to make us believe in this separateness or, you know, there's a separation like we think, you know, Russians versus America type of thing, whereas at the top, the people who are in charge of both sides think it's a wonderful tool to have us believing in separateness and they can use it to their advantage. And it can be very profitable to them. And the whole reason why it's profitable, you know, like everything is because they are gaining an advantage and us mere plebs down the, you know, the human level we are being manipulated and taught what to believe. You know, we're taught through the programming of television and all the audio stimulation that we were raised with, all our schooling, compulsory schooling, like it's compulsory to send your kids to school so they can get trained in the same things. We're all indoctrinated with these same beliefs whereas in reality, I think we'd be far better off if we didn't even have that programming in the first place. If we would just want it to be free individuals and creating better and better inventions for the betterment of all of us as opposed to this idea that you have to, you know, if you do invent something, if you're clever enough to invent something that you can make a big profit of it and you can be one of the elite while all the plebs are paying for it to make you rich sort of thing, you know? It's all about this power struggle on every level from the top down. And yeah, there is no Russia or America that they both suffer the same but in reality, where they know they can't go to outer space. But if they can trick us into thinking there is this dream of outer space that we can't land on the moon and always have a bullshit, we become sort of brainwashed indoctrinated sheeple. Continuing to send massive profits. Speaking of sheeple, we can, I was gonna say, we're trying to get someone on the show at some point, but it's not confirmed. But I was going to say that also, whenever you guys are, I guess, given that Flat Earth Aussie started, we'll maybe give Amy the last word just because, not in terms of like a speech, but just kind of like the last word in the conversation as you guys have been going back and forth. And I don't have a PowerPoint this time, so. No, no unfair advantage. Cool. Nah, it's a great pleasure, right? Good for you. You too. Did you have any last words, like anything in response to what Flat Earth Aussie just said? Otherwise, if you were all wrapped up and ready, we can go to those questions. Was it for him or me? For you, Amy. No, that's it. Did you say I'm making an ending right now? No, no, I was just saying like, last word in the conversation. I think we're good. I could keep on pressing, but I think it was fun. I think we had some good back and forth. Gotcha. It's been a true pleasure. In fact, someone even in the live chat said, I think they said a cordial Flat Earth debate. That's rare. It's a true fact about this debate. That's a special thing. So I hope you both feel very special and want to say thanks for your question. From Ilya Moon. Ilya, appreciate it. Also, Ilya, thanks for your being a scrapper the other day with Sargon of Akkad. Sargon and Ilya, we're totally getting into it. So you're a trooper, Ilya, and says, Flat Earth Aussie, answer me on debating me. Flat Earth Aussie, apparently Ilya wants to debate with you. Snap. Ilya, Ilya knows right, I've got a little, I mean, I shouldn't say little, he's a nice fella. He's a young fella. He's a Russian descendant named Ilya. So yeah, I'd love to have a discussion with Ilya Moon because unfortunately I think that person is very emotional about the topic. Gotcha. This might be a different Ilya, just because they- Yeah. But thank you for your question. Maynard Saves says, no worries, Amy. They will deny all science, nothing else to do but fire up a joint and say, cuff them and laugh. Flat Earth Aussie, is this true? Oh, is that, I understand. They said they, the Flat Earthers will deny all science. But are you, would you say you're pro-science? Would you say it's just a different interpretation or would you say yes, throw science out? I am done with science. No, not at all. I think throw out pseudo-science. And as I said earlier, science should be observable. It should be logical, it should be conclusive. It should not be something theoretical out of sight, out of mind, like the curvature of the earth. Gotcha. And Joe S, thanks for your question said, Amy, water droplets for proof have you ever been outside to test if you live on a spinning ball? Um, I have tested things like injectable force and I'm actually in the process. I'd like to do that water dripping experiment myself, but it's more about them collecting in space like I showed in the video or when they are close, they attract and become one. Gotcha. Okay, thanks for, sorry, just something nasty, the stupid horror energy said in the