 evening, everybody. Welcome to modern day debate. Tonight, we're going to be debating Globerth versus Flat Earth and to start us off base theory. The floor is yours. Hey, everyone, my name is Grayson from the channel based theory. If this is my intro, then I have a screen to share here. Here we go. And yeah, check out my YouTube channel based theory. I've got plenty more debates on pseudoscience, pseudo history, all kinds of debunking topics, also live streams, etc. So today, we're going to be talking about Flat Earth. Now, when confronted with actual pictures of Earth from space, Flat Earthers say that NASA and other space agencies are a government conspiracy. When you point out how the Russians never contested the moon landing, despite it being in their geopolitical interest to do so, they say the Russians were in on the conspiracy as well. And so are the Chinese and the North Koreans. And it's all one giant world government conspiracy to suppress the truth of the Flat Earth. When you provide actual measurements that the Earth curves, like measurements of spherical excess, which prove it beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. They claim that science and surveyors are also in on the conspiracy as well. There's only a select number of elite conspirators pulling the strings and manipulating information at the top. And all these witless surveyors and scientists and NASA employees just buy into the big lie and are swindled by these small group of deceivers. And they just can't seem to figure it all out for themselves, despite being extremely credentialed. So today, I wanted to focus on just the evidence that they cannot possibly claim is a conspiracy that they cannot just explain away, because there are millions of witnesses and every single person watching can verify and test all this for themselves. So my first line of evidence here is one of my favorites, sunsets. So we've all seen a sunset, hopefully sunsets are impossible on a flat Earth. I've had numerous flat Earthers tell me how they think a sunset happens on a flat Earth. And all of it does runs contrary to reality. They talk about the sun shrinking as it gets farther away. And it's how it's really just perspective. But again, perspective, things get smaller and smaller and smaller and closer and closer and closer to the horizon, but they don't get obstructed from the bottom up in a very clear and stark fashion, which happens for the sunset. Here you can see a little time lapse series of photos where the sun has the exact same angular size as it gets closer and closer to the horizon, it's not getting smaller and farther away. And then that right there at the bottom, you can see that it is partially obstructed from the bottom up in a very clear and crisp line. So nothing about angular resolutions or bleeding into the horizon and matching together nothing optical, because again, it's a clean and clear and crisp line. And for anyone that doubts it, I really encourage you go look at a sunset yourself. Don't look it up with your eyes look at it with little Eclipse glasses. These are like three or $4. I got these at a gas station. They're super easy, super cheap. You can do this yourself. Watch it with these glasses or a solar filter on a camera, not an ND filter. ND filters are not the same as solar filters. I see flat Earthers trying to push that lie all the time, use an actual solar filter, or a pair of glasses like this. And you will see for yourself that the sun is the same angular size the whole time and is obstructed bottom up. That is flatly impossible on a flat Earth. If my debate opponent tonight flat soil disagrees with that, I look forward to hearing his explanation for how sunsets are possible on a flat Earth. They only are happening on a globe Earth model. This shows pretty definitively for anyone and everyone who's ever seen the sunset that the earth is a globe. Next, this is just a very short and fun one. Here is a picture of the moon from the Northern Hemisphere. And here's one from the Southern Hemisphere. As you can see, they are reverse images of each other. I would really like an explanation for that. I've never even heard a flat Earther try to attempt to explain this one. So I don't know how they think that this happens. But I'd be curious to just hear what the explanation is. I mean, it's the same night. It's the same moon in the Northern Hemisphere. You see it one way in the Southern Hemisphere. You see it upside down. How does that happen on a flat Earth? It makes total sense on a globe Earth, because one person is looking this way, one person is looking this way. At the same moon, you're seeing it from different angles. I mean, it makes total sense on a globe Earth makes no sense on a flat Earth. So here's the meat and potatoes for this presentation here. Here's a map of the flat Earth. This evidence works on whatever kind of map you use. I know that some flat Earthers don't like this map, they will prefer another map. Use whatever flat Earth map you like the best, you're going to get the same results. So let's look at a flight, right? Let's look at a flight since my debate opponent tonight, Flatsoid, is from South Africa. Let's look at one from Johannesburg to São Paulo, Brazil. Now, this flight I looked at myself, you can look at it yourself, look at the price, kind of pricey, but you can get this flight. And here you can see that the flight time is going one way as nine hours and going the back the other way is 10 hours. So nine to 10 hours, they're abouts for this flight. Now let's compare it to Johannesburg to Newark near New York City. This is another nonstop flight. Look on a flat Earth map, they look, you know, roughly the same size. The one to Newark is maybe a little bit smaller. Now when I look at this flight though, whoa, that is 14 and a half to 16 hours. That is bizarre, isn't it? Since it should be a lot smaller. Let's compare it to let's say Johannesburg to Sydney. Now that is a really, really long flight on a flat Earth map. I mean, that's the longest that's basically you're flying around the world. Now, when I look up this flight, the flight times are 12 to 14 hours. So less than the flight to Newark. See, this is not really making much sense. But let's look at one more, right? So you can see along this route that the route passes over China. So let's just stop by in China, like 60% of the way through our flight to Sydney, right here. And let's fly to Hong Kong nonstop from Johannesburg. You expect that to take a little bit less than 12 to 14 hours, right? Since the clearly on the map, it's only about 60% of the way there. But when you look at the flight, oh, wow, it's 12 and a half to 13 hours. It's actually roughly the same amount of time as the flight to Sydney. Now, each one of these time makes no sense on any flat Earth model, any single flat Earth map is impossible to make sense or rationalize what these flight times are why they're like this. However, when you look on on a globe, you very quickly understand exactly why all these times are this way. Here's a globe. You can see clearly on the comparison from the flight to New York to the flight to Sao Paulo. It makes complete sense why one is 14 to 16 hours and the other is 9 to 10. It is very easy to see on this map. Likewise, when we compare Hong Kong to Sydney, you can tell why they're roughly the same amount of time. Because they look about the same distance on the globe. So clearly these flight times pretty much conclusively throw out any flat Earth model, they render a flat Earth impossible to explain rationally. And again, anyone can look at these flight times. These flights are all around $1,000 each. So it's a little bit more pricey than the eclipse glasses. But you can do this flat. So you specifically can do this. You live near Johannesburg somewhere. So do these flights. Look out the window. You'll also notice that on the flat Earth map compared to the globe map, they're totally different routes. You see that the flight to Hong Kong passes over Madagascar. So when you do this flight, flatoid, look out the window. If you see Madagascar, you know that the Earth is not flat. If you do the flight to Sydney, and you don't see Madagascar, and you only see ocean the whole way, you know that the Earth is a globe. So it's very easy. Anyone can do this themselves. If you don't, if you can't afford it, but you have a friend in that area, like I could call flat. So I'd say, Hey, look to see if this flight leaves at this time, and I could check if it arrives at the time it's scheduled for it. Very easy flat tracker flight trackers are free. Now I've heard some people say that these are there's some jet streams or something. But this is why I looked at going one way and then back. Because the jet stream explanation cannot explain why those times are so close to each other, right? If you're just accelerating in some sort of super hyper jet stream in the Southern Hemisphere, well, that's going to accelerate you one way and then massively drag you on the way back. But the flight times are all pretty close in the same ballpark for Northern or Southern Hemisphere. Jet streams can't explain it. You also can't explain it by saying that, Oh, all these, these corporations just want more money out of people. So they're taking longer routes and they're, they're messing with all the data. Because that does not make any sense. For one, we can also track private jets. There are plenty of private jet trackers that are not a corporation. This is the actual owner of the jet trying to conserve as much fuel as possible. And they're taking these same routes. So we know it's not just the corporation's price gouging, and it also makes no sense for them to do so because again, they could charge the same price. If I want to fly from Johannesburg to Hong Kong, I'm going to play pay that rate no matter what route they take, I'm paying for it to get to my location. So it makes sense for them to use the the shortest possible route to conserve fuel so that they can make the biggest profit possible is literally within their profit motive, not to just mess with all of these routes. Okay. So how do flatter there's explain this? Here's a popular flat earth or here I know flat soil you have differences with him. So I'm not trying to say that you're gonna do the same thing he is. But you can clearly see that this is just a straight up lie. That's how he's explaining this. In his little graphic there, you can see he's illustrated this flight from Dallas to Beijing. And he's saying look how far away it goes from Calgary. And yet the flight once from Dallas to Beijing made an emergency landing in Calgary. And he's drawn on a flat earth map. But when we look at the real map of the great circle route between Dallas and Beijing, we see it clearly lines up. What'd you say, Ryan? Holy crap. Okay, well, that flat earth there was just totally lying. What about the ice wall? You can actually book a flight. This one leaves from November 19 from Melbourne. And you can go to Antarctica. Here's a picture of a guy that did it. Here's the route that they take it goes along the edge front leaves from Australia. Here is a way more expensive route. The last one was about $2,000. This is $98,000. But you can do it. They take 250 people to the South Pole every single year. The company is called White Desert. You can do it yourself. Here's the route. Here's where you go. This is the actual South Pole. And here's a YouTube video. Everyone can go watch it. This guy did the service from White Desert. It is open to any citizen. If you have $100,000, it's a little out of my price range, but you can go there. And this South Pole proves the earth is not flat. It's a globe. And thank you. All right. Well, if anybody was wondering what I was saying to Grayson there, we were just running a little low on time, but we can always revisit this a little bit as we get into it. You know, I'm not too shy on that. Sometimes we follow traditional debate rules. Other times we're a little bit more loosey goosey. So welcome everybody in the live chat. Glad to see you're all hanging out there. Lots of friendly faces and modern day to beat classics hanging out there. Just want to remind everybody Dallas Texas is where I'm flying out to tomorrow. Let me know in the live chat where you're hanging out. It's always nice to know where our live audiences and those tickets for a live event are linked in the description right now. So if you haven't had a chance to check it out, now is the last chance to go and check out both links in the description for our live events. So if you're going to be in the area and you can make it and you want to see these amazing speakers in person, check that out. If you can't be there, you still want to support the channel. Super chats are a great way. We got super chats at the end, but we also have our crowd fund linked in the description. So if you check that out, there's a bunch of perks there. This is the last chance to get access to those perks like a signed emblem of your favorite debater. There's also, you know, you can get a one on one with James or you can get the emblem with a bunch of signatures. So without further ado, no more housekeeping for me. Over to you, Flatzoid for I'll give you an extra minute there on the clock. Awesome. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you both very for joining as well. I really appreciate you coming on. We had a great debate previously, but it's good to be here. Anyway, tonight we're going to be discussing globe versus flat. And I thought he's probably going to present evidence for a globe, but instead he was trying to go against flat earth. So I'm going to go and give evidence on why it's flat and then we'll take it from there. But can you guys see my screen? