 Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth versus Glowbirth, and we are starting right now with the Glowbirth side. Thanks so much for being with us, PlannerWalk. The floor is all yours. Thank you. Would you just get around to sharing my screen? Hold on, Zoom is being weird. It sure is. Not a problem. There's a share screen button that's green on the bottom, usually sometimes at the top, and it's in the middle. Oh, there we go. Are you able to see that? Yep. Okay, so the earth is flat, and here's why. So when it comes to earth, it isn't flat, but it isn't a perfect sphere. This is going to be important. I promise that I'm going to get to why later. But mountains disprove that the earth is flat. It also disproves that it's a perfect sphere. These two things, to say that earth is a perfect sphere, would be wrong. To say that it's flat would be wrong. But these aren't equally wrong. And it would be absurd to say that, well, because the earth is neither flat nor a perfect sphere, it must be a donut. That would be absolutely ridiculous. And so Flat Earth, I think, is a philosophy. It's about alternative ideas to absolutely everything. Flat Earth for a long time hasn't really been about any sort of evidence, even though it has tried in the past to be about evidence. Instead, it's about misunderstanding the globe model. You'll hear a lot of people will say if the earth was spinning at 5,000 miles an hour, then it would all fly off, which is not actually what would happen. And if you were to try and present that as evidence for the earth being flat, then that would not be evidence that the earth was flat. Even if you're correct about the people flying off, that doesn't mean that the earth is flat. That might just mean that the earth is a globe and stationary. It used to be that people thought that the earth was a stationary globe back in, I think it was 500 years ago, people thought that the earth was a stationary globe. Now, if you do try and get to the sort of evidence, I think that Flat Earth is a pseudoscience because it isn't really about trying to prove that the earth is flat, trying to give reasons that the earth is a flat. It's more about trying to debunk the earth as a globe. Now, let's say you did debunk the earth as a globe. Is it then reasonable to say that it's then flat? No, because it would be like saying that the earth is a doughnut because it's neither flat nor a perfect sphere. There's a lot of ad hoc justifications. So when you try and ask, okay, why does this happen on a Flat Earth? There will be an ad hoc justification that will be put into it. Quite often, I don't know if Jiren or Witsa used this, but quite often when you say, why do things disappear bottom first over the horizon? Some Flat Earths will say, well, perspective as an ad hoc justification. There's a few other ones that I can't quite remember at this point in time. There is no falsifiability to Flat Earth. If you want to be science, you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis. So this means that there is a way to test what you are saying. And then if we were to test what you're saying under reasonable conditions, then we can say, okay, well, this is what the results say, and your thing could be false. There have been multiple times when I've seen Flat Earths do experiments, but then their experiment fails or whatever, and they do not accept the result of that experiment. Another really good thing is when you try to provide things like calculations. Calculations are very important. If you can say, okay, this is why things fall at this rate, give calculations for why they fall, and all that kind of stuff, then that is really good. That actually leans to falsifiability. If your calculations are accurate, then testing it should be able to prove whether your calculations work or not. I haven't seen any sort of calculations that Flat Earths say, okay, this is the calculation for things like relative density. Okay, so let's get to the evidence. I want to make this debate more about evidence rather than trying to say, okay, this is something that Einstein said or whatever. I want this to be about evidence. So this is a thing that a lot of Flat Earths bring up, and it's called the black swan. And it is an image that shows the horizon being behind two platforms. Now, one thing that I find that a lot of Flat Earths do is they ignore other images of the same platforms, which show the platforms being hidden by the horizon. And you can look, and there is very clearly something going on, especially in the first image, you can tell that there is refraction, very heavy refraction here on both the platforms. Why is that? Well, I would say that it's because it's very heavily refracted. There could be some refraction going on here, but again, no Flat Earth has ever tried to give any kind of calculations or something to try and explain why this would happen on a Flat Earth. Then there is also this image here, one of my favorites. This was taken by a Flat Earth using an infrared camera. And we can see that, so initially they thought that this shouldn't be what you would see on a globe. But in fact, it's exactly what you should see on a globe. This is an image of what we'd expect to see versus what we actually see, and it lines up absolutely perfectly. I'd like to have someone try to explain why we see this on a Flat Earth, if the Earth is flat. Why do we see something that we would expect to see on a globe on a Flat Earth? Lastly, I want to thank Jiren for putting this video up. I'm not going to show the whole video. This is a screenshot from it, and we can see that there is a curved horizon there. And a lot of Flat Earths will say, well, it's because of a fisheye lens. Well, if it were from a fisheye lens, then why is it that when the horizon is below the center of the camera, that it's curved in a way that wouldn't be possible if this were a fisheye lens? Whether it's above or below the camera, it still curves in the same way. Why is that? And my last bit of evidence is just James. So David, if you want to take over. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, guys, thanks for having me on. So the Earth is a globe, and let's just cut to it. Some of what Planet Walk has stated is clear. Mountains can certainly be used. The measurement of the height of mountains relative to another person's elevation can clarify that you're seeing mountains that are at a distance are angled away from the person's line of sight. And the height of that mountain does not match the elevation. The height of that mountain, as it's seen from the observer from such a far distance, does not match the elevation. That's because the mountain is at an angle that is on a curved surface. But more than that, we have a lot of things that can justify and prove that the Earth is a sphere, and when used in tandem, they are irrefutable. But what flat Earth is, what you do is misuse the concept of perspective. To simply say the perspective is a way to prove that something that is further away looks like it's larger than it is, or that something is higher than it is, and lower than it is, there is nothing measurable behind that explanation. The lack of a measurable way of explaining one's position means that you do not understand the concept and that you are simply ad-hoc'ing it. A big problem is that flat Earth is ignoring the effect of gravity, but then try to explain the effect without acknowledging the fullness of that effect. Things fall, they fall downward, there's a reason that those objects fall downward, and outside of declaring that it is because it is, which means nothing, they will try to redefine the concept of gravity, essentially make it into a game of semantics, speaking about relative density, or localized gravity, or something else which can be easily clarified and therefore debunking their position. I've heard some very logical, sorry, illogical fallacies, basically using a concept of logical fallacies, but incorrectly. There's the sense of a necessary antecedent to say that there has to be something to cover up the atmosphere so that the air around us has a container. That is not necessary. Assuming that it is necessary is a logical fallacy. The aspect of personifying things, to say that water finds its own level, or the horizon finds its own level, or something to that effect, that's also a logical fallacy, the concept of water finding anything, water doesn't find anything. The analogy is to say that water settles into a position and that we assume that a position is infinitely on the same plane, on the surface is wrong. There is no flat earth that has ever shown water along a plane, the surface of the water along the plane, and you can see that beyond a certain distance, and that distance is always less than what it would take to easily discern the surface of the earth at 24,000 miles of circumference. Sometimes I hear some flat earthers use the concept of reification to say that, oh, we're speaking about concepts that are not really anchored in reality or physically tangible. That's not true. The issue is that we are comparing the scale of the earth, which is 24,000 miles of circumference, and we're using measurements that are not, the flat earthers are using measurements and then trying to compare those measurements for shorter distances and then extrapolating those shorter distances to say, oh, hey, it's flat from here to here. You don't see a measurement. You don't see a measurable curve, so you can't see a measurable curve further along the distance. That's absurd. For me, one thing I noticed that is quite funny is how flat earthers will use a definition. They'll show a definition and the word has four definitions, but they'll point to the definition of the four that justifies their position and say, oh, yeah, what does the word level mean? Well, it means this. See, definition number one says it does, but definition number two does not. Definition number two speaks of something else which applies to debunking their position. And then there are other things. I don't know if I've done over my time, but I'll just thank you very much for that opening from the globe side. We are going to kick it over to the flat earth side. I want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Moderate Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from, globe earth, flat earth, you name it. Thrilled to have you here. And if you haven't seen it, as you can see at the bottom right of your screen are in raw and perfect. Dawa face off on whether or not there is evidence for Islam next weekend. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it. And with that, thank you very much for being with us. You wits it and jarenism. The floor is all yours, jarenism. Thank you. Happy to be here, James. Say forever me. Awesome to finally get to debate here. Although I want to see Alec Stein here. So is he coming back soon? I hope so. I don't like debates a lot because I don't think that they're really fair when you're going against somebody who gets to use the entire body of science and call that fact. So you won't hear us really using that. We've got to actually battle uphill, which I think is a lot more difficult. And also pointing out that we are what scientific defines, which is being skeptical. So people who simply repeat what they're told, read out of a book, copy it, regurgitate it, those people are not being scientific. They're not being skeptical. What they're being is religious. So I find it hilarious that it seems that you have a lot of projection from the other side where if they were truly skeptical, they would look into things like we do. They would question Artemis and wonder if that's real. They would question the pictures of the earth that take 25 minutes to upload on Himawari. They would be skeptical and not just say, no, if it's coming from our government or it's coming from NASA, it must be true. That is the complete opposite of being skeptical and therefore not scientific at all. When we say it's flat, we certainly never mean it's 2D. So if you hear that, you're taking it the wrong way. When we say flat, we just mean it's a level plane. And then when we say level, yes, there's mountains, there's valleys, there's ridges, there's oceans, but everybody is standing upright. There is nobody antipodal to me. There is nobody antipodal to you. There's nobody underneath you standing upside down. That is simply a fabrication told by men who think very little of you. Somebody at the beginning called us, said what we do is pseudoscience when most of the theories that come out of cosmology, they come from theoretical physicists like Michikaku, who's been on record saying that nobody that he knows of in his field uses the so-called scientific method. Well, if you don't use the scientific method, but you are selling your product as science, that is the very definition of pseudoscience. So again, who's doing the pseudoscience here? Certainly not our side. That is the theoretical physics side. As far as you said, if we can debunk the globe, it doesn't mean that it's flat. Well, the thing about that is again, the problem that we have is that when we bring you evidence that the earth is not as we've been taught, your immediate question is always, well, how does the entire universe work then? As if that is an equal standing. We're not claiming that we know how everything works. We don't claim to know how the sun operates and what temperature it is when it comes out of the center and how long it takes to get to the coronal. We don't make those claims. It's you guys who have made those claims and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So when you're going to tell people when they're six years old and seven years old that they're spinning on a gigantic ball and that it's flying through space at ridiculous speeds and that it's never got no impunity, nothing's getting in its way, nothing's causing it to deviate. It's just everything's just so perfect. And then you hear these speeds and they're ludicrous speeds like we're traveling right now. If you just close your eyes, you can feel at 1.2 million miles per hour as we fly through the vacuum of space. Again, we've got an atmosphere attached, which seems quite strange in the fact that that atmosphere should have been gone long ago. It is adjacent to a vacuum and the vacuum should equalize that pressure over time. However, that's not happening. They like to claim that it's gravity, but we've given a thought project and actually somebody's working on it right now to actually do it, which clearly just debunks that. If you take a vacuum chamber and let's say it's as big as the room that we're in and we evacuate all the air, but in the center of the room we have a box like a shoebox size and in that shoebox is air and it's also sealed. So we evacuate the big room, all that's left is the box with the air in the middle. We electronically open that lid. What's going to happen to the air in that box? Of course, it's going to immediately fill the space, it's going to immediately disperse into that vacuum. If the globe theory was correct, then the gravity would clearly be strong enough to hold that small bit of air in that box because it's closest to the earth. So that disproves that whole idea right there. It is clear that we can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. As far as ad hoc justifications, we can go back and start with where I did with Edmund Hubble and understanding that he looked out into the cosmos and saw everything moving away from us and then said that it does make it seem like we are the center of the universe, that we are central. However, he says that must be avoided at all costs. Anybody who is going to talk about philosophy, science is a philosophy. It is the philosophy that there is no god, there is no creator, that the smartest people here are the men who are here who can rewind sky clocks. The giant ball earth that we're told that we're just like little fleas on this gigantic rock and we would never see curve. Well, if that's the case, but then you also believe that these same men, these same little fleas on the earth, they also learned to polish up their little glass lenses and they put them in a tube and they can magically now see back in time. They can see just by looking through the tube, 25 trillion miles, which of course is simply ludicrous. You believe it not based on any evidence other than men have told you. Men that you believe in, men that you trust, it's man worship. Why would you ever believe anybody who told you you could see 25 trillion miles? That is the closest star to the earth, if you don't count the sun. 25 trillion miles, they tell us. So I'm skeptical of that and we get yelled at and shouted at and called names and made fun of because we're skeptical of a crazy claim that has really no evidence. What'd you say? Is that my six? Yeah. Go ahead. All right. Nice. All right. I'm going to share a screen real fast thing. All right. We're good. So work here. So the debate is, is the earth a spinning tilted wobbling ball in a vacuum or is this stationary topographical plane? This guy straw manned a 2D earth in mountains debunk it or whatever flat the description of a surface not a shape. But anyway, this all started with Mickelson Morley. It was supposed to show what's on the right here where there was a difference in the light. But instead it actually showed that they were together. And so it showed that the earth was not orbiting. This changed all of physics and this is when relativity came in to play basically saying that you could never prove that the earth is orbiting. Just trust us. I promise it does matter contracts in the direction of motion. Time slows down. Just don't worry about it. You can't prove it, but we know it's the case. This is where you have this quote from Einstein explaining that Mickelson Morley led him to relativity. He said, since then I've come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment though the earth is revolving around the sun. People get triggered and act like the fact he says though the earth is revolving around the sun debunks our point and makes it stronger. We're saying he's admitting that even though he believes that you can actually detect it with optical experiment. Here's his quote saying you can't do it with terrestrial experiment. Every attempt to ever do that is negative. That's why relativity says you could never prove it. Here is the Mickelson Morley type experiments being done many other times with much more precision since then, even in this century in the last couple of decades, much more precision never detecting the orbit of the earth. Here you go with the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean. And this is from history channel.com. You can see right here. It says that his disproving detractors told Marconi that he could not send the transmission 200 miles or more because it would be limited by the curvature of the earth. He successfully sent it first attempt using line of sight 2000 miles. After that, he ended up doing as far as 10,000 miles. Then they ad hoc came up with the idea of the ionosphere bouncing it down perfectly and making it land. The irony of a globe earth or to say the word ad hoc is crazy. He brought this up and said, I don't know why he talks. They talk about the black swan but they don't talk about how there are other pictures of it closer. Yeah, that's why it's called a black swan. If you say all swans are white, but then you find one black swan and nullifies the claim that they're all black or that they're all white. That's the whole point. This only has to happen one time. The atmosphere constantly moves. He says, you can tell there's a lot of refraction in this one and not that one. Yeah, because it's not a zoomed in. And as you zoom in the distance, you'll get more refraction. Anyone that actually tests the earth and does observations set a blind leaving it knows this, this debunks the globe. The horizon's over 10 miles away should be no further than 1.2 miles. And it's actually still doesn't even work in the picture he brought up. So ironically, they're cherry picking antithetical to the actual question, which is, does the horizon extend too far? Here's another observation 163 miles away from a thousand foot observer height. There should be 10,296 foot hidden height. You can notice he did not include any actual data. Whenever he made this claim, he just put a cartoon on there and said it's perfect. Here's the, here's the depiction right here. You should not be able to see these as the silhouette from the mountains way too far away. This is the Chicago skyline during the sunset from almost almost 70 or just over 70 miles away. They should be entirely blocked. The curvature of the earth should be over the tallest building in Chicago yet you can see it. You can see it at the sunset with the silhouette and they want us to believe that actually that's not there. The sun's not there either. That's an entire illusion. The sun's already gone and the buildings are thousands of feet underneath the curvature of the earth. They just happen to lift up in the silhouette refracts and makes us think that it's actually there. I talked to locals. You can see it four to five days a week is a very current, a very frequent occurrence. Moving on. We have a whole bunch of different other observations here. Here's a laser test. So we shoot laser at very low height over the top of flat water. Fluid dynamics is constantly in motion, attempting to seek its equilibrium. Just saying level means curved around the ball is called begging the question. It's not reality. This is from 16.42 miles away and we see it too far away. I hear our mirror flashes. We also take mirrors, put them on the surface over large bodies of water and we reflect the light back and forth coming from the sun, which is impossible on a globe, but they'll just say the words refraction and gravity over and over and over. Talk about ad hoc explanations. And then here we go with one of the big quote unquote debunks of flat earth is the sunset. The sunset. Well, we have water vapor in the air. We know that here you're on side emitting that X as a lens of magnification. And then we show right here a depiction of the sun and people say it should change an angular size. But as you can see, when it has magnification, it doesn't change an angular size and it goes down and it disappears from the bottom up even though it's up above a flat surface. I want everyone to pay attention here. They don't seem to understand it. He said there's no way they just say perspective. You see the sun disappearing from the bottom up. But if you look at where it's at, it's actually still up above the table. Here's a depiction of our, here's an actual observation of the sun, which is beautiful. This is by Raki a live shot to him and watch what the sun does here. Now they claim that the sun is going actually the sun sitting still and we're falling back away from it in the curve of the earth is blocking it. Of course, as you see right here, the sun is disappearing into the vanishing point of the sky up above the horizon. This proves to you the sun can disappear from the bottom up completely void of physical obstruction. No Glover has ever rebutted it. They can't, they just freak out. And then I'm just gonna have to run through these, but here are the typical fallacies. I'll pull them up as they're used because it's important to understand you can't use fallacies constantly. A bill to authority, credentials fallacy saying that since I don't have credentials, my argument can't be true. Poisoning the well, which they did that just discrediting us before we go. At hominin fallacies, which is personal insults as opposed to the attack, Texas sharp shooter fallacy, which is what they do with geodetic surveying where they say, oh, look, we'll put the circle around where we shot on the wall and claim it was perfect and throw out everything that doesn't match our assumption. False dilemma fallacy or false dichotomy fallacy where they say it has to be this way or nothing appealed to emotion. You will see a lot of that shifting the burden of proof because they're making the positive claim that everything's antithetical to observation, but they shift the burden on to us. You have an appeal from incredulity. They can't understand how the sunset would work on a flat earth. Therefore it can't be the case. You have argument at a populum. Everyone thinks that the earth is a ball, so it has to be. Then they strawman our position. They divert away from our position with red herrings. Then you have affirming the consequent, begging the question. And of course, this is the most important sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. So hopefully we'll have a discussion today that will be fruitful void of those fallacies because they seem to be very popular in this discussion and looking forward to it. Thank you very much for that opening as well. We're going to jump into open conversation and want to let you know, folks, if you haven't had a question, you can feel free to fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with at modern day debate, that's one way to ask a question as well as if you do a super chat, we push those at the top of the list as we start reading them during the Q&A. With that gentlemen, thank you very much. The floor is all yours. I'll just say real quick, sir. I'll just say plainer, but Austin and I are both open to having conversations with people who believe in the globe. It's unfortunate that most of your compadres like to attack and make fun. They don't really want to have the conversation. It's kind of strange. I'm sure that there are a lot of people that want to have the conversation. Then let's have the conversation right now. So you guys brought your response. I want to address one of the things in a conversational manner so that we can put it into that. Extraordinary claims have been met with extraordinary evidence. And the issue here is whether or not you recognize the evidence as being sufficient. When the evidence has been shown to you, you dismiss it or try to re-explain it, and that creates the very problem that you are saying we do. You're creating the very issue of having an honest conversation because you try to re-explain what is clearly evident. Okay. Can we get specific here? One of your extraordinary claims is that the one of your extraordinary claims is that the earth revolves around the sun. So do you have any extraordinary evidence? After I give you my example, then I will address you. So for example, you spoke about the sun receding back into the distance and retaining the same size. Well, the thing that contradicts that is that when I look at those tall buildings in the distance and I get further away from those tall buildings, they get smaller. I don't see other objects anywhere around me, anywhere on earth, where I go further away from them and they retain the same size. So there is no reason for me to look at that concept of the sun or the moon for that matter and say, oh, well, this has happened because of some lens effect, which quite literally contradicts your concept of refraction, being a globe earth debunked. So refraction works in a way to make the sun retain the same shape and size, no matter how far you walk. But it doesn't, that's not the straw man though. That's a fallacy fallacy. Just address how what I'm saying is wrong. Okay. You don't. Okay. Can I talk now? I'm done. You actually don't know what fallacy fallacy means. I would encourage you don't use it if you don't know what it means. I know what it means and I stand to define it. Define it. It means that you're trying to use a fallacy and an argument of a