live chat. Thanks for your question from T Nelson says, Flat Earth Aussie Roscoe, what force causes the sun and moon to move above the earth? That's just perspective. Yeah, the nearer something is to you, the higher will appear, the further away it is, the lower it appears, that's normal perspective. I think even the most simple person could understand that. Gotcha. And Maynard saves, thanks for your question said, why won't flat earthers use technology to prove Globus wrong? When they have, they proved a globe earth. Where are the pillars of the flat earth? What do you mean things like the P 900? People have been using technology for the last decade to prove how flat the earth is. We're advancing in our knowledge, we're not going backwards, but the globe earth believers are going backwards 2500 years ago to some ancient philosopher measuring shadows of sticks. We've come a long way since that. Gotcha. And next, did I just read the one from Maynard saves or was that from T Nelson? It's been a long day. Sorry folks, it's embarrassing. Was it the one that why won't flat earthers use technology to prove Globus wrong? When they have, they proved a globe earth. Where are the pillars of the flat earth? Did we just read that one? That was the one you just, okay, gotcha. Thanks, sorry. Long day, like I said, not a lot of sleep. But thanks for your super sticker from a 100th monkey, really appreciate it. And Gabriel K, thanks for your question said, LED is denser than dirt. So an LED ball should sink down to the ground. There are other forces. We see that's not in your quote unquote model. Well, solid is a solid and that's a resisting force. That's why it's a solid. If it's a liquid, it's less resisting. And if it's a gas, it's least resisting. But yeah, it's all about the resistance of the medium beneath it. So it's not gonna fall through. Not good solid thing isn't gonna fall through a solid because they're solids. Gotcha. I've also just been informed by John Rapp. I've been calling you the wrong name, Flat Earth Aussie, not Aussie. Thanks for that, John Rapp, appreciate that. And also, thank you for is always good to get feedback. And stupid horror energy strikes again. She asks, how does Flat Earth Aussie explain the fact that the spherical shadow of the earth can be seen on the moon during an eclipse? This is a beauty, like just get a ball on the ground in the daytime, get a flat sheet of paper and draw that across the ball, creating a shadow. And you will see the shadow is spherical. So if, which it isn't, but if it was the earth's shadow causing the eclipse of the moon, it would still appear spherical. Gotcha, just out of curiosity, it sounds like you don't think it is the shadow of the earth. I'm curious, what do you, what do you think it is the shadow of? It's the shadow of another spherical body that's closer to the sun. It's often known as Lila or Rahu, commonly called the dark moon. And like the new moon, when the new moon is so close to the sun, we can't see it because the lip side of the moon is obviously facing the sun and isn't bright enough to shine through the daylight part of the sky. So that's why we can't see this because the daylight actually blocks our view of anything too close to the sun during the daytime. That's why we can't see the stars as well. And it is this object that occasionally comes between the moon and the sun and eclipses it. And the only light that then reaches the moon is that what comes from the earth. And because the atmosphere absorbs all the blue light spectrum, it's only that dull reddish light that actually reaches it. And it's because of the blood moon because all our blue light is absorbed by our lower atmosphere. But enough light comes from the earth to give that dull reddish sort of look. So that's what I think causes a lunar eclipse. Gotcha, thank you. It's always interesting to learn these different perspectives and stupid hor energy all up in your face again. Flat Earth Ozzy says, why doesn't the angular size of the sun change throughout the day? Yeah, I think that's a great question. And I think that's another perspective issue. Plus it's also an issue that comes to do with understanding the nature of light itself. Like the actual distance of the sun as opposed to what we see it is caused by the atmosphere once again. It's an atmospheric thing. So we see an apparition of the sun. And because the atmosphere is the same height, distance from us the whole way, the apparition that we see appears to be the same size the whole time. It's a very complex question, but it does have a logical answer. Gotcha, thank you. And John Rapp, thanks for your question. Said Ross, why do two people, well north and well south of the equator, see the same face of the moon at the same time? Impossible if the moon is circling over us. Yeah, because you're still viewing it from opposite sides above a