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, OK. So yeah, thank you guys for coming. So I'm going to try and keep it down to earth for my opening as we are discussing the shape of the earth. So and just if I flat is not a shape. OK, anyway, so I'll open with the horizon because I want to base this whole argument on why did the globes start in the first place to think it was a globe? So they would say the horizon. We looked out on the ship. We look at ships going over the horizon. So therefore it has to be bottom up. So it has to be a spherical earth. So I was thinking this would be the perfect segment. So OK, let's see what the horizon actually is. And if it's optical, which is my argument, which would mean it's not a globe because you would have to be physically proving it's physical. And since you can't prove the horizon to be physical, you've already lost the debate. So I will move on to that. So what is the definition of a horizon, the line at which the earth, surface and sky appear to meet the sun rose above the horizon. So this already goes in contention with his sunset. So it's the limit of a person's knowledge, experience, interest, and she wanted it so far. So it's the range of vision, which is similar, which is similar and it's field of view. So just noting that it is only an apparent position. So optical. Then we move on to level because obviously, as you know, water seeks its level at rest and level is very, very specific to a horizontal line. It has to be flat, no curves, no part higher or lower. It is a flat plane, even smooth, you know, so we'll go on to horizontal plane, which is horizon because it stems from horizon or line respect to distance above or below a given point, the position of scale amount quantity, okay, then we just move on to having a flat horizontal surface at the same height as someone else and blah, blah, give a flat and even service to. So when I say what level is the first one I want to go to is the River Nile, which is 6,600 kilometers or in terms which the Americans understand 4,100 miles of level water. So if you understand that it's a horizontal plane of 4,100 miles, you would understand that there would be a curve to there and since there's no curve for 4,100 miles, it shows it not to be a globe. Now you can see the route that they go through the River Nile, it's quite a distance to travel. Then we move on to the same with the Mississippi River, it's showing also 2,340 miles of level water or so just flat horizontal level water and this again once again shows that it cannot be a globe because you would require a curve over that 3,766 kilometer stretch. Next I would move on to the salt flats. The salt flats in Bolivia would be at the same elevation 3,900 square miles in area. So it's the world's largest salt flat. Remember when you're talking about a salt flat, it's called flat for a reason because it totally goes against a curve, curving surface. Now I also want to move on since we're talking about the optical. This is a, I will show this later, a screenshot taken from Michael Kahn, shout out to you, mate, where he lives in England and he took, went to the beach and he took some observation of wind turbines in the distance. Obviously you're seeing this looks like it's bottom up obstruction as we put on the globe curve, but we're going to show why this is only optical and it cannot work on your globe. Yeah, he's showing his distance. We will also show the video, just want to show you all the schematics so he knows exactly which turbines he's looking at and how far they correctly are. The blue sir and the, this was turbine two and this was turbine one, as you can see that learn two and one to show it's further away. Now the distances, it shows that they're started eight kilometers off. So in other words, the, this whole link show wind form started eight kilometers off and each turbine is 500 meters apart. So if you have to put the maths together, the target distance would be enough at seven miles with the six feet of servite. The only target hidden height you would have is 10.6. Well, we can round off to 10.7 feet. The issue is that there was over 61 miles. Too much curve. Based on the calculations and how much he saw, there was 61 feet too much curve. So in other words, your globe at too much curve. And if you're going to claim it's a refraction, it would make it worse for you because on based on the globe refraction, you require it to be making it look flat. So in other words, it would lift it up further and not make it go worse. So that goes against the geometry and your refraction idea of the optics freeze your globe. And here's another video I'm going to show just now as well, like refraction at home. This is just a screenshot on the floor again showing when they open the door, the refraction doesn't bring something over the curve. It causes the optical obstruction. See as it's going and there we go gone just cause a refraction of that surface. Then we also going to get into some focal length talk. This is from the latest from Sean Hawkins trying to debunk my focal length argument. Here I lined it up as you can see to the stop sign and try to get it as close as possible, even though you can't get it a perfectness because even he had to manipulate it for the width just to get it to work. You can literally see based on focal length, the smallest focal length on the left, the wider focal length on the right. They do not align the one with the right focal length shows it to have compression and parallax and therefore gives a foreshortening effect, which shows once again whenever we look out in the distance, we can explain things using focal length as a perspective thing. And that's my statement. I can give that up the rest of my time. All right, we'll run the screen share there and we're going to kick it over into an open discussion before we do that, everybody. I just want to remind you once again, both of our speakers are linked in the description and they will be linked in our podcast description as well. So if you like what you're hearing, you can find both our speakers there. I also want to let you guys know we have been sponsored. If you don't see that little sponsor down in the corner there by manifold. So it's a place where you can go and you can actually make what you would call basic I guess bets on the debates that we're actually going to have coming up and other things are happening in online spheres and places. So, you know, right now there's what one is what one is up for debate. Let's see here. I'm just going to check at the manifold right here. You know what? While I check that out, I'm going to pull that up for the end of this discussion. But you guys can check that out in the live. Oh, we're doing another screen share, are we? I was just teeing it up. Oh, it's all good. We're right into it. So yeah, let's go into open discussion everybody. And thanks for being here, everyone. Sorry to kick things off flat. Can I just show you three images? Okay, cool. Well, here is a definition of level from Merriam-Webster's dictionary conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the Earth's surface. So as long as you're showing definitions of level, here's a definition of level that's used in surveying that literally is conforming to the curvature of Earth's surface. So did you want to comment on that? Yeah, yeah. Okay, I challenge you to bring up any definition on the internet that shows curvature of the liquid parts of the surface. And then I want to let you know this is not surveying definition and also got to tell you, you do know that parts that they put in a curving to the surface contradicts the rest of the definition. If you open the definition, it literally has it in the adjective, a horizontal. Okay, so you are aware how definitions work right? Where words can have multiple definitions and some of those can be contradictory to each other. This is not just like just the word level. There are tons of words that have multiple definitions to the word. And two of them mean like total opposite things. Would you open quick? Would you be kind enough to? Wait, what would you open the? No, it's fine. You can leave it. Would you open the level definition quickly? This is just a switch. Okay, then it's fine. I can move to the next image. I just had three images I wanted to show you. This is okay for now. And then then I'm gonna then I'm just gonna once you've done that, I'm also gonna just get the Merrim whips then. Okay, I want to show you something. But again, I just want to show like words have multiple definitions, right? You have to use them in their proper context. And if you want, we can like there are literally surveying textbooks that use this definition of the word level in them in the textbooks. I don't have them on hand, but I can provide those to you after. Anyways, this is this is nothing mysterious words have multiple definitions. This happens all the time. Sometimes those definitions are contradictory and you have to use them in their proper context. If I was just describing something as level on my desk, that's not the same thing as level on the earth's curvature. Those are different contexts. That's how all words work. It's not unique. Anyways, but I just got to say based on that topic is in the Merrim whips, the definition you brought up, it specifically talks about surface in context of a surface. And if you open it, I can ask you I'm asking for two seconds to show you what I'm talking about before your laser. If you don't mind. Pass it back over. There'll be a little bit of this going on fellas. So don't mind us in the life. Okay, you can see this. This is that exact same definition. This is what it says there. Level flat plane even smooth, meaning having a surface that bends curves or irregularities level applies to horizontal surface that lies in the line parallel with the horizon remember horizon is a flat horizontal plane flat applies to the surface, the void of noticeable curvature prominences or depressions playing even smooth. Now this is exactly the same definition placed from you. Just like we're saying where you're saying it is now contradicting in another sense. No, it is actually be parallel with the plane of the horizon horizontal. You do know this conforming to the curvature of Earth is just put in because people's belief of a globe. Now this was a challenge. You bring I don't know. That's the but that's what I'm telling you. I challenge you to bring up any other dictionary, any other definition which shows it to be curving to the liquid parts of the Earth's surface. But I'm not. Look, you're arguing with the dictionary right now. All right. I mean, come on. That's literally the definition. No, you brought you brought it up. You brought the mirror with the definition of level. I'm just showing you left out the definition of level that you disagree with. Okay. No, I didn't. I just want you a definition. You brought up a specific definition which debunks itself by contradicting itself in its own sentence. That's not how definitions work. Okay. Words have multiple meanings. Anyways, I don't want to get on a whole semantics or debate with you want to move on to actual evidence here. Look, you said that refraction doesn't cause things to curve like this. Here is an image showing that refraction is causing this straight laser to curve in an arc. All right. The way that refraction works is that the light ray is continuously bent in the direction of the more dense medium. So when you have a density gradient, the light is continually bending as it travels along the Earth's curve, the Earth's surface, it's continuously bending along that surface towards the more dense medium of air closer to the surface. That's science. Okay. Cool. First of all, we don't look through water. This would be Snell's law, which is show the matter if it's water air. Yes, it does. With with the refraction, you require Snell's law, which means you require two media with boundaries. Now, now you guys, I'm still talking. And now you see he's got this laser. Can you see the incident incident angle? He's pointing this laser. What would happen if he had to bring it and show it level to the tank? He's pointing it level. No, he's not. He's pointing it at a looks like a 45 degree angle. It's bending in an arc. But here that you know, I want to address what you said already. I want to address what you said already about Snell's law, right? The thing that you need for Snell's law is two different coefficients of refraction. Now, in one medium in air, if you have different densities of air, as we know happens with a pressure gradient, you're going to have different coefficients of a fraction for each one of those pressure gradients. And that's why Snell's law applies in this case. It's the same medium it's air. It's just changing in density. That's the coefficient of refraction is also changing and causing it to curve towards the more dense air closer to the surface. It's provable. Okay, so this is not it's not provable. First of all, I'm going to tell you, that's not Snell's law. Snell's law requires you to have two different media. If you try, yes, two different media that go bring up Snell's law and you can see it for yourself. Anyway, it's going to do two different coefficients of refraction, which can occur in the same air as long as you have different densities. Those count as different mediums if they have different densities. Okay, now I'm going to tell you, Snell's law requires an incident angle and a secondary angle based from the incident angle. You would agree with that. So angle one incident angle, angle two. Where is that partition to give the second angle? Again, it's the partition as the density gradient changes. It's a continuous like there's not a smooth partition. It's continuous because it's a continuous transition of densities. Okay, then I'm going to ask you, you got on screen now a fish tank. So it's got a membrane and it's got water, which is obviously he's my dancer putting sugar water or whatever sugar water and the laser is outside. So he's got air, glass and water. Yeah. Is that how we've seen reality? Again, it's bending through the water. No, your demonstration doesn't your demonstration is not demonstrating light refraction through the utmost plane because you are showing three different media and you're claiming it's not it's demonstrating refraction, but it smells a lot with media. Yes, not changing the medium in the atmosphere. The medium is changing density as a function of height. So that's just a factual piece of information. And I do want to press you on refraction because actually the world record for the longest distance photograph ever taken was done by a glober, by the way, who calculated it based on refraction. So he waited for the fraction. What was that, Ryan? Well, we talk about it. OK, we'll come back to it, but just so people can see us on the screen while we're out. OK, gotcha. Now it's all good. Yeah, so the world record for the longest photograph, like the longest distance photograph ever taken, right? He did it. He got the world record for this by calculating the refraction conditions necessary. He was looking at the weather, continuously updating it and he waited because he had to hike up to a mountain in order to take this long distance photograph. It's like, you know, an absurd amount of distance. He has the world record. So anything that flat earthers show, oh, this is too long. This doesn't work. This guy, he literally used the globe to do the math and to figure out when he needed to go take this picture based on the refraction condition. So the math works. You also you were using the wrong Earth Curve Calculator. Your Earth Curve Calculator did not account for a refraction. Um, first of all, that takes standard atmospheric refraction as a given. The guy, he took both. He took both calculators, even the advanced Earth Curve Calculator and it showed exactly the same. But he didn't make a refraction. Yes. Yes. Listen to what I'm saying. When he took the other advanced Earth Curve Calculator from Walter Bislin, it gave exactly the same result because it takes automatically atmosphere standard refraction into account. Yeah, but the refraction wasn't standard in the in the video you were talking about. It wasn't measured again. It gives exactly the same hidden on Walter Bislin's just as it does in that because that one doesn't let you change the atmospheric refraction. Walter Bislin let you change it because it's not based on reality. Now, I told you, it gives exactly the same values. Now, I'm going to share my screen again because I want to show you what refraction does in reality when we do actual observations. Now, you claiming refraction lifts up an object. So this is what I love about demonstrations. We can demonstrate this every day that it takes things away. You see what it's doing to the object? It's causing it to go lower, not higher. Can you have no idea what I'm looking at? There is doesn't look like anything. There's an object, OK? There's a dead yellow object. They're going to open the door and it's going to cause refraction and look how it's going down away. So in other words, the