 Good evening everybody and welcome to Modern Day Debate. Tonight we're going to be discussing globe earth versus flat earth and to kick us off we have Whitsit Getsit and his wife Kai is here, his better half and we are glad to have you so the floor is all yours. What up, thanks for having us. Hey guys. I'm going to share a screen and then she's going to start off for us. Share it with sound. Okay, we're just going to start off real gentle so can baby faking space is the earth flat? Well, we don't know exactly what they're doing because we're not the ones portraying the fraud but we have an idea as to what NASA is doing. So this clip here just shows that NASA already, NASA already admits that they use augmented reality in this clip here you can see to the left she just buzzes in this little plushie out of nowhere and she's grabbing it with augmented reality so you can pause it. And how are they doing it well their technologies advanced since they began perpetrating the fraud but now they're most likely using augmented reality contacts couple brands are mojo vision contacts they could also be using Microsoft Holo lens I don't know the exact company they're using but this is how they are doing the water bubbles in space this is how they're manipulating objects in space that look like they're floating they're not actually in the vacuum space so if we skip to let's go four minutes and 22 seconds this is an example of what they're seeing in their contacts so they're seeing these virtual objects and then they can see their hand and move it and manipulate it in real time they're not using Hollywood effects because those are mostly post production they had to find contracts with augmented reality so they could do this in real time and there are several videos that show the contracts that NASA has with augmented reality one company that they have in particular it's called telemetrics and if we go to 830 we can just look at some of the clips a lot of people don't know NASA's line because they don't watch the stuff that they put out everyone's too busy living their life so you can see here in this clip if you watch her fingers they start to morph as they're moving the microphone that's because the microphone is not actually there it's an object in augmented reality they have their contacts and that's how they're seeing it and manipulating it the computer program but it's not actually there so there's glitches all the time you can see this lady's necklace here it's like sentient it's moving and morphing with her neck it's not actually there so they're using the augmented reality with the stuffed animal that's how it looks like it's floating if we skip a little bit more we can actually see here right here at their contacts if you zoom in some of the clips you can actually see they're wearing these creepy contacts so this is how they may be doing it again we don't know all the ins and outs we're not the the liars but this is an idea as to how they're actually doing it and they've been doing it since the beginning so if we go to the other video and we go to right here let's see actually go to like 117 okay you can see their wires so they've been using this is before they had the technology we do now but they used wires for the moon landing and you can see that some of the lights studio lights um actually shimmer off the wire so you can see in this scene here and there's another scene where they're walking on along the astronaut to the right you can clearly see above him all the way up it reflects the light so yeah if space was real why do they have to lie about it why did they have to go out of their way to fake footage why not just actually go all right i'm gonna switch over to this other screen here all right so radio waves can be sent over 10 000 miles with no earth curvature obstruction actually what they claim is that and this never gets rebutted hopefully people actually robot the argument but it doesn't appear to ever happen but so they claim the radio waves go up in the air and hit the ionosphere and then bounce back down that's why they're able to go thousands of miles past the alleged earth curvature that would block them okay up to about 40 megahertz goes to the ionosphere and can bounce back down it's going to be testing a lab ionization can actually reflect radio waves up to 40 megahertz unfortunately for the globe earth model we actually have the world record up to 109 megahertz significantly too high to bounce off an ionosphere going up to 2800 to 3000 miles where it should be obstructed at 200 miles this objectively and physically refutes the claim of physical obstruction of earth curvature it's never refuted ever it's just they just say on a sphere even though i just explained why it can't be the ionosphere there is um another thing called specular reflections any concavity or convexity to the surface of water will not allow you to have a perfect specular reflection this is what you get with just a small disturbance in the lake if the lake is bending you can't have the light reflect off of it and give you a specular reflection we have long distance specular reflections many many many miles huge mountains reflecting specular reflections we consistently see far beyond the curvature of the earth claim right this is the one foot off the ground the curvature of the earth should be a one mile away the horizon is behind the oil rigs which is over 10 miles away people just say the word refraction over and over and over but don't know what that means but if you look here the horizon is actually not a physical place and that's what you're saying when you claim it's refraction you're claiming that the horizon is not a physical place so let me kind of explain this and hopefully figure it out the horizon is where the sky appears to meet the ground it's just an apparent location so here we zoom in and the bottom of this boat looks like it's kind of disappearing it's in the water and you can see the horizons behind it and if i go back the next day i'll see the boat further away and the next day i will be able to see it as far away this was going away from me it'd be the same thing to get more specific uh you have the sky ramping down and coming up this is what we see all the time that's where the word horizontal comes from is horizon and it moves up and down throughout the day therefore we've established that exactly what you would see on a plain earth is what we see it's exactly what you would see it moves up and down constantly it fluctuates it's just an apparent location the globe model claims it's a physical hump of earth curvature blocking things you must now substantiate that burden of proof of course it's actually not physical here is just scientific verification of why things disappear from the bottom up over a plain surface the reception and propagation angles fall below the angular resolution limit and then it begins to disappear from the bottom up and then here's a question that also always gets stopped if we're actually on a globe earth then that means the surface of the earth is curving down and away from you in all directions immediately from your feet in all directions the earth is curving down away from you how come whenever we take a drone and we go up in the air we actually see that the horizon rises up this question just always gets done it's like it just never why is the horizon rising up it's supposed to be going down and away from us in all directions make make sense on a flat earth doesn't make sense on a globe earth no one ever addresses it and here just to wrap this up because I don't I wasn't keeping up with time but uh this is the horizon moving up and down throughout one day so obviously this can't be the physical curve of the earth it's not breathing in and out it's not stretching so so in summation all we did was actually go and test the earth and found out that the claims of the globe aren't true and just repeating them ad nauseam means nothing we we need some actual substantial evidence and we need specific claims rebutting the evidence that refutes the globe model claim on the entire globe model depends on the claim radius value everything the radius value has been falsified uh we have observations requiring a brace to be over a quarter million miles so welcome to flat earth if someone wants to substantiate the r value without begging the question ignoring all the evidence against it we would love to hear it this is actually a cartoon it's not real and it is okay so the earth is flat don't make it weird all righty well thank you so much cayenne once it gets it for your opening statements there ah looks like jake's camera is working now so i'm going to get your face moved over a little bit there buddy but uh while we do that uh who would like to go first on the globe side jake why don't you go ahead and start i'll uh i'll go second mine is quick quick it all right go ahead uh jake we can't hear you yet you're on you buddy testing testing one two three can you hear me now we sure can okay um one second we can see you too which is uh which is good so uh everybody sorry that we were a little bit late i'll do a little bit of house keeping while jake gets his uh uh system ready there i think he's getting something ready uh yeah just remind you while we are going to do a q and a at the end of this uh keep those questions uh nice and light and friendly and related to the topic or as heavy as you want but related to the topic everybody and uh yeah are you ready there jake i am uh first off i apologize for my pale skin i am an inside person and a ginger on top of that so i am indeed a daywalker and i glow like the sun um i'm jake the fake jake and i am here to inquisit into this flat earth argument which seeks to invalidate a topic so settled that without a globe model the very civilization we live in would be unable to function this claim of a flat earth is absolutely extraordinary and as such requires extraordinary evidence to be proven which is exactly what our opponents here must do the burden of proof to disprove the settled science of the globe west squarely upon their shoulders and finally i shall finish up my introduction with a joke because i like it and i figure it may become handy later a dairy farm brought in a psychiatrist or psychologist an engineer and a physicist to attempt to increase milk production the psychologist offered that you should paint the walls blue and green to relax the cows and remind them of outside and hopefully increase milk production the engineer thinks and comes up with a new design and increases the throughput of the milking machine hopefully increasing profits from the milk company uh the physicist grabs a slate and a piece of chalk draws a circle and says imagine if you will that the cow is a sphere that joke is to illustrate the assumptions we make when doing science at a macro level before dialing in to more finer and finer models thank you for having me and i look forward to this conversation all right jake is looking forward to the open conversation so uh david i think you get up to still 10 minutes about there so uh david all kinds of time uh to present the uh the case for the globe there so the four is all yours all right well thank you for having me uh a long time listener in the show big fan excited to be on here and discussing this um so basically we're looking at two different claims and for claims to be supported they need evidence and so what we would define evidence as is objective facts that indicate whether or not a certain proposition is valid so that's two very important things it can be an objective fact but it cannot indicate it could indicate but it cannot be an objective fact so unless both of those are met then we don't end up you know with that being classified as evidence or good evidence so just to give an example um you know if we were trying to solve a murder of somebody who had been shot right um what would be evidence we would look at you know let's say we have a suspect and he's got gunpowder residue on his hands okay if if there is an explanation for that like we have video evidence of that person at a shooting range at the time of the murder then that wouldn't be considered evidence because that does not indicate that that person shot that individual and you can't be in two places at once obviously due to the you know known facts of reality so that wouldn't be considered evidence although it's an objective fact that they have gunpowder residue on their hand although it's an objective fact that you know shooting a gun causes gunpowder to end up on your hands that cannot indicate that that person committed that crime um and secondly if we don't have let's say there is no explanation for finding somebody with gunpowder residue on their hand but there is competing evidence that would rule out that possibility for example if the murder was committed somewhere on the east coast and the time of death was determined an hour and we could show that that person was far on the west coast an hour at that at that time the murder was committed despite not not having a actual explanation for how that gunpowder residue got there the fact that that person is physically too far away to have committed that crime at that time that would no longer be considered evidence so what we're being presented today is basically um the facts that are presented have to be shown logically and scientifically how they indicate the conclusion that's being presented um so I look forward to you know the open discussion and seeing how these things that are brought up directly indicate your conclusion and you know if if they cannot be explained otherwise scientifically by other facts all right well thank you jake and david for your opening statements there uh we're going to kick it into an open discussion and uh we're also going to remind you here that all of our guests are going to be linked in the description so if you like what you're hearing check out our speakers there uh they're also going to be linked in our podcast so check us out over there last thing i'm going to let you all know most importantly we are actually doing a live in person event and that's going to be saturday september 16th it's in houston texas and you do have also in our description links on how you can get tickets so gobble up those tickets and maybe we'll get another cute message from james of him saying i'm just getting some more folding out chairs everybody so we could sell some more tickets because last debate con went fantastic so without further ado uh let's kick it over to the other side to launch us into our open discussion all right so i had a couple of questions uh right off the bat if you guys would be so kind as to indulge me you know yes okay um so what is your understanding of the world that we live in like you guys didn't pause you didn't pause it an actual model you just made a claim i need to know what you guys actually believe in order to address it yeah i mean you didn't either but it's a stationary i believe i believe in the modern understanding of science that says that the earth is a sphere and that uh in case it wasn't clear my opening uh and that astrophysics physics etc is all proven science and that we are working to better understand ourselves every day so yeah shapes actually aren't science that's math that's geometry a sphere is not science and astrophysics admittedly is improvement science and is entirely theoretical and that's also just a misrepresentation but we say that the earth is what the empirical evidence says it is which is a stationary topographical plane and that the horizon's horizontal and that the horizon's just a parent and that the sky moves above us which is why we see everything in the sky move so we have the default empirical position it's how we experience the world you guys say it's actually the exact opposite of that and everything's an illusion so we're just kind of waiting on the evidence for that part everything is illusion what do you mean by that well the globe makes three positive claims does it i haven't so they are one that the surface of the earth is curving second instead the earth is rotating and third that there's a vacuum of space outside the earth and we're refuting those positive claims with actual science and physics and observations and experiments the flat earth now has the burden of proof to prove that our positive plane that the earth is flat is accurate and that the earth is not moving and that we can't possibly be in the middle of a vacuum and we're here to do that today and we hope that you will be here to to defend your side as well oh i'm happy to answer because there are claims there's claims that they make all the time but when you look into it there's not any evidence well one there's a couple of of things that didn't pardon me if i'm jumping all over you David feel free to no no no go ahead go ahead uh so if we are on a stationary plane how do you account for gps and television satellites because i used to install tv satellites and uh i can tell you it's a finicky fucking business yeah and you don't point them out straight up in the sky you point them in directions towards towers i i quite literally know people that own companies that do it i don't want to hear the the the false talking points you shoot them straight in the sky actually it depends on where you are uh so when i was doing in satellite install in alaska uh my elevation goals were average about 14 degrees above the horizon um this and you you had to shoot above any physical object uh you had to shoot out into space along the equatorial orbits of the geostationary satellites okay yeah the orbits of the stuff that doesn't move but um so gps so it does it does actually move it just moves at the exact same rate rate uh proportional to the earth's rotation at an extended distance away from the earth similar to how a wheel and a spoke on a bicycle tire operates at the exact same way the hub rotates at a faster speed in the center and a slower speed outside but they both rotate at the exact same rotational speed the radius let's give them a chance to respond to that jake and then we'll kick it over to david yeah so uh what part of satellites or gps would be impossible if the earth was stationary yeah you know what part about it would be impossible if the earth was stationary if the earth was stationary uh well you wouldn't be able to have the type of orbits that we see as happening in real life why not uh because there wouldn't be a well our modern understanding of physics entirely wouldn't be able to hold up to that really are you gonna keep saying really vague things are you gonna because actually whenever they do gps and satellites they account for real inertial forces which there are supposed to be real inertial forces which actually insinuates there's angular momentum from the sky secondly and this is this is really bad that you brought this up because there's actually using gps it shows that there's a preferred direction meaning that the quote unquote speed of light frees with direction but relativity your model's gravity claims specifically that the speed of light cannot vary that it's invariant as no preferred reference invariant in a perfect vacuum however through an imperfect medium or any medium its speed is variable it is actually the speed of light is not about the speed of photons it is about the speed of information okay the speed of light is constant the speed of light is constant and yes we have what we perceived to be speed based on the medium which is attenuation that's not the point it's that it's a preferred direction so in the same medium which is the at most the gps timing is different in one direction it's faster in one direction than the opposite direction you have any do you have any documentation that proves that claim oh yeah yeah absolutely i would love to see it okay i mean now you admit you admit that that debunked relatively no it doesn't all right let's let's because you haven't proven your claim let's look at it do you admit if it is true it would debunk relativity it would certain part of this way i would be interested to see it and then i will consider it after that because i'm not going to make a claim that seems like the science will move on okay let's move on to more simple observations because i feel like we don't need to get into gps and satellites and all these other things to prove whether the earth is flat or a sphere the simplest explanation such as you know a sunset how is that what the explanation for that on a flat earth the sun the sun moves away from us yeah it's just yeah but if it moves away it would just continually get smaller and smaller into a vanishing point if it's moving away horizontally in the distance why does it go below the horizon we actually there's actually videos um Dave Weiss has documented this like a dozen times or something where he actually films the sun literally like as he's described it vanishes and vanishes and it's not even going below the horizon it just is gone so it disappears above it disappears above the horizon i actually have a video i'd like to share if that's possible if i could share a screen i walk up for one second there to grab a drink what happened you guys are all quiet they were talking about how they didn't know that the sun disappears above the horizon sometimes well let's uh thoughts on that or or no i had a video i wanted to share in the meantime just so we can show you sure if that's okay but he's trying to share right now you're gonna share now david yeah all right go for it yeah so here's a video of drone footage of a sunset where at the observer height you see the sun disappearing below the horizon right and then the drone rises to a higher observer height and now that same sun is visible and you get to see it set again below the horizon so on a flat earth how would that be explained you don't you don't think you would see further as you got higher on the flatters no i'm saying why how would you be able to see the sun the sunset twice on a flat earth once it disappears past the vanishing point shouldn't it be gone your chain okay so you're changing your angle of view as you get higher above the earth yeah so you're able to see further and you're actually changing the resolution relationship with the propagation and receptioning so as you get higher the angle of view it's just Rayleigh's criteria you can prove it so when you get higher you see further on a flat earth sunsets work perfectly fine on a flat actually we have observations so actually well i'll just show you harvard university's experiment proving it then so i'm going to share my screen which actually showed this in the opener but let me share the screen really fast so you guys can see this here okay so you see these are two lasers so this would be akin to like a sun the circle of the sun right it's a circle of light as you change the aperture what happens to the the circle it starts to disappear from the bottom up blending into the convergence point which is the horizon yeah but who's changing the aperture it's the same camera yes it's just higher up it's just the observation height is just increased that's right so the relationship of propagation and reception angles relative to the resolution angle right changes it changes as you go up that's why it disappears so it's just it's provably possible on a flat earth and i'm actually going to show you a video because well i want to bring far away is the sun on a flat earth we don't have no claim we don't have to make that claim and i do want to correct if i said that it gets smaller and smaller i want to correct that yeah like what a solar filter it doesn't get particularly smaller although ironically the globe model claims it does have to get smaller during some it's like some no no no no like every single day it has to get 0.08 arc seconds smaller because it doesn't get smaller the path it traces through the sky changes the angle the size doesn't change it doesn't get smaller the angular size of the sun must change every day 0.08 arc seconds according to the globe model arc seconds don't measure size what you're measuring the angular size arc seconds is an angle it's a really small one but it is measurable and it's never been measured because think about this right like say this so say you're on a sphere and the reason the sun rises is because the earth you're basically doing an epic