flat Earth. The equator isn't like a cutoff point or something. You know, in a sense, it's kind of like the big Peter. But if you're viewing it from two sides at opposite times and it's above the equator, then you're going to see the exact same moon and the exact same phase, you're just going to see it inverted. That's one of the main questions that Globet has asked is why does it appear inverted? Well, that's your answer. Because you are seeing the same moon at the same time, but you won't see it when it's on the opposite side above the Earth because it's too far away. Gotcha. And Cooke-a-dur-bur-a-dee, thanks for your question, said Flat Earth Aussie, you can't see bacteria, oxygen, viruses, et cetera, with your own eyes, yet they exist. You can't navigate reality relying on just your eyes. True, but you can test these things and you can prove they exist. Like for example, if you lit a candle and you put a jar over it, you'll see the candle go out because it's burned up the oxygen. So you can theorize that it was oxygen that makes it allow to burn. And the same thing, you can test for bacteria. You can see these things through a microscope. So these are actually observable phenomena. You just have to know the right tests and check for them. P.S., somewhat related, not really related, but I have a feeling you might say yes to this. We are looking for a debater who would answer yes to the proposition that alien abductions are occurring. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling you might take the yes position, but I don't know, Flat Earth Aussie, would you, is this something that happens to fit your perspective? I don't think aliens exist. And if they did, they come from the Earth. And I think that they're another mind control thing that somebody with higher authority is doing to us. But yeah, there's no aliens from outer space. Wait, do you think we're mind controlled? Yeah, yeah, definitely. Yeah, you are, Amy. Oh, yeah. I'm just kidding. Oh, but we all are. We just don't know to which level until we discover more and more levels, but we're all mind controlled. So make you say that. I'm just kidding. But wait, but isn't it, what do you say? I know, I said it off my free will. Wouldn't you say Flat Earth Aussie? Isn't it like once you become a Flat Earth, or is that where you've broken free from the mind control? So wouldn't it be that you're not, or is there some way in which you're still under it as well? Look, I think it's just a doorway. Once you enter one doorway into another room, you do reach another level, so to speak. But there's still gonna be endless doorways that you can open and go through and continue to gain in knowledge. Like I won't say that being a Flat Earth, there is the be all and end all of knowledge. It's just one door, like a stepping stone, but you still wanna get all the way across the river, so to speak. And there's, who knows what lays beyond the next door. I think part of the beautiful thing about life and advancing in knowledge is that you can never know it all, but you can always enter into the next level of knowledge. Just one follow up question. Is there any way to prevent the mind control? Like is there any way to fight it? Is it like a telepathic thing? Or do you mean metaphorically, like we're just brainwashed by the media? Or do you mean like there's a wave that is being sent out that is like making people do that, like the Manchurian candidate kind of stuff. I think I use the word stuff because the other word isn't on the channel. I won't say that there's a universal method. I think that we are brainwashed on many, many different levels which have a way you sort of think of it, but um. It's like a magnetic force level. I think that we have within ourselves an ability to tap into something that is above and beyond the brainwashing. And that is our reason for being, I think. Like either we give up and give in or we keep on fighting it. And I think we are in a basic battle for intelligence and knowledge. And it never ends. We just have to keep striving towards something higher. And I think that that is an innate thing inside of us that we're born with, but we also are blocked from. And the goal is to try and knock down those blocks and find out what it is. So yeah, it's a never-ending battle. Gotcha. And also want to give a friendly reminder. Thanks so much. Mods, you have done a superb job. Really appreciate it. We usually, in fact, this is pretty much always the way it's been is that like no hate speech. We don't even give you a warning. We're just gonna like delete you. And then the second thing would be if you're harassing someone where it's kind of like, ah, you look like you're going for the throat. You're not just like, it's like one thing to be like, man, your idea is the worst idea I've ever heard. Like that's like, frankly, fine. But if you're kind of like going