refraction is causing it to be worse to make it look like it is curving, not taking your curve away. Notice that this is on the flat surface. They give all the temperatures and heights and everything just so you can see. And this has been demonstrated multiple times. You can do this on. Correctly, everything. Many people have demonstrated this. Yeah, it's been demonstrated against. Yeah. So this goes against your claim that refraction lifts up an object. It has been demonstrated by the world record photographer, the photographer who holds the world record for the longest distance photograph. He did all the calculations. They're on his website with the photograph. He did the calculations on a spherical Earth model in order to figure out when and where he needed to be to take that photograph and win the world record. So that you're not. OK, I want to take it again. I'm going to take it again. You know what a demonstration means? I just showed you demonstration that it does not do the effects you claiming because he took a photo which debunks the globe and because he claimed refraction, it actually made it worse for the globe because it shows it is going down and because we can see it even further because of refraction based on demonstrations, that refraction will just go down. Therefore, you claiming that it's making it go up is not a demonstration. So I want you to show me a demonstration where it shows it going up. Every single sentence you just said was wrong. And you need to say the opposite in order to be right, right? No, I think by my statement and you would stick to being wrong. It's not a surprise to show the demonstration on screen. I can show many more that give exactly the same effect. What you showed on screen was like the world's blurriest image. I got no idea what I'm looking at. I didn't see anything to be frank with you. It would just look like anything to me. I'm not seeing it. OK. You need to measure the lapse rate. You need to show that it doesn't make things carry on longer than they would. And normally, oh, you also said that the horizon is optical. I would agree that the horizon that we see is visible. That is a part of the globe model. So we're not disagreeing that the horizon that we see is a visible horizon. You don't see the geometric horizon, right? You see the visible horizon, which obviously is going to change based on atmospheric conditions like refraction. This is obvious to everyone. Everyone can agree with this. So, yeah, you did that, the definition of level. Then you went to the focal length stuff and you used the wrong Earth curve calculator as well. Next time, just use Walter Bislin's and no one will have a problem with you. So I got a problem with Walter Bislin's. Well, that one actually incorporates refraction. So if you saw that one, so does that one. The only difference is Walter Bislin, you can change the value. That one doesn't change the value. It's already got it set in its calculations. Hence why I told you it gives exactly the same value in real life. Refraction is not idealized. So use the proper Earth curve calculator that you can incorporate the actual measured amount of refraction, which you have not done yet, you haven't. So then if you want to get to the whole focal length thing because it's really hilarious and anyone can debunk you on that, changing the focal length does not change how much of the image that you can see. It doesn't change any of the proportions. Everyone can just go take a picture with their iPhone can mess to the point five, the zoom. They can mess around with the focal lengths themselves. When you watch a sunset, you're not changing the focal length of your eye at all. You're you're seeing the sun go below the horizon. Nothing about focal length is changing and the most hilarious part of all of this. Let me just share my screen one last time here. The most hilarious part is that the actual guy whose pictures you were using disagrees with you. He's got these two comments that say, yeah, they what flat soil is failed to recognize is that he wasn't shooting from a tripod. So the exact height of his photos with the two different focal lengths wasn't consistent. He said it's not rocket science, but apparently it's too complicated for a flat earth there. So he's coming at you, so you should probably stop using his photographs to try to demonstrate your little focal length shenanigans. Should I bring up the actual photo which we did analysis on and then just because I showed him wrong and you know why he was doing that is because of things on screen by showing again, where's Wally and all globe trolls trolling him? Yeah, trolling him because he was getting bombarded by globe trolls. So it's all part of the conspiracy. No, it's not conspiracy. The people are bothering him on his own video asking him the whole time, were you at the same elevation? Did you change the distance? Because he's getting irritated by constant globe trolls coming in saying, oh, we're asking the same question, where he literally says on screen, where he literally says on screen. OK, wait, wait, wait. So you trust him when he says something that you agree with, but when he completely tells you to your face that you're wrong, then all of a sudden you can't trust what he says. Tell me to my face. By the way, I've been watching this guy since they started their channel. OK, so it's been a few years. He does really good jobs. I've got nothing wrong with it. Just because he doesn't understand when he posted his myth of compression and showed compression. I don't have to agree with him because he's literally showed compression after he said it's a myth. No, no, no, no, just because he says it's not so while we analyze it showing it is so doesn't make him right because he's the photographer. I'm going to show you multiple people doing exactly the same thing, trying to debunk me now with multiple different focal length showing you are ignorant to the subject. And by the way, your son does change angular size even necessary. So. Nope. No, OK. That's significant. It's a very, very small amount. I thought you said, oh, so it does change now. Very, very small amount that has absolutely no bearing on if it was actually getting further away in order to set on a flat earth. We would we would expect way higher amount. It's not even close like way more than six sigma difference. OK, this is Andrew Johnson trying to debunk me based on the focal length. You see he's got a 30 mole, 26 millimeter and 65 millimeter. OK, let's quickly just move on to where he wants to show. You can change it to two. So let's go where he places place in the ballads. He's trying to show you and he's trying to say, look, they match up the same. You would say they match up the same. Correct. That looks the same to me. Great. OK, let's go when we actually do analysis on this showing they do not match up at all. OK, literally is one that literally looks the same flat. So it are all these lines matching up to each other. These are different every viewer can see they are. Yeah. Well, every viewer is then blind. I don't know how you can talk on behalf of a viewer by way. It literally looks identical, man. Are you smoking something? No, this is the bottom of this ball. It's the green line. It's higher than this ball. Higher than this ball. This is the purple line for the bottom of this one. It's lower than that one higher than this one. This is the side and line for this ball the bottom. It's lower than both of them. The tops of the top of the same the top of these bullets are the same. So it's showing it has stretched and compressed due to the focal length. Now this is just the same, man. You're making a joke of yourself. Yeah, I'm even zooming in and doing action. If anybody wants to see the actual analysis, hop to my channel and you can watch me showing analysis on this. So just saying doesn't mean it's literally I'm looking at the same thing. You are flat. So it a look identical, man. Again, you look like you've got like your conspiracy web and all of these connections and stuff, but it's literally it's just conspiracy. Sorry. Sorry. What conspiracy are you talking about? I'm just saying you look like the guy who's putting all the things on the wall and be like, look, look, and there's literally nothing tying them together. Like three of the same image and then this is the latest one which I showed not on my presentation with Sean Hawkins also trying to debunk me. We shall also do a change where he also shows in the different focal lengths and if you actually do the analysis, you see this also compression and oh, that looks identical and parallax. Are you smoking something that looks the same man? I think everyone can see that those clearly look like the same. Everyone can see you just saying no and you might need to get glasses. I mean, I got LASIK. I can see fine. That looks totally the same to me and everybody viewing I think. Okay, there's a block. That's the top of that pole there in the focus. Why is it low on the one side? It's the same on a tripod. What are you talking about? Same position. Yeah, just put them on top of each other. This is literally the logical end. You literally saw me too with the same image man. I mean, you know, I was pretty good at those spot the difference games. I'm not spot any difference here. So we can say you being dishonest and if you can't spot the difference that's drawn on screen with actual lines to show it doesn't match up. Yeah. Well, is that is that stop sheet higher than that stop sheet on the left? Look, like even when you look at the top of the image, you haven't aligned these two images the same. Like when you look at the proportions and each of the image proportions. Great. Now in the same image. I'm sorry. Flat Soid. I made an image. Okay. Okay. Now if you actually pay attention to my analysis, you'll see I brought it down lining the two up to the stop shine as their reference and made them the same size in the stop street. Notice the word stop is still different from the word stop inside there and every single other thing shows a difference. Dude, I honestly just think you're looking you're making a fool of yourself right now using this argument because they literally look identical. Hmm. So in other words, in other words, there's no rebuttal to this other than trying to insult me because there's nothing to but man. There literally is nothing to rebut here. You just show me the two of the same images. Again. Why don't why don't the one on the left the one on the one we've got all you've done is you haven't rebutted anything. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Cool. First of all. First you've done is now while it's on screen showing differences on the right, the larger focal length shows compression and it shows parallax. That's why it doesn't line up perfectly. This is why you do actual analysis and show the lines because you say now are and you may be blind doesn't take the fact that on screen it shows it not being perfect. Okay. And then have you watched the video where he takes these same images from the different focal lengths and he literally puts them on top of each other and shows conclusively that there is no difference. Did you want to you want to go there and we are show him manipulating just the width and not the height. Oh, now I want to see. Now I show it on screen. He's only manipulating the width and not the height. I showed this live to many people. So you might not want to trust Sean Hawkins as your arbiter of truth, mate. I don't trust you as the arbiter of truth either. I got it on screen. My eyes are showing. There's no difference. You just this is Sean Hawkins video, by the way. I'm not I've done analysis on it. And like I said, if you want anybody can go to my channel, watch the lives where Sean Hawkins literally only changes. Okay. The aspect with that. Okay. Let's back. This is not a debate between you and Sean Hawkins. So why are you going to press the points that I brought up during my open. We you debating what I brought up. So now I'm allowed to rebut what you are trying to argue against. I'm asking you to rebut the points I brought up in my opening. We still rebutting my things. I cannot give my closing statements before we can move on. That's what I was trying to do when you really interrupted me to talk about Sean Hawkins. Okay. So yeah, based on my arguments, the focal length does change. What we see, it has been demonstrated even by Dave McKiegan by Andrew Johnson by Sean Hawkins and I can show many other people the same and photography online. If you do analysis, you can see this definitely compression and parallax. I did a stream the other night with a many citations that show my point and explained it and show demonstration. What we get from the other side is no demonstration looking at screen saying no, I don't see it. So therefore you don't based on refraction showing everything shows it going down and not up and yeah, that's all I need to do on my side right now. Just as all he's got is not up. So what do you want me to debunk on your side based on everything you said? I want to encourage everyone go do this yourself or ask any friend you have who's a photographer about how focal length affects the image. Any professional photographer can tell you that flat so it is full of it and completely wrong on this and you can just do it yourself with your iPhone. Just do it yourself and see for your own eyes. I encourage you to do so. So I brought up sunsets the moon and then flight path. So real quick, if we could just quickly, I would like to hear your explanation for the moon. Why is it upside down in the different hemispheres? Simple, just perspective. If you're standing on a different side of the road, you're going to see a different side of the call. You're going to see it upside down. I've never seen an upside down car based on my perspective. I didn't say upside down car, did I? Well, you said different side, different side, different side. So if you're going to, I'm going to see if I can, I don't know. Let's for instance, take this literally 180 degrees upside down. Let's see. Let's say this is the moon. Just going to use this as reference for pointing that way. What happens when you change your view to it? It's going to seem like it's the other side. We've done this many times. You can stick it on your ceiling and you can just walk to the other side and it literally changes the view. It's just location. It's got nothing to do with a globe. But you understand how you understand how that's not analogous at all to this situation, right? Because it can be demonstrated to show it to change when moving location because it's not like you're seeing a different portion or a different angle of the moon. You're seeing all the same amount of the moon being visible. The only difference is that you're seeing it upside down depending on what hemisphere you're in upside down to what? Compared to the other who's it upside down to between comparing the north and the southern hemisphere observers. So who's upside down? Who's right? Well, it's relative to each other. So in other words, me in the south sees it at a different orientation based on someone in the north sees it as a different orientation location based then. Yep. Great. So you can do this with demonstration like sticking it on your ceiling and just walking around and seeing the location changes the orientation. Again, but you will never get it to be 180 degrees flipped