nosedive towards the sun every morning and then during sunset falling backwards away from it where the sun rises it's due it's because it's rotating yeah you're falling away from the sun and it's rotating around so the sunlight can't go through the middle of the earth you're not understanding yeah the reason that the sun rises on the globe earth is because we're basically falling towards it while we're spinning and then during sunset no falling towards it has nothing to do with it it has to do with the spinning what do you keep saying falling towards it okay we're spinning orbit has nothing to do with the sunset we're not talking about orbits we're talking about the rotation so we're spinning towards the sun it looks like it's rising above the earth in the globe model and then during sunset we're spinning away from the sun so it looks like it's falling down below the curve of the earth okay so on a globe on a sphere look you would have like this would be the sphere half the sphere if the sun rises over here and then comes up over here and then comes sets over here because the earth is spinning then that means that because of the geometry up at the top at noon it's going to be the closest to the sphere and then as as you come back down away it's going to be further away from the sphere a tiny amount where it would change angular size point 0 a r seconds at that thoughts over there Jake um i believe that you have conflated uh like you're what in what you just described you described the sun moving that is incorrect the earth is the one moving i just i just said that yes but in your demonstration you were attempting to conflate that the sun was moving when it's the earth that was moving well yeah i guess you don't yeah according to your model um of relativity right it is as if the sun is stationary relative to the earth right or it's as if the earth is stationary relative to the sun so they're they're equally valid it's as if the sun was moving around the earth or vice versa according to relativity so yeah you're spinning but it looks like the sun is moving it's the same difference geometrically though which is that there's a there's a sphere and if you're on the top of the sphere at noon the sun's closest to you and it would change point zero eight arc seconds a day and then it changes no so the only time that you are physically closer to the sun is whether or not the axial tilt of the earth has tilted you for closer or yeah like no seasons no okay that's a different thing so it changes point zero eight degrees throughout the course of the year because of the orbit it changes point zero eight arc seconds every day okay and how much is point zero eight arc seconds it's not very much but it is a measurable amount it would be perceptible with the human eye no but it would be perceptible with measuring devices it would be perceptible with the measuring devices that measure easily that that sensitivity so then if you're saying here that it's not a perceptible change but on a flat stationary plane where i mean you don't say how far away it is or how big it is but where the sun is moving around that plane and i don't know what direction but it's rotating around the plane as it gets further and further away it would be smaller until reaching a vanishing point like if i'm in okay that's what you're saying if i'm in if i'm in you know america and and as the sun is moving making its trace around the flat earth and it's over by you know australia like the sun is moving away from me it should it should decrease size until it vanishes so and and what you're saying about like falling towards the sun the earth is is just rotating on its axis that's the only hi uh sorry they're david but yeah so i don't i don't see how that's explained on a flat earth okay so like we're just gonna show we're just gonna show a video really quick that i mentioned before sure i gotta say i do find it funny that you you guys are claiming you're claiming angular size change should be detected when ironically your model claims it should be and it's not and actually we can explain why it doesn't change angular size because we don't have a geometric claim tied to it there's just a limit to our perspective and the sun's outside of that so it doesn't change angular size because we have a hyperbolic limited perspective which is testable and provable but here we're gonna show you a video i'm gonna change the angle i'm gonna show you a video yeah this this will show that it is is this actually this is one of them this is not not the one day that i have to find it so here you see the sun setting obviously right and then let's see what happens just demonstrating atmospheric lens oh so the sun can disappear above the horizon yeah no one's ever said they couldn't yeah okay so it's okay so it doesn't require physical it's the same reason why you see like shimmers above a highway on a hot day okay cool so is that ever not there what the atmospheric lensing yeah it depends on atmospheric varies on the conditions of the day at least one time in history that it's not been there really there that's called a pill of possibility you're just making stuff up so there's always those atmospheres that's not making stuff up we can measure the conditions of the atmosphere and see that it varies on a day-to-day basis that's not and it always has and it always has a vertical density gradient but but i just don't know but it so it's just but it's showing like it it can work on a flatter too like the point is that this is the sun's disappearing above the horizon correct how does the sun disappearing above the horizon indicate that the earth is flat this is what am i opening on evidence because it's just bringing things up how do you how is that a strawman it's just repeating what you said backwards even if we you know allow this point how is this indication that the earth is flat that's my whole point is is even if this can't be explained by the globe model which i think it can't but safer it can't how is this indicating that the earth is flat is this what we would expect on a flat earth all right so i'm going to try to answer and you guys are going to probably interrupted but so that's a strawman fallacy i never said that because the sun disappears above the horizon that proves the earth is flat okay i responded to the notion that the earth has to be on a globe or the earth has to be a globe for the sun to disappear behind the horizon so it was a rebuttal and then instead of addressing that your argument was directly refuted you then spun a strawman and claimed i said it proves the earth is flat i didn't do that though what this proves is that the sun can disappear above the horizon and are and the real question is do you think that that horizon is earth curvature so do you address that i didn't ask say that you indicated this proves the earth is flat i was asking you how does it and if it doesn't you could say that but that was my question i didn't say that you claim that this video proves the earth is flat i indicated how does this evidence support your proposition i was asking you a question how it was a rebuttal to your claim that the earth has to be a sphere for it to disappear behind the horizon but that doesn't that doesn't yeah that doesn't rebut it we can accept we can accept that what we can accept perfectly what you've just shown is an actual phenomenon that we see and it doesn't impact our our model it anyway exactly guys go ahead go ahead oh i was i don't know if you want to shift gears but because we are showing that sunsets can work on a flatter and they can work on the globe although we were just trying to there's other videos where the sun is disappearing above the horizon which couldn't work on the globe but um maybe something that only can work on a globe like the earth is spinning do you guys have any evidence of that that's exclusive to the globe not that it can work for both flatters and glovers but exclusive to the globe yeah you can measure um the differences in you can measure the differences that we see from pinpoint stars and the procession of planets venus mercury in that multiple time the procession of planets has nothing to do with this planet or moving across i can interrupt it every time i speak i think i don't know is it every time i speak or is it just like there's a little bit of interruption going back and forth all right go ahead go ahead yeah let's try to get our points across before we uh inject i promise everybody will get their chance to speak i'm sure just hold on your thoughts so the movement of the procession of the planets and that's actually called retrograde for example is not because the spin of the earth that's the orbit that's not what i was saying i'm saying from different points on the earth you're gonna observe that planet in different positions and you're gonna observe stars in different positions based on where you are on the earth how does that prove the earth is spinning that proves that the earth is a globe she asked about it and the stars were directly ahead above that wouldn't be the observations that we would see yeah it would actually but that's not the point how would it how do you prove because we have an azimuthal grid of vision which is how we make arm celestial measurements but your she asked how do you prove the earth is spinning again you can measure it against stars at long distances or how does that prove the earth is spinning well if you if you lock in on a singular point in the sky let's say for this instance the sun because it doesn't move relative to the earth more or less and you track no that's established scientific fact if you care to dispute that one i would love to see you published uh you point your measuring device at the star at the star and you can track its movement across the sky and just through basic trigonometry determine the amount of radial change over time which communicates the spin of the earth no it doesn't yes i want to know jake i want to know what if what if the stars and the objects in the sky are actually moving and the earth is stationary but the earth is i'm saying i'm saying what if the earth is stationary and the celestial things we see in the sky are actually rotating wouldn't we also observe the same thing wouldn't we also see them moving so it's not a completely in a completely closed system you could expect that but because we don't live in a closed system and we have multiple variables across all of uh across multiple disciplines and across different um like measuring devices and everything then no for instance for instance if the planet was stationary then you would not have to do the type of orbital calculations you have to do for interplanetary missions wait you just changed the topic though so no i didn't i i you're talking about you're talking can you not interrupt a female thank you you're talking about can you not interrupt a female just here you're talking about something i speak very good you're okay so what i asked for was something exclusive to the globe because we're making the argument while the earth is stationary the stars are moving and the sun is moving above us so we're going to see the same thing isn't it called sidereal sidereal rotation sidereal rotation so do you have direct measurement of the earth itself moving yes man okay yeah can we can we get that yeah uh look at the solar probes that are in orbit of the sun that track earth to relay information back over the deep space network oh my gosh okay even that's direct measure now even if solar probes were real okay they are they're even if they were there's a kinematic and dynamic equivalence in both newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics and you would be moving with the cosmos relative to the earth that's moving around it and you would perceive the same motion because there's a kinematic and dynamic equivalence it's called covariance and equivalence principle and relativity if you deny it you deny your own model secondly when you brought up the parallax which is what you're trying to say the star's displacements called parallax actually that's because of orbit that's because of orbit not because of the spin of the earth there's one second there that's because of the earth's alleged orbit not because of the spin of the earth should we clarify the difference between the two no if they're stationary then how is it orbiting okay no no no i'm having to correct your claim about your model all right obviously but let me explain no okay so if you're claiming parallax it's it's due to the orbit an orbit that doesn't exist so what is the explanation for parallax oh okay so now that we've dumped all over your claim now i'll address your diversion which is we see the stars move in the sky your model claims that's an illusion and the stars just look like they're moving in a circle in the sky because they're actually fixed relative to earth which is spinning and we just can't tell that the earth is spinning from the earth over time throughout the year we see the stars slightly move and change position as they spin you guys claim that's because the earth orbits around the sun which makes them look different of course we could just say that they're moving and that's why they look different so your evidence that the earth is moving around the sun is that the stars look like they're moving but they're not moving which proves that the earth is moving but you can't detect that it's moving that's not that's all still means that the earth moves around the sun in addition to that okay so why would the stars in the northern and southern hemisphere be rotating in opposite directions so are we every time that we refute one of the claims are we just going to ignore them and then change and divert to another claim this we're still talking about movement of the stars how is that a diversion we're talking about moving you acknowledge can you acknowledge what we just said first so what sounds to me like you sounded a bunch of techno about yeah like what was to be acknowledged there yeah i can i can comparably ignore you um however i do have a question and this is actually very related to what you just were talking about especially against parallax how how does a anemola form on a flat earth model what would you say whenever you diverted a way to shift this is this is actually this is regarding the parallax and the position of the sun which is the topic that we're talking about how does anemola move to your question there because that sounds like that might shift the gears a bit how does an anemola form on a flat earth model and anelima yeah yeah the sun moves the sun goes throughout the year okay okay and what's and what is what is the underlying mechanism for that procession oh you're asking me what causes the sun to move yes we have no i'm asking for wow that's crazy why the fuck are you here if you have no claims someone's an emotional little anyway um if you mind if you might wait so so what is causing this why are you so emotional so what's causing because i'm a human and i have emotions against things i'm passionate about so sue me so wait what is making the sun move in what's making the sun move in your model jake uh so i'm specifically asking about an anelima which is apparently the pronunciation according to uh i don't know i don't pronounce things very well on a day-to-day basis uh it is a figure eight pattern that you may have seen yeah okay very much for for chat for chat for chat i thought we kind of moved past that because no i'm asking like the reason i asked that is because in our model the globe and everything it is due to axial tilt and the orbit around the sun okay yeah they claimed that the tilt the way they discovered the tilt was because the sun is on an ecliptic so if the earth isn't a ball that's tilted it would just be the sun at an angle moving around the earth which is the actual observation empirically you guys claim it's an illusion because we're tilted so i want to know jake why is the sun moving in your model why is the sun moving in what in what frame of reference are you are we talking sorry are you talking about the anelima are you talking about the visual are you talking about like the day and night cycle why the sun moves through the sky in our model yeah sure no please okay i'm asking okay no sure frame of reference are we talking about the earth well yes the only one actually accessible again kai what frame of reference are we talking about to properly answer your question please the earth i asked kai here okay so within respect of the earth how does the sun move is that the question it's because of rotation okay do we have any exclusive evidence that the earth is moving around the sun yes that's a great question yes we do seasons is just begging the question what do you mean it's just begging the question yeah observable phenomenon yes but you're assuming your cause of the phenomena so the sun can just be moving around the earth i'm sign agrees i'm sign agrees what about um in this case well if you won't take seasons which is a perfectly salient expression no it's stellar parallax we just we just i just explained to you why stellar parallax isn't exclusive to the earth orbiting the sun i literally just explained what do you mean by exclusive then and then you call it techno battle what do you mean by exclusive then it only would it's evidence that is only going to be sufficiently explained by the earth orbiting the sun the seasons will only be sufficiently explained by the earth orbiting you disagree with the theory of relativity then so which is how i'll just side i'll just side i'll just pull up some quotes i want to know though david because people say that seasons are an example of this when the when the northern hemisphere is farthest from the sun what season is it david oh it's summer when it's farthest from the sun yeah and it's closest you're asking and it's closest the seasons have nothing to do with the distance i'm just saying but how does that make any sense i thought that was that's the question it makes sense because the seasons don't have to do with the distance from the sun it has to do the angle at which the earth is tilted towards the sun so in the northern hemisphere during the first half of the year based on our 23 point whatever degree tilt it's less energy per square meter for summer and that's why we have those seasons so it has nothing to do with how close it is to the sun i know during its work second they're kind oh sorry sorry go ahead david why is there more daylight yes as it's farther why is there more what are you talking about the summer it's that's not when it's i'm saying i'm saying in the summer in the northern hemisphere there's more daylight and it's farthest from the sun okay and it's tilted more towards the sun so it's receiving more energy from the sun that's correct okay so do you guys have how on a how on a flat earth would seasons work like are you so the sun is over top of you yeah the sun is moving it's changing height it's it's becoming it's coming closer as you see in the anilina why does it even need to do that no i'm asking you what your explanation is for the for the variation the seasons that we see in the discrepancies between the northern and southern hemisphere on a flat earth the sun changes position throughout the year yeah and that's what the anilina is you guys just so no because when i asked you how far away your model the sun is you told me you don't know you tell me you don't know the dimensions of it so how do you know that it's changing its height no we don't have to look it's changing how do you know it's coming closer dude listen buddy it's changing its position over top of the earth you guys see that and then say oh it's an illusion we're tilted wobbling three different wobbles spinning revolving around the sun and it makes it look like the sun is moving position throughout the year oh but i just explained how closer wouldn't necessarily cause there to be a higher temperatures it has to do with the tilt has nothing to do with the distance so just changing the distance how is that increasing the temperature how is that changing the weather patterns how is that accounting for the seasons okay all you're saying is is that it's just not it's not about height dude the sun moves in and out over top of the earth you understand that it changes its position that's what the anilina proves you guys took it and then said never mind it's an illusion this is what i want to know the position of the sun you know how it moves but you don't know how far away it is and you don't know how big it what's what i think is funny bro is i don't have to make claims about how far away the sun is this is what always happens you guys think you don't have to make any it's like substantiate any of the globe models claims because showing your interest degree right so you don't ever answer our questions i asked you do you have exclusive evidence that the earth moves around the sun ducted do you have any evidence that it's curbing ducted she asked you does the earth do you have any evidence the earth spins then someone brings up parallax do you guys have any evidence that the earth is curving let's start there can can we have physical empirical measurements of the curvature of the surface of the earth because we see that the horizon's horizontal we see that the horizon moves we measure the earth as if it's flat we see hundreds of miles we see hundreds of miles so the default position is that the earth is a plane why would see hundreds of miles be a problem wait wait do you agree that the globe model claims that the globe is just so big that it looks like it's flat yeah okay so do you agree that on our perspective of a human being you're not going to be able to see the the curvature at our observer height of course not okay so do you agree that the default position based on observation and empirical evidence is that the earth is a plane no if how is it not you just said it looks flat if you just say it looks flat if the only thing you have to go on is a singular person's perspective on a singular point yeah but that's dumb but we have other observations we have tons of other observations exactly hey what's the physical empirical measurement of earth curvature you want the formula i want a physical measurements and empirically verified measurements of earth curvature on the real world measurement you want me to make a claim they make a tape measure that's 2000 miles long no no i want you to actually verify that the surface of the earth is curving in reality yeah i'm gonna throw a little curve ball in here guys just to kind of shift gears if you don't mind we got about 10 minutes left of the open discussion you know unless we go a little over time which i don't mind usually uh but i'm gonna inject a little substance that does that usually gets talked about in these debates uh what's keeping me uh my feet on the floor here guys what's keeping me down though as soon as we need an earth curvature we gotta duck away from it see i'm doing like a minute or two on earth curvature but i want to go into that sure yeah i haven't debating on one address for four years and the question hasn't been answered yet so well what's up with that what what question hasn't been answered can i get physical empirical measurement of earth curvature on the earth please yes yeah where go to the go to the top of the empire state building and and see if you can see the sears tower okay you can see further you can see further when you get higher on a flatter no i'm saying there's there's gonna be uh you're not going to be able to see chicago it doesn't matter if you go on top of new york you're not going to be able to see chicago you can't see forever even then in downtown la you can't see that far because of the pollution so the atmosphere the atmosphere how far you can see so what we're wanting is specific measurement because that that is actually a really interesting point pad if i may um it is indeed the atmosphere does indeed disrupt vision at some point do you know the actual um total distance you should be able to see on a flatter is um unobstructed eight inches per mile no flat oh flatter oh and that's not the right formula and that's not the right and you know it's not money on it what's the right formula for under a hundred miles it's an approximation the right thousand yeah no it's not a thousand