after somebody where it's like, ah, can you like lighten up a little bit? We'll give you a warning. And if you keep pushing, then we'll just erase you. Also, mods, just want to ask if you could be your friendly, regular selves as it's okay for mods, even though we're like a non-partisan channel, the way, the reason that mods, we say that they can kind of like make their own arguments or have their own opinions is because we let everybody be a mod. Like we don't have any, like we're not like, oh, we can't have an atheist or a Christian or a flatter, there'd be a mod. Wait, why be rich? Huh? Oh yeah. I'm thinking about it flatter though, I see. But basically. I don't need it, I don't need it, seriously. So we're like open with the mods, like any worldview can be represented among the mods. We just ask that you be friendly and not be too hard on people. So we do have a little bit higher of a standard where we want the mods to be friendly. Stupid, more energy. I'm right on our Team Skeptics channel where they have absolute decades for mods and they time people out all the time for no reason, just because they're planarists. I'm sorry. Just thought I had to put that in there. Are you talking about the channel from the past or one that still exists? Team Skeptic, like I was just on there just for a moment before I came on to this one. I don't want to, oh, I didn't know it was a little team. I don't want to go just, it's gotten me in so much trouble before where I can't let any, I always ask now if nobody would be, if we wouldn't talk about anybody unless they're there to defend themselves. However, you want to debate Team Skeptic including on the topic of his mods. I'm welcome. I did debate him once before here. So that's why I thought it was okay to bring it up because I think it's ridiculous that he's mods taught me how to do something. You've got to get back to that subject. Okay, so thank you though. Appreciate it, Flatter, C for, we have another question for you. Thank you for taking these. This one comes from John Rapp, who says, water tastes flat. Trust your senses. I'm confused. Sounds like controlling, if I had to guess. But thanks for your- It depends how much salt you put in it. Gosh, yeah. Gabrielle Kay thinks your question said, I don't think you were stupid. You just want to be heard. I feel disgust how most flat earth debunkers go- Oh, I think they meant disgusted. I feel disgusted how most flat earthers, flat earth debunkers, sorry, go about this. Good job, Amy. Thank you. Got some street cred out there. And thanks for your question from GPS who said, what happened to FECore? So it's capital F-E-C-O-R-E. Anyone know, Karen? What's FECore? I have no idea actually. I see it come up quite a bit, but it's not something I've ever even looked into. I think that might be people that call themselves a bit of a core group of the flat earth and they're trying to do something to prove it, but they haven't really entered into my realm of existence. So there's this hierarchy of flat earth people. Is this kind of like in, I think it's the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie where they have like the nine captains of the seas, the captains of the pirates. And then I think one of the grandmasters was Jack Sparrow's dad. Is that like you, Flat Earth Aussie? I have no idea because they haven't watched those movies, but I have a feeling though that there is in the flat earth awakening a certain group of people who think they like to be in control of stuff, whereas I've always been independent from it all and I remain independent. As I've always done, no matter what I've believed in, I'm an independent thinker. You sound more like a hippie than a funding. Yeah, I would prefer to be a hippie than a funding if you're in a category or something. That's a compliment, that's a compliment. I know, I appreciate it too. Thank you. Super interesting. I'm definitely not one of the group, you know. And Andrew Gapps, thanks for your question, said, for Flat Earth Aussie, if gravity isn't real, why does a feather and a dense object fall at the same rate of speed in a vacuum chamber? Because the vacuum chamber removes all the resistance of air. That's all there is when the feather is falling in the medium of air. It's resisted by the air, but you remove that resistance, they're just going to drop at the same rate because there's nothing to resist. So it just proves once again the density and buoyancy equation and the only force is resistance. Gotcha. And Maynard saves, thanks for your question, says, we all live on the outside of a spinning ball unless you're living in deer and coo U, then you're inside the spinning ball, so fire up a joint, why not? Thank you, we'll read anything. Next, Patrick Weingarner, thanks for your question, said, Flutter Ozzie, do you ever watch Simon Dan? I think you should. Yeah, yeah, I watch