upside down. Yes, you can. We've done that many times. It's demonstrable and just because you say now doesn't stop it from being. Did you giving me 2015 year arguments? This stuff has been debunked for years already with everything you're talking about tonight. Yes, has actual explanation and demonstrations to it. You you're literally bringing a toothpick to a gunfighter. Well, I don't think you have any actual explanation for this. You're just saying it's perspective, but you can't show how perspective can flip something 180 degrees upside down unless the only way that can do that is if the observer themselves is flipped 180 degrees upside down, which is what happens on a globe Earth. Okay, I'm going to quickly. Great. So you say if we flip upside down cool. Okay, see if I can please share my screen again. Yeah, no worries about the sharing screen. You guys can share screen as much as you'd like. We still have another I got 15 minutes on my clock if you guys want to go a little longer. That's fine, but I will let everybody know hit the like button if you haven't already in the chat while we get that screen share up. But yeah, just don't leave them on the screen while we're chatting and you were saying something. Oh, I just want to say I really do want to get to all three of the points I brought up. So if we could just quickly do the moon thing and then sunset and flight times and that'd be great. I agree. Okay. Just for just for rudimentary, we just going to put this you can see my screen, correct? Yeah. Okay. Great. Now we are standing this side of your moon looking this way, which side does that arrow show upwards? Now we move to the side and we look at the moon this way. Which side does that arrow show to us now? You're literally demonstrating the globe right now. No, no, no. Let me let me do this way. Let me do this way. How is it? But look, look, you're two observers. They are completely upside down relative to each other. That can only happen on the globe Earth. That notice I just notice I just do this flat. Uh huh. Yeah. Okay. It's the same. How do you have two observers that are upside down relative? They're not upside down. This is, they're pointing up. This guy is looking to the south. This guy is looking to the north. Okay. Okay. Looking to the north, the arrow shows northward. When he's in the south, the arrow is showing still. Northwards. So it's showing towards him. Get it? Did the moon upside down right now? It's a bit difficult to draw it. Well, I can't take my webcam off now and put it on. I can take this and I can stick it on my ceiling, for instance, and I can walk around and I can see this arrow changing position as I'm walking around it. Just like when you see a car drive. Let's say you stand at the side of a road and you see a car drive past you left to right. If you go across the road, turn around and look the other side, that same car coming from the same direction will now be coming not from your right. It will be coming from your left. This is demonstrable. It's just perception based on your location. This is literally things you get taught in primary school. So the moon is like somewhere in the equator then and it's it's facing down to people looking at it from different angle. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. You're looking at from different angles. Say moon and by the way, also it's been observed that the moon does a rotation as it moves around at night. Okay. So we can move on then to my sunsets one. Awesome sunset is awesome. Like you've also agreed. There is a bit of a angular size change. So that really invalidates that argument because secondly. Yes, it does. Secondly, when we look at the sun, we're looking through more and more atmo, correct? The closer the further away it goes, the more it seems to drop down to the horizon. Thanks to perspective, the more atmo we look through. Sure. So where there's more refraction as you put it based on your argument. No, so when you're looking through more density layer, it doesn't go through refraction. So it's very selective. So it's very selective. I agree with you. I think you thought I said no. I said sure. Okay. Okay, cool. So just based because of the distance from the sun and the atmospheric lensing, we have what we call parallax and perspective and therefore keeps it at that linear sinkages into the so-called horizon. So do you want me to demonstrate how I can show something going down just by moving it in the distance over a flat surface? Well, I want to see bottom-up obstruction and bottom-up obstruction. Very simple. I showed you bottom-up obstruction a few minutes ago with refraction alone. Now I can show you bottom-up obstruction on flat surfaces by doing actual demonstrations without showing refraction. Well, there's always refraction, obviously, because we always look through an atmo, as you say, but let me quickly move to my, I'm just going to get the video up so long. But yeah, if you can understand that the sun is far enough away that the angular size change will be very minimal. It's the same as looking at something in the distance like a mountain. The further, the further away it is, the less chance you have of it seeing change, angular size change. Let's see. Sorry, my mouse is getting a bit slow on me. Just looking for a specific video. But the angular size change that we see corresponds to 93 million miles, not to like a couple thousand miles in a flat earth dome. That 93 million miles you're claiming. But you can crunch the numbers. That 93 million miles away you're claiming is that with refraction. Is that with refraction? It just is that distance. I don't know what you mean with refraction. Is it with refraction that angular size change with 93 million miles? The 93 million miles includes mostly non-atmospheric space between us. So it's a weird question. I don't understand your question. 93 million claiming it's 93 million miles away. So does that calculation of 93 million miles away take refraction into account? Refraction doesn't change the distance. Refraction changes the angular size. But it doesn't change the distance. It's still 93 million miles. If we're talking about angular size now. So how do you know the distance if the angular size if refraction is not taken into account? I'm not sure even refraction changes the angular size that much. I don't know. I'd have to see that demonstrated. You say refraction warps an image. That's why you guys can't store it. Sorry. I'm just looking for the right video. Sorry. I'm looking at the wrong place. I've got so much videos and photos. I keep on having to go look for it. But yeah, there's definitely talking about the play time then. No, I'm just quickly getting it. But so long. I would like you to tell me how you can validate 93 million miles of your son. I mean, yeah, you can do. I think they did a Doppler test even of it. A Doppler test. Yeah. Can you get going to more detail? It was in the 60s, the military, the Doppler test bounced a radar off the sun 93 million miles away. You can time it. You know, do you know what a black body? What black body is? What does what's black body? It radiates with a black body spectrum. And with a you probably say they use the what did they use to get this radio wave? It's just a radio wave emitter. I don't know. So it's like a ham radio wave in other words. Okay, I don't know what they did. I mean, it was it was like the military technology in the 60s. I'm not the expert on the mechanism that they did. I know that they bounced the radio. Same thing that they do moon to figure out the distance between the moon. Again, if it's a black body, how's it going to let radiation? How's it going to bring a radio wave back? Hmm. Obviously, you don't understand bouncing off of it. A corn balance if it's black body. No, that's actually not true. Yeah, it's true. Okay, so this is me bounce off the same way you bounce off the ionosphere. You bounce off of a plasma because of electric charges. They are what are what I honest here? The ionosphere in the Earth's atmosphere. It's a layer of the Earth's atmosphere that you see that the thing is you all you're doing is you keep on begging the question based on your belief and you're saying because of my belief, therefore globe. I'm not doing you haven't you haven't given actual any evidence for anything you've been claiming you're just making a statement of claim and saying there for this. Okay, but yeah. Now I'm going to show on screen again an actual demonstration of one of instructions. Sorry that it's on the side though. But it's what am I supposed to look at right now? This is a flat bar piece of aluminium. It's flat. It's on my mixing bench. It's that's 100% flat. It's manufactured to be flat. Now I've got little. Um, what can I say bottle caps placed on there and then a little bolt at the bottom back as we going to show you. We're going to zoom in and notice. I got a reference to both sharing. I'm above all the time. Okay. There is a bottle cap another bottle cap and then that bolt there does this bottle cap look lower than that bottle cap. I cannot even make out the individual bottle caps in this image. I'm not going to lie. Are you looking on your phone or your I'm looking on my my laptop screen right now. It just looks like a bunch of black objects, but I can't differentiate them. I'm not seeing anything. I'm just going to paste it in here so we can zoom it in for you to show you. Can you see a better now? Um, I see some darker black objects. Is that the bottle caps? That's the bottle caps. This is the top of the one cap. This is the top of the other cap and then this is the top of the bolt. Okay. This is very like jump does that bottle cap look lower than that bottle cap. Then which bottle cap. This bottle cap. The top one. Oh, okay. The higher I see the top one now that it's much closer to the screen than the one before that's farther away. Right. Great. Okay. Okay. Now it looks like it's going down. Can I make a suggestion? You should have used different colors of bottle caps other than black on a black background. Doesn't make a difference. It makes it a lot easier to see, but okay. Okay. But anyway, you can see it's showing it go down based only on optics perspective because the angular size changes. Yeah, it's getting farther away. It's getting smaller. Great. So this bolcher is what I want to show in contention here with the video. Notice when I lift it away, you can see the bottom of that bolt when I'm going a bit lower. It starts to vanish and this side of the top is another bolt to show reference that I'm above the ball that ball. I think I showed in the beginning. We are actually someone this one where I actually painted the bottom red. You don't see the red part of that bolt anymore. This is showing bottom obstruction on a flat surface. This is just the one I'm going to see if I can quickly get that one where I want to show you the sun setting. In other words, because that's specifically what you asked for. I regret about five minutes left there for us before we got a Q&A. I really want to make the flight times too because that was the main argument I presented. I love to get to the flight times. We'll stick another two. I'm going to get there now. I'm awesome. Thanks. Yeah. I just want to quickly get to this just the video to show things do go down. Thanks to perspective. It's almost there by the radio. Sorry. I just got so much things on my channel. Uh. Do do do do. But yeah, you see it is just optical. It's we can show this optical all day long. I really I don't think that you've demonstrated that but okay. So it didn't look like it was going down. No, I mean, I literally didn't see anything. Have you realized the whole evening? So for your only rebuttals, I don't see it. So they're cause you haven't shown me anything I can see with my eyes, dude. What all your videos are like really blurry and like you it's just a bunch of like jumbled objects that you can't make out clearly or distinctly. That's that's a lie. But okay. Anyway, check out. Oh, okay. Now this one is on in one of my my primer booth. Um, I'm going to show it's a flat surface. This light source is going to stay at exactly the same elevation moving away in the distance and it's going to appear like it's sinking into the distance. Notice that perspective, dude. Yeah, is it looked like it's going down? Yeah, I never argued against that. I was talking about bottom up obstruction. My God is bottom up obstruction. I just showed you you just put it behind a sub surface that you've moved it. No, no, it's still exactly the same height. You moved it behind an object, man. I didn't move it behind anything. It's still the same. So bottom look when I look when I bring up the camera. See it's same height. Go back down. No, any bottom up. Wait a minute. There we go. Sorry. I didn't show I can show you screenshot where it does over obstruction. Um, this is called occultation due to foreshortening. This is another optical effect. See there it shows. Oh, okay. I'll cook. I'll cook. Okay. Obstruction from like forward shortening that that is just like because of the angular resolution, right? No, no, no. This is based on just the angle alone. The diffraction limit you talking about is what I showed in the previous one of the bottle caps and that bolt. That's due to the diffraction of it. Oh, we know it's not this is now. Oh, you know, that is definitively not the case with the sun because when you look at it with a solar filter, you see that there isn't any blending with the horizon. It is clear. It is crisp. There's no optical blending going on there. It's not just that. I said that I said the fraction year or that I say for shortening due to the angle. So then I don't want to say you're literally just physically obstructing it with an object here. That's not what you're claiming is happening on a flat earth. Exactly what happens on a flat earth when something moves away, it's moving further and further away. You got waves in the ocean. Don't you? Sure. You got waves on the ocean flat. So which would be due to the angle which would be closer to you and have a larger angle to the bottom of the sun. So therefore it would occult the bottom of the sun as it moves away due to perspective because remember due to perspective your horizon rises relative to eye level while everything above sinks relative to eye level. Everything moves to the vanishing point. So you honestly think that there's a sun thousands of miles up in the sky. That is I don't know the distance that is being. I just I didn't give a specific distance. I just a thousand miles that is high up in the sky. That is physically the light between that high up sun and the eyes of the observer is being obstructed by waves way down on the surface. That's what you think. We can demonstrate this just like I did when something moves further away in the distance on a flat surface because of perspective it ramps. Remember the horizon ramps up. That wasn't a lot of ramps down. You had a thing. It's a concrete it's a concrete it's a concrete floor. It's my primary booth. It's flat surface. Now those paint tin cans were just to keep in reference to show you are keeping the same elevation and I'm not changing its elevation and it's to show it occult due to the angle. This is for shortening it occult because you put something in front of it. That's not what happened. Was that was that light source above the tin cans at all time here in your example right. You could draw a straight line from the light source to the eye and you could see that there is a physical object in the way. Yes. So like a wave on the ocean floor. Well done. Flat Earth. There is no physical object in between the sun's light and the observer the way the ocean's not physical. So the ocean's not physical. When did I say that dude? You literally just told me on a flat Earth. You don't have anything physical to show occultation for the moving away sand. You think that you can draw a straight line from the sun to an observer and that straight line is going to get blocked by a wave. That's like two or three feet tall. I just did show you a demonstration. That's very silly man and this was not and this was not taking refraction to count just like we're Rob Schieber showed is taking a Fresnel lens sticking the sun and moving it away. It also brought it down to the horizon. What you have shown is that if a physical object gets in the way between the sun and the observer, then it will be blocked from the bottom up, which is what happens on a globe model with the Earth. But I don't. I cannot. Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part. Maybe I need a picture, but I cannot. Just one second. How anything obstructs the view of the sun on the flat Earth, much less a wave. That's only a couple feet high, but I'd really like to go. Next. Yes, definitely. First of all, look at my hand. Yeah, you can see it's small, but the size of my head. Okay. Look what happens when I move it too close to it. Is it bigger than my head now? Bruh, I'm not arguing with that. So perspective then for shortening. I never agree with that perspective. Great. So not a physical curve then. No, that's not the conclusion at all. That is why I'm gillie size change. Well done. Okay, we can move to flash path because you're not honest of you flat. So don't do that, man. Do not do that. You know what, just one second. I will be honest. I have given you quite a little bit of extra time. So we'll just let them respond there and then we'll move on to the last point and we'll try to get for you to say that because I agree with perspective and how perspective works, that that somehow means that I've reached your conclusion. Man, don't do that. That's dishonest. That's bad fate. That's poisoning the well. Don't do that. Okay, man. Let's just move on to the next topic because I distinctly have not agreed with your conclusions and I don't think that they logically follow from the from perspective laws. Okay, let's move on. You you just said that you're not arguing with me about it. So yeah, you agree. Well done. That's what I said. So let's move on. Don't be putting words in my mouth. I don't disagree with you about how perspective works. I do disagree with you about you thinking perspective causes bottom up obstruction of the sun when the sun sets. I do not agree with that. I think you're wrong on that. I don't think that logically follows from perspective. So instead of you telling me what I think and that I agree with you, even though I explicitly do not, why don't we move on to flight paths? Can can I can I just ask you then to prove your point that it is physical and not often because you would have to. It's a visible horizon. So you agree with me then. Well done. No, look, I agree with you that the horizon is a visible horizon. I agree with you that perspective makes this look bigger than this. Okay, we agree on those two things. Don't try to then say I agree with you on things that are not those two things. I don't think you I think you're missing the point altogether. You're agreeing what I'm giving my argument and then you're saying it's not what you're agreeing with. You're saying it's physical Earth girl. So then I'm asking you, okay, how are you going to demonstrate that it is physical Earth girl and not the optical effect you agreed with me on. That's all I'm asking. How are you going to do that? Because we can account for optical effects. We know how optics work. Yeah, and you're claiming it to be opposite to what the optics is showing with demonstration. I think we're going to I think we're going in circles here on this one guys. So let's try to move on to the flight. Let's try to move on to the last last point and then we'll get that Q and a everybody. So five minutes on the clock and I'll go back to my silent modding here. Cool. Okay, flat roots. First of all, when you, you know how and the aqua distance, Gleason's map work, the one you presented with the fly fruits. Okay. I said, I don't care what map you want to use. Use any map you want. Let's just say that's the one you used. That's the one you presented. Do you know it's only a longitudinal and time up. It's not made specific for distances. Use so it's a strawman. I don't know. So it's a strawman to use it and claim distances and based on what flat Earth map. Do you want me to use? All maps are flat, dude. Which one do you want me to use? It doesn't really matter because it's the same. No matter what map you use the same. No, you presented a strawman based on a map that is not made for what you presenting. So show me the show me the map that works. How about that? A map does nothing other than show a point of position. Show me the map that's based on distance. What map is there's no map based on distance. I can show you one. It's called the globe and it works. A globe's not a map. Again, I can show you it. It's it's a three dimensional map and it works. All those are not as they're measured. Globes are not maps. Maps are two dimension. No, whatever you want to call it man. I can show you the globe and all the distances work. I can show you a cube. Does that make it reality if all the flight times distances work on that cube? I'll listen to you. So can you show that they work on a cube? Okay. First of all, I can debunk you saying it's a globe because of flight times because you're taking you ignoring your Coriolis claim of Earth spinning underneath it. I said you're ignoring conservation of momentum. That's not how that works. Conservation of momentum would be cancelled out to you go the opposite direction, right? No, your momentum is conserved. Is your air velcro to Earth? No, it's it's bound to claim. Then you can't claim conservation of momentum Coriolis specifically Coriolis is specifically I'm still talking. I'm still talking Coriolis Coriolis Coriolis is specifically a two reference framed effect. You got an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial reference and the Earth would be the non-inertial reference frame where you standing and observing the plane moving or deviating apparently over the inertial reference frame. So when you see a plane seem to deviate, it would be the plane only apparently because you are moving away from it. That's we're trying to dodge this so hard flat. So first of all, your premise that if they're not velcro together, then the then the Coriolis. No, that does not your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Okay. Velcro is irrelevant. They're bound together by forces that are measurable. Okay. Get that through your head, but let's not dodge the topic here. Do not dodge the topic. I can show you on a globe all the distances that match with the flight routes that meet you and everyone listening can verify for themselves. I have a spherical if you don't want to call it map. I don't care a spherical globe where all the distances match the flight routes. What do you have that shows that it's even possible on any flat map? Sorry, your whole premise was the times it took to go across that distance. So now you're trying to move across to another argument, which is dishonest because you took him at the times. So I'm literally debunking your time argument by saying Coriolis. Are you taking Coriolis into account or not? Bruh, I'm literally showing the flight times that are given by four different companies that anyone can verify themselves. They match with what they should be when we look at them on a globe. Okay. Coriolis. I'm not talking about anything. That was my original argument. I've stuck on that argument. You need to address how that can be possible on a flat earth. How are the flight times possible? With Coriolis or without Coriolis? Those flight times. Bruh, I don't know. Do you have Coriolis on your flat earth? No, because it doesn't move. So then without Coriolis, then explain those flight times to me. Sorry, you're the one claiming a globe shows it to be perfect. So the honest is on you because you're making the burden on yourself. You're the one making the claim. So I'm asking you. I'm asking you, the one who made the claim that it's perfectly times everything on a globe. Is this with Coriolis or without Coriolis? I literally showed everyone. Again, this is my argument showing that those flight times are not possible on a flat earth. I am asking you, flatsoid, to show me how those flight times, which are everyone can observe to be the case, show me that how that reality of those flight time can be possible on any flat earth. Easy. Called flight dynamics. If you look at the flight dynamics, the plane needs a stationary non-rotating earth to function. Yeah, dynamics. You're just going to hand wave it all the way and just say, you just asked me. So I literally just told you, okay, it's like dynamics. The earth has to not be rotating. It has to be stationary and as we find over a plane. That's how it works. You made the claim. Listen, you made a claim that your earth, your globe earth shows it to be perfect. So your burden is on you because you made that claim. So you have to come and show me where on your globe it has those perfect times either with Coriolis or not because the earth would be spinning under your globe model, which would show different time flights because if you fly the opposite way, it would be totally different. It doesn't because of the conservation of momentum. When the planes take off, they don't just suddenly lose all the momentum that they had when they were on top of the spinning earth. That's not how physics works. So yes, the flight times are accounting for the Coriolis effect. It is taken into the county model. I showed it. I'm asking you for the right. No, I'm asking you very explicitly here. Your answer was flight dynamics. Somehow dynamics explained. I want you to explain to me how flight dynamics can explain specifically the flight times for those routes that I showed you easy flight dynamics. When anybody goes and actually studies to be a pilot and actually does it, they don't take Coriolis into account because Coriolis isn't taken to. They need to use it as a stationary earth. If you take it into Coriolis, it won't work out. Just like when you take North, what Charlotte Carolina moving to. I'm not answering my question. Listen, based on your Coriolis globe claim, it would have to be four hours difference. It doesn't have that four hours difference. It goes in the opposite direction. You're not doing that math correctly. Dude, again, you're the one trying to not. I'm not dodging anything. I'm keeping you to what was my question. Sorry. What was my question? I asked you to specifically explain the flight times specifically. I am at my rebuttal is simple. You use the straw man of a map that does not not made for what you're claiming and you made a claim that it as only working on a globe is your burden. Now I'm trying to ask you because you made this claim that it can only work on a globe. You would have to provide evidence is a Coriolis or not. And I'm telling you based on flight dynamics, there is no Coriolis Coriolis taking into account, which shows your earth is not rotating. Oh, therefore your times are not working because if you do take Coriolis into account, nothing of your time will work on your globe. Here's where you're messing up, right? The way that you're taking Coriolis to account is literally incorrect. You are not doing that physics and math correctly because you are forgetting about the conservation of momentum. A very basic concept in physics, dude. You are not doing that math correctly. You don't need to account for these effects because you have conservation of momentum in that airplane. You're not just going to lose your momentum suddenly because you go up in the air. Okay, so really billionth time. You don't lose conservation when leaving a reference room. Yeah, your momentum is conserved. It's a physical law. So here you go. Do you do I am asking this question there flat soy and then we're going to move on continue to not answer my question. So tell me how is it possible? I showed you those four paths, those four flight times specifically address those flight times and tell me how that is possible on hear me hear my words carefully here. Any flat earth map any of them. They are only possible on a flat earth because when you have flight dynamics, it has to be stationary. Hence why your globe not taking worry about it. Dodging again, dude. You're dodging it. Listen to my way. He's going to answer it there. I know it, you know, might not be what you're looking for Grayson, but this is the way he's answering the question. Yeah, we'll have to move on. Yeah. On a flat earth, there's no movement. Just like flight dynamics depict. It depends on no movement of the earth. That's why it works over a flat earth because your globe specifically is claimed to have Coriolis conservation of momentum is not indefinitely conserved. As soon as you leave your reference frame, it loses that momentum. That's why our shoes the a Velcro to the earth and it's a no. So based on your globe claim just it has to show Coriolis or it doesn't because if you claim in Coriolis, then you cannot claim to have a Velcro conservation of momentum. If you don't claim Coriolis, great. So they're not a globe. No matter which way you look at it, you straw manning a flat earth because of your burden that you claimed on a sphere of basically any map is a straw man of flat earth because flat earth. You can't demonstrate a map a map because you know, I didn't bring up an interrupt. I did not interrupt you this last time. Any map you know that these flight times are nonsensical any map that any any flat earth map these flight times are going to be nonsense. They're not going to make any sense any time you try to map these out. Anybody can do this themselves just plug in different cities and you can prove to yourself that the earth is a globe what he's talking about with Coriolis is complete nonsense. He doesn't know how the physics works in this case. He I could we could go through the calculations. He doesn't know what he's talking about every physics teacher in the United States would disagree with flat so it on this go ahead. I encourage everyone in the audience contact your local physics professor and ask them and they can all tell you what flat. So I just said is utter nonsense. I'm sorry, Ryan. Can I also five moments where we can just talk about Coriolis because I think he doesn't understand how Coriolis works. Sure. Is that fine? Like I said, we can keep going on the just want to make sure we're respecting everybody's time and yeah, I was just saying we got minutes. Yeah, we'll do another five. That's cool. Let's do that. Cool. Thanks. So base theory Grayson, can you please explain to everybody what Coriolis effect is please? Yeah, it's from the rotation of the earth. What is Coriolis effect? Yeah, it's it's from your rotating like inertial frame basically like you basically like, you know, the in the southern