it's within inches with up to a thousand miles do you want to bet a hundred bucks on it do we live on a parabola is a go a globe no strong enough up to it's an accurate formula up to a thousand miles in fact it gives the it gives the benefits it gives a benefit to the globe earthers so i know because my question hasn't been answered yet how far how far no that's not an obfuscation it's a returning to the point that you guys did you obviously every time no it's returning to the point you have not yet answered how far should you be able to see on a flatter earth well we'd have to know the size i don't know no we wouldn't have to know the size no it's based on atmospheric conditions it's based on atmospheric you want to be like no i want to try hypothetical hypothetical no i'm not trying to trap i'm trying to ask a serious question did i i just tried to answer and you interrupted it it's based it's based on atmospheric conditions and the answer all right bro you're scared of answers right that's the reality he said hypothetically what would be the limit to how far off that's an incoherent question because we have to account for all the variables such as so that is why i attempted to clarify before you started jumping in on me in let's say it is best atmospheric conditions that you can have what is the expected limit of sight on a flat earth not regarding its size just how far should you be able to see what's the best atmospheric conditions clear and you want the refractive index is that what you're like the actual number it's all based on the propagation and reception angles of whatever you're observing relative to your eye level thus your angular resolution angle and the aperture and then the atmospheric conditions if you want to ask some superficial vague question as if we should see forever and no that's not superficial or vague this is asking for specifics no actually you you you're incessantly interrupting and asking ridiculous questions and when i offer specificity we change the subject how that's what's happened you would have this question so in case the chat is not aware what he is attempting to do is differentiate a bunch of different things and throw in variables that are not relevant to the question i'm asking because it is not about what we actually i'm asking a hypothetical not an empirical so hypothetically in a clear sky situation how far should you be able to see on a flat earth um hey buddy when you say that i just brought up a bunch of variables that have nothing to do with it you might think you're convincing the audience with vague hand wave dismissal but you're not and you're also not avoiding the question and answer it just answer the question actually i've already answered the question you ignored my answer and you're about to interrupt me again so it's based on the propagation angles and the reception angles relative to eye level and angular resolution angle and when those propagation reception angles of said object fall below your resolution angle it loses resolvability and you can't see it anymore an additional variable is the attenuation of light which is directly proportionate to the density and turbulence of the medium right so we have to know the actual variables to ever begin to answer the question you have to know what you're looking at what your height is what the atmosphere conditions are and what the reception and propagation angles are these are not random nonsense irrelevant very exclusive observer height refraction index of 1.002 we do know that we're not we do know however we're not supposed to see past a certain point on the globe but we do and we have many if i may no no we have no i need to follow up my question to will well we're gonna let chi wrap it up and then hold on to your question there jake so we have many observations that surpass how far we're supposed to see such and that don't work on a global model and not even just observations shooting radio waves etc all right let's make it go past the curve of the earth that should be blocked okay go ahead back to my back to my original question taking into consideration everything what sit said let's assume the clear atmosphere at zero degrees Celsius an infinitely bright object that is infinitely sized at infinite distance how far away should you be able to be before you can see us like oh sorry infinite distance how far away does it take before you can see that i'm asking me before you can't see that yeah yeah i'm asking a hypothetical to illustrate i'm asking a hypothetical to test your hypothesis an infinitely bright and infinitely big objects that's your version yes because i'm trying to ask a question and get to your model an infinitely bright and infinitely big object still would have a limit to how far we can see it right yeah there still would be a resolution limit that's why you say we can't see the sun so infinitely bright and infinitely big the sun's infinitely big no that's not what we're saying because infinitely big is one of the most ignorant inept phrases i've probably ever okay infinitely big okay say it's 400 feet tall there we go how about that okay okay so it'll be specific to the the actual angles which i'm not doing the math off top of my head but it's whatever the observer's height is right where you're saying you're seeing you're seeing too far i can't do it bro you got this thing you guys can you know you know when the ron crosses someone up at the top of the key and then he starts to go and lay up and then someone's talking about someone just tackles him if you don't actually defeat the ron if you tackle him before he gets to shoot a shot just so you know the reason we've asked the same question and continuously revised it but we keep just getting the same answer when we're looking for numbers we're looking for a number yeah but you need variables to establish a final product an estimate you can estimate something and based on the the conditions yeah it'll be slightly different but you can estimate you could say on a flat earth can we see a thousand miles away on perfect atmospheric conditions based on if you get high enough yet but why do you need to get high enough because it changes your angle of view bro we've said that five times so wait how do you how do you how did you guys come up with the radius value how did you guys verify that what was done to verify that um plenty of experiments name one can you name one please uh what's that great guy's name oh my god you know who i'm gonna aerosolies aerosolies an old one but like yeah and what did you do yeah what did you do measured geometry yeah exactly and that's how we figured out most of these things just using trigonometry how's that how's that um because you measured the shadows in different cities like you i'm sure you're familiar with the experiment i don't know why you're are you gonna refute it or you're just gonna ask me to know because i want you because you're making a claim you're asking us for numbers but you don't even actually have numbers yourself because you don't actually what numbers you have to actually the radius of the earth i do have numbers of the radius of the earth i'm asking you how did you get those and i just told you that you told me so it's an experiment yeah that has been repeated countless times over with but it's not we didn't just take aerosolies word for it you know people redo this all the time and no they don't yeah they do they've actually they recreate experiments all the time so so what did they what did they do again to remind me what did they do again what did he do he doesn't know man it's just the first go i know i mean this is this is like you're gonna refute it like you're you keep asking me what are you told me because i want because i want you to break down everybody's heard aerosolies name a million times like and you guys keep asking me what so so you're so confident in the size you're so confident in the radius of the earth which dictates how far you should see but we're wanting to actually establish that you how you got that that value right because we want to know if you go okay fine to answer your question because it's apparently too hard for you to remember if you do aerosolies like you're used shadow length at the same time of day in multiple locations across the earth in order to get an in angle from the sun to the earth which he then calculated as to figure out the radius there are also other ways of doing it but that's the way he used the issue with aerosolies is he assumed a distance to the sun and that it was no he actually no he didn't think he calculated the distance to the sun based on his measurements was he correct i don't know i don't he didn't calculate the distance to the sun i don't even know you're talking about the problem he assumed he assumed the distance and he also already assumed that the earth was a sphere and actually assumed infinitely far away so do you guys have another how did that affect the validity of his experiment and the reproducibility of it if it's a more if it's a local sun on a flat surface you get the same results yeah you can do this you can do this experiment it's an observation two points so you can get this on hundreds of points you can do this observation with two wine bottles on your kitchen floor can you do it with five yes five minutes guys so aerosolies actually did so if we don't use aerosolies if we don't use if we don't use aerosolies can do you have another example david do you have another example david of where and how they measured the radius of the earth no i don't i don't need one that's it you only so if we're so confident that the earth is a globe we have to rely on some dead dude from grease like i just said we're not relying on his results this yes that's what the whole model is built on has been reproduced over and over to prove its validity that's how science works we never take somebody's word for it how is it not an experiment well it's not science yeah it's not an experiment it's an observation it's an option and you assume the earth a sphere i don't know how you guys don't understand this you assume the earth a sphere and then you try to calculate based on the assumption of spherical geometry and then you guys claim it's proof the earth's a sphere it's very very fallacious just say that you don't assume things but you're you're the model is all based upon whether or not the radius of the earth it's a sphere i'm still talking so the model of the earth is completely based upon the radius everything everything with the stars and the planets and the spin is all based upon the radius and when i asked you specifically how they got the size you pointed out Eratosthenes which he had to do a lot of assumptions to even get that value and i'm asking you how later how do we actually know he was correct right he made a guess how do we know in modern times in modern times um like before they went to before they went to the moon how do we know that he was actually correct what did they do to actually establish the radius we know in modern times how he's correct by reproducing the experiment with hundreds of more data points and validating the results so they can be explained on flat earth yeah we already covered that how can they be replicated on the flat earth why can it not be it can't be explained on a flat earth with multiple what do you mean with a localized light source because you just heard someone say that you heard someone like nilda grass tyson or whoever say oh it doesn't work with three so you have have you disproved have you disproved eratosthenes experiment you have you have evidence because it also because it's not it's not exclusive to a globe it's not exclusive to a globe you're so funny is he only used two sticks so when you guys claim that we did a thousand years ago you didn't do anything according to your own story if it's only two then it works yeah he only used two and we so then you guys should stop using more than two then you guys should stop saying we've recreated we've recreated you guys should stop saying that if it was a flat earth and the sun was above a flat plane the angle of the shadows wouldn't how would that be different how would the angle of the shadows be different if if it's the sun is vertically directly above that's what he was measuring the divergent rays bro you can replicate this with a million different little nails on a flat surface and you can you can actually do the math to make your flat table a sphere so this is why it's so annoying because you guys just repeat talking points yeah yes they had to send people to the moon with this information they had to know how big the earth was in order to send like to calculate how much fuel they would need to get to the moon and you're saying that they the only way that they've ever verified this was I'm not saying that's the only way I'm just saying I asked specifically and that's all you got what about you Jake yeah do you guys have any actual verification of the race of the earth because if that value is wrong then your entire belief system is wrong well you can measure it modernly using uh no before they went to the moon before they went to the moon yeah and not aerotostomies fine you can measure the radius of the earth via low earth orbit and using radio beacons on different points of it and using cal the orbital calculations from now you need the radius values to get you would need the radius value to get in the low earth orbit no you can overshoot and just kind of get there no you wouldn't know to maintain orbit really yes really so uh if you overshoot if you just throw a bunch of uh delta v at an object and get it into orbit um what happens you're not going to be able to attain the perfect velocity and trajectory if you overshoot to free fall around the ball on a geodesic path they use the r value for the first low earth attempt they use the r value for the first low earth attempt orbital mechanics requires the r value you can also just put yourself up there and then using radio locations on the ground pinpoint the rotation of that object determine its speed and then use trigonometry again to reverse the to reverse engineer the value of the radius of the earth put yourself up there you mean people on space yes i do mean i'm talking about the i'm but i'm asking before they even went to i am to mercury gemini hey can we do can you talk about anything that you don't just blindly believe daddy government about can we can we go out and test the surface and not take government yeah yeah daddy government told you into the moon i get it i get it but the real the real question is hey if the earth's sphere we should be able to easily go out and test and verify i went out and tested the earth and i saw things way beyond the predicted value of the globe you guys haven't gone out and tested the earth so can you tell me exactly how i can go out and find the curve of the earth i've asked about seven you can calculate it i've said that so many times and not using eight eighth eight inches per mile squared what you can calculate eight inches per mile squared is is accurate up to a thousand miles if you're not making an observation up to a thousand yes it is it's within inches dude it's within inches that's why every time we ask the global wait wait then show us the real formula up to a thousand miles and let's compare them side by side can they just disappear because you just got you guys all just repeat talking points so that's all the model is hold on hold on you said it's up it's accurate up to a thousand miles but the earth is not a thousand miles around it is nearly only four thousand miles that's right we for one you're gonna let jake wrap up there go ahead buddy we only use it so for observations up to a thousand miles which is more than enough no it's not because the earth is larger than a thousand miles i get that you have to incessantly interrupt because you lack impulse control but you're interrupting me because it was my turn to speak as the moderator said so if you care to listen to us but bro bro let us let us go into the q&a fellas so if i may just wrap up with one point all right we'll do because it is important too much no it's not i don't mean two minutes i just need like 45 seconds all right the issue with the question with issue with the formula you have provided is that it is squared which means it is a parabolic formula and does not describe the radius of a circle thank you for that very profound can i respond now yeah by all means thank you so much okay yeah it's accurate up to a thousand miles per hour so we i mean up to a thousand miles so we use it to make observations up to a thousand miles to test the claimed convexity rate of the globe model do you understand that how do you include the observer height and using that formula how do you factor that in well just give you the general rate like you can use the earth curve under the earth curve calculator to get your observer height to use your observer height it's the same it's the same ratio and it's accurate if you just plug a distance in using eight inches per mile square and saying oh there should be the observer height has to be accounted for correct that's not accounted for using that parabolic okay that of course you have to account for observer approximation yeah you have to account for observer height of course yeah and if you can see further that would that would be calculating i level like with the ground that would be like if you're laying flat on the ground that like i agree so so if you if you account for the observer height and put that into the the calculation the proper parabola above the level of the ground and it is a longer accurate at your exactly low flame thousand miles okay see this is what's so funny you guys don't understand it's just the actual rate of the curvature of the surface okay that means that over this distance there's this much curvature if we're gonna go make it that is correct on a constant arc wait he was talking yeah but he has no control over himself it's been the whole time so please darling don't get me hard my my let's go into the q and a everybody before we get too excited over here all right don't don't get all don't get all excited in the live chat okay uh all right so we are gonna a whip into q and a here thanks everybody for your super chats thanks to our speakers for our open discussion i'm glad everybody's having a good time uh you know here tonight at modern day debate uh so keep your questions friendly and i'll read them so arine uh callacay for five dollars says houston we have a problem abort abort earth is seriously flat it's glabortion time well thank you there's not really a question there but i figured i'd do a voice for you or something because uh we don't have much to comment i think on that uh but thank you cool lambo for ten dollars the earth is flat because bible please admit this for the sake of brevity is that a serious question not to us i think they're yeah i think that's for the flat earth side so right they're they're asking if it's biblically based or can you say oh you cut out your audio go ahead go ahead we repeat the question is uh the question was the earth is flat because bible please admit this for the sake of brevity yeah i just they're saying that we think the earth is flat because of the bible what it's so funny it's like everything you guys say have to be lies so like it wasn't something we said that was a super chef that said i know but i'm talking about our side my it's our answer right i actually think that's on your side but there's a lot of flat earthers i know who are uh biblically flat earthers so well yeah we got we got like usually two minutes to kind of bounce the question back but yeah let's let witsit get sit and chi answer the question there um that way they can clear any smoke on that so uh final thoughts their fellows we know it's uh we know it's not curving because of laser tests um observe long distance observations also the distances of radio waves we know because of flight manuals flights are not accounting for curving earth so it's not because of the bible look here's the deal and this is the i've had to expanse almost every debate we don't think the earth is flat because the bible says it there are tons of ancient cosmologies and religions that say the earth is a stationary plane the evidence shows that the earth is a stationary topographical plane only those who won't think for themselves and test it still believe whatever they vaguely remember the consensus is it's nothing to do with oh a book said it and i am religious so it must be true has absolutely nothing to do with that it's a desperate straw man an attempt to poison the well because you guys can't debate the actual thoughts all right um well they did call you out a little bit so if you guys have any thoughts there we'll try to we'll flush that out or do you want us to continue on i mean as far as the not being able to go out and do the experiments patently absurd uh someone i know of who has actually done an experiment to prove that the earth does in fact have curvature would be ross blotcher he went out to the salt and seen and uh invited a whole bunch of um flat earthers there and they came up with the procedure for the experiment together and the results did show a globe yeah i bet it did and by all means please look into the information it's yeah i yeah i have no problem doing that no it's all good i mean it's just easy to just say things all right so just try i feel dropped the evidence in here i'll happily look at it and i guarantee it doesn't prove you're supposed when you say long distance observations what was the distance and what was the observer height like what was what are you referring to specifically what was something you saw that was too far behind the curve yeah can it go from 255 miles away i don't remember the exact uh observer height top my head but it should have been hidden by the top of the mountain using the observer height obviously should have been obstructed by an additional mile and a half above the mountain a mile and a half of curvature should have been above the top of the kanagu mountain 255 miles away and you know what your side says oh it's refraction the mountain's not really there it got lifted up um uh like two miles and it just looks like it's there exactly where it is exactly what it looks like i mean if if for instance the exact same caveat applies to your side as ours then yeah atmospheric conditions could have caused that similar to the way that you were mentioning atmospheric conditions would have impacted the distance that you can see on a flat earth and you know that's a scientifically provable thing and you can go measure the density and turbulence of the medium and show there's an attenuation rate and you can show that there's actual angular resolution relationship based on Rayleigh's criteria now just baselessly claiming that however far you see must mean what about when using infrared infrared you see further because i'm glad you brought that up exactly okay so watch this check this so and this is very interesting right i've never heard a rebuttal to this ever okay so infrared has longer wavelength so it's less affected by refraction so if i'm seeing if i'm seeing super far away right and it's because i'm seeing beyond the curvature of the earth but they say it's because there's refraction right so it lifted the mountains up well if i bring infrared out then i should actually see more of the mountains blocked because now i'm cutting down on refraction in reality when we pull out infrared we see way further no that's not how that works you wouldn't you would you see further in infrared just how like you you said it yourself it has a longer wavelength so the longer the wavelength that's why you know with sunsets the red light is what's coming through that's past the red light when the atmosphere is at it you know the sun is at an angle passing through more of the atmosphere you see the red light infrared is even further than that so it makes sense that you would see further with infrared there's there that doesn't exactly you're gonna see so that means there's less refraction so you're gonna see more of what's actually there when we pull out infrared we see way further and we see more of the bottom of objects okay so if you're claiming that we see the mountains just because they got refracted and lifted