fallacy to say that the person has a fallacy as a reason to say that their argument is weak. Just because just because I may even engage in a fallacy does not mean that the argument itself is weak. So that is a waste of time. So address the issue. Okay. That's wrong. So if you use a fallacy for our argument, then your argument is logically fallacious and invalid. What fallacy means, what fallacy fallacy means is the assumption that just because someone says something fallacious as their argument that their conclusion, that their conclusion is incorrect. So you can say fallacious things in your conclusion be wrong, but your argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong if it's fallacious. So you didn't understand it. I didn't understand and you and I are just going to disagree, but let's get to the sun. I don't know. Do I need to pull it out? I refuse. Listen, I refuse to yield on that. So we're not going to waste a whole hour doing this. So you're going to laugh right along with you. Well, yeah, you're wrong. That's how the sun. No, you're wrong. Let's go ahead and address how the sun itself out of all of the other objects that we have access to on earth can retain the same size, no matter what the distance is for anyone on earth. But, but everything else diminishes with size as you, you get further away. Please. Okay. So actually, the sun does change angular size throughout the year in your own model even. And angular size does change throughout the day just very slightly. And it is because it's through view through a greater distance of at most. And we also don't know the medium that the sun is in. You guys claim it's impossible for the sun to disappear bottom up if the earth is flat. I debunked that showing a lensing effect would actually make it disappear from the bottom up. Okay. So you did not address my, you did not address my point. I literally know you literally did not. I'm just over your head. Sorry, brother. No, you're not over my head. You're just being presumptuous. You want to keep going? I'm over your head. No, you're presumptuous. You want me to repeat it? Nope. I want you to listen. You want to listen? Okay, cool. So what you did was you gave an example of how the sun changes angular distance over a period of time from days to weeks to months over the course of a year, which you know was not my argument. I even said very clearly, everyone all over the world sees the sun as the same size no matter how far away they are from it. That only speaks about distance. So I didn't, I didn't specify a time frame. Yes. The sun will change by what? 5% size from August to January. Because of distance. Because of distance alone. Thank you for your concession. No, but that doesn't address what I said. You said it wasn't because of distance. Nope. I did not. Listen again. I said that my argument had nothing to do with looking at the changes of the sun over time. I'm looking at the changes of the sun over distance from one observer to another. You've got to have the one observer to the other partner else you're not getting my point. You didn't hear my rebuttal. Let me repeat it. This guy's unbearable. I said it changes throughout the year and even throughout the day in your own model. That wasn't my original point though. So you're just going to interrupt me the whole time. I do need to hold on one sec just so there's not too much speaking over each other. Let's give it to Austin for maybe another minute and then maybe even a minute and a half and then we'll kick it back over to Dave or Planner Walk. Okay. So I explained that in your own model even. It changes angular size throughout the year and throughout the day based on even Stellarium data. So you can say no, but you can just go look at Stellarium. It changes. And then I explained that the reason we don't see it the same as we see more local objects is the sun would be significantly farther away. And in addition, we do not know the medium that the sun itself is encompassed within or if there's a containment that would give us that lensing effect to a greater extent. What it shows is that it disproves your claim it's impossible for the sun to maintain angular size and disappear from the bottom up over a flat surface. It objectively can with the lensing effects. Okay. So what I stated had to do with the size of the sun being seen by different observers at the same time period. You knew this and you're trying to redirect my argument and that's a waste of our time. I'm not going to call the fallacy because we'll argue about what the fallacy is. So getting back to my original point, which is that the sun is the same size in the sky for all observers at any point in time. You know this. Now you bring up some scientific measurement. Hold on some scientific measurement that can be used to determine the angular size of the sun and I wonder what is the level of precision of that? It's certainly not optical because if I'm twice as far away from one object than from another, there'll be about half the size that it is when I originally saw it. Your sun on your flat earth models can be three, four and five times away from one observer to another. Whatever other measuring standards that you're trying to use does not have nothing to do with my argument and you can't address my argument. If I'm in Chile and I see the sun rise over my head and it sinks back down to the ground like you say, right? That sun from your own arguments can't be more than four or five thousand miles away, right? Then someone on the other side of the world sees the sun rising while I'm seeing it setting and that person on your flat earth model is twenty to thirty thousand miles away. There is absolutely no difference in angular size between those two observers. So I have debunked your argument. So you clearly didn't listen to me and I'm not going to go in circles with you again. I'm going to say it one more time and then we're going to let the audience hear that you can't rebut it. So what I said was it actually disproves the claim that it's impossible for the sun to maintain angular size and disappear from the bottom up over a flat surface. You can get that very effect with the lensing effects and I explained that we don't know the medium the sun is within or if there is containment that would contribute to the lensing effects. And in addition to that, it is further away than something that you see on the ground like buildings. Those three things objectively refute your position. You've skated past it three times and the actual reason it's shown is because you guys claim that it's impossible when it literally is not impossible. Now I get to ask a question. You said extraordinary claims, extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence and that we deny the extraordinary evidence. You claim that the earth is a ball that revolves around the sun in orbit. That's an extraordinary claim. Can you provide us with the evidence for that, please? Sure. After I refute the nonsense that you told. I also want to jump in about I'm sorry. I want to jump in because there's something I wanted to say about the sun setting thing. Have you done any kind of calculations because when it comes to having that lens that you showed in the video, we can do calculations. Now's law does exist to be able to do that kind of stuff. So have you done any kind of calculation so that we can say, okay, this is what we would expect to see if the earth were flat. And this is what we would expect to see if the earth is a globe so that we can compare the two to work out which one comports most with reality. Have you done that? Your calculations came from making the observations and then making the model after you saw what happens. You have the all that and then you keep saying we, you didn't do anything, right? So just like Jared said and his opener, you just think you're so you have this confidence over here like we have this amazing model. You have to explain how everything in the universe works and you can't even do the math for your own model. So the answer is that you made the calculations out of the facts and we don't have to that we see the observations, we have the same observations. We it just moves away in this actually if you use magnetic calligraphy mapping out the earth or mapping out the sun over the course of a year, we have a model that explains the position of the sun everywhere maintaining exact angular size and it's not in any way refutable. It's called it's a magnetic calligraphy projection of the earth. We mapped it out with tons of data. So yeah, we did do the calculations. We showed exactly where the sun would be exactly what it'll look like and exactly how it works on a flat earth and it can't be refuted. So can anyone answer my question now though? Can instead of your guys in factuation with your inability to understand how the sun can work on a flat earth, can you guys explain to us before we just grant you that we're flying around the sun? Can you show us how you know that? Do you have any evidence that we're actually going in space around the sun? Are we just supposed to believe it? So firstly, I have actually done calculations and I've actually tried to do calculations to make a flat earth work and to make a flat earth work there was something that I didn't include in my presentation called the white swan and to make that image possible on a flat earth you would need air to be getting really, really cold colder than what has ever been measured for it to work. This is going off of the white swan. This is the white swan. It was the image that turned ranty from being a flat earth into a globe earth. Oh, the fake flat earth. That's so bad. So and I did calculations on that and the only way that it would work on a flat earth is if the air was like extremely cold, colder than what I've even measured. That's the only way that you can see something in the distance. It's lower than something that's closer to you and taller. That's what you're saying? Well, that's the only way that that image could actually be taken on a flat earth. Well, do you have an I think something with a straw man fallacy doesn't mean anything. Yeah. Well, what he's saying is he's building his argument upon a straw man version. He wants to pin upon us with his own version of a way to do his misunderstanding. No, he's not. You're trying to declare things. Are you trying to deny your emotional man? How are you trying to do? What's up later? This was just based on how light works, how light is refracted through air. Are you trying to deny the light works? Can I can I light and light bends downward as hot air rises through cold air? Am I right? Or sorry, through less dense air rises through denser air? Is that correct or is that incorrect? The light can bend towards the more dense medium. Light bend down. I'm helping you out. I know your religion more than you. Here's the thing. You're trying. That's called stalling for time. Your sarcasm is a way to stall. It's a way of stalling and running out the clock. No, just do the correction then. Just say no, what's wrong. This is how it works. I did. No, you didn't. You made some comments that were unnecessary. You're saying that light bends towards the more dense medium and some no, I'm saying the only way that planar walk was to assume a refractive rate. Didn't say that. I said light bends downward. Not towards the more dense medium or not towards the less I said light bends downward and I could be wrong, but I believe that as the hot air rises or the less dense air rises over the more dense air, it causes the light to bend downward. Okay. Now, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but we know that the density, which is often caused by how hot air is, can affect how light travels. That's the bottom line. Wow. So profound. That was good evidence. sarcasm means nothing. Yeah, I was saying that's good evidence. No, not you, dude. You're fine. I'd like to hear your point of view. Planar walk, I want to get you to go on mute. Planar walk, I have a question. I thought that that was one of the bigger jokes I've ever seen was Ranty leaving for that image because I guess I don't fully understand your guys' position. Is your position that because the mountain is taller than the tower, that there's no way that you can ever get the tower to look taller than the mountain even with perspective? Yeah, perspective alone cannot account for that. Okay. So like see this metal box on the side of my house here, the sprinkler box on the left with my finger here in a second. So to get that item, that little box there, so to get that item above the back fence, which clearly the height of the fence behind there is a lot taller, right? But you just need to lower the camera and all of a sudden that box now goes above that back fence. So how is that possible if the back fence is clearly taller than that box? How did that fall behind there? So we know the observer height, right? So this is just asking about observer height. We know the observer height. I believe the observer height was something like six feet in Ranty's image. Correct. So if we account for observer height, we know the observer height, we account for a perspective, you still need something like refraction in order to explain how the thing further back is lower than the he asked you, why did it do it in this video? That's what he asked you. He changed the observer height. Okay. So why explain how that makes it happen? Perspective. Oh, it does. It is perspective. That's crazy. No, you're generalizing perspective too much. You're not you're not explaining how it works in those different scenarios. When he changed the observer height, when he changed the observer height, his line of sight is no longer on the same elevation as the object that he was looking at. So either is the elevation in the observation we're talking about. Ranty. No, no, no, no. What Ranty did was he gave you a clear observer height from where he is and he compared it to okay, it doesn't matter. See, here's how it doesn't matter because he gives the observer height of the object that he is measuring or observing. And it's higher than him. And you just said if it was lower, you said if the observer height is lower than what you're observing. No, I'm saying in this example, see how you did the same thing earlier. You're trying to you're trying to switch things from what I'm saying to apply to something else I'm not speaking of. My example is given because it's very simple for anyone who's not a globe zealot to see that things in the distance get smaller. They lower down, right? And so no, no, that's not true. That is not always true. Things see things that are higher than your elevation, things like let's say I'm six feet tall. And let's say I'm looking at something that is 20 feet taller than right. As I get further away, it does appear to get lower, but it doesn't go lower than my line of sight. My line of sight is still parallel to the horizon, still parallel to like the gravitational force that's keeping me balanced. My line of sight will still be lower. The problem is, is that the object is so far away that you can't see that distance. You can't see that distance as if it was up close. So you have to zoom in. And if you zoom in, you will still see that it is taller than you. It's still higher than you. It's just, it appears to be angrily shorter. So there's a, there's something about the magnification that you have to take into account. I also want to, I just want to say, when it comes to things like perspective, we do take into account, observe a height, right? And that is one of the first things that I made sure to take into account. Because if you do, if you don't take into account, observe a height, then where are you starting from, right? Okay, but as far as, let me explain this real quick, see if this makes sense to you. I'm facing east right now, and the Sierra Nevada mountains are right there, okay? They're about 80 miles from me. And right now, if I were to stand up tall, the mountains would be higher than my computer screen. But by just lowering down like this, now my monitor would be above, my line of sight would be above those mountains. Nothing happened. They didn't fall behind any curve. I just changed my viewer height by a foot. So how can the foot cause a mountain to drop behind my computer monitor, and you not understand that that's simply what Randy was showing in his photograph? Because the scale of distance is important. You're very, very close to the monitor. And so that, the distance from you to the monitor is a few feet. The distance from the monitor to the mountains is a whole bunch of miles. So there's a proportion here that you have to take into account. And observe a height is only relevant when you're looking at the line of sight that is parallel to the horizon. You can have a line of sight in any direction, but when you're trying to compare objects that are anchored to the ground, like a mountain, you're comparing your observer height to something. If you could see something that was 60 feet tall near that mountain, then you would have a line of sight that is consistently level with the surface of the earth. Yeah, but that mountain's 50 miles away, right? Yeah, but you're not 60 feet tall. You're missing the point. Whenever I do any kind of calculations, one of the first things that I make sure to take into account is observe a height. And you can do this essentially by minusing the observer height from the things that you are looking at. So if the observer height is six feet, and you take off six feet from the tower and from the mountains, well, then you have accounted for observer height. It's very easy to do. Are you using like Geogebra and drawing straight line observations to see if they're... Yeah, they use Euclidean geometry. Yeah, what are you using for perspective? What if there was just another person that was 60 tall at the mountain? They won't answer. Do you use Euclidean geometry, yes or no? So I use trigonometry. Euclidean geometry. And the eyes actually use spherical geometry as do lenses. So why do you use Euclidean geometry? Because you can use... Because when it comes to lenses, that is literally using trigonometry. Like, do you know what snail's law is? Yeah, that's a total non sequitur. So do you... Hold on, do you know what snail's law uses? Do you know that snail's law uses... Hey, why are you changing the subject, man? We're talking about the eyes use spherical geometry to see, yet you're using Euclidean geometry. Your eyes do not use spherical geometry. Do you know the... I need to ask, do you know what the calculation for snail's law is? Snail's law is to calculate refraction. Do you know what that is? Why are you talking about refraction? They were talking about perspective. Because the eyes... The reason why the eyes work is because of refraction. The reason... If you want to talk about, you know, spherical geometry, you need to know, and you want to say that the eyes work because of spherical geometry or whatever, you need to know what snail's law is. Can you please tell me what snail's law is? He's diverting to refraction. If you want to talk about lenses... Karen was talking about perspective, and then you started telling us what would or wouldn't happen due to perspective and that you did the math. So then he asked you what type of math you're using, and now you're diverting to snail's law and refraction, which of course you have to use a differential equation for the atmosphere. Anyway, we're talking about perspective. When you calculated the perspective, did you use Euclidean geometry or spherical geometry? I used trigonometry. Do you know... And you want to say that, oh, if you're using lenses, you need to use spherical geometry. Well, lenses use snail's law. Can you please tell me snail's law? Refraction is a red herring fallacy. You know what I'm saying? If you're going to talk about lenses, if you're going to tell me... If you're going to tell me that I need to know spherical geometry in order to account for lenses or whatever, please tell me snail's law. Lenses operate off of snail's law. Hey, what shape is the eye in the lens? It has a lens in it. Yeah, what shape is it? It doesn't matter. It's a circle, buddy. It's a circle, my guy. It doesn't matter what shape it is. It literally matters. That's how you do the geometry. It doesn't matter that our eyes are filled. Snail's law will still apply regardless of whether it's banana-shaped, whether it's spear-shaped, whether it's flat. Snail's law still applies. Is included in the ranty observation? Okay, okay. Let me just jump in for like 30 seconds. Those laws are red herring fallacy. Wait, let me just tell you, if refraction did not take into account, then the light would be always parallel, even if it went into your eye. You wouldn't be able to focus on anything. That's the point. Your eyes have to focus the light into a small part of your eye, in the back of your eye. That's the trigonometry, I believe, that Planar Walk is referring to, and that's something you have to understand. The light would just continue to be parallel, and you wouldn't have anything to focus on. You guys don't understand. I actually just want to make the point that Snail's law literally is just trigonometry. It's something like sine of... Sine one over sine two. Yeah, you use a differential equation for atmospheric refraction. You have to use a differential equation, which is calculus. Doesn't matter, man. Okay, so you use differential equation to account for what? Unknown functions and variables, right? No, for light coming in at different angles. Always right in front of you. Your line of sight is always right in front of you, it never changes. Here's the problem. When you're looking at something that is six feet away, I mean, you're six feet tall. Yeah, you need up my length, so I don't care. You got something... You guys are boring. That's six feet tall from far away. Your line of sight is on the same level. So if you raise your elevation, yes, that person is going to appear to be lower than you, but if you lower your elevation, that person is going to appear to be above you. But the further away you go, the less of an effect, the less clear that is, because of the distance. And I wanted to address that because you ignore that when you talk about your son. You use a lens to make your point about the son retaining the same, I guess... So you guys are never going to answer my question. We're going to serve for an hour. Hold on, I'm just doing my thing. So you got your son with that lens, right? You only let that lens go like five feet away. Make that lens go a thousand feet away. That thing is basically going to get too small. If you went a thousand feet away from Jared's monitor, it still blocked the mountains. You don't understand anything. No, it doesn't. You said every time you interrupt, you have impulse control issues. He's just lying, man. You have impulse control issues. I don't like liars, so don't lie. Just so we can hear one percent at a time. Okay, so first he said that Jared was wrong about him showing the observation outside of his house, which showed that as he goes lower, then what's taller in the distance will be below what's closer to him. And then he ended up admitting that that's what happens. And then they're just saying, well, it's just different in this other scenario. And then they're going, dragging us through the weeds about how they think they understand perspective and then conflating it to Snell's law, which is about refraction, which is lights path from one medium to another, which is completely non sequitur to perspective math. Okay, so you guys don't understand how it works. We gave you our answer. Can we move to another subject? You don't understand how it works. When it comes to the thing that I'm talking about, so I have done the calculations, if you just try to use perspective alone, which is a simple trigonometry function, then it is the tangent of distant over height or the arc tangent of distance over height. That is the trigonometry function for perspective. Okay. Where's Snell's law on that? Well, you are trying to bring up how lens work. That's why I brought up Snell's law. If you didn't bring up, lens itself would not have brought up Snell's law. No, I'm bringing up that you're using the wrong type of math for the eye and for lenses. You're using... It doesn't matter. If you do a geograba and do a side view of this whole scene, you realize that that's not real. Draw a straight line from the side. It doesn't matter if you use what the shape of the eye is. Perspective still works regardless of what the shape of the eye is. You're wrong. No, because as long as you can focus, that's what makes the difference. No, I'll drop some sources for you guys to read. There's a bunch of different applications and PhDs will explain to you. But anyway, can we move on now? Let me ask you a question. I want to hear what Tiaran is on this. You're so scared. I want to hear what Tiaran is on this. I can go ahead and edit like 10 more minutes and then I want to step in. I want to hear what Tiaran is on this. Plane of Rock, if you sit up straight and you look off in the distance straight ahead of you, think of the houses that are off in the distance. Will any of those roofs ever eventually go below your eyesight? If I get high enough? No, no, no. Sitting right where you're sitting right now. Sit up straight, look off in the distance, and think of the roof of the house next to you, and think of the roof of the house after that, and the roof of the house after that, and tell me if there was just nothing but houses all the way down. Would the roofs eventually drop below your eyesight? If on a flat surface? No. No, they wouldn't. If they're smaller and smaller and higher, and they would never get smaller than your eyeline, so you're saying. No, because to be able to get lower than my eyeline, I would have to be at the same height as them. What makes you think that? That is literally one of the things that comes up when you look into trigonometry, the trigonometry for perspective. So rather than your eyesight, rather than actually just going out and testing it and looking at things and taking pictures, you just we're going to defer to what the math says. Unless you have a different calculation for perspective, I don't know if you don't need a calculation. I can just do that in my head and realize that, yes, if I look this way, I can even picture the house next to me and I could picture the house down the end of the street and I can realize that those houses will eventually fall towards the horizon line, which is below my eye level. No, it's not below your eye level. It's not. That's the thing. If you were to zoom in, you would see that they're still above your eye level until it gets to the part to where they're starting to curve over the horizon. But when you look at the roofs of those houses, you can't see the bottom of those roofs. You'll never see the bottoms of those roofs. You're looking at the tops of the roofs and maybe the mid part of the roofs as you're looking towards them as they get further away and you're presuming that you're looking over them. Do they drop? Do they drop as they go away from you? Yeah, they do, but not on a flat plane. This is they just want to talk about this for three hours. They're scared to defend the actual. They drop as they get further away from you, but they will not drop below your eye level. For them to drop below your eye level, they would have to be physically lower than your eye level. Or they would have to be some kind of reflection taking place. Or the curvature of the earth itself. Oh, cool. If we baselessly assert what's in question, it