hemisphere, the northern hemisphere, the things are going to rotate differently because of the Coriolis effect. You're going to have it's basically like a pseudo force that's applied to objects in motion when they're in a circular like a rotating reference frame. No, can I correct you quickly? The Coriolis effect is based on two reference frames. You being on the moving reference frame, which would be the non inertial reference frame seeming to have an apparent deviation of an object in the that's all the original reference frame. No, the airplane reference frame. I let you talk. Let's give him another time. The plane. Yeah. The plane is in the inertial reference frame having the apparent deviation as you move underneath the plane. So not actually deviating just appears that way. There's no actual conservation of momentum in the second reference frame because it is flying in a linear fashion because you moving underneath it. It appears to have that deviation. That is Coriolis mate. But you can just do all the same reference frame. You can have the Earth as your inertial reference frame for the literally. Then it's not Coriolis. Then it's not Coriolis. This is this is why sorry. That's why I said I see you don't understand Coriolis and this is why you don't understand the argument. This is why I had to get you to understand the Earth itself is an inertial reference frame and you can calculate the entire flight based on the reference frame of the Earth. So you can use a non inertial. You can do that. Sorry. We all have a response. You can actually pick any inertial reference frame that you want. You can do a train moving at a constant speed. You can calculate the entire plane's flight relative to that train. You can do that if you want. That's totally valid within physics. It's the principle of relativity. Again, the Earth is a non inertial reference frame. It's not not true. Yes. The inertial reference frame is the inertial reference frame is the plane moving above you. If it's moving at a constant speed, that's true. But if it's not moving at a constant speed, that's not true. But any inertial. The Earth is also an inertial reference frame. This is a basic fact of physics. No, it's not. But you're just denying it. I'm trying to help you out. I'm trying to help you out what Coriolis is. I don't know how much specifically I can make it. The Earth would be the non inertial reference frame. False. The plane would be the inertial reference frame. Again, you can pick any arbitrary inertial reference frame that you want and it's not going to change your calculations in this. It changes all the calculations based on your globe having Coriolis or not changes your flight times dramatically and both of them changed your flight times based on your claim. Both of them showing it doesn't work on your globe. All it does is change the coordinate system. It doesn't change the actual fundamental physical relationship. It changes the actual times they would take to travel from point A to point B. That's a loadable. It's calculable. Then do it. Okay, I'll make a video on this for you. How's that? We don't have the time. All right. Sounds good. I'll watch it and debunk it. Good luck. I guess that's the five minutes. Yeah, we can carry into our Q&A there. So just remind everybody in the live chat to hit the like and share this out in those spaces. You like having these discussions. Shane, I see you're hanging out in the live chat. If you want to pin the poll there, I think it disappeared on me. So maybe other people aren't seeing the poll that we put up. So yeah, if you want to put that back up with the also add the option of no, I'm an ultimate Soylent drinking soy boy. They'll make everybody happy. So we're going to get into the Q&A everybody. Once again, I'm going to drop the needle like a broken record and remind y'all Dallas, Texas is where we're going to be. Let us know in the live chat where you're hanging out and if you're going to be able to make it to our show our live person event this weekend tickets are in the description and if you can't support us by actually making it there and meeting all the awesome people that come out and debate a modern day debate, then you can also check out our crowd fund where you can get access to perks. So that includes Oh, I see Leo Philius is hanging out in the live chat. So if you want Leo Philius's signature, you can get that by checking out our crowd fund. You can get a picture of his face with a sign. Anyways, you can also get a signed emblem, whatever you'd like. So yeah, definitely check those links out. Let's get into that Q&A everybody. Once again, speakers are linked in the description here on screen and thank you guys for being here. Mark Reed, Membershipchap says, I'm glad to see Grayson and not Peyton Manning. Alright, let's carry on. Question for Flatsoid. Oh, why is carrying a weight of a slope or stairs harder than a long level surface? Because you're burning more calories so you're using more energy. Quite simple. Okay, any thoughts over there, Grayson? We can just move on. Yes, because of the force of gravity. Okay, LJ coming in. LJ, you're in the right spot. He's always coming in with his super chats about the Flat Earth on every chat. We appreciate you, bud. And I'm glad that you made it in for the right occasion. So he says base theory started as opener with NASA pics, yet if you are a YouTube or if you YouTube real footage of space in quotation marks, all vids are CGI give observable scientific evidence for the globe. It's quite a bit there, LJ, but he's saying that all space footage is CGI and to give observable scientific evidence. So we'll just wrap that up. Yeah, so once again, all they have is it's all just a conspiracy. All the pictures, it's all CGI. It's a conspiracy. That's exactly what I said that he would show and the evidence that the Earth is a globe. There's a sunset. You can measure spherical access yourself or, you know, you can see the measurements of spherical access. You can see different plum bulbs not being parallel. That's another measurement. The flight times is evidence. The that I've provided a lot of evidence in this. I could go on. I used anti-potal focusing in the last debate to show that it cannot be flat. All right. Well, we got a lot of super chats, so there'll be lots of chances to respond to each other's statements there. I'm sure as we we'd throw and keep your super chats coming in, everybody. We appreciate them. Hit that like button. Can go 44 says question for flat. So I'd please explain the sunset. The angular size of the sun does not change as it sets. So it's nothing to do with perspective as everything to do with perspective. As I said, it can be demonstrated looking through lenses like a Fresno lens because the Atma magnifies what we see as it moves away in the distance. And because of parallax and the sun is so far away, the angular size change is minimal. Yeah. So then that just violates how perspective works then because if the angle doesn't mean if the angular size change is only minimal because it's so far away, then it's not going to be obstructed bottom up from the horizon. So yeah, that's totally a red herring because the thing is the bottom. Remember when I explained something moves away in the distance as it moves away in the distance, it gets blocked due to the angle perspective. Just is an optical effect where it rises up. It doesn't physically rise up, mate. Yeah. Show me the math on that. I don't think that the actual formulas for perspective can support that. All right. This next one's coming on and as soon as my middle finger scrolls up to it, the old magic scroll here. Oh, Jay coming in again, buddy. I want to get in the right spot. Number nine taped to the ceiling will show six on the opposite side. If the six. That's who you're Grayson turns up to nine. I was gonna say you triggered my Jimi Hendrix there. What a great tune, but I can't sing too much of it because they will demon the absolute enemies. Go ahead there, Grayson. Yeah. Well, I think that if you were to actually plot the position of the moon in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere skies as it progresses around, you would see that it doesn't match this whole idea that, oh, you're just looking at it from these two different perspectives. It doesn't track in the same location as we would actually observe it in the sky above. You just make your little model of your little flat earth. I know that none of you can pick an actual map that works because none of them work as we saw in this debate, but if you make your little model and you say, oh, well, here's where the moon would have to be in order for these northern, southern hemisphere people to see it differently and then you say, oh, well, if the moon was in that location, this is the location that we should see it in the sky. Then you go look at it in the sky and you see, hey, it's not there. It's not in the right location. Flat earth debunked again. All right. Let's carry on there, fellows. Before I get any more triggerings in the chat there. Yeah. Good job, LJ, triggering the Hendricks over here. DJ Massey, and thanks for your answers. Well, Grayson, let's carry on. Hi, Flatsoid. Can you tell the circumference of the tropic of Capricorn and the tropic of Cancer? Floor is yours, Flatsoid. No, I don't know. This is a thing they asked me last time as well. I don't really need to worry about it because it doesn't bother me. I don't travel the tropic of Capricorn or Cancer. So it doesn't bite me. So again, the point is that in a globe model, they're the same distance, but in a flat earth model, they cannot be the same distance. And in reality, in reality, if you were actually to travel them, they'd be the same distance. That's not the debunk of the flat earth. What flat earth model? You keep bringing up this flat earth model. You keep bringing up flat earth models that you make in claims with, but you haven't presented any. Any of them. Literally any possible flat earth model. This can go. Okay, this can go into a whole different debate, but just the way they measured the radius proves it's flat, mate. Yeah. Okay. Nice claim without evidence. We've actually done streams in this. You're not going to go watch my channel. Oh, you've done streams. You must have proven it. All right, let's carry on their fellas. It's been a lively one here. And these fellas, they definitely know how to do the tug of war when it comes to the conversation. This isn't these guys. This isn't their first, their first rodeo, if you will. Hey, you know what the cowboy said at his second rodeo? This isn't my first rodeo. Anyways, let's carry on. That's so dumb. That's that's dad joke. 100. All right, DJ Moss. We just read that one. Can go 44 question for flat so it how did the Himawari eight capture the Tonga eruption in real time? Do you think teams of peepee peepee peepee our people are busy photoshopping satellite footage as events happen. Have a little think about it. It doesn't take any real time. It takes I think 10 minutes for it to actually get to data vault. So yeah, and you do know we still think there's balloons up in the sky and there's ways to take photos high photo. So it doesn't mean anything. There's no one sitting at Photoshop's there. So you are actually agreeing that the Himawari satellite, even if you think it's a balloon or something you are agreeing that it is taking actual photos of the earth in even if you don't like real time every 10 minutes. No, I didn't say that. I said anything. It's not at real time because he claims it's in real time. I'm saying even based on flat earth. We still think there's balloons up there. So total strongman. So if this if this him and no globe in other words, it's nothing to do with a global flat earth. It's just simply fixing his statement that it's taking it in real time. That was his claim. Okay. All right, let's carry on there. Just say hello. Yeah, I hear you there, human girl. I did make a bad dad joke. You can tell me you can answer your punchline there and hi, Monty as well. Thanks everybody for coming out and enjoying the discussion we're having tonight. So base theory keeps interrupting a flat suede wonder why that's from LJ. Well, I saw this one earlier and that's why I kind of said I feel like these guys had a really good tug of war. You know, they kind of pushed and pulled as they needed to and you know, that makes things pretty alright for me. So I think we've had a lot of fun. Let's carry on LJ says base theory. It's the South Pole source. Trust me, bro. Looks like he's parroting you there and he thoughts there. Oh yeah, sure. About 250 people use the the white desert company every year and they go to the South Pole. You can go there. I encourage you to do it yourself if you can afford it. It's pretty expensive. But if you go there, you can tell for sure that it's a South Pole because you can take a compass with you and you can see every direction around you is north. No more East. No more West. No more South only North. Therefore it is the South Pole, which again doesn't make any sense on a flat earth model makes complete sense on a globe model flat earth debunked again. Can I just make a statement because I wanted to actually talk about this in the debate. It's the ceremonial South Pole, not the actual South Pole. And yes, magnetic fields do exist. Yeah, but they would only converge if they're coming out of the North Pole. The only way they converge is either on the bottom of your little tourist plane or on a spheroidal earth on the South Pole. That's how magnetic fields work. They don't just all converge on a random spot way out there on the ice wall. That doesn't make any sense. The way that you know it's a South Pole is that 250 people go there just from this expedition. Hundreds more go there in other ways and they can you can measure the magnetic pole yourself. You can take a compass with you. I encourage like flat earthers go donate to somebody try to send a flat earth representative to the South Pole. It would be awesome. I would watch that documentary personally. I think they should make a documentary where they just send flat earthers to space and to the South Pole. I think it'd be hilarious. Yeah. Again it was just the ceremonial and you do know the magnetic South is not at the ceremonial pole. It is the magnetic South Pole. All right. Let's carry on from there. I think my camera was having a little glitch for a second there. Never mind me. Let's see. Stephen send in 499. There's no question attached to it. So if you have a question there Stephen throw it in the live chat and I'll try to keep an eye out for it. All Jay says coming in again for 499 flat earth pilots are OFC scared to talk about it to not lose their job. Why doesn't the sunlight half of the ball all the time. It would like it would on a globe. That's because that's not what it would do on the globe. So okay can go 44 question for flat Zoid. Can you please explain why tow tanks that test a boat hulls account for curvature along the 200 meter length of the tank. We've been through this before it doesn't take a curve into account the tow tanks just take water depth into account. I'm not familiar with the specific example but it sounds interesting and I'll look into it. Yeah it's been argument for about two years now. All right. Let's carry on there. Can go 44 question for flat Zoid. Can you please explain why the London underground cross rail tunnels had to take the