up when i pull out infrared then i shouldn't see more of them and further that debunks the claim they're lifted because of refraction thus objectively debunks the globe no one's ever wanted it no one ever will all right well i don't know what specifics you're referring to with what the observer height was in the distance and all that if you provide that then we can analyze that but you guys just say we see too far and don't you know put any of the variables for us to do the calculations so well we're gonna try to move on from there because we got lots of super chats there fellas uh richie constitution for five dollars and of course you guys know i i really don't like to put anybody on view that's not really my jam i'd rather just kind of like mitigate here and there if i need to but i'd like to kind of give that full open room discussion feeling it's uh it's kind of my flavor i like that so uh richie constitution for five dollars why do you never bring data for a flat earth and you just poke at the globe model what is the flat earth model again model this is the flat earth model she's right here we actually models aren't reality and you don't have a earth model okay you you model out specific phenomena like you have a geodynamo model that's for the core of the globe blah blah blah you you don't have a globe model a flat earth model but anyway because we explained this in the debate that the default position is that the earth is a stationary plane that's what everyone observes everyone experiences that's what all measurements show us that's how we do all engineering and we build railways runways everything bridges we assume the earth's a plane that's how we fly planes everything shows us that the earth's a stationary plane so that's the default position if you are claiming it's actually the opposite and it's a tilted wobbling spinning revolving ball in a vacuum you need to substantiate that and we've gone out and shown that all the evidence actually just shows it's a stationary plane and you guys have never substantiated that the opposite is true and everything's an illusion that's why we poke fun of the globe because it's making the claim antithetical to evidence their best example of measuring the the radius they had to go all the way back to some dude in Greece from thousands of years ago and when i specifically asked for a more modern observation to validate their claim they literally couldn't provide one i provided two you said you had to be in space you know i already clarified before the moon landing i know we don't we also clarified before the moon landings so so you agree so you agree you can't come up with anything that we can independently verify we just have to believe i also provided his experiment i also in addition to that i also provided another type of experiment that you could do however you didn't listen to me you didn't say anything specific though you just said you went out there no no so you can take um you can take measurements throughout the day of the sun's traveling position according to your position on the planet not multiple businesses singular and calculate the curvature of the earth that way as well if you like i can find the the formula and give it to you actually you should actually drop that yeah drop the formula that's just assuming the earth's a sphere we actually have an azimuth algorithm vision and that's how we map this guy in the first place exactly we can move on all righty that one was for uh witsit and kai so yeah we'll move on to their manga fan dan five dollars says if the world is round and spinning why isn't the oceans flying off the side of the planet uh because oh yeah so because centrifugal forces outweighed by gravitational force something like uh 18 times to one all right pretty simple any thoughts on the other side do you want to move on or what about evaporation what about evaporation what about it have water vapor defying gravity yes because it is more energetic also what does that mean what does it have explain it phase changes from a liquid to a gas and then proceeds to go up until it reaches equilibrium why yeah why because it is lighter than other gases and has yes but density and buoyancy are just knock-on effects of gravity gravity dude great dude gravity has never been substantiated okay everything's intrinsically electric gravity has been substantiated like it detected gravitational waves several years ago they did it no they did it dude really that's funny because they admit they have no idea where this supposedly came from and they claimed it was a awesome yes they literally claimed that they have no idea where it came from out in space and that they have some no they said they have some guesses but they can't verify the distance in direction definitively and they claim to measure the vibrational displacement of one 10 000th of a photon or of a protest yes you have fun with that bro it's called modern science they can't actually manipulate gravity you can't actually manipulate the the variable yeah variables so what you can do is you can manipulate yeah because we can't change the mass of the earth how would we manipulate gravity so you can actually never do an experiment to prove it you're just assuming mass isn't the cause of gravity all right depending on the supermassive objects that work spacetime are the cause of gravity it's electrostatics and you can prove it with a vanagraph generator all right so we can scientifically prove ours let's let jean close us out on this question here hmm oh i said my pieces oh okay i thought you had a thought over there i was i was just putting the the the formula that they asked for in chat oh okay i thought you had a thought there okay let's move on everybody uh so another one from a richie constitution thanks buddy for another five dollars if i have a very powerful telescope a hundred times can i bring the sun back after it sets if i can't can you explain why i can't um you can you can actually bring the sunset back sometimes well what they say is oh well not if you use a good enough solar filter and then we've done it with some solar filters and uh it has to be the right conditions it's all dependent but with certain uh solar filters it's less likely to be brought back i have seen some videos of it being brought back but the claim is that with really good solar filters that you can't bring it back and i don't have a problem with that because uh that's what people always claim that i lied about this back in the day and so did chi and that we duck it no no there are videos bringing the sun back but they claim that when you use solar filters and you get a more accurate depiction of where it is that you can't bring it back and i've never seen really good solar filters bring the sun back but it reaches its limit because you have an azimuthal grid of vision and actually you're just detecting the sun from within the perspective limit and so of course it's outside of that and it's declining because of the uh perspective effect itself and so it reaches its resolvability limit its perspective limit based on the azimuthal grid of vision that's why it also doesn't change angular size and again this that i mean this will never be rebutted no uh i if i refer to waltzer bezling's model what's wrong with that what's wrong with that that that'll work no i'm asking if that's when you say azimuthal grid of vision is that the model you're referring to well it's not waltzer bezling's it's just how everyone's measured the sky for all recorded history and that's what even your own position uses for stellarium but uh yeah waltzer bezling does map it out yeah yeah you had a question there jake okay yes that's where you say bindi light rays my question my question was you know i know everything you're gonna say yeah but that doesn't mean you can refute it yeah i can it's not a physical bending of light it's an optical effect all right guys let's let jake ask his question so we can no no i i want to hear i want to hear david finish this up before i get to it oh sure what is what do you what does that mean it's just based on the curved it's based on curved visual space it's an optical effect it isn't a physical bending of light it's just based on just like you have corpuscular and anti-cropuscular rays based on your perspective and it looks like there's a convergence to a singular point in the opposite direction of the sunset right it's just an optical effect so it's not an actual physical bending of light around things back to you it's just that you have curved visual space and thus it's an optical effect it's not a real physical bending effect it's an optical effect and this is again that's where it's never reminded again because that's just a bunch of words i would i knew you were going to say word salad that's what happens when you can go check it off you define words out what you just said you can't i personally i personally prefer the definition of word salad as verbs nouns and subjects tossed in a light Caesar with some parmesan no actually the definition of word salad is incoherent babbling typically associated with schizophrenia it's actually requires words that literally don't make sense coherently like chicken wall seven yesterday oh my gosh me Barney i didn't do anything like that the fact you can't rebut it or maybe don't follow it doesn't mean it's worth a vision doesn't you know explain the phenomena that we see that how does that address the the rotation of stars in the north or southern hemisphere oh so we're we're diverting away no i'm not diverting because that you saying that is is part of it isn't it that's that explains the the it is part of it yeah so how does that explain that okay so we have corpuscular rays right coming from the sun say when it's setting in the west we can turn 180 degrees behind us and there's something called anti corpuscular rays you can see them both at the same time and so even though the sun's setting in the west you can look in the east and see that there looks like there's light rays converging to a point there that's just because that's how perspective works the sun's behind you so why does it look like a converging diverging rays from a central point in the opposite direction because that's how our perspective works we have a curved visual space basically a dome of vision it's an azimuthal grid that's how we actually measure every celestial position for all recorded history so yeah it creates an optical convergence point and then say that it's spinning counterclockwise over top to you and that's the actual direction well as you look the opposite direction you're going to see the spin move the opposite way because you're looking south and then you're going to see the optical convergence point and this can be replicated and demonstrated you can you can face any direction in the northern hemisphere they're going to spin in the same direction it's not based on the direction you're facing if that's the case where you would be facing north would cause the stars to rotate one way and facing south would cause them to rotate another has nothing to do with that has to do with what hemisphere you are stationed in no i know you may be surprised to learn this but actually on the earth this is a fact even when you're in the northern hemisphere if you look south they spin the other way no that's not true yes it is all right let's move on to our next question there guys sorry uh right okay sure thing i i did have one question for them regarding the oh man all right are you 30 seconds i'm curious i'm curious so um you you mentioned that there was like solar filters what if you just get rid of the solar filters would like does that help i'm i'm asking this because i want to follow up question does removing the solar filters help the vision of the sun and like seeing it across the horizon like when it disappears from for you guys no i'm just that it has a wider area that the sun's perceived to be so then you can think that you're bringing it back you can think that you're sure so you should be able to then at any point during the night set up a telescope and be able to see the sun no no it's ridiculous what are you talking about well if it's a flat earth and you're using a telescope to to see further you should be able to see the light produced by that object further wet our next question our next question keeps it on brand here with what we're talking about so richie constitution for two dollars how does celestial navigation work on a flat earth just use the azimuthal grid of vision and then they hijack the optical effect that is how we see and then claim that's the earth curving yeah i mean i mean all the measurements require like an elevation angle from a horizontal baseline and then that's extended out to the horizon horizontally and then they actually take uh they take uh circles of equal altitude measurements right but how do i how am i over here and then i have an equal altitude over here assuming a horizontal baseline if the earth's curving so you actually have to take all the measurements in the first place as if you're flat they of course say that you can measure from a tangent so a singular point on the curved surface and treat it as if it's flat and that is true but the problem would be extending it all the way out to the baseline of the horizon that's when they then say oh but there are dipped angle corrections which of course yes there also would be on a flat earth as you get further above the earth and you're actually going to see further down uh because the earth is below you more so uh there's me fully explaining it celestial navigation is actually what they call one degree per 60 nautical miles they hijack the perspective effect that is the azimuthal grid of vision and they claim that we see in straight lines infinitely forever like superman so therefore the earth must be curving when in fact it's just perspective and it can be proven with experiment all right uh let's get the next one out there because i think we're going to stir up some more conversation from there rich g constitution strikes again for five dollars the higher i go the further i can see how exactly does that work how high would i have to be to see the sun never set yeah that's a good question uh i think you would have to at least be it's not for them or this is that for yeah i don't know us man yeah you increase your angle of view we said that multiple times and we're not ever we don't think that you can ever see the sun forever i just explained that we have a limit to our perspective they wanted me to give them an actual distance like a literal number okay four that 3959 miles you know like i don't have what they're saying is if there's a small local sun that is just tracing around this plane if you sent up a weather balloon to say 20 000 feet how would you not be able to see that sun constantly an object that massive and that bright even if it's you're asking me i have the actual numbers i'm talking about in your model even if it's a small local sun based on the observations we see even if it's small right like that's still going to be a massive object relative you know so that's what the question asking there's so how big do you think it is so how big do you think it is i know i don't know no how big how big approximately do you think it is or at least at least at least a minute or at least a limit you can say it's not bigger than this 33.333333333 miles i i don't know how big it has been and i don't care i think it's smaller than the earth probably right but uh it's you can never but yeah the point is still that there's attenuation of light so there's an absorption rate of light relative to the medium and that angle yeah as you get higher the angle of view gets bigger right but eventually you're still going to reach a resolution angle based on the propagation and reception angles of the sun so you're still not going to be able to see it forever it's going to go off into the horizon not behind a fictional curved horizon that isn't curved and constantly moves okay it just disappears into the horizon the vanishing point based on the reception and propagation angles this is provable with experimentation also who needs experiments we'll just keep halfway dismissing them and saying what's it's crazy and say word silent word sound con man that means the earth's a globe never said con man um well i'm just reaching it to to answer the question from our side it'd probably be somewhere at least outside of l2 in order to not see the sun set again and by set i mean become obstructed by the earth all right let's move on from there cool lambo is striking again as well five dollars can witsit and kai say that microbiology is real even though you cannot see bacteria by normal means yeah you can use microscopes you said normal means okay well why what no if you can't empirically validate something you either you can't just blindly believe it so you guys you guys can't believe in god because you don't believe it but then all of a sudden you can believe in photons and protons and bosons and quarks even though you can't see it so no i don't have a if you can physically have it if you have a physical interaction that can be established and replicated there's no problem with addressing the phenomena you physically manipulated that interaction um and then specifically microbiology you can verify optically so we have no problem with actual empirical measurements we have a problem with basically claiming made up pseudoscience constantly and acting like everyone that doesn't blindly believe your religious made up story is somehow crazy we just won't have that so so now the picture of the hydrogen atom by itself false equivalents the hydrogen atom yeah did you not see the picture of the singular hydrogen atom that got released a while back you mean where they used reflectance imaging and then use contrasting based on the electric no i'm talking about the picture of the actual atom itself and invisible how they take the picture with magnification no they didn't just use magnification they use reflectance and they use contrasting they use literally these oscillations and vibrations based on contrasting the image with based on like electric vibration and reflectance so we can be wrong like how that takes picture of the globe the globe is way less real than that at least like the atom is a real phenomenon it's a real concentrated area it's a real phenomenon it's really a double torus which everything is fractal quantum is acknowledging all this but every all the layman will make fun of all the people that actually know for a few years until pop sigh articles tell them it's true so it's all good i'd love to move it on but witsit is kind of calling you guys out a little bit so i'll give you 20 seconds there we'll move on i don't really feel called out okay that's all good that's all right sicky sick wall 666 oh the number of the beast stop triggering me like that you'll get my iron maiden out why keep platforming someone like witsit who has no understanding of any of the topics he's trying to talk about he has no idea of what relativity is has no idea what basic newtonian physics is i could debate him and win this is sad hail sagan oh sagan you're totally not weird you're totally not um wait who did you have on your in the field that you talked to uh phc astronomer professor parks and you guys are both under the same understanding about the kinematic the kinematic and dynamic equivalents of relativity and newtonian mechanics so maybe if you're just an anonymous keyboard warrior you're probably right right and you could and you'll never even get close to reading the paper we were talking about which is relational mechanics by andre andre acis who breaks down all the mathematics of the dynamic equivalents and then if you just read relativity straight up says there's a kinematic equivalence right so i don't have to do anything i can just say insults in the comment section and i'm right which it doesn't understand i mean sure he has books about my religion that he's actually read that i could never read but he's stupid literally eats grieves and lives clatters relativity etc all day long but yeah you can chat a super chat for five dollars so what's it stupid you guys the truth i would suggest that you're gonna believe in it all props to you bro but like know what it is don't just say i'm a i'll say this the fact that you guys feel the need to say what's its misrepresenting relativity proves that you guys don't even like would it really believe what it requires you believe you live in this world where you have to like hide behind illusions because i'm saying what it actually says and when i say it you guys are like no oh so it's like oh so they want to hide behind they want to hide behind other people and not actually do any of the work they don't want to read any of the papers just want to make claims i think it's funny though like you guys think that that relativity is unbelievable when i explain it and you assume i must be wrong when i'm actually telling the truth which means we agree relativity is ridiculous cool all right let's get to the next super chat here uh garuda legends for ten dollars oh there's a puppy yes i'd seen that cutie pie there just a few seconds ago is this jake the dog does that make you know this is stella the dog she's adorable aw welcome to live stream stella all right garuda legends for ten dollars can the flat earthers explain why the moon was right over me during the beginning and end of the lunar eclipse via sunrise when the flat earth model does not accept spinning west and east that the spinning west and east combination or claim comes from sidereal rotation but hey i think hi has a question what about lunar eclipses yeah yeah lunar eclipses that's crazy we have a question about luna lunar eclipses how does this selenilian eclipses work on a flat earth i mean i go i'm sorry what type of eclipse i didn't hear what you said selenilian selenilian yeah how uh what percentage of what percentages of eclipses are selenilian eclipses a lot of them it's based on coordinate systems are are they the majority all of them almost all of them are they the majority the vast majority yes okay even if there's one why does it matter just no because i'm just because i don't know the explanation off the top of my head it's okay how do regular eclipses work where apparently if these are both objects are above the earth how could the earth be getting in between either of them that's my question the earth is getting in between them and causing the shadow when do we go in the or or a solar eclipse then whichever one if i'm getting a mix they were talking about lunar eclipses the lunar eclipse is supposed to happen correct me if i'm wrong because of the scissor g between the earth gets in between the papa bear mama bear baby bear right supposed to be the three of in alignment but with this with the selenilian eclipse you have both the sun and the moon above the horizon above the earth above the earth yeah if you're not a scissor g there yeah it's geometrically impossible so without looking up the exact type of eclipse to refresh my memory i'm pretty sure it's because the earth selenilian yeah yeah yeah go ahead let me let me double check this real quick you can go out the selenion yeah it is weird they're just gonna tell us what google says as soon as they type the name it's like so frustrating because even i think space.com says that it's um the impossible eclipse yeah they call it the impossible eclipse and also because the shadow is the wrong direction oh oh yeah no i i know i know this yeah no i had i had to refresh to the type of eclipse yeah just say it just say it you understand how research works and reference and things you don't have to know everything off the top of your head you can look at something to reference yeah but okay okay the regular types of eclipses how do you how do you where the earth is coming in between the sun and the moon those types of eclipses forget the selenilian eclipse those eclipses how does that explain forget how is that explained we'll come back to that but how is that explain it but i'm going to explain logic to you first so you're claiming a positive claim about the globe model being that the earth blocks the sun and casts a shadow on the moon you make that positive claim your model makes that claim okay i haven't made a claim about