becomes reality. So can we actually go on to the next point? Because you can look at the angles. Because you can look at the angles. You're on there. I know, but look, there's that bridge in, I forget where it is. It's somewhere in Louisiana. And that bridge was demonstrating the curvature as each one of those elements of the bridge were, you know, we know more about it than you do, man. I just can't remember the name and I can't show my computer because it's called Pontchartrain. Yeah. Yeah. I know, like, there's that have went and done it themselves. Have you ever done it? Okay, that doesn't matter. It changes all the time. And sometimes you can see the curvature. It's not consistent. No, thanks for playing. Nope. That's you declaring it. That's not I have the observations. I have the observations. I'm not convinced that your interpretation is deficient. So do you think it always looks exactly the same? Yes or no? It doesn't matter if it looks exactly the same. No one's arguing that it looks exactly the same. No, it's not physical curvature. Gotcha. Remember where arguing is is that the elements of that bridge shows the curvature into the distance. It's not. Can we, uh... So I'll ask one final question because I just want to make sure this is your guys position for my own knowledge. So if I walk up to a fence that's six foot three or six foot two, so my eyes are right in line with the fence line and I start walking back away from it, you're saying that that line of that fence will stay with my eyes no matter how far back I go. Until the curvature of the earth takes an effect, yes. Okay, thank you. I don't think you're correct, by the way, but I think it can be shown. You'd have to have evidence for that position being incorrect if you want to. Okay, how about this? So here's the reality of the situation. David wants to do anything but let him talk. He's scared of me exposing their religion. Okay, David, we've got on that one. Thank you for your... I wanted your opinion on that and we will... Okay, so all physical measurements we take, our planar, we do all kinds of technology, assuming planar, the horizon's horizontal, water's level. We actually get our elevations of city using a horizontal baseline then we measure above that. We do the same thing to get the depths of the ocean. So we have all these horizontal baselines and we assume them constantly to do anything productive with technology. So then the question is, you guys are claiming something opposite of that. You have the burden of the proof. So you claim the ursa ball that spins in a vacuum. So we want you to support it. You said, he said very smugly that, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you guys just deny all the extraordinary evidence we have. So okay, let's start with the first one. You say the earth moves around the sun. Can you please provide extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim? Yeah, sure. You want to look at all the photographs? You want to call those fraudulent CGI? You have a photograph of the earth going around the sun? A photograph of something moving? No. A video of something over time? Yes. You want a video of the earth going around the sun? Sure. You're going to have a hard time getting a video of something that is 26,000 miles in circumference, 97 million miles and seeing it on the video. So you don't have any evidence? But your request is that sir, so watch this. Do you have a picture or a video of the flat plane of earth showing China, Africa, and North America all visible? No, you don't. That's the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. I didn't ask for a picture or for a video. I asked for direct extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that the earth is orbiting the sun. Then you brought up a picture. Then you said it's stupid for me to bring you the picture, but you brought it up. So do you have any evidence that the earth orbits the sun? I have some evidence that the earth is spinning. No, orbiting the sun. Just say no, then we can move on. Anything that I bring up, you're going to claim is false. If I bring up literally anything that NASA does, like sending rockets out to Venus, you know, anything that I bring up like that, you are just going to claim is wrong. This is called poisoning the well. So preemptively, you're discrediting my position preemptively without specificity, because you can't actually argue it. So if you would like to actually respond, Hold on one sec, just hear the rest from Austin. Hold on one sec, just hear from Austin. Do you have any actual empirical evidence that the earth is orbiting the sun? Or is it just a blind belief that you expect us to believe? We have evidence. Like what? Photographs, videos, math, physics. We have all sorts of things. Now, I wish I could do that. Man, this is, right. I have to go to the list. So what got your sarcasm done? Okay. Now what would be sufficient for evidence? Because you won't accept photographs. You won't accept videos. You won't accept the science. And you won't accept the math. So what's left? Well, relativity says that you wouldn't be able to. Well, you wouldn't be able to determine which one was going around which. So I thought that you guys would accept that. Would you accept? No, I wouldn't accept that. Okay. So then, so then why are we having that conversation? No, I'm asking you guys to waste our time. You, you got, look, I interrupt. I interrupt. I interrupt. But you guys had plain or walk try to explain the math and you refused to respect what he presented. Now you're changing the subject back away because you're scared. No, but you don't get to dictate the subject. You don't get to dictate that. That's not your show. So you don't know. So he's tapping out. I don't know, I want to address something. And I've waited. Patient is you did not acknowledge your lens effect or change the subject. No, I'm not following your dictates. So stop dictating terms. Interwalk. Do you have an answer? No, I'm not done. So I want to address something that you guys have refused. Talked about it for 35 minutes. Did no, you ignored it and you do this. You keep dictating what happens instead of you pick the first discussion. Dude, I'm sorry. I want to know what happens. I do just to be sure that planner walk gets to have some talking time. Two days first time of feet and miles away pretending not to hear me. I got it. I just want to be sure that planner walk gets some time to talk to. I did, but I apologize. I'll go again. So I do want there is some evidence, but you're probably not going to accept it, but we'll see. So there is things like the planet. So to explain the planets going around the to explain the path of the planets through the sky, you would call them wandering stars. I know to explain them in any kind of geocentric way, you have to have, I can't remember the exact term. Maybe someone else here remembers it. They go, you're retrograde. That's the term that I was looking for. You need retrograde. If they're going around the sun, then that is far simpler there. That just lines up way better. That is how people figured out that we were going around the sun and that the earth is not the center of the universe. So you just conceded the reason people think that the earth was around the sun is because it was easier to do the math. So I can actually quote you. Many astrophysics that will tell you on a surface, the math is a little easier, but actually the geocentric model is more elegant and adaptable. So the actual question is, do you have any direct evidence? Like, can you like, okay, if I want to decide if my car is moving, I can measure it moving, right? Like I can prove that the car is moving. You're claiming that we're shooting through space around the sun 30 kilometers a seconds. Okay, 30 kilometers every second. Do you have any actual evidence of that? Yes, there is. I was just saying that Rockham's razor. Rockham's razor is hilarious to me when we're actually saying the sun is close. It's local and things that just makes sense. And you're saying that it's 867,000 miles wide. Rockham's razor doesn't have to do with whatever makes sense to people. It has to do with whatever requires the least amount of assumptions. When it comes to flat earth, there are a lot of assumptions that you need to make. There are, when it comes to things like a lens effect on the sun, whereas on earth, we just have to go off of it. Still though, doesn't it seem like we're not moving? So that takes the least amount of assumptions. That's when we ignore everything around you, moving around you. Sure. That's what we see, bro. Yeah, we see that. No, you're doing that. No, that's what we visually see. That's the observation. That's like you saying, you're in a car and you see someone moving, that's standing still because you drove past them. But we know we're moving in the car. We can measure us moving in the car. Right. So you know that you're moving in the car. So you say to yourself, okay, that's happening. But that's not explaining. Oh, Timmy said you can't do that with the earth. What do you use to measure yourself moving in the car? They actually measure the rotational speed of a gear and then it's translated through an electronic input sent to the computer and it tells you your speed and then it changes the gear rate, rotational rate to give you acceleration and deceleration. Well, when it comes to that gear, it could just be some CGI, right? Is there anything that you can use to check? You got some phone apart, man. This is bad. Hey, it could just be that the speed that shows up on your dashboard, how do you know that that speed that's coming up on your dashboard is correct? Because there's a physical rotational rate of a gear. So the what relativity says is when we're in the car. Measure that gear yourself. Don't worry, I'll teach you guys what you believe. So the analogy of the car, then the earth is the car, right? Well, relativity says when you're in the car or on the earth, you can't actually get that rotational rate of the gear. You can't detect that motion because matter contracts in the direction of motion and time slows down. So you couldn't use a measuring apparatus to detect it. So the answer is that you cannot detect that the earth is orbiting. Here's Einstein right here. He says the struggle so violent in the early days of science between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus, which is geocentrism or heliocentrism, would be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, the sun is at rest and the earth moves, or the sun moves and the earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems. Okay, this is just basic globe earth model 101. As long as you exclude a lot of other information, yes, sure. Name one. But retrograde motion of the stars was just mentioned. I mean, Geo-Titanic system explains it perfectly. But it doesn't align with your first point. They don't, they don't align. You can use them in tandem. It literally does, yeah. If retrograde motion can easily be explained. If the earth is not moving, if the earth is not moving and the stuff in the sky is moving, why can't we have retrograde? No, no. You have two, you have two, you have Mercury and Venus that experience retrograde. Right? Why does that debunk the stationary earth? Because, because you can't explain, you cannot explain that in a way that works consistently. You can't, you have to use those called epicycles and that doesn't work. They do work. No, they don't because they are offset. There's offsets over time, which means that they don't work. Those are, those are approximations that are simply based upon the optical, the optical way to view it. So you don't have a calculation that you can rely on over time. So that's, that's acceptable. Okay. Hey, everyone, he said you do. So we're all done here. You want me to sign it for you? You want the, you want the astrophysicist showing you he mapped it out for the next 300 years? I want the math itself. Wait, he, hold on. He mapped it out for the next 300 years. Yeah. Right. No, he did. Did he map it out any further? No, I don't know. I think he just said 300 years. He said, I don't know if we're done. Because you guys are getting destroyed. Do you guys have any empirical evidence? Okay, how about this? Let's put it like this. Hold on. When it comes to the heliocentric model, can't measure the earth we're bidding. Hold on. When it comes to the heliocentric model, that can be mapped out for many, many millennia in advance. That's irrelevant. Thank you for your totally irrelevant comment. No, no, that's irrelevant. So that's irrelevant. He didn't say he could only do 300 years. He just did a few hundred to show it was possible to shut down people like you. Don't understand what you're talking about. He was a neotyconic system. He was a neotyconic system. And you can explain retrograde. You can explain stellar aberration, galaxy rotational speeds. And they would take elliptical orbits and reset every year. This is your own paradigm. Hey, can you guys admit that? Hold on, because we can just move right on. If you guys are just. Hold on, hold on, hold on. This little one, no. You guys are freaking out. One question. Galaxy rotation speeds. Like, is that a galaxy rotation? Anything I can do to run away from this object. Is that a thing in the flat earth model? And just quiz. Just wondering. No, I don't believe in flat earth model, as you say it, because you strawman us. And I don't believe in the fairy tales about the stars or the stars. But we do see stuff in the sky. But here's the point, dude. Here's the point. Do you admit that according to your model, you cannot actually directly measure and prove the earth is orbiting the sun? Yes or no? That is not the point. Quiz. Question. Can I look out? Can I look out the window of a car and see that I'm moving? Yes or no. Can I look out the window of a car and see that I'm moving? He's asking you the question. I'm asking you if we can do, if we can directly measure and prove the earth is orbiting the sun? Yes or no? Yes. And I want to ask if we can look out the window of a car and see that we are moving. Why can't you just answer yes or no? Because my answer is literally whatever answer you're going to give. If we can look out the window of a car and see that we're moving, then yeah. We can see that we're moving on a globe. If for some reason that we can't, we'll have to have that discussion. We actually can directly measure the car moving. Yeah, we actually get into it and then it actually goes somewhere else and we get out. We don't really do that on the earth. Can I look out the window of a car, see that the trees are going past and all that and see that tell that because of that, the car must be moving. No, we have other inputs that we take. We directly measure it. That's one of them. Well, you're not directly measuring it. It's some system that someone else has built. We could put a wheel out the car and run it along the street and see that we're moving. There's a lot of ways to do that. Can you just admit it's not an analogy because I just tied it to you. I want to know, can you look out the window of a car? I don't care what others say. Let's say that the car has no systems. You don't have anything else in the car. Can you look out the window of a car and go, oh, the trees are going past, so therefore the car must be moving. All you're trying to say is that it could be either or, according to relativity. That's why I said we directly can measure that movement though. So can you do that with the earth, yes or no? But can we look out the window of a car and tell that the car is moving? Not if we wake up in the car and die in the car. That's the only place we live. Then no, you wouldn't be able to tell which one's moving. Can I make a small little point here? He can't answer it. It's just soft. So the concept of movement is based upon measuring the change in distance from some object, from some distant object. You declare that you're moving based upon whether or not the distance from an object that you are comparing your location to has changed. So out in the depths of space, you have the sun and you have these planets. You have the stars as a reference point because your position relative to the sun and to the stars and to the other planets changes. You are thus moving. Oh my gosh. Okay, so yeah. All you did was beg the question because I assume that the earth is moving. Then when I look out and see that this every time I start talking to you, you interrupt me, dude. Why don't you just make up? Why don't you make a bullet point stop? I got it. Well, let's give Austin a chance to respond. Okay, so basically you said, since I believe that the earth is orbiting the sun, when I look out in the sky and the stuff in the sky that's moving changes how it moves, that proves that I'm moving. That's called a begging the question fallacy. You can't look into the sky and see the stuff in the sky moving and then say, oh, wow, that means that we're moving. The answer, see, this should be like a five second thing and we can move on. Your model says you cannot prove the earth is orbiting the sun. Just say it. But that's not what I said. I said relative to the backdrop of the stars, the sun, and the planets, you are moving. If everything moved exactly the same, be quiet, please. Don't say nothing. If everything was exactly the same, no matter what day, month, or year it was, then I wouldn't be able to make the point that I make. But throughout the year, month from month, okay, year to year, you see the other objects in the sky moving in a pattern that is very consistent. That consistency shows a constant rate of motion or a variable rate of motion that follows a tried and true pattern that has been measured. And those measurements, you cannot lie about. So you're just going to keep baselessly a certain kind of thing. Jared, do you hear what's going on right here, this guy? I asked for the measurements and he looks back. Every time, dude. This is why globes are unfearable. Are you saying that there's no chance? Because here's where we struggle. Like, why can't you just admit what is true and right in front of you? Like, are you saying that there's... I just did. Okay, so you're saying that there's... Even though we would see the same thing on a flat earth, you're saying that that is impossible. You could never see things around you. Yes, it is impossible on a flat earth to see it like that. It is impossible. What do you mean? It is impossible. You need to learn what relativity means. No, it's not about relativity. It's about... Relativity says you can't determine which one's happening. You just determine it. No, relativity saying is that not one perspective is more valuable than the other. But I just... As you can't prove it. Excuse me, there is still motion between the two objects. You're saying you're confusing the concept of relativity to the concept of motion itself. Okay, tell me, is the sun moving space? Yes, it does. Relative to whatever other objects you want to compare it to. Because space is space. There's nothing in the depths of space that you can see outside of the stars in the planets and maybe some asteroids. So what are you going to compare your motion to? It's just like with the car. If you didn't know that the car was moving... Hold on, if you were on the sun, if you were on top of the sun, would you... Let me take off light because I know I interrupt so much. You do. So if you were in... Right, so if you were in the car, right, and let's say you were asleep, and let's say it's an electric car with really good suspension, right, and you're sitting in that car and the car has already accelerated to 60 miles an hour, and then you wake up. You don't know the car is moving. The only thing you might feel is a little bit of a vibration. You have no idea that the car is moving one mile an hour for 60. We already corrected that and said that we have actual physical measurement of the car moving. According to relativity, you can't ever get that actual measurement of the earth moving. The reason relativity matters is because the mainstream model is that the earth's a spinning ball going around a vacuum in space, and it's all because of relativity. And the reason that this has to be what you believe is because it was the response to Michelson-Morley, which was over 10 times more precise than it needed to be and showed that the earth wasn't orbiting. Well, Michelson-Morley was about 8th and not about whether the earth was moving. But when it comes to... You guys say that, but you're wrong. You're just repeating it from other people. It's a script. Well, do you know anything about Maxwell's equations? Do you know what Maxwell's equations are? Do you know what Maxwell's equations were supposed to imply? Yes. What did they imply? Yeah, he used the luminiferous ether as the background and then the whole first two-thirds of relativity is him transforming it via relativity. That's a non-sequitur. Why? Okay, that's a non-sequitur. Okay, question. Why did Maxwell's equations need an ether? It just wasn't the framework that he chose. No, you do not know this question. You have no idea what you're talking about here. Look how excited he is. Because I know this shit. You're so emotional, man. Why are you both of you guys so emotional? It doesn't matter if you're emotional. People can get emotional when they're really wired. Hold on. What's it? You're the liar. Stop projecting. Can you please... I'm actually... No, I want to ask what's it? Okay, why did he choose the ether? It wasn't because he decided, oh, I'm just going to go with this framework. There was something about his calculations that meant that there had to be, or that at the time they thought that they needed an ether. Yeah, he treated electricity and electricity, magnetism and light in waves and it had to be some type of medium to sustain the wave propagation, the wave function. No. Objectively, yes. There is a different reason. There is a different reason. So you got some random little thing you want to say right now, as opposed to acknowledging the point that they actually... What I just said describes the actual reason. I've actually read what he said. And in addition, we did the test... No, you haven't. ...test, Michael Simoralee. We did the test. Michael Simoralee had nothing to do with testing the ether. And what it was was the relative motion of the earth and the luminephorous ether, and they were attempting to determine if the velocity of light was constant in all directions. And then they predicted the value based on the assumed motion of the orbit and they didn't get it. One of the options was that the earth was stationary. Then Einstein came in and saved the day to explain why the actual measurement didn't show the orbital trajectory. You have no idea what you're talking about right now. When it came to Maxwell's equations, the reason why they needed an ether was actually simply because there was this little value in there called C. And C meant that there was some reference frame in which these would be true. And so when it came to the Michael Simoralee, they're like, okay, well, if we do it this way and then this way, there's obviously we're going to be traveling through the objective reference frame at different speeds and so we'll get different values. It could have been that the reference frame was moving along with the earth or something, but it's not likely that that will be happening the entire year round. So that's what they did. They checked it and the reference frame... It was about light, bro. You don't even know what you're talking about. Yeah, and that was the speed of light. It was a test to see if there was a constant velocity of light. Okay. And then they shot them perpendicular, not this way, then this way. And they shot it perpendicular to each other. The light beam that was going against the assumed orbital motion of the earth would have been behind the other beam. So you shot two beams and they reconnected the middle in a silver mirror and then they both go to the receiver on the other side. The one going against the motion of the earth should have been behind the other light beam moving with the motion of the mirror. How far behind? Okay, an interference. One five thousandth the width of a human hair. Okay, and you think that then they were able to measure that? Yes, literally. Yes, I'll read Einstein telling you that. You've never done any study of it. Einstein came about some decades later. Einstein was there when he did Mikkelson-Morley. He said that's what made him come up with special relativity in the first place. No, his experiment was 1885, 1887. Okay, great. Good job. Thank you. So yeah, Einstein's theory of relativity came some decades later. I'm sorry, dude. I know that, dude. The reason that he came up with special relativity, you don't know anything about this problem. The reason why he came up with special relativity, the reason why he came up with relativity was because Mikkelson-Morley experiment showed that the Mikkelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is constant regardless of any type of motion. And when it came to, but the thing that you didn't realize is that the Maxwell's equations assumed that there would be some constant reference frame. And that is why the Mikkelson-Morley experiment was trying to test for the ether. It was not testing for ether plane or watt. I just told you that's not true. It's called the relative motion of the earth and the luminous ether. And then Edwin-Morley and Albert Mikkelson explained it was to see. Relative motion to what? You see that? Yeah, to the ether. So that's what I just said. That was testing for the ether. No, it's your loss, my guy. It's testing for the difference in the friend shift of the light based on the assumption the earth is orbiting through an ether. They were assuming both the motion and the ether. They got it a perplexing result where they got no friend shifts, okay? They did not get what was predicted. So then Einstein came in after Lorentz proposed a way to fix it. And Einstein took the Lorentz contraction but throughout the ether, okay? They still had to explain it with or without the ether. They had to explain why it didn't show a friend shift if the earth was orbiting. It was over 10 times more sensitive than it needed to be detected, by the way. Yeah, and I was looking for... Basically, I was looking for the ether. I was checking for earth's motion relative to the ether. And essentially, the reason for this was because of Maxwell's calculation, said that there had to be an... Well, they assumed that it meant that there had to be an objective reference frame that they assumed would have been the ether. That's why they thought that it was the ether. Do you think that the ether exists? Yeah, they thought there was an absolute frame of reference which was the ether which sustained the propagation of electricity, magnetism, and light. Okay? But then they went to go test that assumption which all electrical field theory assumed it. It was what sustains the energy and then it showed the earth's not orbiting in the Mickelson Moorley. It didn't give us what would have happened if the earth was orbiting through space. No, I'm putting an error up. I'm not done with that. That's not what happened. So let's stop here. You guys have gone around in circles five times trying to equate the test for the ether to something else and you've wasted our time and that's why I interrupt. Partic note, so it's a test of the ether, right? Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please teach us. So in any event, in any event, we've spent 15 minutes talking about this experiment and you guys have misrepresented the point of... No, you don't understand it. Misrepresented? No, I do understand it because it's summarized, okay? Oh, can I share my screen? You can't perform the experiment. So stop acting like you have some insight. Can I share my screen? You can describe it ready for you. I've watched you guys go about the stupid ether experiment for 15 minutes. No one listening is going to be swayed by all of this. No one can read that text on the screen and process it in five, 10 minutes. So this is a great exercise and you know it and that's part of what I'm trying to get across about flat earth. You cannot have an honest argument. You cannot make an honest conversation with you guys because this is how you guys operate. At Homs and Sopper Street, okay. So the second class at Homs... He spoke very eloquently about the fact that the way that the eye works requires refraction. You've been just dismissed it. You ignored it, okay? And now you somehow meandered us into talking about relativity and this stupid experiment that does not address the issue at hand if the earth is flat or if the earth is a sphere. Well, the question is, is the earth a sphere that spins and revolves around the sun? Or is it a stationary top or graphic point? So you love your fallacy so much, man. You guys are losers. What's it? You love your fallacy. So you did make a black and white fallacy there. So it could be that also because even if let's say that you disprove that the earth was spinning, it could still be a geocentric ball. Really? So the earth can just rotate sitting still geocentric? How do you explain the observations of the motion in the sky? Then how do you explain the difference in sidereal and solar rotation? I mean, didn't you come up with some? Didn't you explain the difference in sidereal and solar rotation then? Yeah. Oh, so are you saying that we need it to be spinning? You need it to be spinning and revolving or it has to be stationary? Or it could be stationary and aglowed. So it could be stationary. Like let's say that it wasn't spinning. It could be stationary and flat or it could be stationary and aglowed. Okay, so you can see that you can't prove that it's orbiting around the sun and we can move on. No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that you've loved your fallacy. So I'm just pointing out that you made a black and white fallacy. No, I didn't. No, you're trying to pigeonhole the guy. Okay. It's actually called it's what you're talking like a false dilemma or false binary, false dichotomy fallacy. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. False dichotomy. Oh, false dichotomy. Yeah, false dichotomy. Yeah, yes, David. You're lost every single time you see me. No, no. I'm off your mic. Okay, first of all, when he makes his argument, how are you going to ignore the fact that the stars are present and rotating? How are you going to ignore the fact that the stars have, there's two axes of rotation from the point of view of the observer on Earth, the North Pole and the South Pole, right? And you're going to ignore that and talk about how, well, how is your sidereal day? How is, how is there, you know, all that other stuff going on? And you're going to ignore, no, it's not. Listen closely and think about it. You're comparing the motion of the stars over periods of time, compared to the motion of the sun, compared to the motion of the planets, but then you're going to ignore the fact that on a stationary flat plane, you've got two axes of rotation of those same stars. Okay, can I, can I talk? Go ahead and make a sarcastic comment, please. I need to be understanding. I'm going to let, I'm going to let, I think Jaren's not going to talk much. And I'm just going to point out the reason it's important. The only reason I bring that up is it always does turn into like a whole debate thing. It's wild. It's just an intellectual honesty, litmus test for the ball Earthers, right? It's like, if they understood their model and actually were honest, they would say, yeah, relativity says you can't prove the earth is going around the sun from the earth and that a geocentric coordinate system and a heliocentric coordinate system are interchangeable and we can't prove it. And then we would move on past that. But you guys will fight it too. But relativity is not necessary to settle the mass. Sorry, go ahead. If you guys would just admit that that's what relativity says. I just pulled up the paper from relativity. You know what I'm saying? Like just say, yeah, that we can't prove that the earth orbits around the sun from the earth. It's assumption that we make. It's philosophical, whatever. And then we can move on to, is it flat or not? But you guys fight every single part of the way. And I'm just telling you, I'm describing you don't understand it because you don't understand it. And you don't mean you don't understand that relativity is not necessary to settle the matter at home. So substantive specificity, please. I mean, if I were to say that, you know, the earth, like I gave the example at the start of the debate, if I were to say that the earth is not flat because there are mountains, right? You would rightly call me out on that, right? You'd say, well, that's not what we mean by flat earth. But if I were to just continue and say, yeah, well, there are mountains, so therefore it's not flat and you're wrong, then we'd be having a pointless discussion because I'd be under, I'd be operating on false knowledge. Right. I'm not doing that. You agree with that? Yeah, we'd be like- Well, this is what you're doing with relativity. You don't fully understand relativity and you're using bits that you've cherry picked from it to try and say, well, relativity says this. You're projecting because you don't understand it and I bet you money, you can't name one thing I cherry picked. Weston, why didn't you just did that? You just did it. You gave an eloquent response and you're not addressing it. I am literally specifically addressing it. No, you're not. You are saying about optical results when it comes to relativity. And that's more in reference to things like the Michaelson Moley experiment. Now, if you were to take the solar system and take all the planets in the solar system and map out their motion, we can see that it works far more eloquently if we are in a heliocentric solar system compared to if we were in a geocentric solar system. That's incorrect. Actually, it's more adaptable and more elegant if it's geocentric just on the surface map, the simpler or the heliocentric model It's not just the optical experiment. I just showed you in the actual presentation, bro. He also says experiments. Well, why would you just do that? Because you guys never see anything. I just want the audience to see that you guys constantly have to lie. Why would planets revolve back and forward in that and around the sun in the heliocentric one? They simply just go around the sun. That's a very simple motion. You do the same thing in a geocentric model. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Hold on, hold on. You said they go around the sun in the geocentric model, yes? That is one version of a geocentric model, yeah. Okay, that's one version of a geocentric model. But your version of your version of a geocentric model requires the Earth to be flat, yes? Okay. Okay. So then we're left with a very simple question for you. What is the range of the distance that the sun is from the Earth? Just give me a range. I didn't say you have to. I asked you a question. We don't know. Yeah. It doesn't even claim its material. No, no. Listen to the question and don't do your routine. Is it 93 million miles away or you're not sure? No, stop it. Is it, right, right. So you know it's not 93 million miles away. So do you have a range that you use? So what is the upper and lower limit? If it was a physical item, it'd probably be about the radius of the Earth, 39, 59 miles. So okay, so then you're going to, so then that's what it measures. We're not even claiming it is a physical material object. I don't think it is. Okay, that's fine. The moon, the moon is also not a physical material object. That doesn't make any sense. There are certain features on the moon that fit the definition of a physical spiritual object. A video of someone seeing Mars through the moon. So if Mars and all that are going around the sun and it's not a physical object, how are they going around the sun? It just seems like a holographic light show. And it could also be sci-matic patterns like sonal luminescence. You know, vibrational resonance and sonal luminescence. That's not how sonal luminescence works. Do you have any evidence of any of the stuff that you believe or do you just want to critique? Well, do you have any evidence of physical object than it's being a holographic projection? I'm going to say one more thing. The difference is we're saying we don't make claims about that. We're not making claims that we can't actually verify and we would say, well, what do you think it is? So then we speculate and then you're like, prove it, which is dishonest. And then you guys make definitive claims about it and then can't prove any of it and don't even want to actually address what your claim is. So I think that we should let James go. Okay, so you're left with an I don't know and we're left with here's what works. That's the difference. Your models don't know what 96% of the difference is. So if they lie to us and gave us something that works, but it's a lie, you're okay with that. That's all you need. Lies don't work like that. Yeah, they can. That's not how a lie works. No, a lie, what makes a lie a lie is an inconsistency with fats. That's why it's a lie. Like dark matter and dark energy? Right. No, we're not talking, but we're not having a conversation about dark matter or dark energy. That means that your claim to the inverse of a lie doesn't work with the fats. No, that has nothing to do with our conversation. So you got high. And wave dismissal. You got high. No, you're trying to change the subject and I'm changing it back. You got high. If I told you every day to go into the Q and A. Well, if I told you every day I was filling your gas tank with milk and your car was running, I mean, it's a lie, but your car would still run every day. I just wouldn't be filling it with milk. But milk doesn't allow cars to run everything. That's the point. But this is car run, even though I say it, even though I told that lie. No, you don't understand. You don't understand. So we know what milk is. Milk comes from cows and from goats. Where is this coming from? Right. So what are you talking about? What's going on? I'm talking about an absurdity. I said lies don't work. You said lies don't work. Lies can work for... No, they don't, dude. No, they don't. Yeah, it looks like if you're broken, lies to you. But the thing about lies is that, the thing about lies is if I were to take milk and drink it, I would die. It's so dumb. So it doesn't work. I'm missing the point. If Planarwalk's name was Henry, he could be lying this whole time and we would just never know that's his real name. But still, he still can operate. Still go through things. Right. But if you were... But if you... You don't actually know my real name, either. Hey, well, there you go. That's a relevant though. You see his point. You're missing the point, though. You're trying not to see the point. He's a contrarian. No, what you're doing is you're ignoring how to make it work. It's the concept of it working that you measure, that you're looking at, that you're comparing stuff to, and you're simply declaring something to be something different. You're saying, oh, well, this is like this, or I don't know what this is, but I know it's not that. And we're saying, well, but it works if we look at it like that. So where's the lie? Where is the lie of a field that's about where's the lie part? It doesn't mean it's true when you say something works, right? The burden of proof, therefore, is on you. It doesn't work, dude. When they made the claim that it's a leo-centric model. For what? When they clicked it, I annoy you. You annoy me. I'm going to ignore you. As early as the 30s, your model didn't work. Okay. So it's like the galaxy mass distribution was off like 97 percent. Work for 13 billion years. Here is a funny thing about Doc Madov. Let me give you an example. You have something that bends. You call it space time. Dark matter. Here we go. You say something about space time. I just said that you have a physical thing that you think bends and adjust with that. No. There's something that we can measure that scientists can measure that can declare what the, not declare, that can, that can show the rate of curvature. The rate of curvature follows a workable scientific model that you can't dispute. But there's nothing there. What you're saying is you can't physically see it yourself right now in this debate. So no one can. This is a lie. Some people can. It would be like, this would be like asking what is, what is magnetism? And as someone were to describe it as, you know, a moving charge, it's like, okay, well, what is actually moving there to move the objects? That is one way you could describe it, whether that's actually what is happening or not. It's a little bit unsure. That's totally different. You can physically manipulate a magnet and the magnetic field can have physical interactions. There's nothing to do with space and time, two conceptual abstractions, bending and warping. That's totally non sequitur, dude. That has nothing to do with it. False. False. I'm saying is, I'm saying is that your, your notion that magnetism has nothing to do with space and time? It's not an analogous, guys. If we talk about space time, if we talk about, if we talk about space time, right, the bending of space time, we could talk about magnetism as the bending of the magnetic field, right? That would be one way to describe it, whether that's actually what is going on when you get really deep down to it. It's, you don't really know, but it's a good way to describe it. But I did want to, I did want to point out something when it comes to dark matter, because there's something actually very interesting that I find when they're, because they are searching to see if they can find any kind of dark matter. One of the best possible, well, one of the best hypothesis is hypotheses at the moment is we do these things where we measure like really use really sensitive equipment. Now in one place in the northern hemisphere, there's this underground lab that's being built. And for half a year, they actually have, have detections running high. And for the other half of the year, they have it running low. They're not sure whether this is a seasonal thing, right? But it could, if it turns out that it's not a seasonal thing, if they, because they're doing something in Australia, doing the same experiment, then that would be a measurement of dark matter. This would prove that the earth is going around the sun. What? Wow, dude. What is dark matter if you're measuring it? What is it? Any reading on your detector would be dark matter. It's a seasonal, it's, I'm not sure. I think it's something to do with neutrinos. Is one of the, is one of the possible explanations. Something to do with neutrinos. That's incorrect. Dark energy. What does this have to do with the shape of the earth? Well, this is a direct rebuttal to your claim that lies don't work because then the facts will show that they're not true. And that's what happens to the heliocentric model constantly. Demonstrate that about dark matter at least. Having a clip that happens with a summoner above the earth and then you say, Oh, the fax debunk it. But no, there must be an explanation. I'll give you some more. I asked you to demonstrate what is dark matter. Let's hear that. I've lost him. The observations of the sky show that the math doesn't work out with your assumption of relativity in the universe. And you're like, Oh, that must mean something else is happening. So the truth is all kinds of evidence constantly contradicts your model. And in science, you have an hypothesis. And if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, you throw it out. But what you guys do is you take your hypothesis and then start adding to it little band-aids. I don't know. Well, here's the thing. We went strictly up of that. Evidence contradicts what you're saying. So therefore we throw it out. We must throw out the entirety of flat earth because the evidence contradicts it. What it is is we use what works best, right? We know that there are some errors with certain things. Like there are errors or there are some things that don't work with relativity. I'll freely admit that. But it is what works best. It is the best way to currently explain the universe. Well, then to call what the thing you're talking about to be true would be a problem, right? If it's just what works best at the time, that's not really true. It's not really a fact. It's just kind of right. But it works far better than the earth. So just like you saying this is not a sphere. This is flat because of relativity. And relativity doesn't work. That's the logic you're using. You've had three or four hundred years to build your religion. Good for you. And we've succeeded. You didn't do anything. Stop using the pronoun we. You didn't do anything. We. And don't say you. Don't say you had four hundred years. Yeah. You are your religion. Then we then we have succeeded. So then you're absorbing your religion. That's a good step. That's fine. It works. It works. Great. It works. It's all the matters. It works. We don't want to go too long. We're going to get these guys out of here. So we're going to jump into the Q&A, folks. These guys have got busy nights. So we're going to jump right into it. Thank you very much for your first question. Want to remind you all of our guests are linked in the description. So if you haven't already, check out those links. You can open a second tab. Well, you're still watching this debate so you can hear the questions. And then you can see their content immediately after. KO44 says, dialectic plain domain block wall, Gaussian surfaces, electric gradients, relativity, quantum, Lorentz, contraction, electric potential. All right, I'm reading here, David, please. Says electric potential. That's orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Witsett, please use the above to explain a sunset. Ding. That's what they say. Why would I use all that to explain the sunset? I already explained it to you. And I showed you a video earlier explaining it. I mean, I guess I can share the screen super fast and show it. I don't want to take too long in this. But just give me this. Give me this like 10 seconds to show them. This is this is the sunset. This is a beautiful sunset. My boy, Rakiya took on the ocean. And as you see here, right, the sun is disappearing. Right here. And it's not disappearing behind the horizon. It's disappearing above the horizon. OK, that means there's a vanishing point in the atmos. And the sun will disappear into that vanishing point. This officially debunks the claim that it can only be disappearing. Look at that. That's crazy. So the sun disappears because of the atmospheric vanishing point. Can someone rebuttal that? Or no. Can someone respond to that nonsense? In Pithy 1, we've got to tell you that we've got a ton of questions. So it's got to be Pithy. Give me 30 seconds. Planner walks out something, too. I just wanted to say if you can come up with calculations for what we should expect to see, that would be great. OK, and if I could just say, why do I see in the atmos in the distance, near the horizon, ships floating in air? I see that from time to time as well. That's a good question. Forgive you, Jeff. That's a good question. And I believe we have an answer that works. And the answer is that is an atmospheric refracting effect. Most of the sun was disappearing. Most of that sun over that 45-minute period was disappearing bottom. OK. Then you get to the very near top of the sun and then you're saying, oh, hey, now it's not doing it. What are you talking about? That's absurdity. I'm done. Go ahead, Jaren or Austin. Jaren's got it. I've been talking to him. Yeah, I didn't even know. I thought we were answering questions. What? Yeah, just explain to him why the boat is above the water. If you want, you don't have to respond. We can go to the next question. Well, I think it's a good thing, because I actually had Andrew Young, who's a refraction specialist. I was emailing him this week and finally got him to concede that those boats are all sitting on water. So just so you know. Of course they're sitting on water. All right. No, no, no, we're not going to go into a conversation, David. We've got to move on to the next question. People want to have their questions read. This one coming in from, thank you very much. Magellan says, hi, James, appreciate that. Carney Karn says, Witsit will misuse Einstein a lot in this debate. Can you ask him what shape Einstein thought the earth was and why that's not a problem for him? Because that's called an all or nothing fallacy, right? So if I can invoke a hostile witness to have to correct the globes, because they don't understand their own belief, I have to show them what relativity says. Didn't they say, no, that's not what it means. But then I have to go pull up Einstein, pull up his quotes, pull him up in context. I didn't take him out of context. It's completely in context. I have to show them what it means so that we can actually begin to have a discussion about their belief. The vast majority of people don't actually understand the heliocentric model and the idea that you could never prove the earth orbits is what they believe. So I have to teach it. I just wanted to ask, do you know why the shape of the earth being round wasn't a problem for Einstein? What was his reasoning? I don't care. Seems like you weren't listening to what I just did and said seems like you just brought up a non sequitur. So we're going to move on now. This one from the Batman says, time for a major flat smack of the Globes again. Okay, got you. This one from Magellan says, Whitsitt will cherry pick and misunderstand Einstein. I just read that. This one from- I never cherry picked. They just keep saying it. Did I read that? Yeah, you did. It was like almost duplicated. Just a script. They just repeat scripts. I can tell you what all the superchats are going to say. I misused Einstein. This one was a different one. They said, and focus on minutia, while falsely claiming endless fallacies from the other side. If the other side is using endless fallacies, then it's not really my fault if I have to call them out. I mean, you can misuse fallacies. I did it once. Name one time I did. Name one time I did. You misused Truman so many times. No, I didn't. You kept strawmaning a flat earth. And you claimed that a fallacy is sufficient to debunk the argument. I literally said it. I said it debunks the argument. Not the conclusion. Right. And sometimes it's not because you're misusing them. The argument's fallacious. That's 22. Debunks the validity of the argument, but not necessarily the conclusion. That's what fallacy-fallacy means. Hey, host, I know I can't respond, so let me not waste our time. Don't worry. You don't get it. I don't remember. No, I get it. Appreciate your question. Carney-Carn says, if Whitsitt said, quote, all or nothing fallacy, what he is doing is selecting the parts that work for him and ignoring the rest. That is cherry-picking fallacy. Dude, you know what's funny? No, I'm not ignoring anything. It means the same. Cherry-picking's like, if you write it in context, it would mean something different. They act like I can't use citations. This is the level of 2022 Glovers. They're so remedial that they're acting like I have to either show you the entire 400-page novel every time I bring it up or I can't bring out a citation. That's not how citations work. In context, it means exactly what I said that it means. It's not cherry-picking or quote mining. Try again. This one coming in front of me. I don't see this big parse error. I don't see this big parse error. Channel 044 says, question four, the flat folk. Can you please explain how the super camea candy detector in Japan took a photo of the sun through the earth or is it part of the conspiracy? They claim that some detector underneath the surface of the earth looked at neutrinos all the way down their feet through from the other side and made an image. And these people actually believe it's like proof the earth's a ball and that the sun's on the other side of the ball. I believe it. This one. Totally did. Coming in from Shrik says, earth rotates centrifugal centripetal forces act on you. If you weighed 200 pounds at a pole, you'd be 199 pounds at the equator. Flat earthers explain this. First of all, there's that could be centrifugal effects. But can you even prove that? You just guys just say things. Thanks for that. Pretty much what you do, just say things. You can just say things and it becomes you. You haven't been to either pole. What are you talking about? I mean, you can also, I actually have seen, I think it was Wolfie, measured the weight of certain objects at different, I forget whether it's latitudes or longitudes. But it came up as different weights that was consistent with what you'd expect to see if there's centrifugal force acting. You have to be latitude, right? Like you guys don't understand your model. I just get confused between different words sometimes. Okay. Coming in from Tim Pryor says, you proved curvature and track that international space station. You crack me up. Yes, he's talking to me because these guys believe that they asked for every bit of evidence, right? They asked for the humidity, the temperature, what's the refraction unless you're in a movie, it's a hit piece, clearly. And you say the words interesting. That is sufficient evidence for these guys to run around saying that I proved globe. So that's funny. But what's the other thing you said? Oh, I saw the ISS. Yes. If anybody can go do that, you can pull up ISS transit finder and you can watch the little tie fighter go by the moon or sun. At the time it says it will go by the moon or sun. I just want to ask, this is not a jab at you, Jiren. But isn't your catchphrase interesting? From watching some of your shows, I'm pretty sure your catchphrase has always been, yeah. Yes, but most people are using that in terms of the proving of the curve. Even though they just paid attention to the movie, they would see that the difference in heights would be six feet and the person held it above his head, which is about two feet. And it's not, the evidence is actually leaning towards flat then curve. But I wouldn't claim that because the evidence was right in the middle. The observation showed us the middle result. Closer to flat. And then he said, interesting. And now they say he proved the curve. Think about how dumb that is. Yeah, especially because the movie didn't show you that we tried to see it at 23 feet and didn't see it. They cut that out of the movie and they cut everything that happened after that. So, I mean, people should be asking the question like, wait a second, if Jiren proved globe right there and there was 25 people there, the great scene would have been what happens next? What's the scene after that? Where I say interesting that everybody comes over and says, what happened? Oh, man, we just saw the globe. It's globe proof. None of that happened because we were just in the middle of a bunch of observations. And at the end of that night, everybody said, no, nothing was proven here. So, how does that work on a flatter? What does? We're done. All right. Next question. Want to remind you, folks, if you haven't hit like, it's a way to support our neutral platform. We appreciate that. And this one coming in from Kango, 4-4. Question for the flats. Flat earths, flat earthers always say that water is flat. So, the quote unquote swell of the century in Nazir 2020 produced massive curved waves showing forces can curve water. So, can they explain that? Yes, forces can curve water temporarily. And then what happens after the water is done curving? It goes back to its level. Yeah. Like the density of the oceans bending around, convexing the exterior of a sphere spinning in a vacuum is insane. You can't show that ever happening. So, that's not even really relevant to adhering to the exterior of a surface of a sphere that spins. You're monologuing. That was less than 10 seconds. Shrik says, Jaren, those quotes were cherry-picked. It's dishonest. What quotes? I don't know. That's all they say. No, we don't actually cherry-pick. That globers just use scripts. They just have scripts. They're like, it's like a cult. So, you can go look into the quote from Edwin Hubble. You can look into the quote from George Ellis, who says that a lot of cosmology is trying to hide that. What are they trying to hide? The fact that they choose their models based on philosophical criteria and that he could construct a universe for you with the Earth at its center and you could not disprove him. And he's a mainstream physicist. So, what is the quote where he says the Earth is flat? That's called an all-or-nothing fallacy. Try to write it down. I want to know where the quote is that he says the Earth is flat. When you keep on using fallacies, you look dumb. Whatever. Where's the quote where any of them say the Earth is flat? They don't have to. We don't care. We're done. Next question. That's our point is that they don't think that. It's called a hostile witness. So, we need men in high positions to tell you that they believe it and so that you can believe it. All right. But you use those same men in high positions to solve the seas of doubt into this debate. Yes, because those are your prescriptives. But they're using the... But they're warning you of doing what you're doing. Here are they. It's funny how you guys never get superchats but think it's your opportunity to just talk the whole time. I don't think it's weird. So, like, we just answered it. We just answered it. It's a hostile witness. You're defending a model. David, no one superchatted you the whole time. So, calm down. He answered your question, man. Lady Firebrand says, what is your model of a flat earth? Well, we've had seven years to put something together so we don't have a perfect working model. There's a lot of people who have different, I don't know, concoctions and ideas and we just have to test them. But we don't have money like you guys had from governments, from kings and queens, expeditions, map. I mean, every single thing that was done, mapping the earth, all that stuff was done with government money. So, we have had zero dollars from the government in case anybody was wondering. That's not true. All right. What do we have? There are things that I have done, which I didn't need money to do, which... What did you do? I'm talking about nature. Even if we talk about just components of a model, like how we can see the white swan, right? How we can get that image. I managed to work out what you'd need to do that on a flat earth. I didn't need any money. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the model. If you're talking about a model, your model... You've had hundreds of years for that model. You didn't contribute anything to it. What you can do is you can work out at least work out components, like that should be the first step. How does this work? How does this part work? How does this part work? Yeah, we can do that first. You would have done that with the earth. If we would have given you the earth with a blank slate, you would have been able to start to figure out what the temperature of the sun was and how it works and how you would do all that. No, they did nothing. They've done nothing. We actually do do stuff. That's the ironic part. And ironically, the most ironic part is there isn't a working globe model. So like you said, you've had royal families doing expeditions for you, millions of dollars, or billions of dollars, millions of people, decades, all of science, all universities. And you still don't have a working model from the core to the layers to the mechanism of gravity to the atmosphere to super rotation at the top of the atmosphere to distribution of mass and expansion rate. And it goes on and on. You don't have a working model and you have everything on your side. It's hilarious. How about you self-reflect? Well, there are unknowns. There are unknowns. That's why I say, take it one step at a time. Work out, okay, how does this work? Then once you figure out how that works, how does this work? How does this work? How about you come up with your own belief system instead of just believing people in lab coats and being in a cult? This one from Tim Pryor. I mean, I've done my own calculations. Yeah, your calculations based on presuppositions. Tim Pryor says, my favorite was when journalism proved curvature and tracked the International Space Station. So this is funny to me because it really shows how pathetic believers are that they're so desperate for proof that their proof has to come from me in a movie, which is a hit piece where they misrepresented me and put me at the end of their movie. That's how desperate these people are. It's pretty funny. It was closer to flat earth. Why do they keep saying that? Because they just are reading off a script. Whatever Simon Dan says, they'll just repeat it. And C2 says that we got to repeat it. This one from... I'm still trying to figure out why when you stood up and that light went through that hole. Why did that happen? Sorry. Are you incapable of understanding things? Am I? Next point. You don't get... Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm going to say something at the end of our super chat and then say... I have no respect for you. That's not how it works. I'm sorry. Well, the whole audience doesn't have respect for you, even though you're saying that you're like a terrible representation for the globe. David, I have to admit, you interrupt an awful lot. I did. And I appreciate to the point where it's like chill out for a little bit. But I appreciate that you've got passion because it's better than if you were boring. But it is a lot. Shricks says 8 billion people and every single scientist on earth versus a couple of pseudo-intellectuals, the burden of proof will always be on flat earth. Yeah, I covered that in my freaking opener. It's called the appeal to majority or argument from ad-populum. Basically like, oh, a bunch of people think it, though for it must be true. And then you're basically saying, oh, these are scientists and they just pseudo-intellectuals, which is basically an appeal to credentials. Like, you don't have the credentials needed. So you guys are inter-religion. It's like someone saying, you can't talk about the blame on my preacher said this. I think there's people outside of that because if it wasn't for us and the conspiracy theorists that were actually calling these things out and then they end up being true and then you guys just adopt them as being true because we're not your force at that point. But if it wasn't for us, you would just be hoodwinked the rest of your life. What is the really good, flat earth position that has been proven through? I do want to humor the globe side just because they don't get much action during the Q and A. So, Planner-Walk, if you have a quick pithy point or question, I want to give you a chance and then we'll give you a chance to respond with Sid and Jared and then we got to go to the next question. How long do you think it's going to take for everyone to become a flat earther or for the majority of people to become a flat earther? Just a question. We probably have to stop censoring us and let it actually be fair for a little bit, huh? I bet it would be like incredibly fast if they stopped censoring us and misrepresenting the actual flat earth position. So, you guys seem to be pro-censorship. I think some people would rather be lied to. So, I think it'll be a while. I think for you, for Dave here, I think you guys would rather be a part of the lie because the lie works than to actually work towards the truth. Or not be part of the majority. This one from Displaced Gamer says, what is your position on the shape and status of the earth? I know that you haven't listed your position but just humor me. The stationary topographical plane has some form of containment and yeah, just look at the interference patterns of a magnetic field. I think we live inside of a torus. King 044 says, so the sun appears to set because the atmosphere is a massive lens but a lens that does do affect anything else. Or the sun is in a medium that acts like a lens. Or maybe it's magnetic holography. Maybe the sunset because of a strawman fallacy. Maybe, the only like, I don't want to speak ugly. Remedial people like find stuff like that humorous. You know what I'm saying? Where is that, where is that? This one from Magellan says, we're going to move to the next one. Magellan says, Whitz it doesn't know what fallacies are. I literally do. Every single time I set a fallacy, if you go look it up, I literally listed them. I knew I should have just covered that, Jaren. I knew I should have just covered the fallacies because all they use is fallacies and it forces me to call them out and then they just scream about it. They're just like, no, you don't know. Dude, every time I said it, it was a fallacy and I probably called out about 10% of them, right? So yeah, I do know what they are. Hits me not using them and hits me having to correct their fallacies constantly. Hey Whitz, I will say, I do appreciate that you didn't just do that because one of the things that I was wondering is if you're going to bring evidence, right? And I wanted this discussion to be more evidence-based. So I do appreciate the attempted evidence in your opening. I brought way more evidence than both of you guys. What evidence did you bring? Did you not see my presentation? Was my presentation just over your head? And you explained the sunset in a way that was inconsistent. So how did that happen? I showed you long distance observations, laser, mirror flashes, radio transmissions over 10,000 miles. You just hand wave dismissed. No, you did not. Keep on saying I bring no president. You keep saying I'm interrupting. You keep saying I brought no evidence because that's the global earth. When you talk about a model- That's super chat. Well, it's real quick. When you guys talk about a model that's not debunkable or it's what do you call it, not falsifiable, wouldn't that be the case of the globe earth? Because if we're seeing mirror flashes that are going over 30, 40 foot humps of water and you're just able to say that's a fraction happening, do you understand that it's actually not our model that's not undebunkable? Well, when it comes to that, you'd have to take more measurements than just these observations. Like temperature readings would be a good start and then compare it to what you'd expect to see on a flat earth, compared to what you'd expect to see on a globe earth. Account for refraction, that's a really good start to make. Well, we do that plan your walk and then what happens is when the temperature relationship doesn't match the refracted value that's needed for the globe, the globe says, oh, well, there are other variables that could be there that's unaccounted for. So yeah, you guys like to pretend, oh, all you have to do is look at the temperature and do the refraction equation we know perfectly. Well, Andrew Thomas Young will tell you, we actually don't know tons of variables. All you do is do the math and assume it. Your model is unfalsifiable to such an extent, you will say that something can refract all the way around the globe back to you. Well, that is why you need a model because if you don't have a model of how things would work if the earth were flat, then it's hard to say, well, what are we comparing this to? Why do I need a model if I'm going to do my observation as the canal? I just know what will happen on a flat earth, right? So that's enough of the model. Yeah, well, you need to know things like refraction. You need to know things like refraction as well. If the refraction is going to be an issue, right, then we need to know, okay, what refraction will we expect to see on both flat earth and the globe earth? And then we'd take measurements like temperature readings and all that kind of stuff. And then we work it out. And then we'll work out, okay, which is this observation? You need all those things when things prove flat, but if I say interesting, do you think that's sufficient evidence of proving curve? Oh yeah, I think that there should be things like, things like the temperature things there as well. Can I ask a question? When you ignore refraction and you recognize when refraction works, and I'm talking to you flat earthers, why do you then ignore the effects? Like, we know the refraction will fall. Quick chance, then we got to go back to questions. Refractive predictions? I just answered it. No, we got to go to the next one. Sorry, guys. Refraction. Well, you asked your question. We got to go to the next one. Dave, don't be like that, really. I don't think it's working. This is his shell, man. You're going to interrupt me now. Geez, Dave. Really, seriously. I don't think this is working for you. But I do want to give a chance. You did ask your question. Did you not ask them a question, Dave? It sounded like you ended with a question there. Yeah. Okay, then it makes sense we give them a chance to respond, and then we go to go to the next question from the people that have asked questions in the chat. Very simple. The refraction predictions actually don't always match what we see with the globe. Like, if you look at the temperatures and the humidity and something you factor it in, it still doesn't work for the globe. So they have this get out of jail car where they say, oh, well, refraction is not fully understood, and there could be other variables that are there that we don't know. And they always just assume it is bending around the globe no matter what. That it's not applicable above water, which would be the only thing. That wasn't my question. That wasn't my question, though. So let's just keep going, guys. It's fine. That wasn't my question. Let's go. Do you remember what your question was? My question is, when you ignore how refraction works, on us, you ignore it. And then you sit up here and you guys talk about it. This is just telling them what they're doing. Would you remember what you actually ended with in terms of the actual question? I'm just going to move on to the next one. All right. Displaced gamer. So I think modern day debate needs to phrase the question next time. Is the Earth flat? We need a positive defense on the other side. Maybe we should do that. Magellan says, Whitsett is a poster child for Dunning Kruger. And the gap between Whitsett's actual IQ and his perception of his IQ could not be greater. I think I should have an IQ contest with Whitsett, I think. Yeah. Perception. You're going to make those bad claims. Perception of IQ. It's whatever. I admit what I don't know. The irony is that I point out, I don't know a lot about what goes on on the Earth. And me and Jaren are obviously significantly more humble and honest regarding what we do and do not know about the Earth. While you guys don't even understand your own model as much as we do. And then you claim that your model is a fact while we have to teach you about it. So it seems like you may be projecting a bit. This is coming in from... I do have... I just wanted to say, there is one thing that I do want to say. Keep on forgetting his name. The guy that did magnetism. In Willer. No, no, no, no. Different person. In magnetism. Never mind. I forgot the name. It doesn't matter. Oh, Maxwell? Yeah, Maxwell's equations. That's what I want to say. Maxwell's equations. Okay, cool. That doesn't help you. Shrik says space tourism will be cheap and available to everyone in the next 10 or 20 years. Take a 20-minute trip. See the curve. Come back and rethink your life choices. Magellan says... Got that one, actually. Mr. Monster. Okay, Jaren. You answered the ones that are more like open and into flat Earth. Thanks. I do this all the time. I didn't know. I just saw today that Tim Dodd is going to be sent to the moon in 2023. I'll be willing to bet anybody that doesn't happen. But no glober there will bet that because they understand that it's a ridiculous bet anyway. This one coming in from... Do appreciate it. Mr. Monster says... So a ship disappears beyond the horizon, starting with the whole of the ship and ending with the mast. Wouldn't this be a good example of flat Earth curvature? Flat Earth curvature? When you can't see the mast, but you can still see the horizon behind it? He probably mistyped it. He probably just means curvature. No, we do see boats that are said to be going over the curve, but there's water behind it. Yeah, like they say that the mast is disappearing because it's like going behind the curve of the Earth. And then when you look at it, the horizon's behind the boat. So they're claiming that the curvature of the Earth is blocking the boat. You can literally see the horizon behind the boat. They put that on what? Like National Geographic? It's just... Your rise is clearly sinking. The boat is clearly sinking. We have to help those people. Do you think that the National Geographic was right when they said the curvature was blocking the front of the boat, but the horizon was behind the boat? It's clearly refractive from refractive artifact. Why would the boat be under the water and just look at the same time? You don't get it. I do get it. And what you're not understanding is that just like with your sun example, you're seeing a refractive artifact. So for instance, if you were to let the boat continue to go off into the distance, eventually it'll go under the horizon completely. You'll see it either go under the refractive artifact. I've seen one video of that happen. Well, just like I showed you, I just showed you... Let's see the boat disappear before it goes on the horizon. Let's see it disappear even with the level of magnification that you guys are reliant on. That happens all the time. What are you talking about? Let's see it. Okay. Even your own model claims, it happens. I've never seen it before. Well, your own model claims, it happens. We get it. You don't know anything about this. High enough altitude? What? From a high enough altitude? Sure. No. Yes. No, you can... No, you perceive astronautical magnification according to your model at the surface. Thanks for playing. It's okay if it's a little Dave. It's just that sometimes it's like... Sometimes it's a lot. Can I give my... Can I respectfully give my opinion like 15 seconds? Sure. It seems that this entire debate was essentially the witsicham. And when there were some legitimate questions that were asked by Planner Walk, instead of him directly answering them, he went into a monologue about debate tactics. And I found it to be very disrespectful. And I apologize for interrupting. But even in your more elaborate debates, your more elevated debates about social issues, they don't do that. You were clearly the worst-behaved person in this debate. I had to be. The challenge here... I mean, I don't want to... I really want to get to more people's questions. But I duly noted, I've taken your feedback. I did listen. I hear what you're saying. But I do want to... Instead of me like engaging you on that, like it's been heard. You've been able to say it. I want to get to more people's questions because a lot of people put into questions and we got a lot to move through. Kango44 says quick question for witsicham. What's a differentiable equation? A differential equation just uses like... Technically, I don't know if they meant... If this is like meant to be on purpose, they say a differentiable with a B. I don't know if that's something new or if that... Maybe he's making... I don't know if he's trying to act like I said it wrong or something, but like they use a differential equation for Snell's law, which uses like derivatives for different variables, blah, blah, blah, because it's actually one singular medium as opposed to two mediums. You have to use a differential equation to apply Snell's law to the Atmos. Okay. I thought you're going to say that Snell's law relies on differential equations, but like, yeah, if you're going to apply it to the atmosphere, you don't need... I'm not sure if you need differential equations. I just do a form of calculus because I never learned calculus in high school. This one coming in from... Do you appreciate your question? Magellan says witsich can add differential equations to the massive and rapidly growing things he doesn't understand but thinks that he does. Wow, good one. This is from Oliver B. Perez says, witsich, you have so much chemistry with these questioners, Austin. They say witsich, are you not using a genetic fallacy when you won't listen to evidence from NASA or other major sources because the info is from those sources or from NASA? No, because the point is that if it's not something that can be independently verified, it can't be considered like empirical, reliable evidence. We need to be able to test ourselves. The fact that they've been proven liars and they've baked a lot of stuff before certainly doesn't help. But if it's like a claim that can't be tested or verified by us and we can't just blindly believe it as if definitive proof of our entire worldview, oh, the NASA is the one federal governmental agency that doesn't lie to us. Like, okay, Ro, go take your job. I mean, I can't independently verify that witsich or duren exists. Luckily, they go terribly massive. There are some of you that weigh in on this topic. How can we expect every single person to do all of this work? That is unreasonable. This one coming in. One even knows what that means. We long. This one coming in from Magellan. Oh, we got that one. Oliver B Perez says, witsich, are you not using... We got that one. This one from down in the rabbit hole says, James, I know you know the earth is flat. Do you have to hide the ice picks in your house when these globe zealots are talking so you don't stab your eardrums asking for a friend? Well, if I moderate well, then people won't even know my position. So, Brandon Hansen, thanks for your question, says I'm a globe guy because if it's flat, then I've been lied to all my life and the materialistic viewpoint I hold would be wrong. It makes me feel bad to think about all the assumptions I would have wrong. Any thoughts from anybody? All right. I kind of zoned out. I was just reading everyone saying, Austin, get a job in the chat. These glovers are like crazy toxic like losers. You need to work for a Taco Bell like I do. Yeah. Like, how dare you be fair? How does it mean I can enjoy your job and make content? Oh, I mean, you're so mad at that. You're always trying to get a degree in programming. You might be able to do some... I'm good, bro. Why do the glovers who seem to be miserable think that I need their life advice? That's what I don't understand. I'm good. Thank you. So, it's worthwhile getting a degree. That's what you think. I know many millionaires that disagree with you. So... This one coming in from... Oh, you know how million is? Yes. And they think college is a waste of time and a trap and that they could start a business four years earlier and make tons of money. Yeah. Multiple... It's totally a scam artist, too. This one comes... Okay. Mark says, glovers know what's up with the orbital motion argument. Hence why they are deflecting. We'll give you a chance, Planner-Walk and David. Were you deflecting? I don't think we were. Reflected from what? They said... Just admitting that... That's what Otto asked. ...or that the earth's moving. Yeah. Orbital motion argument. You were deflected. The orbital motion is clearly determined by what you are observing, this moving relative to where you're standing. Or sitting or orbiting. There's nothing to deflect from. There's space. It's not like there's a bunch of trees and mountains all over the universe for us to watch you go by. This is ridiculous. You know, I don't think I properly explained my argument there because if you're in a car and you look out the window and you see trees go past, it could be that, you know, all the trees are moving past you rather than you moving past the trees. Could it really be? But it could be. You don't know that. That's how video games simulate motion. At least 2D video games do. Whoa, 2D video games here in the earth's a ball. Dude, if you stood in my front yard and we watched the car pass us on the road, we'd be like, oh look, we're standing still. And that car just passed us on the road. Well, that's what we see. And you guys say that the car is actually stationary and that we are moving in our yard, but we can't feel it. That's what you say. Or measure it or detect it or prove it. Well, no, what I'm saying is that we can tell that something's moving, right? And you can very easily see that there is something that's moving. What it is that is moving is you can't objectively say, oh, this is what is moving, right? But you can say, well, if this thing here is moving, everything makes a whole lot more sense. If the earth is moving around the sun rather than the sun moving around the earth, then that makes a lot more sense. Well, it makes a lot more sense when you have 860 miles wide sun, yes. It doesn't even make more sense, though. Like their math is completely off, even distribution central to the earth. Or they had to say, well, it just looks like that everywhere. And then expansion rate and the galaxy distribution. Everything is wrong because of that. You're just saying that it makes more sense, doesn't mean it. But at least you did admit, three hours in, two and a half hours in, you did admit you can't prove the earth orbits the sun. Thank you. Wilson, why did you have to have to prove the universe just to explain the motion of the earth? I didn't say that. He said it works better. I explained it actually doesn't work as well. Trying to keep up. No, you're simply pointing out where it may not work precisely. You're pointing out and correctly so that there may be some margin of error. But that margin of error is far less than whatever alternative you provide. No, it goes away with the geocentric earth. I was specifically naming the problems that come from the heliocentric model. And remember that the geocentric earth is still a glide. Okay, if that makes you feel better, we falsified that part too, man. This one from Kangol44 says, Sharon, you have proved the curvature of the earth with your light through the holes experiments. So why are you on the flat earth side? That's four of them so far. Yeah, what's hilarious is if you listened to the show, you would understand that if you went out and did an experiment where you didn't prove anything, and then a movie that shook your hand and told you they were doing it on the up and up and that they were going to be showing people in a positive light, and then they went and lied about you, you too would stay on the side of the one that was lied against. I certainly am not going to go, you know what, these guys had to lie about me to prove the globe. Therefore, I believe in the globe. That would be- So why did- So why did the whole- I really should move forward. So why? I can do the sea of David, just because we have so many questions still. Shrik says- We got that one. Coffee Mom says, I would like to see the flat earth model, please. We had kind of the same question coming in. I got it. I got it. She's 37 weeks pregnant. This one from Shrik says, Witsit, let's see, saying you have impulse control issues. Sounds like something you've been told many times, Austin. It's really specific. Sounds like a projection. No, this dude was- When people constantly interrupt me, it gets frustrating. So I point out that the way that you describe that behavior is impulse control issues. So I mean, sorry. This one coming in from- Do appreciate your question. Chris says, Witsit, your understanding of mathematics, coordinate systems, calculus, geometry is very flawed. Take some math classes. Self-taught isn't your forte. She missed trigonometry, but that- Yeah, what's crazy, but it's funny. And I don't want- I'm not trying to brag at all because I don't do math in my current life or anything that much. But I had an aptitude for math. Like if I sat down with you guys when we were in high school and algebra two honors, I would have smoked you, dude. That's what's so funny. So stop bringing that up. It's called an ad hum, bro. I used to finish long form algebra without showing the work in the first that was done. It doesn't matter. That doesn't mean I'm better than people. That doesn't mean the earth is flat. It just means that that's a stupid argument that you're saying and try to grow up and stop ad homing people. It makes the globe look worse. You're actually promoting and recruiting flat earth. It's okay to say, oh, this flat earth or knows math. It's okay to say that. It's not going to kill you to be like, oh, no, only globe believers know math. Anybody who doesn't believe in the globe doesn't know math. KM444 says, radar studies of the sun show the earth orbiting the sun. There are many, many papers on it. Maybe read a book Witsit. I have read. I have read about that. You actually don't get it probably. It's called relativistic Doppler effect. So I actually know exactly what it is. I don't just say, oh, radar measurement. It's called a relativistic Doppler effect. And of course, it actually assumes that the sun is moving. It shows a difference between the sidereal and solar rotation. So by the assumption that it is in fact the earth's orbit causing the difference in the rotations or the movements between the stars and the sun, they say, oh, look, that's how much it moves. Let's back that into an elliptical orbit. That's actually a geodesic. All through freefall through space that we can't tell. So it's basically a straight line in 3D space, blah, blah, blah. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Shricks says flat earthers using pics and videos as evidence and then claiming quote, all videos and pictures of the earth are fake. And James loved the channel, by the way. Thank you. As people can go out and take the same photographs we're talking about. However, you cannot go to space and take the same photograph that Himawari does. It's a big difference. And they admit that it's like not real. This one from Shane Katz says, planar walk, there is no terrestrial or optical experiment that can be done to prove motion of the earth's rotation or orbital around the sun. None, brother. Well, there is actually, as was brought up earlier, if you take measurements of the weight of things, you can see that at the equator, things weigh less than at the poles or at different latitudes. Yeah, just to have that, and assume that that means it's a globe is an issue. There could be a number of things that would cause that. Well, it is something that is a natural consequence of a spin and glow. There's also other effects like the Itwish effect. What about barometric pressure? That wouldn't cause a one pound difference? Could, right? Why would there consistently be less barometric pressure at the equator? You can get precision scales to measure this. Which one does it weigh less at? It weighs less at the equator. Then it starts weighing more in the south. Starts weighing more in the south and more in the north at the poles. Then it goes all the way. They say that it's like a crazy small amount. They always say it. You look it up, it's just like anti-flatter earth that's on YouTube. It's not like universities. Well, why is that crazy small amount? Actually, it doesn't just people on YouTube. Obviously, if you search people up on YouTube, the people that you're going to find are going to be people talking about it in relation to flat earth. But I've actually spoken to someone that went to Antarctica, land in Nol, and he took a measurement in Japan or something, and then at the South Pole, he took another measurement, and it was heavier at the South Pole than in Japan. And it was the exact amount heavier it needed to be based on the globe dimensions? I kind of asked this question. So I'm confused. Of course not. You're telling me that the earth's spinning at the equator at 1,000 miles per hour with that centripetal force going outward, right? So you're telling me that. Yeah. So that force that's flying outward is only accounting for a one-pound difference? Is having no spin at all at the North Pole? Yes. Yeah, I have actually done the calculations for that. And yeah, this is about one-pound, I think it's about, it depends on what the weight is of the thing that you have. Right. I thought it's a 200-pound person would wear 199 or something as a pole. Would you be able to use an object? Let's not use the person, because we could say that the person their weight would fluctuate due to biological things. But you can use an object. Your guys' belief would be that we cancel out, right? The spin out is canceling the ground. Just to be sure, David, it's a chance to finish. Yeah, it's David can finish. I just wanted to make sure. The question is pretty easy. Why is it consistent? In other words, you can look at any other factor. But why is it consistently more, why is it way consistently less as you go towards the equator? I don't know if it is. Yeah, it's actually, like I'm telling you, Jaren, this is the truth. They say that, right? Actually, it's like no universities have done in-depth like latitude correlation measurements or anything. They just say it because it's a global talking point. But secondly, like also centrifugal effect translated from the sky could also explain it if it were true. So it's like it doesn't do anything for the globe, but they just say it anyway. So they actually do, it is something that is well documented that they have to account for. Have you heard of the one kilogram mass? Then you're saying that people that mine on the equator and suffer gold, they're accounting for this, right? Because that would cost, that would end up translating to millions of dollars. Well, there's this thing called the one kilogram mass, right? And that is what is used to define a kilogram or used to- Every what was used to- And they've had to, I can't remember the exact thing, but if they take it to other places of the world, it's not, it doesn't weigh exactly one kilogram. It weighs different. So what do you just mine gold and stuff at the equator and then take it north or south before you sold it because then you would make millions of dollars as a mining company because it would change weight? They don't, that's not how it works. It would also be the cost. That's not how it works, bro. You said that the weight change, that is exactly how it would work. And it'd be like a, and also you'd have to go from the equator, like you'd have to find a place on the equator, go all the way north to the North Pole where someone's selling gold or what? No, no, the globe claim, you're supposed to claim that it changes all the way up to the North Pole. Yeah, but if it's, if you go to like some place in Texas, right, that's only going to be a tiny change compared to the value that you might get. What about when you're talking about a huge amount of gold though? Gold is a sold by weight. What is gold sold by then? Carrots. Must jump to the next one. This one coming in from Qualo. Go in and ask for, can I have a 14 karat gold please? Says clarification drops of water on a flat surface. They become part of the puddle. Yeah, they fly out. They take equilibrium once they hit the floor. So, Plain Rock, one more question about that gravity thing, because I'm just not grasping it. And this is what I mean by be skeptical, because I don't understand how you're not skeptical of this. Gravity is everything pulled towards the center, correct? Okay, so everything on Earth is being pulled towards the center. But on the equator, we're flying a thousand miles per hour edge rim velocity, right? So that is a, I've done the calculations and so gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared acceleration. Right. The calculations at the equator is something like about three centimeters per second squared in the opposite direction. That's very big difference. But the spinning Earth, that's flying to the outside. If you've ever been on the gravatron at a carnival or something, you understand what it means to be spinning outwards. You have that force that's throwing you out. But there is none of that force at the North Pole, but it only changes the weight of a 200 pound person by one pound. Yeah, like, it's 15 degrees per hour or one rotation per day. A gravatron is much faster than that when it comes to RPM. And that's the main thing that you have to look at, RPM. Yeah, that's what's- You're not being pulled away at a thousand miles per hour from the surface of the Earth. That's the mistake that you're making. So if the Earth stopped moving, would you fly in the direction you were to the east at a thousand miles per hour? But you wouldn't be pulled straight up. But you wouldn't be pulled straight up. So I don't understand your- Yeah, but that's- That's what you're claiming is that it's pulled straight up. What's your implicit stop? Taryn, what I suggest you do is actually do the mathematics on it. All right. And then you'll see that the mathematics do not show that we should be- It's very little. The- Yeah, it shows that it's very little. It's very little. But then they also admit that there's a gravitational anomalies and fluctuations within the entire field all over the place. They come on here on YouTube and they just pretend it's this magic fairytale world of the globe where like as you go south to equator then keep going, it's just this perfect weight distribution latitude. Now we go. But it isn't. It literally isn't in reality. That's why you can't find universities claiming it is. You only find anti-flatter Earthers claiming it is. So that's what it is. I encourage the audience to actually look it up. That's why censorship is so damning because they're able to just lie. But no one's censoring anybody. There's no censorship right here. My Earth is suppressed. No, it's not. Admittedly, they admit they suppressed flat Earth on YouTube. No, no. In court, they admitted it. Yeah, far more different areas to probably get your nonsense. Let's do one more problem. You think that my videos are show up in people's recommended? Do you think there's still- Is the only way that you can express yourself? What? They still come up in recommended. They just aren't recommended as much to people that have never seen that kind of stuff. They suppress. This one. This one. So we choose a- Cheapok Dopra says, keep it up. Thanks for that. And Mark says, Glovers can't handle orbital motion argument. Is this true, Glovers? I mean, what do they mean? We can't handle orbital motion. They're saying, yeah. Maybe someone- You're not ready for the argument they're saying. Maybe it's because some of the arguments that flat Earth's might seem to be into all of it. Or maybe they go round and round in circles with their arguments. Maybe one day you'll learn what it means. It jokes. This one. Great. A public humor. What a great argument. This one coming in. Okay, let's start again. Do you appreciate- I remember now why I don't like debating. Questions from ChainsawCat says, Love watching NASA fanboys Spiral, LOL Earth is flat. This one coming in from- I mean, Amboy's? Yeah. I just want to say, yeah, because we're spiraling around the sun. This one from- Good one. Mark. Oh, we got that one. Just LOL says, Whitsit gets it. What are you politically? I don't buy into the whole principle-wise, morality-wise, I'm conservative. Or I would be fiscally conservative just in that sense. Morally or ethically. But I don't believe in politics. And I would guess if I had to pick something, I'd say libertarian politically. But it's just two wings to the same bird. So I don't really identify via a false binary construct. Planet Rock, can I ask you a question real quick? Do you have any beliefs that are outside of the accepted scientific beliefs? Or like if I want to know what you believe, I just need to go read a physics book or watch Professor Dave, and I'll know everything that you believe. Um, I usually base my beliefs off the science. Sometimes there might be something, like philosophically, obviously, you can't just look at a science book and go, because, you know, there's not going to be a philosophy in a science book. So obviously, I might believe something different based on philosophy, but not- But men can give birth. Uh, well, yeah, there are some men that can give birth. That is a completely different argument, though. It's a different argument, but it's just that you just- I mean, that's exactly what I- Before we go through it. And that is a philosophical thing, by the way. Okay. This one from Just LOLs. Got that one, actually. Shrik says you can bounce radio waves off the moon within capital H-A-M. M radio. That's a cool story, man. I want to see it. If you like that, verify it, yeah. You guys just say stuff and then you keep repeating it. They actually say they get like one photon back after he's trying to shoot. And that's like a little bit, especially when you shoot a laser. Four quadrillion. And then they say they get radio waves similar to that from the sky anyway. Cosmic radio waves, but they swear this is the one that they sent. And you can also get them when you don't sit them at the moon. And this is the whole order, though. And there's ionism, which is actually just a comment. So you do actually get some background noise when it comes to these things. So if you point a thing at the sky and turn the gain right up, then you're going to get some background noise. If you point it at the moon, you're going to get a bit more background noise because that is reflecting stuff. And then when you send the signals, you have to do work out how high the signal is above the noise floor. This one from Quailo says, how many drops of water on a flat surface added together does it take until it's flat? Pretty easy experiment anyone could do, I'd say. What would your prediction be? I like it. I don't think they're asking us. How does that prove anything or just prove anything? What's the... I don't understand that. You're looking at the earth over vast distances. So how does a few drops of water do... Well, just when we say we don't see water bend, people want to come back and say water droplets or... You don't see it bend over a few hundred miles. Well, you do. You should. No, I don't. I don't claim to that and I've never heard of it. I mean, we do see the water bend over a long distance. Well, even if the earth is flat, water still bends over long distances because tides exist. Yeah, the water's in motion trying to seek its equilibrium through fluid dynamics and there is swelling within water. There isn't a bending of convexity of earth and over hundreds of miles you would see that. You would see earth curvature from one foot above the earth after one mile. So why do you say seek? I'm sorry, go ahead. Why do you say seek? Seek is the equilibrium, instead of simply... I think of water, if it's at the top of a hill, it's going to go down and find its level spot where it can rest. It's critique is... It forms around its center. It forms around, listen, water forms around the forces or forms due to the forces that influence it, whether it be gravity or agatism, if it's possible, or like electrostatic forces and things like that. There you go. There's no seeking and finding. Yeah, he's saying that you're using the word seek as if water was sent to you. No, you're trying to make it sound like there's some other philosophical nature of how water does what it does and it isn't. Well, water is very crazy, actually. It changes molecular structure when you talk to it. One of the most unrelated to our discussion. It has memory. Theros-Rex says James. No, it doesn't. That's being disproven. Oh, sure. You think that. You think men can get pregnant. Theros-Rex says James. I've seen some me. What does it take to get on this show? Paleontologists here who wants to debate the age of the earth and where it's curvature and evolution, et cetera. If you didn't get my chat in chat, I'm at moderatetubate at gmail.com. So just the name of the channel and then at gmail.com. No spaces, no hyphens. Nominal says the invisible matter that we can't detect is called quote unquote dark matter. This is said by NASA. This one from third rail. Let's say the Glober. All right. Third rail says I want to debate a Christian, a crucifixion, fact or fiction, IDM on Twitter, no response. I'm behind on our Twitter. We got a ton of Twitter requests, so it's hard to keep up. But moderatetubate at gmail.com if you want to come on. SkyScience says David, did you have a few brusquies before the debate? Oh, wow. I actually get the answer. No, I'm just annoyed with, I get annoyed with the tactics. If we're going to have a conversation and we're going to have a question and answer and rebuttal, rebut and respond to the questions. And after like third or fourth time, I just kept it up. So I apologize. I don't expect to be invited back, but that's just how it is. I don't ever hold a grudge and I'm not worried. I was pretty hard on you tonight, David. So I'm sorry that. That's okay. No, I don't mind. I mean in part you deserved it, probably not quite as bad as I was. I was pretty hard on you. Oh, you weren't easy on him, bro. He totally deserved it, bro. You know what it is? Is that when you're responding true enough? I don't want to hold on. I don't want to. I'm sorry. I hate to. I just want to ask so many more questions. I hate to do this to you, David, but we really, we just got so many questions. I got to like speed us through. Sky science says, Planner walk, your nervous energy will not make the earth a ball. Planner walk is. I mean, maybe I just need to start curling up into a ball. Zoomed more nervous energy. This one coming in from Dave Hinkle says, global evers does relativity state that you cannot detect motion of the earth going around the sun from the earth? What I'm going to try this first. My understanding of relativity is there's two forms of relativity. There's the relatively that is based upon high speed and is relatively based upon high amounts of matter in the concentrate volume. Okay. So that's it. Either it's due to a lot of stuff being in one spot or it's due to some, some object going very fast from. So when it comes to relativity, that this is why I use the car, like the car and the going past the trees analogy. Because if you look out of the car, you will see the trees going past. Now you could try and make the argument that it's the trees that are moving and not the car. And relativity is about. Relativity says that both reference frames are equally valid, right? However, you can look at the at more context, right? Like other cars going past and the other cars going past make it look as though you are the one that's moving compared to those other cars and the trees. The other cars are also moving as well. But you have to have a point of reference. That's what I think you refer to, right? There's a point of reference in his face. Yeah, these reference frames. I can't and all reference frames are valid in relativity. Okay, you guys can answer the question directly. It's okay. From Dave Hinkle says, global evers does relativity state that you cannot detect motion of the earth going around the sun from the earth? Thank you. I think you already said that. That seemed familiar. That's the one that they can't just say. Relativity says you cannot detect it. They can't say that for some reason. But why? Why does that even matter? What does that have to do with the conversation? It's just about being intellectually honest. So that people can understand the models. It's about being more about being more nuanced. You can't just say, oh, this says this and leave it at that because there is obviously more nuance to that. Otherwise, Einstein would have said that the earth is motionless. No. He assumed it was moving and then he tried to explain it. Any honest global would say, well, yeah, according to relativity, you can't detect the earth's orbit around the sun from the earth due to being in the same frame of reference as the earth moving. That's basic relativity 101, but it makes ballers nervous to say that out loud. Not my problem. I do this for the audience. But what if you're not at the earth of reference? Speak. What? You guys will get there. This one from Cheeks Our Cats says, respect all people's beliefs, even the spinning baseball religion, alphabet people's wild and crazy beliefs. Alphabet people's. James, I want to respond to the chat because speaking of more nuance, a lot of people seem to misunderstand my take on men getting pregnant. Because when I say men getting pregnant, what I'm meaning is I'm not meaning that all biological males can get pregnant. That is not my stance. Hope not. There is some biological males that might be able to through medical intervention. I have heard it's like they try to insert a uterus and all that kind of stuff. No one's done that. No one's ever done that, bro. I think that's something that's being attempted or being tried. But like when it comes to biological, obviously biological males can't. That's what men say. Well, when I say men, I have, I'm talking about gender rather than sex. All right. You had to say men could. You said because you're politically pregnant, she had to say it. This one from Sky Sciences. David, have you seen Jesse Lee Peterson? He helps heal overly emotional men. Please look into this. Is he the guy, is he the fake pastor that uses gay kids to exploit? I don't like it, dude. I don't like it, dude. I don't like it, dude. He's a Canadian guy. This is where we're going to go to the next one. No, he says, he's a people. We're going to go to the next one. No, he says, babe. I need the next one coming in from Brandon Peterson. Brandon Hanson says, globe ease seem to not do, seem to do, seems to, Oh, look at it. I'm sorry. These are, globe ease seem to not need to know anything about the globe model to be the biggest proponents. Nice win, Austin and Jaren. Why not? I don't know. That's the thing about this. It's not a win or lose. It's more refining your arguments. People in the audience, hopefully you're waking up to the deceptions, right there in front of them. That's why I hate that this conversation was so like, like the debate was all like in the weeds about perspective and all that stuff, because we could talk about it, but it's like the overarching idea of the concept. You know, it always gets lost. The only way that someone can really learn is to hear two people have like an honest conversation back and forth, not interrupt each other. And a lot of times, still need to count with more calculations. Well, we need to keep points that are conceded and concession-worthy. And you still need to answer and you still need to answer questions that are asked. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Kevin Doble says, Jaren and Austin, thank you. We know the game they play. This one from nominal says planner walk. What percentage of the universe do you believe consists of quote, the invisible matter that we can't detect, which is called dark matter? I think when it comes to matter, I think it's something like 95%. In fact, one of the interesting things about dark matter is we actually found some of the dark matter because of hydrogen. It was cold hydrogen. And so we found some of that, but there was still a lot more that we couldn't see, which we need to count for. But you found it, what was it? Cold hydrogen. I can't remember the exact way that it was found, and that was like a decent amount that they... Put a lot of gas. Cold hydrogen. Cold hydrogen is what dark matter is. Some of it was. The rest of it is still unaccounted for at this current point in time. There are some ideas as to what it might be. And then there are some theories that have been worked on to try and explain things without the need for dark matter. The dark matter is very useful because it's a placeholder until we work out, okay, what exactly is going on here? That's what I mean about when it comes to using what is the best thing to explain what we see. Which is undefined nothingness. No, it's something that affects the motion of galaxies. And we don't know what it is because the matter that we know of doesn't explain those motions. Because your models predictions were wrong. So one of the options is that your model's wrong, but you guys don't even consider that option because it's a religion. So then you just, oh, there must be something else there. We don't know what it is. Because it was originally for planner. I want to give them the last word and then we got to go to the next question. So it doesn't mean that the model is completely wrong. Like as I said earlier, the when it comes to the earth being flat and the earth being a sphere, both of those are wrong because of the existence of mountains. But one is more wrong than the other. I heard that. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Sky Sciences, James, how can you let David talk over your show like that? Don't be a beta. Thank you for that. Thank you for that feedback. Radcraft says, what is the flat earth explanation for stars in the nice sky? Did someone just poke a bunch of holes in the dome or something? Dude, imagine being so deluded. You'd think that's a good question. When you think that, when you look at the stars, you're looking back in time and some of them aren't even there anymore and they're balls of gas, giants in a vacuum or that they're basically neutron reactors in a vacuum chamber. Like what? They could be sun, luminescence in a fluid like medium. There are some type of energy moving around us. Well, I don't know. You know that light does take time to travel from a source to you, right? What does that have to do with anything? You said about looking back in time. Yeah, do you think that we're supposed to just believe there's a vacuum of space out there with lights trillions of miles away? Just blindly believe that. I'm sorry. We don't believe. Not blindly. And I don't think light even travels, actually. It's instantaneous. So what if it's not blindly? What is the evidence of it? Well, the evidence is all of the scientific studies and all the experiments that we're done. That's all you have to say. For me to recite them in this debate right now would be ridiculous. What's that? You could have named one for money. You couldn't have named one for money. There is one thing that disproves light being instantaneous. And that is the fact that radio waves do take time. Like if you were to have a radio wave, send it somewhere. And as soon as you receive that signal, send another radio wave back, that would take time. There would be time in between. And that proves that it's not instantaneous. No, it doesn't. Actually, what we call the speed of light is nothing more than the rate of perception of illumination because it's a perturbation of the background medium. So when the background medium is excited, it becomes perceivable and illuminates due to that vibration. We quantify that perception rate and then assume it's traveling when in fact it's already there. We have transmission over 300 meters going three times the speed of light through 200 meter coaxial cables. So I mean, to each their own, you won't believe that you can. I know that most people can't think for themselves. So they just believe whatever people say. I'm not like that though. So like I disagree with you. We can move on. Must move to the next one. This one, thank you very much for your question. Coming in from Brandon Hansen says, Dave is kind of a whiner. Who let him in? Okay, well, take that, Dave. All right, this one coming in from question. The answer says, Blatant ignorance coupled with confidence is truly disgusting. Earth isn't a spheroid. Drop the ridicule and look deeper. Reach. This one from Kwani Upstate says, I'm a Saudi prince and I will pay millions of dollars to send the Flat Earthers to space on an orbital mission. Would they accept? Would they accept is, is round? It is round if they saw it. I think me and Jaren both agreed that we would go. Yeah, put us on the plate. Go ahead. And if they kill us, you guys, you guys can just. No, what you would say is while you're in there, is that the portals are CGI screens? Well, we'd be able to check that. We'd be able to check all that. We'd have our own. You know that planes are, you know, planes have that now, right? There you go. May as well hold to the next question, guys. Did you answer the question? You know they do have that now, right? Yep. Yep. Next question. Yeah. So you blindly believe anything the authority tells you it's really weird, man. If they tell you it's really with poison in it, you shouldn't do it, man. Yeah, next question. The government started wars all over the place. I don't know if you knew they lie a lot. Jakeville says, David, you're embarrassing yourself. Dude, this is, this is ridiculous. Can I at least respond? Yes, you can. Okay, great. So, so here's the thing, guys. After the third and fourth time, they, um, I forget the, I wits it. You know, he couldn't seem to just respond to planer walks question. I just, this, this is more like a, I don't know how to put it like a, a comedy show for wits it to show off more. That's how it feels to me. And I just, I'm just, no offense to the, to the moderator. Just dude, this is just made for you. This is made for you to promote yourself. That's all. Why are you so triggered, bro? I'm observing what is pretty clear. This is a opportunity for you for self-promotion. That's all it is. All right. All four people get to talk about themselves. I mean, it's whatever to each their own. We did try to give everybody equal time. I got to be honest, Dave, to give you a little friendly pushback, sometimes it almost felt like planer walk wasn't getting to talk enough because you were talking so much. So I was so frustrated. I will admit it. That was so frustrated. In other words, like we try to give everybody equal time. But it's true. I think most of the questions tonight have undoubtedly been for wits it. I mean, I think it's because people of, it's almost like the questions of compounded because they've heard them say things in past debates. Then they say, oh, I've been thinking about this. I want to ask him about that when I see him next time. So I don't know. Whatever reason is, it's true. But long story short, we try to give the last word to the person who received the question just because otherwise theoretically, like let's say Austin gets a question, he answers it, and then I give planer walk the last word. It's kind of like boom, he got hit with the question. And then even when he responds, it boom, he gets hit by planer walk and then we move on. And it almost feels like we're gaining up on him. So I try to give the last person, or I should say the last word, to the person the question is originally addressed to. It's not easy. Quailo says, how many drops? We got that one. Melodome says, yo, David, is the earth a ball? We got this is one for you, David. They say, yo, David, is the earth a ball because the oceans are flat? You humiliate yourself. Okay, I'm sorry. So actually, I wanted to kind of clarify what you said earlier. I wasn't really talking about the questions after the debate. I was talking about actually during the debate, during the debate, planer walk, it made three or four really good eloquent points. And with it, you would jump in and you would make these strange replies that didn't really answer to what he was presenting. And so I would jump in to try to summarize it in a way that was more down to earth because he was using a lot of math and science. So I figured you didn't understand it. But instead of you addressing the content, you would go into these tirades about logical fallacies. I just took offense to that. As far as the earth and the shape of the oceans, the surface of the water is viewed as flat. From our perspective, let's say we're standing six feet tall or maybe on top of the building. But the circumference of the earth being 26,000 miles, you're not going to really notice curvature looking out. So you'd have to be very high up. You have to be at least a couple of hundred thousand miles. I'm sorry, a couple hundred miles. I think we're talking about entrepreneur. It's a speedy approach. No, that's the bridge. You're seeing the curvature of the bridge, but not the water. You're not seeing the water. Yeah, there's a difference. So yeah. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? FE4Life says, can the globies side explain axial precession? I can't remember exactly what that is at this point in time. I think if I'm correct, it's how, over time, the tilt of the earth changes. Is that closest? That the wobble of the earth is at a 23 degree tilt from the plane of the solar system. But that tilt allows us to be on one side, like I guess summer was on one side of the sun, but after maybe a few thousand years, that tilt is such that the position of the earth relative to the sun at a specific point in time is like, let's say the earth is 93 million miles in the summer, but maybe 83 million miles in the winter. And I believe that the timing of the tilt in the summer, after a few hundred or a few thousand years, it wobbles so that instead of it being summer at 93 million miles, it'll be winter at 93 million miles. And then it kind of wobbles. And you can see that when you see the north star. So the star that is not rotating changes. That point of least rotation changes over that time. Yeah, we, at the moment, it's currently Polaris, but in a few thousand years, I think it will change to be another star. That's a cool story. The Georgia guide stones, you know, had a nice hole cut out to show you right where Polaris is, but I guess that's probably a nice conversation. There you guys go. I've been there and actually looked at it. This one coming in from Question the Answers, whose avatar looks strangely like Flat Earth Aussie. Says Qualo. That is a ridiculous proposal. Truly man. Then Anthony Chaconte. That was a super chat from earlier. Anthony Chaconte says would love to see Professor Dave. Let's see. Basically they say self-destruct against these legends. Great job, Austin and Jiren. You got a couple fans out there, Austin and Jirenism. This one from 4MM4D says, after so many years of witsit, bull crap is still unable to give any reliable evidence, just a bunch of word salads. Yep. Yo, you know what's funny? Is they, like this James, I know you hear it every time I'm here, they say I use word salad. But dude, I end up going in the comments and I'm like, because they just spam it. I'm like, can you name one specific thing I said during the debate that was word salad? Just one specific thing I said that was word salad and they never have an answer. Word salad is something that is incoherent. It doesn't coherently make sense. The words are just jumbled together and it doesn't make sense. They can never say it. They just say it all the time. And of course, in my actual thing, I showed numerous pieces of positive evidence that the Earth is flat. 10,000 mile radio transmission with line of sight, lasers, mirror flashes, all kinds of things. So it's just a script. They're going to, if I come, if I came with 400 pieces of evidence next time, they would say Austin brought no evidence and Austin used word salad. Like it doesn't matter what happens, they have to say their script. It's a cult. It is literally a cult. You did use some word salad. Name one time. When you were explaining the speed of, when you were trying to explain instantaneous light. So if you don't understand it, you think it's word salad? You mean to repeat that? No, it's word salad. So I understand what you're trying to say, but you did use word salad when trying to explain it. No, I didn't. No, I didn't. I said that it's actually called the speed of light is the rate of perception of illumination. That's not where it's out. Rate of perception of illumination due to the perturbation of the background. There's the salad. Is that you guys don't understand it? No, sorry. You got to go to the next one. Jeffrey Holenbake says, Jaren, redo that experiment without someone quote unquote misrepresenting you. I dare you to you grifter. All right. Gryft is going well for me. Yeah, I would hope to. I hope to do it again. I think that a better experiment is with the laser going through the holes, but we can't find it too expensive. This one coming in. Why is the laser better? Do appreciate it. Qualo, we got that one. Tunz says, Austin, these two aren't even on your level. Davey interrupted the entire time, but managed to say absolutely nothing. Go flat. Yeah. So who's the answer? I think that's something about the idea of hearing me or Jaren coherently lay out our position. Like when we start to get through it, people get like lovers get uncomfortable. They're like, they're making sense. Stop them. So that's my theory. This one coming in from GWJ says, I feel David's frustration. This has been a strange quote unquote debate. James, you're a cutie pie. Thank you. And KO44 says, that's why gold is weighted on a balance beam, not a scale. That's you. I do want to say, like we hear it and carrots. Like I do have to say one of the issues about this show is that the debaters get too much attention. We need to give James more attention. Bro, if you got a crush on him, just say it, bro. I appreciate your words. Get him pregnant. KO44 says, we got to go to the next one. KO44 says that. Oh, we got that one for MM4D. I saw your super chat. Thanks for that. I just didn't see a question attached. Let me know if it just meant to be a gift or if it was if you meant to put a question. Question of the answer says your globe crusade is fruitless. Wake up. It was all caps. This one from? Who was that address? Just I guess both you and planner walk. This one, I mean, if you want to respond, you can. But yeah, wait, repeat it. It's not very, I mean, it's not a substantive argument. It's just your globe capital globe crusade lowercase is fruitless. Wake up. You know, hey, if I could, if I could do it with a what's it does and just, you know, like someone asked me a question, it requires awful answer. And I just come up with science, technology, physics. None of that. None of that occurred. You got not you actually journalism. You seem to be more respectful, but the whole idea of simply using any type of observation or any type of historical information as a placeholder, you know, and then say, oh, well, yeah, we address that with this experiment back in 1886. It's like, well, how does that even relate to it? And you can't make that relationship. But then you insist, I'm talking about which you insist. And then when you're held to account for that, then you go into this whole thing about how globalers don't want to tell the truth and live a life like that. I explained that it's been done hundreds of times since then with more precise measurements. And not not with the interpretations that you are trying to make from it. Of course, it's been done a thousand times. So what? See, I got you there. That's it. That's why when the audience says I interroved before saying this about me, and I'm looking at that reaction of, no, I got. No, you're just you're exhaustive and reiterative. I'm bored. Yeah. This one coming. That's just this one coming in front of me to appreciate your question. Adam A.O. says, versus Witzit and Jaren, no chance, globes. This one also from, we got this one. The salty spatula says the question is for dollar store, Neil deGrasse. Tyson, they say, well, I mean, that's flattering. He's an astrophysicist. So they say, were you ever told no as a child? Who's that for? One of them that I don't know. I mean, I don't know. It was actually me for interrupting. Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't interrupt as much as you do, but it's not coming from. No, I'm kidding. This one coming in from pseudo nim says, when three things falling fall following force equals mass, do they fall in different places or one point concluding a heavy iron core caused by gravity? I think that's yeah. Can you put that because I'm trying to at first, I thought it was going in one direction, but then it took a turn. Yep, I can say it again. They said, when three things fall following force equals mass, do they fall in different places or one point concluding a heavy iron core caused by gravity? I don't know if that makes sense. I think they're trying to say that thing should sink to the center of the earth or something, which is just not how when things fall on the ground, you have an opposite force. This is just basic physics. You have an opposite force and the net force ends up being zero. So therefore, you know, no movement. Well, that is when it hits the ground. I think there's another element. There's another aspect to that is that I think, I think they're making a comment that why doesn't why don't I just go through the ground to the core? And I think they have to remember is that objects are repelled by electrostatic forces and can't just expect stuff to go through something just because it's denser, you know, but the electrons prevent the protons and neutrons from passing each other in compounds. In free space. Oh, wow, electrostatics is the strongest force that prevents certain things from happening. I didn't say strongest. I didn't imply strongest. Just stronger than gravity. I didn't I didn't imply that either. It depends on the circumstances and how we're we're looking at the defense. End of the 39 hour stronger than gravity. No, it depends on the circumstances. This one coming in from appreciate your question. K.O. Champ FTT says with said for once, quote, we have a magnetic model. Let's see it. I'm with him on most things except flat earth. I want to see the magnetic model. Yeah, you said, quote, unquote, because you really want me to say magnetic model. Oh, maybe when it comes to the sun, I said we have a we've modeled out as in like this theoretical representation of how the sun could work based on like a magnetic tourists using the data from the sun. And it can't be refuted. So, yeah, I'll end up making a video about it. It explains exactly where the sun is based on magnetic calligraphy within a tourist and is from actual data taken on the earth over the course of a year. As a myth and declination readings, and it just so happened to make a perfect tourist on a plane. So, yeah, I'll make a video and explain this. When I was saying about earth being, if earth isn't flat nor is it a sphere, that means that it's a, that was a joke when I said we're not, it would be ridiculous to assume it's a donut. I was trying to make a joke there. I wasn't expecting you to take that seriously. The earth isn't what is the tourist for us. Like everything you guys say, I don't know what I don't want to be mean. That's what- The magnetic, there's the field as the tourist. The earth is in the inertial plane, which is called the block domain wall through the middle of it. Yeah, it's the block domain wall through the tourist field. It's not the earth is a tourist. Oh my gosh. Okay, anyway. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Craig Montgomery says, let's see Austin's model. I think that kind of came in earlier. Thunderstorm says, there are a lot of people that ask that, Craig Montgomery. So I'm like, that's the third one. So I just went like, but Thunderstorm says, hi, no malice, basic question for the flat earth. Is the earth tilted and is it spinning? No, no, easy enough. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Thunderstorm says, huh, oh we got that one. Justin says, flats, thousands of ordinary people visit Antarctica every year. It costs less than eight grand to go there. When are you going to go and document it? So can you document that it's $8,000 to go there? There's no way. 20 grand at least is like running minimal. This one coming in from, do appreciate- It only lets you go where they let you go. So that doesn't count. We want to freely explore it or it doesn't prove anything to us. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Shane Taft says, they call it word salad because they don't understand words. This is a comment that I get quite a lot on my videos, especially when I accuse people like Ken Wheeler of using word salad. A lot of people use word salad for different reasons, but essentially it's often used to try and baffle people into thinking that they're brilliant. If someone is using word salad, or if you think that someone who's being accused of word salad isn't using word salad, then try to explain their point by using different language. That's what I'd say. Yeah. And you guys were just proven wrong about saying that I was using word salad about light. So just because something has a bigger vocabulary, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in its word salad. Okay. We'll give David- Open up at the source and read the words before calling it word salad. We'll give David the last word on this one and then we'll go to the next question. So it's not about the length of the complexity of the words. What's it? It's about the idea of you bringing up concepts that are not, it's not clear that everyone's familiar with what you're talking about. No one knows everything and what you know or pretend to know, you bring up in here and then you are in a way ridiculing others for not already being familiar with it as if they are not as intelligent to you. So I see right through that. And that's the word salad. Ayes. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Brandon Hansen says, David, it feels like Witzitz show because he's a competent debater and you don't have the debate skill set to counter him. Well, I just, I think I just made a good point. I could come in here and talk about a dozen things that no one else in here knows about or is familiar with. And I could mention a dozen people that did experiments that many of you are not familiar with. And you could say that, hey, I'm just playing games. I'm just trying to manipulate the debate. The debate was about whether or not the earth is flat or whether or not the earth is a sphere. And we spent so much time with you guys trying to derail it, talking about relativity. Come on. This one coming in from Jeffrey Holumbake says, 6,000 years ago, that whole didn't look at Polaris. This one from nominal says dark matter is unicorn farts change my mind. So there is some evidence for dark matter. It's not, obviously we don't know what it is and that is the big question. But it is useful. If we plug dark matter into the equation, everything works. Right. And it's trying to work out. Okay, are we just using a quick patch over the whole? And that later, as we figure more things out, we're going to have to get rid of dark matter. Or is it something where there is dark matter there? We just don't know what it is. That's the big question. That's what is trying to be figured out. Or your model's wrong. Hey, planar walk, here's a question for you. You said there was a lot of hydrogen found in space. Isn't methane and water also found in large quantities as gaseous, nebulous in space? I'm not too sure. I don't think it was. I think it was just lone hydrogen. And it was dark hydrogen, meaning it didn't emit. It doesn't emit light. It doesn't have any infrared. But if you have hydrogen, water, and methane, that would be like unicorn farts, wouldn't it? Actually, the fact there's so much hydrogen or in helium in there, when against the model's predictions also, there's yet to come up with an agreed upon explanation why there's so much there. Well, it's one of them things where we managed to find some hydrogen. And the thing is, it's not just all hydrogen, right? It would have been nice if it was all hydrogen, but it turns out that there's still stuff there that we don't know. There's more hydrogen there than the model predicted, and there's not an agreed upon explanation why there's that much hydrogen in space. So again, the model could just be wrong, but you guys don't even consider that as possible. So don't claim signs. But the model is incomplete with the best thing you're doing. Could it be wrong? Yeah, but there is a difference between it being incomplete and it being wrong. Could it be right? It could be wrong, but it's very unlikely that it's wrong. It doesn't have the predictive power that it has. It doesn't have the predictive power. What would be the wrong part? It's off by 96%. What's off by 96%? The prediction of the distribution of space. There is no other model that is accurate as a stand model. That's not true. Even Evan Hubbell will tell you that if it's a more fluid like more dense medium, everything's more local. It's a closed system, and we don't have the problem with galaxy formations. There are being too many of them than being too formed. The redshift distribution not being equal at the edges. The galaxy distribution of a mass. We don't have any of those problems if the Earth is geocentric. Actually, the geocentric model has way better predictive capability and is way more viable. And this is just objective. We don't have the dark matter, dark energy problem with the geocentric Earth. You'll get there. You'll figure it out. You'll review paper, page, paragraph, citation, please. If the Earth is geocentric, what are galaxies? What are nebulas? What are stars? What are all these things? There's much more close than in a dense medium. That's the first step. How can you see so far away in a dense medium? That's interesting. How can you get it far away? They're not as far away. That's your point. Then why would you make those comparisons about how they function? You're saying both those galaxies are very close. All of those things that are going on throughout the universe are just very close to the dome. That's why I just said, Edward Hubble said that they would be much more local and more dense and younger in a closed universe. Yeah. And then you wouldn't have the problem with the inner light circle, which is dark matter. Hubble knew about that. And the light shifts wouldn't make any sense. No, you'll get there. The light is shifted towards a red shift, and that is measured by distance and time. So you can't dismiss that by saying, well, if everything was closer, that would explain the distribution of matter, but it wouldn't explain how light is shifted. Yeah, you have elements that admit their own light signatures. If those signatures are offset, and that offset is calculated and accurately calculated to be based upon distance and time, you cannot dismiss that. You can have red shift with magnetism. Red shift and blue shift. And just like Hubble said, if it's not primarily velocity shifts, then we're wrong about the entire model. And you would see a magnetic signature that corresponds to that. And you don't. Yeah, you can literally prove. All mainstream physicists are saying that now, too. So start looking it up. It's going to come out. Yeah, that red shift predictions are wrong. Hey, please. I'll give you a 10. Yeah, you just look it up. Just give one. I did. There's nothing there. What did you search? Red shift anomalies in space. Red shift, red shift, close proximity. You have a better search? Let me know. OK, I'll find it for you. This one coming in. Actually send it to him, bro. Because I mean, no, he won't read it. D.L. Hill says, David, gold is sold by the Troy ounce, which is 31.1 grams, not by the carrot. Carrotage is a measure of the purity. Stop just saying things. OK, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But my understanding is the argument was based upon if you were going up to the North Pole and you weighed the gold and there was a different weight in that equator, you could make a profit. My response to that was that I thought, and I still believe it, that it's measured by the carrot to denote purity and it's compared to like you would weigh it against another object. So if the gold has a certain number of carrots in it or a certain number of a certain level of purity in it, it's weighed against another object. It's probably weighed on a balance or on some type of scale. And that doesn't change. I mean, you take the object, the scale, and the gold with you, it's going to be relative to the other object. D.L. Hill says, please provide open source code and or 3D scene files to prove your model with it. We actually have 3D files. Many terabytes of data was rendered and that's what gave us the tourist filter. So like I said, I'll make a video explaining it and drop in the data. And then once we do it and all the math explains that it can't be refuted, you guys will just run around crying claiming it wasn't there and then coming up with another question, you guys don't actually want to know the answer. So that's why, you know, I don't really care. D.L. Hill says, maybe there's a published paper here I'll send it to you right now that's talking about the redshift blunder that has been obstructing cosmology for over a century. D.L. Hill says, is it helping your argument all of the matter is close and dense and that the space is not space because it's dense matter? Or is it addressing an entirely unrelated topic? D.L. Hill says here, no theory can be valid if it's based on a false assumption. Thus all theories that depend on the Doppler redshift misconception are necessarily invalid. These include the Big Bang Theory, Expansion Theory, Humboldt's Law, Dark Energy, You're reading the paper all day. D.L. Hill, he's trying to censor you because he doesn't want the audience to hear. D.L. Hill, I'm not trying to say that. D.L. Hill, you don't want to hear that. D.L. Hill, you can have the discussion with me later and then republish it on your website. D.L. Hill, the audience heard it already. D.L. Hill, nominal says David, let's hear one. I don't know what they wanted in terms of let's hear one. D.L. Hill, the orbital measurement because they couldn't have one. D.L. Hill, the biggest thing that I was trying to have a conversation with my only point that I wanted to discuss was why is the sun the same size and shape? Why is the moon the same size