curvature of the earth into account when being constructed. Didn't take a curve into account. It just took into tunnels to line up to the next account. They start at one point start another point and they have to line up doesn't mean they took earth curve into account mate. It just means they took their relative position to each other. I would really like to know how you know that they didn't take earth curve into account. Sorry because this has been a discussion for years remember being a flat earth for many years now we discussed everything they're bringing up. That's why. But how do you know you didn't answer how you know that they didn't take it into account. Okay. How do you know they did. I didn't I'm not familiar with this example. I'm just asking you because you said explicitly you made the claim that they did not take it into account. I'm just asking how you know that. Because there is no earth to take into no earth curve to take. Oh so now you're presupposing your conclusion in that. Weird how you're trying to muddy the waters. The guy asked me a specific question. I answered it. If you don't know anything about the subject Roller. I just asked you how you know that they don't take earth curvature. And I told you was there or answer to that was that you know that they didn't take into account because you already know that the earth not curve. So you are. Question was this to who's question was this to we were going to answer. Now you don't want I already answered. I did answer. We are gonna give you the last word on that and we'll can move on at any point. That's fine. So let's ask the next question into the break. Grayson there is a law of non-contradiction. A word cannot mean both a synonym and an antonym. No actually just last week on Jeopardy. They had an entire category of words. The same word where the definitions add to definitions that were contradictory to each other. You can go and look at the category yourself. There are multiple words where depending on the context that you use the word they can literally mean the exact opposite meaning. There's a number of examples of this. It's not the law of non-contradiction because again there are two different meanings of the same word based on the context. This is how language works. You're just arguing with the dictionary at this point. All right. Let's try to carry on from there guys. LJ says the globe debunked alive once more. So you think he's got you got a fan there through LJ Ryan and modern day debate number one. Well thank you LJ. I think we are one of the few places that definitely try to engage as much as we can with the very diverse you know grouping of politics and science and religious debates. So you know if you haven't already hit that like button definitely do so. You know we definitely like to give people the platform and keep it neutral over here and you know let people express what they really what are you really thinking. How do you really feel. Tell me how you really feel. All right. LJ says base theory keeps interrupting flat. Oh we already read that one. LJ any proof of Jupiter's mass its size and gravity. Oh yeah from its gravitational effect you can calculate its mass. Okay. You want to move on from there. That was pretty quick. All right. We'll do we'll just keep moving. I mean they've been able to do that for hundreds of years. So so circular reasoning. Well then it's not circular reasoning. That is you base it on an assumption of a sphere. Not having mass and gravity. Therefore calculated. So therefore it is well done again. You're not presupposing what the mass of Jupiter is. Your conclusion is what the mass of Jupiter is. Your process is observations of its gravitational effect on other bodies. So at no point did you assume your conclusion. There's no circularity involved. You just did. I assume gravity. I assume a mass of Jupiter. I do calculations based on that assumption. Therefore you there Grayson again your conclusion is not that gravity exists. Your conclusion is what is the mass of Jupiter. So in order for it to be a circular argument your conclusion would have to be like gravity there for gravity. But that's not the argument. The argument is observations of gravitational effects. Therefore you can calculate Jupiter that is not circular at all like the mass of Jupiter. You're not so in your conclusion at circular and affirming the consequence. It absolutely is not in any sense of those words. All right. Let's move on from there. Lots of good back and forth there. See I didn't let you down. I fished a little bit get a little extra on that super chat. Mark Reid. Why can't you address the points that Grayson brought up to flat brought up flatzoid sunset sunrise flight times moon being flipped upside down. Why are you dodging? That's from Mark Reid. Why are you lying? Mark? Everybody saw it live. We had actual discourse on these subjects. I to give you the benefit of that he probably sent that in before we finished the whole debate. I mean that happens all the time. That's fine. You know sometimes we have questions and I'm like yeah that was completely already discussed. So you know that's that's fine. But thanks Mark Reid. Anyways we appreciate you buddy and all you do here at modern day debate. LJ $1.99 probably for you as well there Grayson. Would y'all ever get on a seventeen thousand five hundred mile per hour roller coaster? Well, I don't ride any roller coasters. I'm not a big fan of roller coasters in general. But if what he's trying to do is try to say oh but the earth is traveling so fast. I mean this is just again complete ignorance of physics. Like you're not going to feel something that's going at a constant rate. Like you don't feel that you feel acceleration. You don't feel absolute speed. That's just basic physics 101 take a high school course. And can I give a statement to that quickly? Then you can do a closing. Yeah, you do know your earth is moving in different vectors. So therefore acceleration constantly well done. Yeah. Well again, you don't feel that it's not something that you feel you're moving at a constant rate. There you go. All right next one coming in from hate stairs. Flatzoid speak a little more about why you have a beef with Walter Bislin's calculator. Are you claiming refractive in indices and dices are sorry our constant and don't change with external conditions such as temperature. Walter Bislin's terrestrial refraction is not like refraction. It changes the radius of the earth. So it makes the actual radius to be flatter or smaller compared to how he wants it to sort. He's I can put it observations out and the flat earth model he placed is a total straw man as well. Yeah, well if you actually go and you look at the source code for that and you look at the formula that he's actually using you'll see that the R value remains constant in the formula in the source code. So you're you're just lying about that. Sorry flatzoid. I showed it on again videos on this where I go to Walter Bislin and you show him even in his formula the radius changes due to refraction. So you might need to go and look up the source you're trying to pump mate. All right, let's move on to the next one and just before we do I'll let everybody know as I've gotten into our poll just closed. So our viewers right now have voted on what shape is the earth so 68% voted it's a sphere and 31% voted it's flat and we had a total of 356 votes. So more people did vote that it's a sphere than it is flat but my real question here is 356 votes. You know you get the thumb power to vote in our poll but only 134 likes what are you doing with your thumbs people come on. I'm calling you out in the live chat for your weak thumbs. All right get those thumbs up on the likes because that gets the helps us beat the algorithm. Okay. Thanks guys. LJ says even my dog can see Zoid Zoid's images are not the same. Any thoughts there Grayson. Yeah, your dog might have cataracts or something. Well that's quite the response. All right, let's carry on. Geez G.J. Moss flat Zoid using your arrow moon. Why do those human objects cannot see the same amount of empty space between the arrow head and the circle border. It was don't understand the question but yet it was just simply showing that it changes its rotation based on your location. It's got nothing to do with a globe or flat. All right, we can carry on from there. I'm pretty sure. So these King hacky says hey Ryan did James discipline you for the wits at debate the other day. I'm not going to read all of this but no mean James get along a fantastic and so yeah no there's there's never any real problems as far as modern data because things happen all the time on the air and we just kind of roll with it and try to learn from it and do better as we go forward. So whatever you may get out of that you know that's on you mark read the light demonstration shows the the light source gets smaller as you move it away. Why does this not happen with the sun and a solar filter? Simple. It's called parallax the sun is far away just like a mountain would be far away compared to the trees right in front of you. If you move away the trees will get in angular size quicker smaller than it would be the mountain in the background far away closer. So you can actually crunch the numbers on this and see that they don't work out there is a formula for calculating the angular diameter of an object you can plug in the numbers yourself do the measurements yourself do multiple measurements from different places on earth and you'll see that the numbers don't work out and once again you can do this yourself very easily and debunk the flat earth everyone at home watching can do this easily just measure the angle to the sun you can you can measure it all put in the numbers angular diameter formula check it out. Great and notice the angles require flat earth to be taken. No they only require a horizontal plane that plane does not need to be the earth. Oh great. I did I did miss a little compliment there after that did James my brother in debates discipline me absolutely not he also did say in amongst a couple ad-homs based theory great intro so I don't want to miss the compliments well I'm dodging some of that so DJ Maas says for two euros zoid did your son go did your son go behind mountain or horizon. None. It was an apparent occultation due to the angle being limited as it moved away. It's called perspective for shortening just like my hand for shortens my face right now it's not physically blocking my face it's the angle and that's not how perspective works for shortening. All right let's carry on there. Hate stairs don't we all flat zoid would rather argue from incodality and nitpick rather than presenting flat earth that's why the debate title changed from its original flat earth on trial. I will tell you right now heat stairs is the person who organized the debate the pitch for the debate was globe versus flat earth so as the experts here in the room on who organized the debate and what the topic was I'll answer that one for you LJ dollar 99 only flat so it has presented observable plus repeatable thoughts there Grayson and then we'll pass it over to you. Yeah the sunset totally observable flight times easily observable. I mean come on how can you say that those things are not observable I I I literally tried to make it as cheap and easy and accessible for everybody to observe this evidence as possible so if you cannot observe a sunset that means you either got your head in the sand or your head up your ass. Yeah but he's saying repeatable so in other words I'm the only one that's able to demonstrate it you haven't demonstrated you just made claims the flight times demonstrates it. You didn't even get Coriolis Coriolis debunked at all it doesn't though you're just incorrect about that. All right let's carry on there fellas we got a couple more super chats coming in. Keeson says for both can you tell us where to find detailed diagrams of how the sunset works in your model. So some references there fellas where can they find a model of how sunset works or on your model. So I'll ask you first their grace and then we'll hand it over to you thought so we'd close it. Well an elementary school textbook for children usually shows it you can look at any simulation you want. I mean it's readily available you got the entire internet at your fingertips. So again it's really not that hard to see you can literally just look at a globe and look at a distant light source and you can see as the globe turns you're going to have a sunset pretty obvious for everyone. Yeah first as a point out the model is not reality anybody can model a doughnut earth having a sunset is not going to change reality and yes you can definitely show it just based on changing with distance and angles and then placed in with optical effects simple as that and you might you can go check life is short channel on YouTube as well he actually does a good whole detailed thing on bottom up obstruction as well my channel also shows demonstrations of what obstruction a lot of flat earth is channels do we have actual demonstrations for this unlike them placing it in children's books saying see I drew a sphere so therefore it's a sphere the difference is we have actual demonstration they have have faith bro. Okay so I just like to ask any flat earthers that say that they have demonstration of this please send them to me because flat soil clearly did not show it in tonight's debate he didn't show any bottom up obstruction due to any perspective laws so I would like to see some actual real demonstrations if you have them of how the sunset works flat soil couldn't do it tonight I didn't see anything from him that actually did show what he was claiming to show. I just the closing statements now well not quite I was going to say we'll finish off the super just we got a few more to go but we'll we'll whip through them because I know you we should wrap this up here shortly. So if you haven't already hit that like button everybody and I'll do one final ticket pitch before the end because you're all dying for me to mention it one more time right and Dr. Dino says flat soil I grew up on a straight stretch of the Mississippi could see it and boats on it slip beneath the horizon it follows the curve sorry. So again all optical just like I demonstrated that Grayson says I didn't demonstrate I showed one of obstruction on flat surfaces I've done many demonstrations this I've got many globes try to debunk me that demonstrate problem structure on flat surfaces just because you see it have one obstruction doesn't make it a globe again we can demonstrate the optical effect on flat surfaces. All right and Dr. Dino strikes again asking you flat soiled any interest in debating Earth's age. Yeah but I don't know what's really going to base I'll just say it's a young earth but I can't say the exact date so I don't see what you can debate for an hour or something on that problem. All right so Chase Hatchett says convince me that flat earthers aren't just trolls or scammers. So Chase is accusing you of acting in bad faith so any thoughts there flat soiled. While you can go check my channel and we'll see who's at troll because it's a bit difficult to get troll and have thousands of videos and live streams dedicated to a subject I would say the troll I would say the trolls are the ones which are obsessed with the channel like my globe trolls which I ban at the end of the day and they create new accounts