the eclipse yet you made that no i'm not testing you an explanation of what he wasn't done i'm sorry so we tested your positive claim it doesn't work because it's geometrically impossible to have a selenilian eclipse for the sun the moon or both above the earth and during the eclipse because it can't be blocking the sun casting a shadow onto the moon if it's above the earth okay but yeah i can explain just different orbs with polarization and based on the polarization you can look at the quantum paradox the venn diagram paradox you can say that you take polar lenses and you move them at different angles it perfectly replicates the eclipses so you could just have different orbs based on electromagnetic polarization in the sky that are transparent to the naked eye and then based on the angle that it intersects with the what the celestial objects or the moon that you actually create that polarizing effect which which is called the venn diagram paradox or the quantum paradox and that would be perfectly fine with both the sun and the moon above the earth so mine's viable globes is not viable wait and just one i'm so sorry but just you can see videos of this on the sun moon zodiac clock out under lunar eclipses here comes the word salad let's get it you had some thoughts there yeah so it there's a i can explain it intuitively and then i can give the explanation that like science has like even even if you don't accept the typical scientific explanation which is that the atmosphere is bending the the moon's shadow up or the moon a little bit up to make it look like even with even without that you could also just have that type of eclipse happening on a on a globe due to the penunbral area of the earth as the light passes through the atmosphere and through and becomes blocked by the globe all right well let me move on from there i think everybody's gotten a chance to say their piece on that with uh whisko matt five dollars what's it with null result of michaelson moorley can you explain what einstein invoked length contradiction time dilation etc to keep the globe alive yeah yeah so with michaelson moorley they shot light beams and perpendicular directions the prediction of the spinning wobbly orbiting globe is that based on the direction of the orbit that the uh light ratio have taken longer it didn't do that and so einstein proposed length contraction which claimed that the apparatus actually contracted and shortened so the light did travel further you just can't tell because the apparatus contracted but it looks like it didn't contract and time slowed down so actually the distance and the time slowed down with the speed of light has to having to stay the same you just can't tell because time actually is in a fourth dimension it expands and slows down you just can't perceive it and then the matter contracted you just can never measure it it looks like it's exactly the same size and that is the official explanation to to explain away why the evidence showed the earth is stationary and that's the same explanation to this day and they still don't have a causal mechanism never measured it never verified it never detected it so basically it's like saying oh if this or if this pen stays the same size actually it didn't stay the same size because it's moving it changed size you just can't tell because anything you use to try to measure it is also going to shrink with it it's the stupidest thing i've ever heard that sounds like word that's science that's science let's go let's move on from there fellas we got a lot of questions coming in uh so we'll try to keep it to the side that they're asked for so i do apologize to david and jake we do have a lot of questions for witsett i see in the live chat there so it's okay uh so siggy sigwald 50 uh ars for 50 ars sorry i had to um most of this is an ad hominem and it's uh for witsett um i think the only real thing i can get out of here is um now there's not really much there sorry siggy i'm not i'm not really gonna entertain that teabaggins for ten dollars witsett and kai killing the globe awaken people up keep up the great work bless you and your family well there's a compliment in the live chat that's not always nice we always prefer that than the uh the ad hom attacks if you like what you're hearing from the other side you know you can always leave a compliment uh rather than attack the side you don't agree with that's always preferable of course yeah that never makes sense why do you have to attack anybody diamond to disagree right yeah you just respectfully disagree you don't have to be in your feelings we're having fun i think as far as this goes you know it's been a it's been a nice live stream and we are we're getting down on them which is good i'm like halfway through and we're going to try to get through them i i know witsett he'll be back in a few so diamond s two dollars why do globes use mercader rather than gall peters rather than gall peters sorry it was all we're jumbled together is which side is that for uh i i think that's for you guys i think that might be for you guys and then you know we can bounce the ball but uh you know that's all right but why do globes use mercader rather than gall peters um well i'm not familiar with gall peters i'm guessing that's another type of projection i know mercader projections where it's essentially you know the globe laid out onto a flat uh plane but as far as why they use that instead i mean if you're talking about globes that are on display on somebody's desk or something like that like those are not made to be you know that accurate especially when you think about the scale and how much they have to shrink it down so yeah not really too sure jake if you have anything to add on to that my only critique there is that like i'm not going to trust a capitalist society to give me like properly rejected globes at every size and shape people like yeah those are not funny whatever mercader projection is has a lot of the continents are distorted and everything like that yeah all right also i go ahead correct me if i'm wrong but when it comes to like a mercader projection you have to like that's on a flat surface not a curve like not on a curve like yeah anyways all right let's carry on low no longer on the ball for five dollars team flat why do ballers act degenerate every time they defend their cgi adult cartoon religion i i should write that one first that's yeah i mean that's not really worth answering too but that is your first super chat so thanks for leaving that as your first mark they're no longer on the ball the science of science but can we just like reword it though so why do they believe in the cgi maybe like take out the insults but like why do you guys trust the cgi sure we can entertain this for like you know up to a minute that's cool what are you referring to like they like literally admit on nasa's website that like the pictures of the earth are like not actually the real pictures it's like composite images their composites are fun yeah they're like but it's like a i can take a composite image of mount rushmore that's a panorama that's just a panorama and why do they clone the clouds because it's i don't know dude i don't even know what the you're talking about right use a cloning tool for the clouds they just duplicate the clouds okay let's move on from there guys that's photoshop the science okay so does that mean that every person who's a model on the top of the front page is not real hold on strong man all right let's move on they're both photoshop all right the sounds maybe they just don't look like that in real life yeah exactly maybe yeah they needed to move the clouds around for artistic stuff all right so the science of science asked for five dollars it's not a fun debate uh to listen to when the global believers don't know the globe model so the science of science is calling you guys out do you want to both take 30 seconds and just kind of riff on uh yeah i can address that um yeah uh like in in reference to that not knowing the globe model like yeah i don't know every single thing off the top of my head and that's generally how science works that's why we have experts in all these different areas who devote their lives to a single narrow area of study and expecting someone to be well versed in all of those is you know unrealistic unless they are you know suffering from the dying kruber effect so yeah not everybody's going to be an expert in every subject all right 30 seconds for you jake uh can you repeat the question again for me uh they're accusing you of not understanding the globe model so if you want to take 30 seconds to expound i deeply apologize the earth is indeed an oblate spheroid i'm done all right let's go map five dollars austin what is dark matter and dark energy what percentage of the universe is supposedly supposedly made up by this according to their according to their model and kind of was gonna ask like what do you guys don't think it's where the fire there's no way more about the globe than you guys and yeah we do and the dunning kruger effect and what most people don't know about the dunning kruger effect is it goes both ways it can actually apply to someone that's that is very informed and knows tons about a subject but actually is like overly humble and underestimates their own capability so it actually goes both ways some people just throw the term out there they usually don't know what it what it even is so uh whatever so it was a curve that's people in the middle who are intermediates are gonna have a little confidence and then true experts are gonna have high confidence as well as dunning kruger winners dunning kruger also it starts up here with beginners it goes down as you learn more and then it comes back up no other side it's about the inverse proportionate nature inversely proportionate nature of confidence and knowledge and it applies both ways someone can be very knowledgeable but not as confident and that would be called dunning kruger as well but anyway Ryan can you just remind me of the question i forgot i'll say i'll answer it really fast yeah that's all good yeah so what is dark matter and dark energy okay yeah so according to the globe according to the globe dark matter and dark energy in the current model makes up 96% of the universe 96% and they admit they don't know what dark matter is they don't know what dark energy is and simply put as concisely as possible they claim the universe is accelerating expanding in all directions and that's the only way you can explain why all astronomical observations make it look like the earth is in the center so they say that it's just an illusion because it's expanding so you need some type of energy to make it expand but they can't find it so they say there must be something they can't find called dark energy the cosmological constant causing the Hubble constant and then dark matter is because relativity doesn't actually match the predictions or its predictions don't match the observations there's not nearly enough mass to cause the gravitational effects that we see in the sky so they had to add matter actually 83% of all matter in the universe is supposedly dark matter so they just made up two terms that they can't define to try to save their model and it makes up 96% of the whole model it's a globe banded can i just quickly respond to that it'll be fast just two things all right all right 10 seconds quick response um i just wanted to say that one this is why i opened my uh my opening was talking about evidence like just because we don't have an explanation for something like how does dark matter or anything how does that indicate flatness you know what i'm saying like that doesn't directly indicate that and secondly um in terms of what was what was the second thing i was going to say uh if you need a second that's how science works we're always that's how science works you can say i was going to address the second part of it but yeah to address to address dark energy there is actually a fairly there is a yeah um to address dark energy there is actually a fairly substantially sound hypothesis regarding uh quantum fluctuations in virtual particles that explains the inflation of the universe no it actually doesn't because they look go on and when they look no i'm i'm urging the community to not it's not a question i'm answering the questioners question needs really answer you need uh you should go in and look into yourself because the astrophysics and quantum physics behind this is actually really really interesting and it's something i have absolutely no idea how to explain properly because it is incredibly complicated and again for dark matter there are several different versions and it from my understanding there may be a lean away from the cold dark matter figures that were puppet that were brought up here um and we may be looking at more complicated forms of interactive between wimp particles in the early universe but i digress i remember i was gonna say just real quick um as far as the center of the center of the universe where like you would perceive that on any planet unless you were near the actual edge of the universe if there's we're in a three-dimensional space and in every direction it's expanding you would feel like you're in the center on that's not just experienced on earth that would be literally say that 30 seconds to close this out on this one again i literally said that it's because ewin hobble looked at the distant guy i'm cramming 30 seconds ewin hobble saw a distant galaxy's moving direct relation to the earth which means the only way to explain why all observations make it look like we're in the center is to claim what he claimed which there is no center everywhere looks like the center because it's expanding all directions which requires dark energy he claimed that quantum fluctuations can explain it he's wrong at the quantum vacuum level we actually saw that the energy of mat measured would be off by 10 to the 120th power for what it needs so there you go you guys are just making stuff up all right let's move on no longer on the ball five dollars jake if nasa which means beguiled in hebrew said the earth was flat on tv would you then believe the earth is not a sphere no because i don't care what a single person or single authority says i look for the consensus all right well let's try to move on from there oh rick right if nasa's consensus was that it was flat all right well let's move on from there guys rick right two dollars i don't trust this can't come from nasa now there's just one space agency but you believe that they cannot generate consensus you would need multiple agencies to confirm that so consensus would be everything they say and consensus wouldn't just be nasa saying it that countries work together all the time it's called the united nations all right we got lots of uh we got lots of super chats coming in guys um yeah no i like the i like the look at the back and forth there but uh yeah we we they're pouring in faster than we can get through them so just to remind everybody we got a nice juicy discussion going on here everybody's really passionate about what they are talking about. Hit the like button if you like what you're hearing and let's continue on with our super chats um which hit me with that tongue and cheek over there. I hear you over there. Yeah. Someone's making funny in the chat and they're wrong. Oh, me. China is in the United Nations. But Glovers are always wrong. Oh, pardon me. I meant that they're diametrically, sorry, I meant that they were diametrically opposed to the the West's um uh. But they all work together in the United Nations. Yeah. And that doesn't work together to perpetuate a lie. They couldn't all they all work together so they could they could work together to perpetuate a lie. Oh, China wouldn't lie. And just you know what, let's just look at the flag of the United Nations. Maybe that will give us some clues. Let's continue on there guys. Rick, right, David, we see uh, why is uh, right? I don't know how to pronounce that. Sorry, Erotothus. Yeah, sorry, you say it. Erotothus. Yeah, it's hard to pronounce. It's saying what we see corpuscular rays. Why is Erotothus right? Uh, yeah, I don't really know. Well, you assume that they're not, he said they're, he could assume they're parallel, but we see corpuscular rays. That's his question. How do you know that they're not? You know how the camera zero works. Wait, did David hear the response from you? What's it? No, the microphone didn't pick it up. He, I was just helping explain this question. He's like, we see corpuscular rays, but Erotothus needs had to assume that they're parallel. Why did he assume that? What evidence did he have for that when he actually sees that they're not parallel? Yeah. Well, ask him. Oh, was it stopping bokeh in him? Yeah, you both, yeah, you guys both defended him. Yes. And this is what's funny is Globers love to be able to say, hey, we've known the earth was a ball for thousands of years to gaslight flat earthers. That's why they still bring up Erotothus needs, even though the story is that he only had two sticks and that he couldn't measure the distances and there's no primary documentation over and over that that experiment has been repeated using more than two sticks. And you keep going back to the original experiment with only two sticks. My point was, so you guys should stop saying that we proved it thousands of years ago then, because according to your own claim, we did because we used his method and did it again. So we give him the credit. That's how that works. Try to keep up. You said that two sticks don't prove that the earth's a sphere. So if he only used two sticks thousands of years ago, he didn't prove the earth was a sphere thousands of years ago. I didn't say two sticks don't prove it. I said that you need more than two. You said on a flat earth, you could see the same thing. And I said, yeah, with two, with more than two, that would not be observed in the same manner. So he didn't prove it. Got it. All right, let's move on from there. Alternate GEC, $10. I will say this once again, if flat earth was real, you could use a telescope to view any location on earth. If you were high enough, stop using the cop out that a telescope can't see that far. Any thoughts on that? I explained that reception and propagation angles are relative to the angular resolution angle caused it to lose resolvability and attenuation of light is a thing. So no matter how high you go, you still are going to reach a resolution limit. You're still going to have a perspective limit of the azimuthal grid as well, and attenuation of light, all just scientific facts. All righty. In just one second, I think the atmospheric, the attenuation of light through the atmosphere, the atmosphere would have to be 10 times thicker before you would get to a point where you couldn't really see anything. All right, close us out over there. Let's see if we move there, Kai, on thoughts on that. No thoughts. All right, let's move on from there. Mr. Monster for $5 on flat earth. What creates the Coriolis effect and what makes a circumpolar ocean currents work on flat earth? What? How do ocean currents work on flat earth? Well, why would they not? That's a stupid question. And why would they not? Does it make any sense? So yeah, I mean, actually, the truth is that we have a sidereal rotation and there's a translation of motion down from the sky, which was proven with over 5,200,000 replications of the Mickelson Morley by Dayton Miller at different altitudes, showing that the effect is stronger at different altitudes and at different latitudes and with different times of the year, proving that that effect actually comes from the sky. And even according to your own model, there's a kinematic and dynamic equivalence in that there actually would be a translation of motion to a stationary earth that gives you the effects if you're talking about the direction preference of the currents, which actually they fluctuate. So in fact, the globe can't even explain the ocean currents properly because they're lack of ability to explain a geodynamo model. So word solid translation. Word solid. That means that because sky moves, similar effects as if earth moved. All right. Any thoughts on the other side? Or do you want to move on from there? No. All right. No. Sagoma for five dollars. You're like an earthenite. Can you go more into that? No, I just think you have enough rope. Yeah. Let's behave ourselves there. Can we go more into how the rays affect the stick experiment? P.S. Doing an experiment isn't assuming you're right. It's testing the idea. Yeah. Yeah, correct. They have to assume that the Earth's a sphere and use spherical trigonometry. And then they have to assume that the Sun is infinitely far away or at least far enough away to where they will be parallel. But not exactly parallel, but close enough that we can assume they're perfectly parallel and then assume that it's a sphere. And then if we make all those assumptions that makes the Earth a sphere. When again, you can actually take a light source, put it over a flat surface. You can take all the shadows and the angles. And you can do spherical math and show that that flat table is actually a sphere. Which is ridiculous. That's all they did. You can literally prove it with more than two. You can use 50 of them and we've literally done it. And this never gets your butt in either. Question about that particular hypothesis or that particular experiment then. Did you utilize in that experiment a light source that is relatively sized to the Sun and Earth approximately? Did you use that as a proper ratio? Oh, you don't seem to understand the point, but I'll repeat it. So it's that a local light source over a flat surface will give you shadows. You can then take those shadow measurements and zoom spherical trigonometry and come out with a product that says that your flat table is a sphere. And did you replicate that exact same experiment with a different type of light source to try and disprove it? You notice that you're not going to actually address the point, that you can't address the point, which is that you can have a flat surface. You can use 50 different little nails and shadows. And you can get a spherical. That's because I am unfamiliar with that experiment. And I would have to see it to become familiar. And that's not a direct comparison to the Sun over the Earth is holding a flashlight over a table. That's not relevant in terms of scale or angle. Why not? Why not? Why not? Because the Sun is bigger than the entire Earth, whereas the flashlight is smaller than the table. How did Eritostin know that? Wait, how do you know that? What do you mean? How do I know that? How do you know that? Which one? The flashlight or the size of the Earth? How do you know the size of the Sun? The size of the Sun. Yeah, yeah. How do you know that? And how did Eritostin do that? Eritostin didn't know the size of the Sun. Yeah, he didn't know the distance or size. Yeah, it's an experiment to determine the radius that you use. You don't need to know the lengths. It's trigonometry. If you have angles of one, he knew he was at a 90 degree angle, you know, and a known distance at the bottom, then you can calculate the hypotenuse, which is the distance to the Sun. Okay, how do you know how big the Sun is? Science knows how big the Sun is. How so? Me personally, I'm not familiar with exactly how they determined it. Yeah. So it's safe to say you blindly believe it? No, it's safe to say that this is how, in order to build on science, we don't have time to just every single time, read, nag on all these little details. It's like, there are certain things that, you know, you have to just take for granted, for lack of a better word. Like we're not doing all the same stuff over and over and over. If it's been proven time and again, and we're using equations that rely on that, and that we're getting valid results from that, we don't then need to go back and keep going back further and further. You don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you get into a car. I'm not even saying that you need to do it. I'm saying you believe they know how big the Sun is. I asked you, how do they know that? And you don't even know. You just blindly believe it. And that's what both of you guys do for 99% of the Sun. You just blindly believe we have a small local Sun. You can't say how far away it is or how far it is. That's what we observe. That's what we observe. No, that's not what we observe. It is. We see how close the Sun is. That thing doesn't look small or local to me. But listen, we see, well, we see that it looks smaller than the Earth. We see that it has copuscular rays, and we see that it's warmer when it's closer. It's my hand bigger than the Sun. But we see that it's warmer when it's closer to us. Literally, literally. It's already been explained to the tilt. No, no, no. Throughout the day, dude, throughout the day, we see that the Sun is, when it's closer to us, it's warmer. And when it gets further away, it cools down. So the evidence shows that it's local. You claim it's just an illusion and that it's the opposite. Like always. Jake's been holding the thought there for a while. And our next question is for you, Jake. So I'm going to do the copy around with like 15 seconds, if that's cool. Yeah, no, it's going to be pretty simple. There's actually been a measurement taken of the Sun's size using several different solar probes and radar. Done. All right, let's go, Matt. $5. Jake, can you cite a repeatable, observable, measurable experiment showing a vacuum can exist next to a vacuum without a physical barrier? Wait, can you repeat that? That was long. All right. I think they mean a container next to, or a pressure gradient next to a vacuum. That's usually what they say or something like that. Yeah, repeatable, observable, measurable experiment showing a vacuum can exist next to a vacuum without a physical barrier. Yeah. A vacuum next to a vacuum. Well, assuming by vacuum, they mean a perfect vacuum with absolutely nothing inside of it that's impossible. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. So like you can have a bunch of tiny little particles in a mostly vacuum next to it. I think they're trying to ask how you can have gas pressure next to a vacuum. It's simple. It's a pressure gradient protected. Like if you're talking about the atmosphere itself, it's a pressure gradient clung to the earth mostly by gravity. And the electromagnetic sphere tends to keep the solar radiation from blasting it off of our atmosphere. Just to add on to that, I find it funny that that question is being asked as if it's a problem of the globe because if we believe that we're inside of a dome and it's a container, then the pressure of the gases should equalize throughout the container as it's observed. So why do we have a pressure gradient on earth? Did you not know you can have a gas pressure gradient in a container? Yeah, with different gases. But we're not talking about different gases. We're talking about the percentage of different altitudes. It's not a different composition of gases. Yes, it is. It's less gas. No, it's the same percentages. There's just less of it. Really? So there's not more hydrogen higher? Question was for Jake. So Jake, close us up. Thanks for playing. You're playing seconds. Oh, I can hypothesize or not hypothesize. I can imagine that there might be a small layer of hydrogen on the outside of the earth's atmosphere. That's just because it's lighter and is less affected by gravity. All right, this one coming in. The point is that you can have a gradient in a container. Yeah, but you don't see a gradient of the specific gases. You don't like it's the proportion decreases the higher you go up of oxygen, nitrogen that are found everywhere. It's just less of that available at higher altitudes. How is that explained if we're living in a container, a dome, that they're supposedly expanding to fit the container and equalizing? It should be even throughout. Look, if you had a container and say you had a tube of gas pumping gas into the container at the bottom, you would consistently have a more dense concentration of gas at the bottom. That's what we have on the earth. As soon as it entered the container, it would expand to fill it. OK, that's what we have on the earth with the vast majority of gas is actually coming from underneath the surface. And then the majority of the cycling of the gas is with the plant and animal life on the surface. And we actually have an electric downward bias which sets the up and down. And we have a temperature fluctuations and the heat is absorbed and retained more at the surface. So all of it perfectly matches a stationary topographical plane that's contained with a gradient. And you guys will repeat tomorrow that it's impossible. Is the downward electric bias in directions? Are you saying the earth is negatively charged, positively charged? Which is it attracted to? All right, last question. Yeah, you ran away from the fact that you can have a gradient without the bias. And yeah, it's everything just starts. I mean, if you make up anything about electricity, sure, you can. No, no, you can throw electricity out and I dunked all over you and you ignored it. All right, we're carrying on, guys. We're carrying on. So go up for $2. How do you get to the other side? Pac-Man over, they say. I think that's what they're implying there. But I'm not sure. I just kind of liked the Pac-Man thing. But how do you get to the other side? I think they're asking for the flat earth. That was what we usually had. Yeah, the other side of what? What do you mean? Like below us? I think we've got a similar question before, so I can just assume. Circumnavigation maybe. Circumnavigation works. In a circle? Yeah, works perfectly fine off-bladder. Surely you're not talking about how do we get to the bottoms? Yeah, yeah. You navigate east-west relative to north. What about north-south? How can north-south? North-south circumnavigation has never actually done. It's been done multiple times. No, it hasn't. Yes, it has. No, actually, every time they watch, invoke one. Which one? Who did it? One more orbit, 2019. Okay, there you go. Let's talk about one more orbit. 1892. Yeah, let's talk about one more orbit. Scorandoff friends. Like, I mean, you can invoke some. Let's talk about all of them. Okay, go ahead, go ahead. Let's hear it. I encourage the audience and only the honest people because some people won't look it up. Go look up every single one of the trips that he said and go look at the route mapped out and you'll see what actually happened. And all of those specifically was that they dip into Antarctica for a second and they pop back up north. They do not continue south and then pop all the way around the Antarctic continent. And all of those that you just named, they dip into Antarctica and they pop back up north. Oh, how convenient. So again, it's never actually been done. Sorry, there's no airports in Antarctica to stop and reach. Oh, so now it hasn't been done, but there's a reason for it. So, we can go. Yeah, let's move on, guys. You can just, you know, put all of that and use polar orbiting satellites. So then don't claim that they did it then. We got lots of stupid tests coming in. Oh, my God. Mission apparition power for two euros, mostly just an ad hom, not really relevant. I'm sorry, buddy. But I do appreciate the $2 and $2 euro. So, you know, to all who saw the chat, you had your hazard moment in the live chat. The live chat. Was it about me? Tell me it was about me. No, no, no, it was not about you, darling. It's fine. I can tell. It's fine. Cool Lambo, $2. Whitsit, Kai, what is the purpose of pushing the globe? Well, they put a globe, but what is the purpose of pushing the flat earth, I guess, is what they're asking? Because it's your question. No, he's asking, what do we think the purpose of them pushing the globe is? Okay, yeah, they did put a globe. Yeah, that makes more sense. Yeah. You could definitely be hiding more land. If you say that the earth is a globe, then you're saying that there's only a certain amount of land. Well, you don't want people to go beyond a certain point. You could just tell them that the earth is limited. Well, you think powerful people would try to control land? What kind of land should be beyond Antarctica? So you're saying beyond the coldest, most desolate place on earth, there's... Could you just be laying in the southern ocean? Yeah. Outside of that, there's land that's viable. Could you just be in the southern ocean? I'm saying that that's one of the reasons. They could also be hiding. If you don't understand what the earth is, then you don't understand how it works. Yeah. And if you don't understand how it works, how can you interact with it and use it for yourself? And use it for energy, et cetera. There's many reasons. Now, I mean, you guys have a bunch of people that can't trust their senses. They need the authority to tell them that everything they observe and experiences the opposite of the truth. That's perfect for a slave state. They could hide the fact that there's a creator, you know? I mean, if people... Oh, man. They don't know that. Yeah. They can try to... Yeah. I do have a question about that. If I... Just a quick question. God bless you, bro. It's okay. In reference to the... What's gone? Because I always hear about, oh, you can't go to Antarctica. You can't go past this certain latitude. And I know you don't claim a specific shape, but if the Earth is flat, that would mean that the ice wall would be accessible from other places besides there. So why couldn't you just go to California and go off of that coast and keep going until you hit the ice wall? Or Japan? You're starting to point of south, right? Yeah. You mean south? Yeah. South? South and any direction. Oh, I mean, whatever directional gets you to the ice wall. Whatever direction. South. But it's south. Okay. We agree on the plan. You can't go past 60th South latitude. You know what I'm saying is... Because this is north, then south is 180 away from that in every direction, right? Yeah. That's my entire point. If the Earth is a circle, right? All right. Let's say it's a circle. It's flat and there's an ice wall going all the way around it. You don't have to go to Antarctica to access that ice wall. All right. Next one coming in from Annoy, Clintus Soros. He didn't understand. $5 Canadian. They're good, man, brother. David says, David, I'm about one hour behind on the stream, but thank you for your compelling drone video showing a sunset. What's it? You know your explanation is lacking. Oh, Annoy, you're coming at the same time. No, one person has ever rebutted it. So whatever. I just said it's reception and propagation angles are relative to the angular resolution angle, which is just scientifically provable. I just showed it actually happening from Harvard. We just deny it. I show the sun disappearing above the horizon. Dave Weiss has shown multiple times with drone footage that the sun will disappear far above the horizon. You guys just deny it over and over. We showed that the horizon moves up and down just in the apparent location and that the sun disappears into the horizon. You guys just ignore it. I literally gave you scientific evidence that's been replicated in an experiment from Harvard explaining why the sun would disappear from the bottom up over a flat surface. And then you guys will turn around tomorrow and say the sun sets impossible on the flat earth. So the truth is you guys are not here for the truth. So I have a question regarding that. How would you expect the sun to set? Like what would be the shape? I would expect it to be a circle that gets cut off horizontally at the bottom by the flat horizontal horizon, which is an apparent location. How is there a flat horizontal horizon if it's maintaining the same altitude? Do you not know how perspective works, brother? No, what I'm saying is if in your analogy, like the sun is rotating around the earth, so you would just see it getting further and further away from you and disappearing into a vanishing point. Why would it go down? Why would you see it go down? Why do street lights look like they're going down at a distance even though they're all the same height? Why don't you answer my question instead of a question? I just did. When street lights are all the same height, when you look down the street, it looks like they're going down. Do you deny that, David? It looks like they're getting smaller, not going down. Yeah, not going down. Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. Do you deny that, David? Yeah, we're staring at the screen. Let's see. Do you deny that, David? Yes or no? I'm not denying that. I was the one who asked you a question. You deny that, Jake. You answer for that. Do you deny that, Jake? Yes or no? Just kidding. I'm just kidding a little. Let me just say it really quick. Oh, that's a good one. You saw them? Yeah. So these street lights actually don't look like they're going down? Well, it looks like the road is actually curving up. The street lights are in a straight line before it makes a turn. What about that one, Jake? Do these lights are going down? Yes or no? Well, you're not taking into consideration the the one that you're seeing right there where it's off-center. Anything that is off-center is going to be parallaxed by the lens of the camera. Dude, this is what I'm saying. To the audience, just so you guys understand, this is what you have to do to deny flatter. You have to deny stuff like the fact that perspective causes things to go down. No, it gets smaller. No, that's a different subject. Angular size is a different subject. You guys don't even understand. It's just like this. Look, railroad tracks. Railroad tracks. Okay, look, you know, railroad tracks look like they're converging in the distance. What would happen if you flipped those railroad tracks over? Okay, you're using a different- This is something that's on the ground, bro. Like you're talking about if- And the camera is pointed down. You didn't even listen to my question. I said, what would happen if I flipped the railroad tracks on their side? Yeah, and so that the camera angle would be effectively pointing up into the sky, you would still get that same type of weirdness. Dude, dude, they're denying this, babe. I don't even know how to fathom it. It's like, it's really sad because you can actually accept that and still- When you see an airplane disappear, does it disappear to a vanishing point or do you see that airplane go below the horizon? Hey, does the street lights look like they're going down, yes or no? I asked you a question about an airplane. We could talk about- So you're avoiding it. No, because that's something that's at a higher altitude. You're comparing street lights to the sun. Is the sun at a higher altitude? Then street lights, absolutely. Oh, look, this is straight. This is right in the middle and it's straight. No, but it's from an angle. It's from an angle. Well, let me say one more thing. I'm sorry, I'll stop sharing. Those look like they're getting smaller. Time lapse. Watch this, watch this. What a coincidence. The sun does the same thing in our sky. What a coincidence, huh? Here's a time lapse of the sun. It does exactly the same thing. But you guys deny basic perspective. That's a problem with that. Nobody has an issue with the sun setting. Nope. It's so weird. And it's just so weird. You just are being dishonest. Yeah, I just gave you an example of an airplane, an airborne object, something that's flying in altitude above you as it moves away from you. Where does it disappear to? It looks like it's going down. To a vanishing point in the sky. No, it doesn't. Question was for David. David, you want to bet 100 bucks? David, you're trying. You're trying to run away from the fact that you literally tried to pretend that street lights don't look like they're going down in the distance. I live here at a major airport and I see it all the time. You don't see planes disappearing below the horizon. You can't even literally talk about what I just talked about. So let's start moving on to this. How does that hurt this flat? How does that indicate that? See what they do. See what they do. Like, the audience can see what you're doing. Maybe what we should do next is just Google commonly used insults and start saying that. No, this is what I said in my opening. There can be evidence, but you have to indicate how the evidence supports that claim. How does that support that claim? Well, let's start off as a compliment and he kind of took a dark turn there. So let's try to behave ourselves. Iron horse, $5. If the sun went beneath the horizon, where's the shadow from the horizon? Why is there long lingering twilight? And that would be for David and Jake up to- Rayleigh scattering. OK. Your thoughts, David? Oh, they care about Rayleigh's criteria now. I agree. I've never not cared about it. Thank you very much. Except whenever I dunked all over your claim of X and Z into your sunsets. I never, if you watched this debate back, I have never once brought up a topic or countered you regarding Rayleigh scattering. All right. Your thoughts, David? So we have three sunsets to work on. There's one second there. What's it? The question is for them. So David, your thoughts on the question? I'm sorry. I'm a glober anyway. No, Rayleigh scattering. I agree with that explanation. All right. Nothing else to say. Let's try to move on from there. Whisco, Matt for $5. Austin, Macho Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics at City College of New York states that there's a crisis in cosmology. What does he mean by this? Yeah, specifically. Specifically, oh, I'm a glober, actually. Specifically what he's talking about when he's talking about the crisis in cosmology is actually because, unlike my colleague over here earlier, Jake said, in fact, whenever we look at the quantum vacuum fluctuations and we took the measurements and compare them to the universe's accelerative expansion, that's called the Hubble constant. By the way, that's called the Hubble constant. The cosmological constant, what we think is dark energy, we try to look at the quantum vacuum energy and then compare it. And what we found out is actually, it's off by 10 to the 120th power. That's 120 zeros. Can I? That's 120 zeros. That's a challenge. That's 120 zeros. It's one of the worst discrepancies in modern science. And so we call it a crisis in cosmology. Okay. David or Jake, it seems like he's doing some devil's advocate stuff over there. Do you guys, what are your thoughts on this? I'll thank Laricia, Nominé, and Satan. Yo, keep Allie upping me in the chat, bro. Let me be the baller. All right. No, the crisis in cosmology is better left up to physicists. I'm not qualified to talk about it. Yeah, that's not my area of expertise. And again, I would ask, how does that then indicate that the Earth is flat? Even if it is a hole in the globe theory, it's not evidence unless you're connecting it to support your claim. That's just a fact about reality. That doesn't support one claim or the other unless you can show logically how that connects to the Earth being flat and how that would better explain that or how that would even give an explanation for that. Well, I actually wasn't saying that. And additionally, I didn't ever claim that I knew what was going on with the quantum vacuum. I said that was my best understanding. All right. So I also urged people to go listen to the astrophysicists about this. Well, I did actually. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist who's famous for coming up with stream theory. He's trying to explain the cosmological problem void of the dark matter issue because there's no evidence for dark matter and it's basically a pseudoscientific religion. So that's why Michio Kaku said that in the first place. These are all by 10 and 20th power. I was just explaining, it's okay, brother. You can learn more about the religion because there's plenty of pop sign articles out there. All right. Let's try and move on, guys. We got lots more questions and we have been going for more than two hours now. So we're going to try to wrap it up. Astronut 6610 dollars. The sun moves around the equator on an equinox at a rate of 1,037.5 miles per hour. And 1,037.5 miles times 24 hours equals 24,900 miles. Divide 24,900 by 2 pi equals the radius of 3,964 miles. Our value measured. Thank you for explaining the conversation. There's another way to measure it outside of the sticks. What is it? Oh, as soon as this, I mean, never mind. Satellite. Satellites in space. And actually, if you look at the horizon and you ignore the fact that it constantly moves and you assume it's a real physical place and then you take an average and then you apply an assumptive refractive calculation, you can normally get within 15% of the assumed R value and that proves the R value that you assume. All right. I forget. Are they trying to make fun of us because people who act like that are actually usually really intelligent and help make our civilization better? We believe it. Now, what I learned was I can more effectively still man the globe and it'll save us some time so I can help Ryan get through the super chats. Well, yeah, I would ask that we try not to do the devil's advocacy. You know, we tried doing debates like that before and other people that, you know, it usually doesn't come across very well. So I will just ask. All right. I can't make any promises. I'll temporarily take the glass off. I can't make any promises though. It's okay. Tell James to reprimand me. Well, yeah, you have to deal with the ban yourself. That's right. Now, you're welcome to come over. I have tons of gear for reprimanding you. Oh my goodness. Yes, bro. I make babies with my melanatomy with my counterpart here. Thank you, though. This guy, as I say, Jake must have heard me and me and Aaron talking about our Frankenferter get-ups there last night or something. I would love to see. I bet you would. $5. Please explain how sunset and rise back if Earth is flat wits it. Oh, well, I'll pretend to be a flat Earth. The sun moves around the flat Earth and when it gets too far away, it disappears. The sun actually disappears and then it comes back around so you can see it again. So once it actually reaches within the limit perspective of the azimuthal grid of vision, which I have to admit, they actually do have a ton of empirical measurements for that because that's how we measure the sky based on our azimuth and our actual positions from celestial angles. But yeah, so it just moves around the Earth and comes back into an actual perspective limit and you can see it again based on the reception and propagation angles revels to angular resolution limit, which he said 57 times the stream. Okay. Let's move on from there. That one was for you wits it. Megalyn100thb, I'm not sure what that is. The code within all modern navigation systems assumes a spherical Earth and relies on it for accuracy. If the Earth is flat, how does this work? Navigation systems. Wait, how does what work? I missed this, sorry. Navigation systems. Yeah, so believe it or not, the Earth could be a plane. You could assume that it's a sphere or and then you can transform the coordinate systems. So why would it why would it not work if you took it and you assumed it because the only place that it really falls apart is going to be in the South. And then in the South, we can't even verify distances. They're not a co-mile navigational paths over long distances and you can't verify ground speed. So and actually the evidence shows that you're traveling much further in the South. Evidence consistently shows that. So how do we navigate? Well, we use the actual optical convexity of the sky and that's has a rough relationship of one degree per 60 nautical miles depending on where you are in it fluctuates. And then they just say it's actually the Earth's curved surface. Bite me, XD for $10 says, What's it? I will say you've opened my mind to questioning authority and outdated science. So thanks there. My question is how come planets and stars we see through telescopes are round but only Earth is flat? Yeah, pretty simple. Yeah. So obviously what people will say a lot and it's true. It's like pointing out a light on the ceiling and being like, oh, the ground must be a light bulb. But beyond that, it's very simple. If the Earth is stationary, then it's just, you don't get that. Okay, I'll explain it. So just because you have a light bulb on your ceiling, it doesn't mean that the ground's a light bulb. Just because you pull a pole ball off a pool table, it doesn't mean the pool table's a ball. Okay, the Earth is at the bottom. But more importantly, if the Earth is stationary, then it's in the center. That means that it's geocentric, right? It's in the center of everything. Everything moves around it, which by the way is what everything that we see in the sky does. Well, why would we think that there's one special place that's in the center and everything else moves around it, but it should be the same as everything else? That doesn't even make sense. It's in the center. It's the one thing that's in the center and that's special and unique and everything moves around it. So why would we logically think the Earth must be the same as everything moving around it? That doesn't even make sense. All right. Next one is coming in for you. What's at 561 Lifestyle. Is there a better debater than you on the Internet for Flat Earth? And would you ever collab with Tim Pool, Fresh and Fit, Michael Sartain, or who would you like to collaborate with who knows more about Flat Earth than you? I don't know. But I would collaborate with a lot of people. Man, I do play on Jeff Nonstop shows and I'm not going to say any specifics though. But we do have some good stuff coming up. We'll just say that. What was the first part of the question? Is there a better debater than you on the Internet for Flat Earth? No. Yeah, maybe. All right. I'm biased, though. Maybe it's a little bit. That's not the Indio. Indio from 24-7 crushes. Oh, that is very true. That is very true. He's like an encyclopedia. Yeah. All right. So Megalyn for 40thb, just not really a nice thing to say. So thank you for your comment. You had your hands on the live chat. Richie Constitution. I still love you. $10. Whitsitt, you don't have a model. No disrespect. You dodged a telescope question. A telescope has a better resolution than my eyes and you don't know how high I would need to be to always see the sun. Oh, actually I said specifically that no matter how high you go, you're not going to always see the sun. And this is basic physics. You have to deny basic physics to deny that, which is really funny. And then, yeah, in my models right here, what was your other question? Like, I don't even know. They're all so stupid. Like, what was your like? Telescope has better resolution. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. But if you pull a telescope out, can you see further? Yes. But can telescopes see forever? No. You guys think telescopes can see forever. You guys think a little ant on a little speck of dust put some glass in a tube and looked back in time and can see forever. That is weird to me. No, you can't see forever. I don't believe that. Yeah. Okay. So how far can a telescope see? A telescope can see as far as the light that has reached it has traveled. Which is 46 billion light years? 46 billion? No. That's the edge of the visible universe. That's the edge of the visible universe. 13.8 billion? The edge of the visible universe is 46 billion light years. And supposedly the age of the universe is 13.5 billion. Again, this is me knowing more about your religion than you. But let me just... You said visible universe, did you not? Yeah, 46 billion light years is the visible universe. Is that a cross? What? Is that an estimate? Or is that... It's all made up. What's that figure derived from? What is that figure derived from? You said that's the furthest. Where are you getting that figure? I'm curious. With what type of telescope? That's your religion, brother. No. My understanding is that the universe is 13. whatever billion years old. And so visible light has only ever traveled from a little bit after that point to us. The furthest light, as far as we can see, is the cosmic microwave background radiation. All right, we got more super chats flying in here. Garuda Legends, $10 for Flat Earth. There's only... I am not talking about the stages of... Boom. What a coincidence. Wait, let me share my screen, bro. People lying on me, bro. People lying on me. I'm the best glober out here in these streets, bro. How big is the visible universe? Observable universe. That's the radius. 27. Wait, calm down, buddy. Calm down. Yeah, radius means how far out we could see from the... No. Hey, buddy, come down. Come down, come down, come down. So the observable universe is 46.5 billion light years. That's exactly what I said it was. So we can be... You'll get there. That doesn't mean visually how far we can see. Visible universe. Observable does not... We're not... That's not synonymous with visible. Oh, really? So you can observe something without seeing it? You can observe the effects? Absolutely. Dude, dude. They're saying that that's how far back we can see, bro. That's the whole point. So we can see stars that are that far away. We can see stars that are 46 billion light years away. That's what they claim. Yes, that's what your religion claims. Now that I've taught you, you're gonna shift it around where somehow I need to prove it's wrong or something when you didn't know it was a thing five minutes ago. Let's just move on. Yeah, because I'm not an astronomer. I don't pretend to be an expert in a million different situations. Okay, well, stop pretending I'm stupid. I know more about your reasoning. I never said you were stupid. You agree I know more about your belief than you do? No. We have two superchats coming in for everyone that we get through. So like I said, we gotta move. Garuda legends, $10 for flat earthers only. Sorry, that was the one we just read. Joe Brandon for $5. If the earth was right next to the sun without millions of miles of distance, the earth would get incinerated by the sun. Where's your logic? That's assuming the sun is... We should start raving in it, you know? Let me get a peek at the bumping. Hey, the earth is far away and big. That's assumptions. You understand? We don't believe in your model. You're conflating the two together. We don't think the earth is as big as you think it is. So it's called a straw man fallacy is pretty much a tragedy. Let's move on. Well, in that case... Wait, you don't believe the earth is as big? I thought that there was more land outside of the ice wall. I'm not sure if it's bigger. You're saying the sun is so big that if it was actually closer to the earth, it would turn the earth into charcoal. Okay, don't leave the house without a helmet on. You're conflating the two universes or the two models. Let's move on. Again, you have not ever postulated something that we can actually talk about. Yeah, there's no specifics. Since he asked the question about what you believe, you avoided the question, like you have been doing the entire debate, about what is your actual understanding of the world. Well, actually to be... You couldn't even give me an estimate on the distance of the sun. A small local sun. What's an estimate? To be fair, Jake, he actually didn't ask me or ask Austin what his actual claim was or belief about the sun. He said if the sun was closer to a flat earth, so he actually conflated the two models and then straw manned Austin with a big gigantic sun so that he could try to make Flat Earth look stupid because the only way that they can actually... The only way they can actually destroy flat earth is to straw man it. That's how you know they're right. I have a question then. How do we understand what you're talking about if you won't tell us? We have to guess, which is what that person did. Yeah, it's smaller and more local. All right. Let's move on. Run, Boston Bear. So more local could be what? A million miles closer? It's still 90 million miles away. If that makes you feel good, I obviously don't believe in pseudoscientific numbers like that. But then what is it? If you have a... I know what you're saying. Knowing the specifics. I would need to know. How have you determined that? I would need to know. I would actually need to know the medium composition. Then how do you know small and local? The density differential of the medium composition, the electromagnetic portions of the sun itself, because actually it could just be a torus, feel perceived as a sphere from the outside. I would need to know what the sun itself is doing. I would need to know if there's different plasma layers within the electromagnetic nature of the sun, which has actually been verified even with spectroscopic readings. I don't know all that. I'm not so ignorant that I just repeat numbers and think it makes me smart. I know that that would require me to make unverifiable claims. How have you come to the determination it's small and local if you're saying you need all this to find out the distance? How do you know that? That's the default empirical position because when the sun's more low, you always have to enter. When the sun's more local throughout the day, it's warmer when it's closer to you and we see crepuscular rays. So the default position is that it's closer. I think Rambas... Yeah, as I was going to say, he's the next one here. Rambas Bear for $9.99. Sad I missed this debate. I've got family in town, so I'll catch it ASAP. Family is the most important for sure. Thank you for modern-day debate for hosting. I know Austin and Kai did amazing. That happens when folks have the truth on their side. Well, thank you for the nice super chat. We always appreciate fan super chats. It's music for $1.99. Rambas Bear. Sorry. I was just going to say Rambas Bear is awesome. Well, thank you for that as well. Let's whip out this next one. It's music for $1.99. Why don't tsunamis wrap around Antarctica? That's for the ballers. I don't have to know. Scientists know. What do you mean why don't they? I assume if a tsunami was large enough, it would propagate the wave across and around Antarctica. But I don't have any... I don't know the fuck you're asking, Frank. Yeah, not a geologist. It's nonsensical in your question. Can I see it? Oh, you want me to tell you what he's asking? No, because he asked it. Next question, please. Oh, so they don't know, and he's making fun of the person to ask the question because he knows more about your model than you do. Okay. He don't get to revive everything. Well, they don't even know. He called the question stupid, but he doesn't even know. No, I said it was nonsensical. But it's not, though. And we're going to tell it to you. They claim Antarctica that the seismic activity, the waves, don't wrap around Antarctica unlike every other landmass, and they have a specific explanation of it. I said they could, but I don't know for certain. It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen. And that should happen. I'm not, pardon me, but I'm not going to take your word for it. It's flat. I'm sorry. Okay, then they'll call people nonsensical when you're the one that's ignorant. It's okay, brother. All right, one second there, guys. So let's try to move on because we do have, like I said, lots of super chats. We're going to try to keep it for the side that they're assigned to. Benoit, Clenet, Soroise for $5 Canadian. Sunset in Alert Bay, none of it today, is at 33 a.m. In Equator today, Ecuador, sorry, 6.30 p.m. Short night, days in North, 12-hour nights at Equator. Is good evidence for globe. All right, one minute there, what's the good thing, Kai? No, bro. I mean, there is no, the good evidence for the globe is that the sun lights up the Earth for a certain amount of time. No, it's not. There's actually a day in July every year where an insane amount of the Earth is lit up, which would require something like 80% of Earth be lit up on the globe, which means they think that it wraps around over 30% additionally to the half that gets lit up. How much light is on the Earth at one time is terrible for the globe model. Of course, you have the coffee cup cost, it explains all kinds of things on a stationary plane, even 24-hour light around the edge would be possible with a coffee cup cost, which is just a provable physical phenomenon. Again, here goes the globe, making a claim that's physically impossible, doesn't have to acknowledge it, but we can actually verify what we're saying. Let's move on from there. Richie Constitution for $5. Why would people lie about the Earth being a globe? What do they have to gain by telling everybody it's a globe versus a flat, infinite plane? Oh, infinite, that's new. Well, up to you guys for a minute to expound, so thoughts on that question. They're accusing you of lying about the Earth being a globe, so it's a bit of an accusational question, and they're asking you what you have to gain by telling everybody it's a globe versus a flat, infinite plane, they did say. Me, personally, I have nothing to gain. I just like reality. Oh, they're asking us. Oh, wow, yeah, same, exactly. I really, it's funny when it gets called a religion, especially when a lot of flat Earth is based on religious concepts, this is the firmament and uses religion and a lot of them are heavily religious. I believe that it's a globe because that's what the evidence tells me. I really couldn't care less. If we found out tomorrow that the Earth was flat, I wouldn't change my life whatsoever. Landlord's not going to cancel rent because the Earth's flat. I don't see how that would be a huge reveal that would change the world. It really wouldn't make a difference. I do have a question though about, since we have this small local sun, and the sun is visible at certain points on Earth, all the time. There's somewhere where the sun's going to be visible. So how does the sun, or is it just not illuminated, this land that's outside of the extra land? Does that not get illuminated by the sun? Or is it what's going on? All right, let's move on from there. Megalyn for 200thb. Whitsit, I think he's gone right now, so I think Kai will hand it over to you. How might the hyper quark fluctuating transdimensional entanglement of gravitonic cronauts influence the non-Euclidean expansion of the quantum foam with the fractal cosmological biasing structure? Are you kidding me? I don't think that's a Kai question. I heard it sort of, dude. I don't even want to make you repeat it. I can't answer it unless you repeat it. Oh my God. Aliyah's crying, so Kai's going to have to go check on him. Oh, okay. All right, no problem. You hurt too many blovers. Good luck with the kid. How might the hyper quarking fluctuating transdimensional entanglement of gravitonic cronauts influence the non-Euclidean expansion of quantum foam with a fractal cosmological biasing structure? Do you coincidentally hand that? It's a troll question because I use vocabulary words that they don't understand, and they think that if they don't understand it, then it must mean that I'm stupid or something. Like, for example, when they asked me how to explain magnetism, I'm like, well, the highest levels of academia can't currently explain magnetism or even the source of the energy and how it actually violates thermodynamics. No, they actually cannot. And it's like magnetism? You notice how they always interrupt. Like, I trigger baller so much, did you know if we were playing one-on-one, and I crossed you up, and then I started driving, and you tackled me, that doesn't mean you won. All right, let's get right to another sports ball reference. No, how am I running away? I was talking, and you interrupted me, both of you. No, I said we should run away from the sports ball reference. I was making a jump. Okay, can I just make my point real fast? Okay, so at the highest levels of academia, they invoke something called virtual photons to explain magnetism. They say they don't know what that is, but to make the math work, they had to invoke them, right? And they actually, to quote Richard Feynman, he said, well, it's never been the input or output of any experiment. Their existence is questionable at best. We've never actually observed them. It's just needed conceptually so that we can make our math work, okay? But I didn't say, oh, actually, it's nothing more than pressure mediation based on the etheric fluid-like background medium. It's a conjugate geometric expression of centrifugal divergent, centrifugal convergence. Since those are big words, they just say that I made it up or it's stupid. They never go research it, which means you're willfully ignorant. Let's carry on. Megalyn, 400thb, Whitsitt can inter... No, no, no, no, no, not another one of these ones. There's two of them? There's two of them. Megalyn. Begin the Trek, no babble. No, no, no, not again. You can't do this to me twice. Ron Boston Bear, 499, Whitsitt didn't, FECOR did an FE core do a bit more research on the sun than simply claiming they shot it with radar from 94 million miles away. No, no, no, solar probes used to the radar, not the first. Yeah, FE core did an entire year of an entire longitude of measurements, azimuth and elevation, declination, reading, stuff like that. And then they rendered it in like a really powerful computer and they actually had to replace many GPUs to do it. And it actually showed that on a plain earth throughout the year, what the sun is doing is it's basically moving in and out, and then it's basically breathing in and out and it just coincidentally, when you map it on a plane with the actual measurements over the course of a year and like a supercomputer basically, it actually makes a toroid, it makes a torus field. So the sun actually maps out as a torus field on a plane when you take the actual measurements from all across a certain longitude, but that's probably just a coincidence. All right, so yeah, the next one coming in from Exposing Moss Tricks, for all thoughts on the irony of iron being flat earth. What? I think they're talking about, I don't know, I'm not sure. Oh, are you talking about like... Is that a Fooley-Cooley reference where they steam the earth flat? I don't know, I think now, never mind. Oh, let's move on from there because I think that might be about one of our other speakers and we don't like those types of compliments. LJ-499, which is the man? Even my dog knows the earth is level and all the moon landings were faked. So you got a fan there from LJ for 499. LJ follows that up with a couple of questions here. 999, you can't just go there. Even if you go under the radar of the the radar of the Navy, they have these water bullies that send signals that will notify the Navy of your exact location, the ice will. It's flat burrow, the ice wall. Oh, is this in reference to my question about the... Okay, if I could just... Just to illustrate what I was trying to say. This is what I was talking about in reference to if this is... I mean, we're using circular, I know you guys don't claim a specific shape. I can, I don't have... I can reach the ice wall from like, why couldn't I just go from South Africa, head straight down? Why couldn't I go from Argentina? Why couldn't I go from California, head this direction, reach the ice wall over here? You get what I'm saying? Like it doesn't need to be specifically heading where it would be south on a globe and to reach that area. So why is that Antarctica is always brought up, but there should be other ways to get there. Literally every single example you just gave would be south because it's 180 away from north. All right, next one coming in from LJ499. Flat out truth is a great YouTube, real flat earth channel. Explain how gravity is holding your huge weights down, but little bugs fly freely and balloons. Is that... Aerodynamics, next. All right. Dario de Jerich, five dollars. Such a cop out, bro. I'm not qualified to talk about it, bro. Just say you don't know what is being asked. Whitsitt is on point, undefeatable in debate. When did I say I didn't know? Well, I mean, I kind of feel like... A lot. I feel like I'm not qualified to talk about it. I mean, when did I say I did know? I might have said I don't know a couple of times and I have no problem with that. I said I don't know a couple of times, too. Versus claiming to be an expert in every single, all these highly complex fields with... To be fair, Dario, I mean, I'm not here to debate anything. You're claimed to have a better understanding than people with PhDs. I was going to say, I'm not here to debate anything. With the global scientific consensus. But I want to move on from this, but his quotation, I'm not qualified to talk about it. And then saying, just say you don't know what is being asked. I think that would be expressing the quote. So I mean, it's kind of backwards, I think, in a sense. Diamond asked for five dollars. Why was NASA caught faking their ISS delays if nothing's up? Nani? Yeah, this is another thing. It's like you can't just reference some obscure event. It expects me to have knowledge about that and know exactly and have an explanation for that. I don't know. You would have to cite me with whatever specific video you're talking about. But I just want to point out, in terms of NASA, I think it's funny how simultaneously they're somehow keeping the greatest conspiracy ever known to man under wraps, but then they're slipping up with their videos and hiring CGI companies on the books and things like that. That just doesn't compute. It doesn't make sense. You don't think it's possible they would ever mess up? I think if they messed up, then they would mess up in terms of revealing something that would actually indicate the Flat Earth, revealing proof. We can literally go read their contracts. They actually have all of these contracts with different VR. Yeah, they produce videos and different software and things like that. Not everything is... You think they're hiring them for the pictures? If this is supposed to be some shady conspiracy, why are they openly in writing with that people on the internet can easily find leaving a paper trail? Because the actual contract orders are actually classified. All you can see is that they paid this much money to this company, and then all the specifics are classified. All right. Keeping us on brand, LJ199 says YouTube Space Footage and all you find is Effing CGI, he says. Yeah. So your argument is that YouTube doesn't work, search engine or something? No, I don't understand that NASA's official YouTube just gives us CGI. All right. Let's move on from there. Dwerkey $4.99 Canadian. Thanks for your first super chat, but no question attached. Cool Lambo $10 for the whole room. How old is the Earth? 