him occasionally and I leave a comment there and the next thing you know, I've got like 500 responses and there's no way I can go through them all. So yes, Simon Dan is an absolute idiot, right? He is seriously like the weakest link. But he's not here to defend himself. We can't go down that rabbit hole. Well, bring him on and I'll debate him because he is the weakest link of the glyphs. All right, all right, featured pick. Oh man, come on, Steve's not even here. Let's just say they're a critic of Steve McCray, which is, Steve McCray is like one of the most interesting characters. We hope you're doing well, Steve. I heard that he, I was sad to hear, I think I just saw this in a tweet today or some in the last few days. I think I saw someone say that Steve felt that the chat here didn't like him. I'm like, no, Steve, we want you back. We miss you. So, but yes, it's actually like Steve and Godless. They get hate, but they're fun. They're both fun. Yes, they're controversial. But we, yeah, they're a lot of fun. And yeah, Steve McCray, he's always up to something. It's, he's really, he is. So we hope you're well, Steve. But yes, thanks so much for your questions, folks. We've got a few, maybe time for a few more questions. I want to quick get to flash Gordon. Thanks for your question. Said, let's see, I'm going to try to see if we have any for Amy. We don't. So sorry, Amy, but let's see. If you want to jump in and give some pushback, you can, is that just to kind of get you involved in the Q and A is flash Gordon said- He's the first flatter that I ever met. So I'm just, I'm absorbing this. It's good to learn. You betcha. And flat earth Aussie flash Gordon asked, so why do you use transportation that uses globe earth maps and globe satellite navigation? If you used your flat earth maps, you'd get lost. Why would they lie and say globe? Okay. Well, first of all, all maps, the flat earth maps, all global navigation is done by towers and undersea cables. There is no satellites and the very, very small percentage of so-called satellites that may exist, the satellites, they are things that are attached to a helium balloon high up in the atmosphere. Hence it has the potential to be geostationary. If the earth was really doing all these spinning, ridiculous motions that the globes claim, a satellite would be absolutely impossible, let alone a geostationary satellite, that would have to be going such magnificent speeds and such magnificent adjustments every day as the earth is traveling 1.6 million miles per day around the sun that there is no technology we have that can do that. So satellites are just somebody's measure of insanity. Gotcha. And we did have a super chat, just fly in from good ol' Maynard saves, says ignorance is bliss, very snarky. I'm sure it is, I wish I could get it back. Sassy. And thanks for your, let's see, we've got another question. This one comes in from top dog Shaddick. Thanks for your persistence. Said for flat earth Aussie, can you actually steel man a globe earth earth side in just 30 seconds? Can I do what? Steel man represented in the most charitable way or strongest way possible in 30 seconds. It's kind of the opposite of a straw man. So when you straw man someone, you say something that really they, they don't, a character, a character, I can't even say the word of what they believe. So with a strong man, it's just trying to give the most charitable version. It's what do you think they believe? What are they trying to say? What are the go, what do glovers believe? What is the- Oh, okay. So a globe earth is believed that there's the pressurized spinning space ball covered in 71% water hurtling through a vacuum of space is against everything that we know is physically possible. It's hurtling around the sun. The sun is going over half a million miles an hour through the galaxy, but the earth just cleans along as though it's just wafting gently. And we have a moon gently wafting around us as well. And it's just going, you know, 28,000 miles an hour or whatever they say it is going because it's just gently wafting as we gently waft around the sun at ridiculously supersonic speeds. And it's all normal because, you know, science. Dacia, thanks for your question. This one coming in from Sawyer Roney says, question for Ozzie. If water does not curve, what is your explanation for the behavior of water droplets? Droplets are dropping. So they're in motion. And so when something is in motion, it will take on a different characteristic to when it splatters on the ground when it goes flat. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your question. This one comes in from Jan. Aiki K. Thanks for your question, Jan. Said, Flatterthossey, Ozzie believes the moon, is it true that Flatterthossey believes the moon to be spherical in the shadows to accurately portray reality? If so, how does that work with a geocentric view? Doesn't it contradict itself? No, not at all because I see both the sun and the moon rotate around above us. And the sun is always going, it's the exact 24 hours, but the moon is 24 hours and 50 minutes. And so that is how we get the phases and things that we see as shadows in the craters. And it works perfectly as far as I can see, as long as they're both rotating around above us. It doesn't require a geocentric model where we're all hurtling through space to work. Gotcha. And Solixus, thanks for your question, comment says, Ozzie, describe what the vacuum of space is, please. There is no vacuum of space. It's a nonsensical belief. And for me to describe something that's nonsense, it's, you know, it's crazy. How could it be a vacuum if we have a pressurized atmosphere? Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This one comes in from, let's see, Nine Tails Cosmic Fox, asks, has Flatter Ozzie calculated the similarity of the tangent line to the curvature of the earth to find what altitude is required to see the curve? Well, so that's what the globe Earth has done, is they've back-engineered the actual reality of perspective which is, makes the horizon to appear to be horizontal when it's about three miles away if you're viewing from a six-foot height. And so they've back-engineered the curvature calculator to match what we see due to perspective and distance diminution. It's, yeah, I've never seen anybody actually show curvature how it magically vanishes because you got higher, but they still believe in it, I'd say. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. Let's see, Gabriel Kay, who says, let's see, Steve is naughty and also Amy Ozzie and James, good one. So glad you enjoyed it. All credit to dearest Amy and Flatter Ozzie. And Gabriel Kay also says- That wasn't one for me. God. Amy, they say Amy is the new Shannon Q and I'm pumped about Amy, so that you've got a critic. Or no, not a critic. No, I'll take it. What's the word I'm looking for? What would be the opposite of a critic? You've got a fan, you've got a person who's an admirer. So thanks for that. Thank you so much. I feel like the weird thing is I finally got a good night of sleep last night, but today I have all these misfires. But thanks for your question. Solixus says, Flatter Ozzie, you are awesome at dodgeball. You mastered the 5Ds. Oh snap, coming at ya. Do you know what I can tell you? Do you remember what the 5Ds are from the movie dodgeball? Dodge, dodge, dip, dive, and dodge. They're giving you crap, Flatter Ozzie. Oh, I had to have it. Flatter Ozzie has- It's never happened to me before, gosh. I think, you know, I've got to say Flatter Ozzie, you take all of the teasing so well that not only do you not get mad, but you generally laugh it off and so- Yeah, yeah, because I can say that when people are projecting, they're projecting their own insecurities on their own weaknesses and they're trying to put them under me. And I think that's hilarious. It's like, you poor thing. I feel sorry for you. Gosh, yeah, I can. Thank you, MC Flex for your kind words. We are thrilled to host debates and want to let you know, folks, no matter what walk of life you come from, we really do hope you feel welcome here. We're shooting for a mixed, kind of a melting pot of different people and ideas from all walks of life and that everybody would be able to kind of make their case to everybody else on an equal playing field. And so we really do appreciate that. And so we- You did a great job of it too, James. Thanks for that. I appreciate it as well. Thanks, that's super encouraging. I really appreciate it. And with that, we'll say, I put both of the links. I put all the links for our speakers in the description, folks. So that way, if you'd like to hear more, what are you waiting for? You can hear more at those links. I want to give a huge thanks to Amy and Flatter Ozzie before we wrap up. It's been a true pleasure. Thanks, James, and thanks, Amy. Absolutely the same. It's been a pleasure. We are stoked that we will be back tomorrow, folks. You'll see in the bottom right of your screen, S.J. Thomason and Snake was right. They will be debating atheist, or I should say secular ethics versus Christian ethics. And that should be a juicy one at 1 p.m. tomorrow in the afternoon, 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, that is. Then we do have, I think on Monday, no, we probably have one on Monday too, but I know Wednesday for sure we have Erika will return, gut-sick Gibbon, she'll be taking on Shadow Dancers, so that should be a really fun debate as well. So with that, I want to say thanks so much, everybody, for hanging out with us here. Thanks so much for your encouragement, folks. It really does mean a lot, and we hope you keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care, everybody. Cheers, James. Bye. Thanks, mate.