to come troll again. That's a troll. Well I just want to say like a lot of the prominent flat earthers are trolls because they're getting enough money to where they can take these flights themselves and demonstrate that the earth is not flat. Like I said I don't know if you flat soiled in South Africa he could take any of the four flights that I showed looking out the window holding a compass in his hand and he could show for himself and his whole audience that the earth is curved. He could do that if he wanted to. Did you know a compass doesn't work in a plane perfectly. It's going to show north. It deviates because of the magnetic fields inside to the plane so that's where you can't really use a compass properly on the plane. All right you always have some reason why you can't just look out the window. Hey this is the globe argument. I asked Wolfie to do it. He said you can't do it on a plane. All right he's a global. You know what you can do on a plane is look out the window and that one shows you that the earth is flat. No. All right. According to your model according to your model you can't see earth curve in an airplane. Even though you can't see earth curve. Wait wait wait. You're misunderstanding me. Hold on you're misunderstanding me. When I say look out the window and see that it's curved. I'm saying you can look at the land that you are passing and so you can see the actual route that the flight is taking and from the route you can know that the earth cannot be flat because of the flight routes. All right last word there flat so we will move on. Okay based on even Wolfie's showing that in the cockpit by flying it only shows taking deviation and you don't see the deviation. How do you know what I'm saying. That's what listen to what I'm saying. Right closing statements. I was going to say we yeah we're going to try to move on. I'm sorry they're Grayson but yeah there might be a chance to respond if you hold your thought if we get another question so Mark Reed comes in says after show on Mark Reed great job Grayson no explanation besides bad photos and terrible excuses. So I just message Mark and I asked him for the link to the after show so you're probably both welcome to join there. I might take a rain check just because I have a flight tomorrow out to the old debate con. Let's carry on though. Yeah I think we've we've already touched on a lot of that there Mark. If flat so it flies to the debate con tomorrow in Dallas going from Johannesburg to Dallas. He can look out the window see what route he takes and see that the earth is not flat flying over ocean. Well done. Okay. Next one. Esteban Ilbaca says flat so it flight dynamics don't imply flat earth. It's assumed in simplify models but accounted for in advanced Coriolis requires one frame of reference the rotating one but it affects objects moving in it. I thought on that. First of all you can ask any pilot they don't account for its rotation because of flight dynamics and secondly know Coriolis requires to reference frames not one so he's literally speaking out of ignorance. Okay what the commenter said was accurate. All right let's continue on there. We only got a couple more to go. We'll try to whip through them so Goma says how do you circumnavigate a flat or 30 seconds there flat so it easy. Let's say you walk around a pool. You've just circumnavigated your pool. All right. Let's carry on there. Wait I believe flood zoid is moon a sphere or disk. Why can we only see one side. I have no idea. It does point more to a spherical kind of look but I wouldn't say if it's flat or a disk. I'm sorry disk or a sphere. I don't know. Is it made of cheese or plasma. Oh maybe both plasma cheese. How's that. Oh yummy. All right let's carry on. L.J. says why wouldn't the sunlight half the spinning ball. That's for you Grayson. Why wouldn't the sun light up half the spinning ball because when you light up a sphere you don't see 50% of it. I mean that's just not how that works in real life so it's a false premise. Any thoughts over there before we move on. Yeah according to your model it will light up 50% at a time. Nope you are mistaken if you think that's the model. All right well let's carry on. I just posted the after show link to Mark's stream yard in the chat there so if you guys want to join that you're welcome to it and I just put the YouTube link for all of you in the chat so there you go Mark Reed. I think I've done everything I can for your super chat. Maybe I'll pop in for a second. All right so retro bill says the opposite of whatever Mark Reed said. Well we'll get out of that what we can. Yeah hooligan says Ryan what are you doing this weekend. Oh Justin that's the other moderator that's been joining us on modern day debate. Justin has actually got a really awesome you know musical history working with some really prestigious acts like Rolling Stones and you know you name it he's probably worked with them like super cool guy you know I couldn't believe the amount of awesome people he's interacted with but what am I doing this weekend. Of course you all know what I'm doing this weekend. I'll pitch it now I'm going to be a debate con for and hopefully if you guys are in the area I'll see you there. We've got all kinds of amazing perks there are two ticket tiers so you can actually get a VIP ticket and get access to extra perks so check out the tickets in the description if you want to be there if you can't be there we're going to have all of the debates posted on YouTube. So you know if you want to help support by putting in super chats or super chats tomorrow that's great or if not you want the signed emblem you want to sign picture of your favorite speaker and you want to just throw some in the crowd fund we appreciate that too. Anything extra is going to go towards the next debate con that'll be my last pitch for that is the last chance for you guys to get tickets from my perspective. Justin will get in your ear tomorrow night so lj says basic theory tell everyone you believe in the moon landing. Yeah the moon landing is pretty obvious like it happened because again the USSR observed it happened right they were monitoring the radio signals that matched the Doppler shift of the moon they observed it happened. That's why even though it was in their own geopolitical interest in order to tell the world that America faked it that was to their advantage they did not do that because their scientists and engineers verified that it did happen even though you know if they had told everyone was fake and they had poison the well because they they would have had the capability of providing evidence that it was fake right their governmental agency with scientists and engineers they could have provided evidence if it was fake fact that they didn't either means that the Russia and the US were secretly working together and the Cold War was one giant global conspiracy or we really went to the moon which one's more likely all right next one coming in a spanky balls says flat earth guy how much money did it cost to build the flat earth that's a strange question. Flat Earth is just reality you can't build it it doesn't cost money it's observable demonstrate well and I just have to say my favorite speaker that's definitely going to be there but we go west towards David Wood. Just point that out yeah definitely I was they they're all they're all great speakers and I think amongst it all I mean I just got to do another quick shout out to Leo Philius who's going to be the MVP I think of debate con for how many debates 3-4 debates are you doing my goodness and then we hope to do some debate after review at my hotel room because we're fun like that and maybe have a few drinks and be silly and talk about the debates so let's carry on LJ says basic theory drop the link for one non CGI space footage video. I don't have it off hand but you know these are readily available I mean there's there's plenty of photos of the earth taken from space if you're not arranging tin foil conspiracy theorist. No actual photos just images just images okay. All right that's just renditions before we go into closing statements we have one last super chat so if you're typing out a super chat right now we're going to cap it here so I'm sorry if you don't get yours read Esteban ill back as says flat soy don't lie not accounting for Coriolis because plan planes can correct course is not the same as flight dynamics not accounting for it Coriolis only requires one frame physics disagrees with you so I kind of butchered that one so run through a quick quick flat soy don't lie not accounting for Coriolis because planets can correct course is not the same as flight dynamics not accounting for it Coriolis only requires one frame physics disagrees with you so thoughts on that before closing statements. You're on your mute here I take you I'll ask you to come off there. Yes I was trying to look for the Coriolis effect explanation but yeah it requires two reference frames the fact that he thinks it only requires one shows he's just saying not and being ignorant and if he wants to prove it I suggest he go and explain to everybody in history how Coriolis only requires one reference from it's a common fact learned it in physics class you're just you're just hilariously mistaken people are trying to to provide you with the actual information here but you're just doubling down and you're done in Kruger and saying though actually I'm right and physics is wrong. All right last word to you there flat soy I can get you actual citations if you want to. Would you like that. I would like that. Frantically I'm trying to get it on screen for you. Let's see if I can share my screen and then I would like an apology from you. How's that in physics the Coriolis force is an inertial or fictitious force that acts in motion within a frame of reference that retaches respect to an inertial frame two frames. Yeah but you only need like you only need to frames. The only calculations in one coordinate system right. Sorry nobody said calculations this is an actual effect which requires two reference frames. You said I am done in Kruger and ignorant to the subject but you don't even know how to tell me what Coriolis was. So I'm asking you for an apology because I got it on screen two reference frames. No what you're reading on screen is not saying what you're concluding from it. That's the difference. You are misinterpreting what you're reading cool to reference frames inertial reference frame and non-inertial again the moving the moving object is in the not is in the inertial reference frame and you in the moving reference frame watching that parent deviation is in the non-inertial reference frame. This has to always be with Coriolis you require two reference frames. All right. Let us go into some closing statements. So one minute on the clock over to you Grayson close us out on your thoughts on this discussion and where you think we're at. Okay. So we didn't really get to hear. I mean he tried to show demonstrations that showed how a sun sets on a flat earth and utterly failed to demonstrate that I'm sorry flat. So I know you think that you really did something there but it you showed a bunch of bottle caps on our board and I didn't see any bottom up obstruction again. We know it's not just an optical effect because nothing in the physics of optics can explain that. Okay. It's not just some sort of diffraction or angular resolution will limit it's nothing to do with optics. We know how it works and with the flight times it was a complete and utter dodge. He knows that is literally just straight not possible for the earth to be flat and for us to have the flat times that we the flight times that we do anyone can look at the flight times the information is available to literally everyone. If you go through you compare enough cities you can prove for yourself that the earth cannot possibly be flat. All right. That's time there. All right. One minute on the floor. Closing thoughts. Flood. Okay. Notice guys the only one who did show demonstrations and was able to explain everything was the flat side. The other guy just I don't see it. No and also note that the Coriolis claim. He doesn't understand our Coriolis debunks the globe based on your globe model. The flight times between LA and North Carolina Charlotte North Carolina would have a deviation of four hours difference which debunks your claim of the globe. Also note that everything I was able to demonstrate and explain on a flat earth which yeah I didn't see one demonstration from him other than no thanks guys. All right well thank you and thanks to both of our speakers big round of virtual applause for both of them. We're going to be live again tomorrow so keep an eye out for a juicy debate. Justin's going to be here modding that one. I'm going to be on my way to Dallas of course for debate con for you're not going to want to miss it. All those debates are going to be free and posted up live here but if you can make it out to the area we'd love to see you there you know and fill up our space you know we can make a fun fun time out of it again like last time where James was messaging and being like I just need to get a few more fold out chairs. You know it gets pretty fun sometimes so. All right so hit that like button everybody and we'll see you next time for more juicy debates cheers. I need to do a I need to redo my vocal take on that I swear hey everybody I hope you enjoyed the debate tonight and that you're all rocking out in the audience there I'm going to be heading out tomorrow fairly early in the day so I won't be hosting tomorrow's debate but keep an eye out Justin's going to be hanging out and rocking tomorrow's debate so yeah we're going to be heading down to Dallas if you didn't know if you didn't hear I thought I might let you know at least once while we're hanging out in the live chat don't know if you heard me but yeah hopefully it let us know in the live chat right now if you're going to be hanging out there as well. Always good to see who is going to be there oh I lost my YouTube page look at that you've all you've all up and left me just like that well there you go well tonight tomorrow we're actually going to be having quite a juicy one Hake is actually going to be joining us again with Mark Reid this one Justin's going to be hosting and it's going to be is the great reset reel so I hit the notification for that. They let me just hang that off there I'll just turn that audio off let me just get in this live chat see who's hanging out Kevin how's hanging out yahoo again is a reference in the old after show which we're going to be hanging out at iron horse good to see you there hanging. Let's see can't speak Justin Johnson flat AF. Yeah well I hope you guys had a good time and appreciate the fact that we keep putting on debates and giving platforms to people even if certain people don't like that it's so it's kind of our policy it's our thing over here modern-day debate so yeah if you haven't had a chance hit that like button share this out in the spaces that you'd like to have these debates and thanks for coming out there's that Canadian coming out to give me again right I try to try to keep it on the wraps every once in a while but yeah I'm going to go do some globe hugs and then go to bed from anathema aka pushups well you go do your pushups buddy I'm going to go get some rest and everybody hopefully you join us for the debate tomorrow and yeah good night cheers