15 seconds. How old is the Earth there? What's it? Oh, I don't make unsubstantiated stupid claims. So we can look at trees that are like, you can maybe say like, you can verify $7,000, $8,000 looking at trees. Making up claims of billions of years is laughably, laughably pseudoscientific. And there's something called the Great Unconformity that debunks that, which will never be rebutted either. All right. Thoughts, David? $4.5 billion years. The Great Unconformity is up to $1.7 billion missing years of sedimentary layers that no one, no geologist has actually agreed upon. Well, is that $1.7 billion years at the beginning of Earth's history? No, it's scattered throughout it. Because there was like $1.7 is one location, another one has $1.2, another one has $1.5, and it's scattered throughout the alleged timeline of the Earth. All right, do you, Jake? I will look into that and see what's up. But as far as I'm aware, it's several billion years old. I forget the exact number. $4.5 billion. All right, I think everybody's answered there. Kai is busy taking care of the little ones, which I totally understand. My daughter just turned nine the other day, and then when Aaron was on, we got talking about snakes and stuff because she really wants to get a snake. I don't know anything about them. So I got to learn a little something, I think, here before we delve into that. Angel Quiles for $5. Did Whitsit and Kai both believe in Flat Earth when they met, or did one convince the other? We, she found out about the Earth and how they were lying with footage in NASA, and then we actually met online like two weeks afterwards. So we talked for a while online before we hung out. So we both knew before we started dating. Okay, all right, cool. Well, thanks for telling us a little personal thing there, because you don't usually have to answer those types of questions, but it's always nice. It's always nice. Teo, I made already $2. $24.7 Flat Earth Discord has a cadare of Flat Earth debaters on tap. Conjure. Conjure. Yeah, sorry. Not a normal word for me to be pronouncing here. You think I would, yeah. All right, we'll move on. If you play Tau, if you play 40K Tau, you get that win a lot. Yeah, video games corrode your brain. No, it's tabletop wargame, not video games. Okay, see now I feel bad because I feel like I should know this as a D&D nerd, so I'm feeling bad. Oh, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Richie Constitution, $2. Again, you dodged the Flat Earth model question. Any thoughts there? No, first of all, I said I had a Flat Earth model. She was right there. I didn't dodge it. I just have to consistently, I do have, I can give you a model, and I can explain all celestial positions. I can explain the magnetic field, which the globe model can't. They have geomagnetic anomalies. They can't explain the geodynamic model. I can explain that we're on the inertial plane within a magnetic field, which is called a block domain wall, as above so below. I can explain different plasma layers to explain all of the astronomical observations in the electric plasma universe. I can work out an entire model. I can work out an entire model. The point is that we don't have Earth models. We model out different phenomena. The globe doesn't have a working model, and you guys want to continually run away from that part of it and then try and poke holes. But when we poke holes in the globe, you can say, oh, the globe doesn't know everything. That means it's not true. You guys just have a double standard because it's a religion. All right, keeping us on point. Eric Waters, 499 in the Flat Earth model, is the Earth a disk floating in space? If so, what's on the bottom? If not, what is connected to it at the bottom? Like no one's ever dug deeper than 7.8 miles. So to make a claim beyond that is unfairifiable. That's what the globe does and was wrong the whole way down. But I just said, based on science and physics, we must be on a plane of inertia to the middle of magnetic field as above so below. Maybe there is some type of foundation. Maybe, I don't know, why would we make up unfounded claims? Like only one side does that. You guys think we have to replace your made-up claims? Small local sun is a pretty unfounded claim because you don't have anything to back that up and you don't have any specifics. So unfounded claims is definitely in your department. But you've ignored what I used to back it up. You ignore what I used to back it up four times. I said when it's closer, it's warmer, literally temperature fluctuation with proximity. That doesn't prove that it's small and local. Temperature fluctuation with proximity and the corpuscular range are both direct evidence that it would be small and local. It's not proximity here. All right, let's look at how a camera works. And to quote a Buddhist. Sorry, my guy, thank you very much. All right, let's move on to the movie. Charles Lerner for 499 Whitsitt. How does the Flat Earth Model account for a great circle sailing? It goes east to west. You can have circles on a plane. Pretty simple stuff. All right, we got a membership question from Daniel. Mother Soul says, tell us the furthest distance to the Sun Whitsitt. Whoa, east to west. Oh my gosh. What about north to south? North to south doesn't actually happen. Or you just claim it's never happened, right? No, it's a fact. When you look at their flight paths, they don't actually do a full north to south. Are you going to go research that after this debate? Are you just going to keep saying that it happened? What do you mean they don't do a full north to south? Where do they turn around and head back the other way? Yeah, they turn around. They dip in the ice and turn around. Why can't they just continue going over the ice and then go right over the middle of the continent and pop back up? Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about. Because that's the only thing that would prove scary. I'm fairly sure. What was the question? Antarctic expeditions back in the Victorian age attempted that. They just died a lot because it was cold. You can do it with spy satellites, actually. So it's no one's ever done it? China, a bunch of different world governments will tell you that they do that constantly with spy satellites. Because in a polar over, you're able to see the entire globe over a long period of time. Spy satellites that they don't release the information for when we should blindly trust the government agencies. I don't know what the question was about. That one was from a membership. It was saying tell us furthest distance to the sun. What's it? Oh, I don't know. But I think it's a super dense medium. I would say the furthest distance, 33,333 miles. God made that up. I have no idea. I just think it's going to say a bunch of 33s to make people get sure. Well, let's carry on. Ben, $5. Flat Earth kept me from getting the, I can't say it. I don't think because we might get in trouble for that. But he's talking about something related to what we all experienced the last couple of years here and lockdown and stuff. Oh, that the air was going to kill us? Yeah. Watch out. Wait, what is he saying? Flat Earth prevented him? He didn't get the needle. So no, I don't trust the science because it's been usurped by the global elite. I was trying to think of a way to say that without getting. Based couple. All I will say to that is hesitancy on the vaccine will kill more people than anything else that we have except. Yeah, we'll move on. He comes right out and says the word. Let's be careful before we get. Yeah, that's the one I was trying to avoid. Yeah, you're right, brother. I hope they come out with more. You should see what they're emitting for it though right now. Don't think you probably know. No, just we can't talk about this. I think we're going to do that tonight. I think other than that, we've behaved ourselves. So I don't think that's going to completely. That's right, but if it keeps going. If you listen to the song that I closed the show out with, I use some colorful language in there as well. So I try not to play the whole thing right off the bat. Well, music actually has a little protective barrier because it's art. Oh, that's nice to know. Maybe I'll get even more colorful the next one that I come up with. Whisko Matt, $5. David, you somehow turn evidence of NASA faking footage into evidence for the globe. Do you understand how illogical that is? Like I said, I don't know what you're referring to. When you just say NASA got caught faking this, it's like, that's just a very generic and vague statement. If you could provide evidence of that, sure, then that could be addressed. But I mean, just NASA's fact that NASA's hiring CGI companies or hiring VFX companies or augmented reality, like that doesn't indicate anything. And there's obviously, based on what they produce, they're not just producing photos. Like they produce videos and things like that, obviously they would have a need for that. So I don't see how that directly indicates that they're faking all of this. Well, one of the specific technologies they have is what makes like that you can video live and it creates a background live. So why do they need technology specific telemetric technology where you can make it look like there's somewhere live overlay? I can do that right now on Zoom. No, no, no, no, not to the quality that they paid thousands of dollars for. And I'm saying, why does NASA need that? For the world's biggest green screen. Yeah. Why does NASA need the world's biggest green screen? All right. I couldn't tell you. Well, let's move on from there. Look into it, bro. Jake is having fun with his backgrounds there. I was going to say, I won't play the game as well. I'll be hitting myself. Bite Me XD, $5. Love this debate, but also wanted to shout out to Ryan. Oh, thank you. For his epic guitar music and moderating, just want to let you know you're appreciated too, Ryan. Well, thank you. I appreciate you and everybody else that came out here to check out the debate. And yeah, the take that I have there was one that we smacked out in the studio. I usually put on a live take that we did just because I felt like it was a little bit more on brand. But this one is an unmixed raw vocal take. So, and the guitar. It was just, I went in and I just layered the two and just got the raw export. So nothing's mixed and it's just raw stuff coming at you. Anyways, enough about me. Diamond us, $10. The delay video was one of the biggest fakes caught on the camera. They later edited it. 10 second delay to verbally respond, but astronaut accidentally laughed to a joke on earth without delay. So the joke, the big gotcha there is that somebody laughed. Okay, cheers. Yep, earth is flat, confirmed. The delays don't match. How does that prove the earth is flat? It just proves that they're, why do you always revert to that? Because I'm saying, what is this indicating? Like even if that is true. That they're faking what they're claiming they're doing in space. And whenever we laugh at something else. When we point out all the stuff that goes on with the heliocentric model, you respond with, how does that prove flatness? No, it doesn't. We're talking about they claim that the earth is expanding and we're flying through it. And then you just revert back to, how does that prove flatness? So you can avoid ever addressing it, but it's okay because audience can see it. No, I explained this in my opening. There could be something that's valid, that's empirically verifiable, but if it doesn't indicate or support your position, it's irrelevant. So that's all I was saying is, what does that indicate? That the earth's not revolving around the sun. Because NASA didn't mess up on their video. They're giving you a lot of these. They're giving you a lot of... So they're faking space travel, man. Which is where they think they get all these things. It's a, you know, I mean, if they're this bad at keeping up the secret, it's a wonder hasn't leaked by now. That's all I gotta say. Well, it has. It has. You just haven't looked at it. Okay. It's coming out though. It's censored. It's admittedly censored by the government. And you guys won't even go look at it. I find that so wild. All right. Let's carry on from there, everybody. And yeah, to the one person who said that they didn't like my drum track, by the way, as a response to what I just said there. I'd love to get a real drummer on that, but it holds down the fort for now. Next one. Richie Constitution for $2. Again, you dodged the model question. So I think... I literally didn't. I started describing it. What am I supposed to describe every single phenomenon of history right now? Or I don't have a model. Okay. A magnetic field, just like a feral image of a magnetic field. We live within a tourist field. It has a conjugate geometry. Centrifugal divergent, trapezoidal convergence. The centripetal net radially inward accelerative force or motion from the sky will give us the effects locally on the earth with the translation of motion, just like the Machian principle. We have plasma layers that are different densities. Okay. And that's actually what's going to give us the different phenomena that we see in the sky. See what I'm saying? So it's like... But if I don't answer every single question of existence, I dodged the flat earth model question. No, I didn't. I answered it specifically like 10 times. And you're going to spend $2 again and say I dodged it again. Like you guys just have to lie incessantly. It's bad for you. It's been proven to make you ill, by the way. And if you say it really fast... Yeah. If I try to fit it all in, then I'm just trying to use word solids. So there's no winning. There's no winning. I think a model of the flat earth with what he's looking for is distances and... So a map. So he needs to be coherent enough to know how to use his words. The word says how far away things are. So if you could provide that on a flat earth... It doesn't even have an accurate map at all. Like they don't. They don't have one at all. They currently do not have a completely accurate map. They can't make one. Well, let's carry on from there. Dario Juric of $5. Can you explain the Orion correlation theory? Why do the three stars of Orion's belt go up and down every 10,000 years but are always above the pyramids? All right, we'll give that one a minute. But what was that? Can you explain the Orion correlation theory? Why do the three stars of Orion's belt go up and down every 10,000 years but are always above the pyramids? You have no idea what happened every 10,000 years. Humans weren't even recording then. I don't know why do people say stuff like this, bro? It's wild. All right, let's move on from there. Charles Layner, $4.99. What's it? Learn what a great circle sailing is. The fastest way between any two points on Earth is not a straight line. It's a great circle projection. Because they assume the Earth's sphere and the fastest way between two points on a sphere would be a circle. So they go in circles. Also, even doing a circle national plane would be a circle. So you're saying that if we assume the Earth's sphere and then this guy says that means it's the fastest one as if he tested a straight line that he supposedly can't test because he assumes the Earth is a sphere then by begging the question assuming the Earth's sphere that means that the Earth is a sphere. There you go. All right, let's carry on. We're almost to the end of the superchats there, everybody. LJ999, YouTube the Royal Navy icebreaker ship and see for yourself why you can't go to the ice wall unless you are Goku. If you get past it, the water bullies will send them your exact location flatter than a pancake. So he has kind of another assertion there but he's making his design the live chat there. Nominal for $5. Thanks, David and Jake. Y'all sound like honest Globers rather than anti-flat Earthers. So I'm going to cap that one there. But that's nice of you to say. We like compliments. Just to answer an anecdote with an anecdote for the previous one. I know some people who used to work on Antarctica's cooks. All right. Megalyn 10 for 100thb. Why is it completely impossible to create a flat Earth map that correlates with demonstrable reality? Do you ask them for a flat Earth map? I think so. Yeah. I find it funny every time that their models under attack is tragic. Their tactic is to ask where a map is that they ask that they lied about the Earth what you even asking. So it's just a ridiculous question. They lied about the Earth but why don't you know? Exactly. Why did we flip? That was crazy. You guys have flipped. You sat in the glove. Oh, you're in Australia. Did you flip this? Or did I do that? You must have done that. I can correct it on my side. I'll fix it. Because then you'll flip it. But we are actually currently in Australia. Oh, my. But anyway, anyway, like verifying the distances in the South doesn't happen. It doesn't happen. In fact, the actual evidence is that the world's fastest sailboat in the North, its world record is significantly faster than in the South. Why is that? Because they're actually traveling a greater distance, going the same seat in the South. So they're actually thinking that they're going slower. Thank you for playing. So you didn't verify distances in the South. You can just keep saying that you did over and over. I'm sure it will somehow become true. All right. Well, let's go. What distances are you going to verify? Between land masses or the distances of, we know the distances of land masses. So why can't you provide a map that is accurate showing the distances of the continent, like to scale? All right. Most of them are accurate. You can't get exact measurements. And then when you get to the South, actually, when you look at like Google Maps, they're super skewed and disproportionately not accurate for the globe. How does that work? I need to cap you guys there. I'm going to let everybody know in the live chat, we're going to cap the super chats because we got to let these fellas go. I'm going to eat something too, because it's been a hot minute since I've put something in me, a stomach here. So I'll tell you, Omega wordy, $2 flat earth model is irrelevant. Water is flat. Yes. All right. Uh-huh. It just always looks like it's flat. Ben for $5. It says only stupid people, yeah, I'll read it fine. Only stupid people expect a flat earth model when NASA has $26 billion per year to pay people to come up with the math and CGI. And their model doesn't even work. The global model. So I don't see how that's any relevant. All right. The global model doesn't even work. Last one coming in from Alex. What's it and Kai? Why can't we zoom the moon back into view with a telescope immediately after it sets to the naked eye? Because it's going to reach its angular resolution limits. So once it reaches, and also more importantly, we actually have an azimuthal grid of perspective, which is going to give us part of this relationship. So once it's outside of that perspective limit, you're not going to just bring it back. You're not just going to be able to bring it back. With a telescope, with an instrument, with a higher angular resolution limit. That's right. Like eventually it's going to reach its ultimate limit of perception. Now you can actually think that you can't see something and then bring it back in the view with a telescope or a camera, but eventually you can't see it anymore. They're saying if the moon, right after it disappears to the naked eye, the minute after, shouldn't you be able to see it with a telescope? 10 seconds. No, no, because it's far beyond your azimuthal grid of observability, which is a certain distance around you in a hemispherical like limits. So as it gets beyond that due to the declination and vanishes into the vanishing point, so you can't just pull out like a telescope and all of a sudden see through the atmos infinitely beyond the vanishing point and beyond the azimuthal limit. You can see further than the naked eye. You're not listening. Yes, but the moon's outside of your azimuthal grid of observability limits. Oh, word silent. Let's move on guys, because as like I said, we're speaking two more did pop in and let's whip through them right quick. $5 from Dario. That was for the globe guys. If the solar system is moving through space at 448,000 miles an hour, how can the globe explain Orion's Belt theory? I think they're once again bringing up the stars and the pyramids thing. I mean, I would have to double check, but I'm fairly certain that Orion's Belt, the stars in there are a part of our galactic system. And so we are both orbiting the galactic center at roughly the same speed. So positions are roughly stable. And using those big numbers to the inertial frame of reference. He's saying that the globe claims they move over every every like 10,000 years or so. All right, last question coming in from cool Lambo $5. What's it? Please provide a photograph of the Flat Earth and its entirety. That's an absolutely ridiculous asinine request. Yes, you forever. They can even do that with a globe. You can even get a whole picture of the globe with one. Because you can only see half the disk at this time. You can't even get one of half the sphere because it's all composite admittedly and then touched up and cloned. Well, that is 2023. You guys are growing. What are composite images? That is the end of the super chats, my friends. It's 2023. What we're going to do is we are going to give one minute per each speaker to wrap up their final thoughts on the discussion we had tonight. And then we'll close it out with some music. So Jake, up to one minute, your closing thoughts. All right. Well, first off, I would like to thank our dear esteemed host here for guesting us and for a modern day debate for letting me on. I appreciate that greatly as I am struggling to get a foothold on the online community. And if you feel like making sure I don't go homeless, head over to my channel. In short, about our actual topic here, the evidence for a globe is overwhelming. And without the globe model and the associated understanding that we have for it, you would not be able to use your phone to get anywhere with GPS. You wouldn't be able to fly a plane in the right way with GPS. We wouldn't be able to do JWST, long-ranging infrared vision. And the claim that the Earth is flat is, again, an extraordinary one. And the burden of proof has not been met. And... All right. Well, thank you so much, Jake, for being here and your closing statements and being a part of this discussion. David, one minute for you. Yeah. So I'm basically just going to echo what Jake said, like as far as the evidential side, like globe Earth. We've got specifics. We've got testable predictions. Flat Earth doesn't have any of that. It's just got vague concepts that attempt to explain reality in the way we see it. And then when you ask them for specifics, it's, oh, we don't know, but we don't have to make those claims or something like that. There's plenty of observations that only make sense on a globe, lunar eclipses, seasons, time zones, all those things that Flat Earth has to invoke just basically, essentially magic to explain those. Or just outright deny other things, like north to south circumnavigation that's been done plenty of times. With the mapped out paths. So yeah, the evidence is overwhelming. And like I said, just because there's an objectively verifiable fact, it has to be shown to indicate that it supports your conclusion, doesn't make it evidence for Flat Earth. If it's only a global model. Well, thank you so much, David, for your closing statements and for being here this evening and partaking in this discussion. Over to you, Kai, for up to one minute to close your thoughts there. And it's been a pleasure, of course. Oh, there you are. Oh, thanks for letting me be on the show. Yeah, I thought Flat Earth was crazy at first. I was a really big alien girl, loved Elon Musk. It's really easy to sit back and just Google things, look at the videos that pop up, like Professor Dave just hear the arguments, regurgitate them, and think that you know everything. All the things that David said can be explained with Flat Earth. And more, there's actually no evidence that supports the globe. Flat Earth will change the world. It will change your life if you are receptive to the information. And it's coming. It is absolutely coming. Not everyone's going to wake up to the truth, but it's coming. And all these comments I want to hate on us, it's all worth it to spread the message. All right. Whitsitt, close us out. You're up to one minute. I'll up to one minute there closing statements. And thank you so much for being here, Kai, and participating in the discussion over to you, Whitsitt. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not just finding it interesting that people just keep saying that, oh, Flat Earth can't explain all of these things, and they have to invoke magic when literally they are all explained. And there are many ways to explain them most of the time. But when the globe has to invoke actual magic, like things contract, but you can't tell that there's dark matter and dark energy making up 96% of all existence, but we can't find it. And all this nonsense to save their beliefs, it's okay. That's the cutting edge of science. And it's been over a century of them just piecing nonsense together. I actually bury each and every one of the strawmans on my channel. You can go to Whitsitt gets it. I have schooling globers where I just bury the typical played out strawmans that we've heard in this debate and every debate. But typically they just get it ignored. Doesn't matter how many times you say it. But so hopefully you can just step back, open up your mind, test the Earth, verify the radius value. If the radius value is wrong, then the entire model's wrong and the Earth is flat. Don't make it weird. Like we're just trying to help you out. All right, everybody. Well, you heard it here. That was our debate tonight on the Flat Versus Globe. You can check this out on the podcast. It'll be music free and ad free. And that is going to also have all of our guests in the description. And a big reminder to everybody that our live in person event is going to be happening in Houston, Texas, Saturday, September 16th. So we got our tickets in the link below. So check that out. And we will see you next time. So let me play you guys out. And cheers, everyone. All right, for the minds of Liar. Who's the color shots as you bat your heads?