and shape all over the world until you get to the horizon you start to have these effects that you wanted to... I don't think we understand celestial items. I don't think we understand giant celestial items. No, we have enough of an understanding that when we see an object and it's the same size and it corresponds to a distance that we've measured that that is relevant. That is sufficient. So let's say we don't understand, we don't understand. The sun is supposed to be, if you go by robot, I'm 32 miles wide. What else do we have that's 32 miles wide to compare? I don't know about it, but you said robot and that doesn't mean anything to me. Okay, you don't understand. You don't listen to the conversation. You go by this or you go by that. You don't listen to his point in good faith. You're so on the defensive. Yeah, I'm just like, dude, you heard something that was valid and relevant and you're like, oh, yeah, but what about this? It's like, what about this? No, he was directly rebutting you, and then you just whistled right past the image of this mist. You did not directly rebut me. The sun, the sun's size and shape is the same for everyone all over the world. Okay, yeah, you're so good at this. That's all right, let's give David 30 seconds and then we've got to move forward, David. Okay, so the shape of the sun and the size of the sun and the moon are the same size for everyone at any point in time. The moon eclipses, I'm sorry, the moon, you have lunar eclipses. So the sun and the moon obviously are not very close to each other. How do we know that? What's obvious about that? Because there's an eclipse, so there has to be some distance from one to the other for the eclipse to be. Okay, are you there, David? David? He died. I heard the ether blocked it out. Thank you, internet guys. They got him. It was the ether, actually. Portional relations with these guys are different. We lost like the last five or so. We're a salad to you, right? Huh? Okay, next question. We lost like the last five seconds of what you're saying, but if you can last time. You didn't hear anything? Give a super... Oh, I'm sorry, is this a moderator? I lost my phone as a malfunction. Okay, so what I was saying is that if the earth and the sun appear the same size in the sky, and you're seeing one eclipse the other, you're seeing the moon eclipse the sun, then the sun and the moon's size and distance have to be proportional. There has to be some... There has to be a relationship to... Because they appear the same size in the sky, the disk of the sun and the disk of the moon. They can't be right next to each other. That doesn't make any sense. All right, so let's use translation then. Wow, this is going to go too long. You can use triangle, you can use whatever you want, but you're going to have a relationship over distance aside. We've got to go to the next question. We've got so many questions. Shrik says, I sympathize with Dave. He explains what Witsit is doing accurately. I get why he would be frustrated, but nevertheless, all debaters did a good job. He constantly interrupted me, so I mean, you can try to spin it however you want to. It's just completely unacceptable in a bit. You constantly disrespected player walking, sorry, I'm going to speak up. Maybe we shouldn't debate again. No, it's not about virtue. See, that's what I'm talking about. You're trying to ignore the fact that you are disrespectful, so you want to make it about me, virtue signal. Make responsibility for what you did. I wasn't. I was respectfully responding to him when he was done and explaining that he's using Euclidean geometry when in fact the eyes use spherical geometry, so we can move on. You got emotional, you're an emotional guy. He still doesn't know what snail is more. And then he brings up snail's law when we're talking about perspective. Yeah, because the eye, like when it comes to lenses, it's all to do with snail's law. Oh, so you're using snail's law for perspective measurements when you look at the observations? He said the eye, he just did it again. You're being disrespectful, and it's all interruption. This is from Valerie St. Marie says, pair-shaped believers, why do official NASA and military documents referring to a flat, non-rotating plane to calculate missile launches and flight manuals? I believe it's just for like some things where a flat, where the Earth being flat would be simpler in calculations than trying to calculate everywhere, right? Spherical stuff. This one probably. It's not everywhere. Not your sister, 28, says, I want to know, did Jaren bet Jake the A-hole $10,000 on member size and give him three inches? That doesn't sound good. They say, what is his need? They say, if so, can we see? Urs's name is not your sister? That's their name is not your sister, 28. I think we just need to solve it with all, you know, this is the utmost importance. Never mind Flatter, if we need to solve these. Amen. Keep it. You can solve it. Jake the A-hole, is that your enemy, Jaren? No. Wait, is there a story behind this? Is this nonsense? Okay, well, whatever. We'll go to the next one. This one says, Shrik says, I sympathize with Dave. He explains what Witsit is doing accurately. I get. Oh, sorry. Okay, we'll bear with me. 4MM4D says, no one is going to point a gun at you from going off route at Antarctica. If you really wanted to see the wall, you'd be able to go towards it and see that it doesn't exist. Well, you have to give a three month advance notice and they said that they'll intercept you if you don't get your route approved. It's easily verifiable. You guys just don't want to know the truth. And it's the edge. It's the shoreline of Antarctica. It's not ice wall and nobody said you can't get over it. That's you're talking about movies. Here's the problem though. Whenever you're going northward, I'm sorry, whenever you're going, you know, around the coast of Antarctica, as you're going, I think west, you have to go to the port. But on your flat earth model, you would have to go to starboard. And that's how that's another debunk of the flat earth. We don't have a model. I don't know how. It's another debunk of the flat earth, bro. I don't care if you say you don't have a model or not. No, it's not. Yeah, it is. You can't go starboard. That answers a stupid chat that I just saw. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Nominal says, have you been darted more than once, David? What does it mean to be darted? Tell me this is not dirty. No, that's not. That's just not here. Is this something sexual in nature, David? Okay, this is actually, I'll use this as an opportunity. It's kind of. Oh, it's Jaren's question, man. Calm down, man. Oh, it's Jaren's question. I thought you said David. No, it was about whether David had been darted. No, it's David. It's my name. It's the name that I gave to people who believe in the dark mission. They're mentally darted. So obviously, if you believe in it twice, then you're... Well, let me go ahead and respond. Yeah, let me respond. So, to the moderator, you know what? I looked at the Flat Earth Debates as like an intro to other types of debates. I thought that this was kind of like, I guess a weeding out. That's kind of how I looked at it. Like, I can't debate about religion, race, and politics if I can't deal with this nonsense. She needed to call it quits. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Jeffrey Holmbeke says, wits it, do you have a model? James, wait for an answer from Austin. If no, every time you referred to a model can be ignored, Austin. Yeah, she's 37 weeks pregnant. This one coming in from... I think that's the last of them. Let me just double check. Want to say, it has been lively tonight. I know David has taken a lot of abuse tonight, and some of it was deserved. But at the same time, we want to say, no, of course you wouldn't ban you, David. And I've got to say, I know it's lively sometimes here, folks. Like, you know, it's blood sporty sometimes. But I've got to say, at least it's real, at least it's authentic. And I've got to say, we appreciate our guests. We really do click on their links, because even if you disagree with them, even if you're like, oh, that Austin, he makes me sick. Well, at least understand his position. At least understand Jaren's and David's and Planner Walk's positions. If you can... There's one thing to be knowledgeable, but wisdom is being able to strong man to be able to put someone else's argument in the strongest form and way possible. There's something really valuable to that. This one, this last one from Delco says, geocentric is not flat. That is just a lie. No one ever... Yeah. Like, you guys always have to strong man. It's weird. If we're so dumb, you wouldn't have to constantly misrepresent our position. That's just about the motion part, because most people don't know that actually relativity says you can't prove it. And it's a philosophy. They taught it to us like it was definitive fact in science. So you should know your belief before you believe it. We're just trying to raise awareness. And most ballers can't even admit what the model says. It's lame. It's weird. Don't make it weird, bro. This one coming in from Tim Pryor strikes again. So when is the flat earth are ever going to get a forensic photo analyst to prove all pictures of global fake? You can watch my show tonight or the show I did yesterday and I showed how Artemis is fake. So you can take that to a forensic scientist and see how they or whatever you call it and see how they can explain what's going on in space. You don't even have to most of the time. They admit it, right? Like they admit a lot of them are composite. They admit they use a blue marble data set which is composite. I'm like, topography, planes. I mean, you're the only ones up there, right? So like if we do call out something that is fake, they can just quickly repair it and say it was this, then they're the only authority. So they'll always win. And the people will just believe it. They believe NASA's the one federal government that doesn't lie to us, bro. Like that's so weird. So if I gave you $80 million today and I said, go better humanity with this $80 million. Think of what I would expect from you. If I gave you $80 million one time, NASA gets that every single day. $80 million. How can you stand behind a company that's getting $80 million? Look what they're providing. The Republican Party gets far more than that. Okay, great. Republican Party. Oh, why was? Yeah, they're getting most assistance. Why don't we find a way to use that money to better use that? I agree with you. Yeah, I did. I'm not arguing about that. I'm not protecting. I'm not standing on behalf of the government and arguing against you. Your priorities are not set. You're looking at something that has a very good... You're looking at an organization that has a very good track record and because they're not perfect and because they've made mistakes, because there have been bad actors from time to time, you're preparing that to what? What? To Republican Party that's more... I didn't compare anybody to... That's more integrity. You brought that up. Then find something else. No, find something else. The federal government always lies and they can't be trusted. That's our point. You can't just rely on your entire world view over to the government telling you stories. Your attitude is if someone lies once they always lie. Look, if you can't verify it, then you don't just blame them to believe it, especially when it comes to your entire world view. The government lying is something... Obviously, the government has lied. I don't think anyone has denied that, but then to go, therefore, everything that has ever been taught is false, is just ridiculous. Strong man. Of course, there are some things that they'll say that will be true. It's working out okay. I thought they had to hide about things right here on Earth that we can go and test and verify. Yes, right? So they say we breathe oxygen and you think that's a lie, so we're going to hold your breath? That's just strong man. Never said that. But that's the same logic you're using for some of the other things. It's not the same logic. I'm asking you, have they ever lied to something that we can touch here on Earth and we can go and verify? The answer is yes. They lie about those things all the time. So why would you then think the place? Why do you say all the time? They don't. You got to always interrupt. Especially it's because it's like really frustrating, bro. It makes it like makes it impossible to talk. I have no respect for you with it. So you have to. We'll have some respect for yourself. This one coming in. I am. Do appreciate your effort. I feel good about it. Tim Pryor says, so when they corrected it, they said, so when is any flat Earth are going to get a photo? Forensic analyst to prove millions of photos of Earth are fake. So what would they be comparing it to? This forensic scientist, wouldn't they need a photo that's real in order to compare it and see if it's real? Or does this guy? Does this guy think that the forensic guy will just be able to determine by looking at some things that are computer processed, whether it's real or not? Anyway, do you think that you can't make an image? You think that in 2022, someone couldn't make an image that you couldn't tell was fake? All right. There are ways to go ahead and verify the Himawari stuff. All right. One of the one of my favorite things was start of 2020. Over where I lived, there was huge orange, orange skies. You look at that in Himawari, but you get the same thing. It's because of the because of the wildfires. That is something and you can go and do that in different places. Check what the skies are like. Check what Himawari says that the skies should be like. The graphic from Australia that NASA showed all the fires and then Australians pointed out that none of those places could be on fire. And then NASA's like, oh, shit, we made a mistake. Did you see that all that? No. Does that mean that it was fake? Does that mean that maybe there was some some issue with how the work was done? I just clicked it. It had nothing to do with fraud. Yeah, you guys just made a defense attorney. There was a war for them. There was a whole bunch of possibilities. Are you a defense attorney for the government? What's wrong with you, bro? Are you are you a radical person theorist? I'm a logical person. From Shrik, who says, I think it would also be helpful for future debates if both sides define what the definition of religion is seems it's being used incorrectly. It's not strictly defined by theism. It doesn't mean that you have to believe in a deity. It's a belief system built upon the doctrine of men, void of empirical verifiable evidence that requires blind faith. Here we go. Why don't you just say the globe earth? This one coming in. Because it doesn't fit the bill. Nominal says, thank you all parties for the debate. Thanks to that positivity nominal. Isn't that nice? There's okay. This one coming in from. That's a flat earth, of course. I think this is the last one. I think you got that one. He's just, Tim Brier just talking about the picks again. It's really big on this one. Oh yeah. We got just a couple of last quick ones that came in. And then folks, we can't take any more questions. This one from Tim Brier says, a composite is not fake. If that's the case, photos on your phone are fake. I don't care about your opinion. Show me a photo analyst that proves your point. Stop running away from that question. But understand that a composite photo, you could have a flat earth, take composite photos, and stitch them over a ball. And that would be a problem, because it's a lie. That's what we're saying. Nobody said that every composite image is a fake, but if somebody takes a strip data, and wraps it on a ball, and then tells you here, you live on this ball in space, there is a problem with that. But when they don't get it, why don't you respect that? Everything you people say is a straw man fallacy. Literally every single thing, you think every composite image is fake. I think there have been flat, there have been flat earthers that have said that because they take a picture on the red, blue, then green channels, right, they take those pictures individually, then they put them together. I think this is discover that does something like that. They also want to do computer software to render those images that will plan your walk. But they're not rendering the images to make a flat plane look like a globe. No, he's talking about something else. He diverted to discover images. I'm saying that they don't do that. Well, of course, NASA says that would be a very good deception. They never just go back ever. NASA says they do. NASA says they stitch it together and then have an artist come in and make a picture. They don't stitch it from a flat plane to make it look like a globe. That's what they say they do. No, they don't. That's not stop-line. Oh, when it comes to... Everyone on the aisle is going to go look up Robert SimmonsNASA.gov. No, no, no, no, no. Don't try to rattle off some more. Hold on, we've got a year. Let's hear from Planner Walk. That is one... So the Robert Simmons guy, that is one photo. There are other photos. Like you can look at Discover, Himawari, that are just photos from space. I think Discover has taken on like multiple channels and then they put those channels, they squash those channels down because a green image wouldn't look very well for most humans. So they do do some stuff like that. But in the same way, your camera, when it takes a photo, it does things like light correction and all that kind of stuff that are just done in the background to make things look nice. Oh, they stitch it together, dude. You can zoom in on Himawari. That was... No, on Himawari. Himawari. You can zoom in and see the stitch-together lines today right now. But it's not stitching together at flat plane. It's not taking a flat plane. It's just talking about it's stitching together small sections that it zoomed in and took the photographs out. That's it. That's different than you take your photos from the Earth. To understand what it means, though, do you understand that it means that when we talk about a deception, do you get what deception means? Yeah, this isn't it. You're misrepresenting what they do as a deception and that's what I'm calling you, I will. Okay. No, we know more about it than you do. We're coming in from. I can't do this. We've got to go to the next one. This one from Tim Pryor says, then throw away all the technology that NASA came up with that you are using for your case, Austin. Name one. Name one. We know we don't have to. Anyway, if they made the ballpoint pin, I can still use the ballpoint pin without giving my whole worldview over to people lying about a vacuum. He would still be using rocks on the ground on sidewalks to write if it wasn't for NASA. This is the most. Everything they say is so fallacious. It's like impressive how everything they say is so fallacious. You're such a master writer. When it comes to, I think the point is that when it comes to these things, things like ballpoint pens were developed to be able to work in space. When it comes to otherwise, we would still be using pencils. It wouldn't have been a need to innovate to ballpoint pens. Oh my goodness. All right, bro. See, that's that disrespect. That's why I would disrespect. You're the most disrespectful person I've ever debated. You're reacting just to laugh. It's a very valid point that we would be using pencils today if it wasn't for NASA. I don't care. He said we'd still be using pencils if we didn't have NASA making the ballpoint pen for space. Bro, come on. This one from Karzan says, why would they quote unquote lie about Earth not being flat? Many reasons. If there's more land, that's one. If there's other civilizations out there that we are being. Why would they lie if there's more land? Why would more land being out there be a motivation for them to lie? Because the people in control of us here are very much psychopaths who like control. No, that doesn't. Well, they're not. That doesn't even fit psychopathic behavior. Let's just hear more from them. It doesn't. Psychopathic behavior. Why don't we go deeper? I do want to hear. I think, Jaren, you said, both more land that they might want to hold on to, namely, people in power. And the second thing I think you said. Go ahead. What was the second thing you said? Something I just want to be sure that we heard all this. Just control. I mean, if you had other ones that you wanted to mention. Oh, control. If you wanted to keep people locked into an area where they don't go looking further, they you tell everybody that everything's been discovered. The globe has been surfaced and it's been measured and it's perfect. And then you just keep people trapped here. Now, there could be other civilizations outside of here. We wouldn't know that. Why would they? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's hear a plan or walk once. Why would they lie about the shape of the earth when they didn't even know at a time when they didn't know that Antarctica existed? What? So they why would they lie about the shape of the earth at a time when they didn't know that there was more land beyond Antarctica? Who? We because they didn't know that Antarctica existed. Who did that? What do you mean? Like 500 years ago. 500 years ago, they didn't know that Antarctica existed. The period of time. Part of the maps have land down there on the edge. They called it. Not 500 years ago. Yeah, from like 1400 again. No, they don't. Yes, they do. This one from. We don't. We don't. This one from. You guys don't know. I don't. Yeah, I don't know. It says Jaren has proved curvature. Bob proved rotation. No wonder why you guys don't do experiments anymore. Aspiration is just thick. This. This one from Qualo. It says two flat earthers. What a holographic sun give off heat. Well, that's a reaction within. That's an electric reaction within the atmosphere. And we don't even know if it could be just the focus point of light, right? If you ever burned ants as a kid with a magnifying glass, you know, that little dot that you make that gets so hot. Imagine picking the magnifying glass up. That dot actually lifts up with it and it is suspended in the air. That could be what we see and call the sun. Right. There could be a sun. If you would see the light, you would see the light focusing from a particular direction. And we don't. That doesn't. So that doesn't make any sense. Yes, we do. If it's a hologram, you would have to, you would have to pretend that the hologram is being emitted from beyond your so-called dome, which case you could see, you could see from a different vantage point where it's holographically being emitted from. You're going to say this is being emitted from the earth and you can certainly find the emitter somewhere around this great earth. Never seen it. They could do both. You've never seen video footage of what looks like. Then you would find it. Okay. You would have found it by now. You would have seen all of the light beams that are converging to make the sun look like a sun. They're coming from that direction. Did you not hear Jaren in the middle of a sentence? Sorry. Yeah, whatever. This is from rad crabs. So as if there's more land beyond the wall, that we're not being told that we are not being told about by NASA, why have nations spent so much time fighting over existing land? But not over Antarctica. That seems to contradict your own point. They're not fighting over Antarctica. And they don't fight over land. We literally beat Germany in a war and gave the land back to Germany. When it came to Antarctica, one of the big reasons why Antarctica hasn't really been fought over is because the air isn't it is very difficult to be able to get any value out of Antarctica, except for scientific reasons. But there's a lot of cold air. There's a lot of resource hole. Yeah, there are. There may be some resources, but going to Antarctica to get resources when you're in America, it's much easier to go. OK, well, America had some resources, so we'll just get the resources here. That's why we get all of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. They're more countries fighting over. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. So we'll go. So we'll go to Saudi. Saudi Arabia. You know, rather than going to a place where it's really cold, you'd have to develop new technology just to be able to get the oil there. Much easier to go to another. There's so much cold air, dude, but whatever. The point is if there's land outside of there, they may not want you to know about it. They keep you inside of it. Inside of the circle. Why doesn't it make a logical sense if you don't want to know about it? Flatter doesn't make a logical sense. You should stay in your hunger game circle and be a happy slave that goes around and defends the people that are trying to control you. We're just trying to wake up. But again, that doesn't make any logical sense. Did you know like 500 years ago when they were more blood thirsty, they found land. The Europeans found this land and they brought more people to colonize it to make more money for them. So it would make more logical sense for them to do that. People were already here. Yeah. And they killed them. And so I don't see why us with our nuclear technology wouldn't go and do it again. And you're trying to make it seem like they don't want us to know about it. That is ridiculous. What if the people outside there are 100 years, 100 years, 200 years more advanced? We would have known about it. They would have arrived. It would be here by now. James, I'm sorry. You look James, I'm sorry. You look like you're regretting your life decisions right now. No, it's okay. We've got a few more questions. We've got to do this where it's just rapid fire without a rebuttal to the question. I'm not going to even talk. And so we're going to just go really fast. Tim Prager says, thanks for proving my point. I'll log off YouTube now and you guys will no longer exist. Flatter means nothing in the real world. Isn't that the guy that backed out of the debate with me last minute? This one from Jeffrey Hollenbake says, Flat Earth with an F. It could be. It could be. Wow. I don't know what they did with that. Man, this is not for everybody. Some people like the matrix, bro. Take your jab. Chris G says, stop saying they who let's have names. I think they mean like what people in power, like people from the U.S. in particular or people who are like a global secret elite or like what level are we talking and who are they? So if we came home and found a bunch of people murdered in our house and we wanted to start talking about the they, we'd not be allowed to talk about them unless we name them. What if we don't know who they are? You have to call them something. All right. I mean, they are powerful families and then every country signed a treaty. But what he just said is a perfect answer. If anyone that's honest, here's his answer and thinks it's not a good answer. And they're being dishonest. This is what relax spring bandicoots as Tim Pryor clearly a genius. Allel well. I don't know if that's sincere or sarcastic. Quailo says, hope no one unplugs the holographic projector. Hope nobody unplugs the magic expansion energy that no one can find that keeps everything compressed together. Is it okay if we need to perform repairs? This is the very last to appear the holographic projector. Good one, bro. Did you or I say that at all? This whole debate? No, they just want to say whatever they think can make them stupid. Tim Pryor says, yeah, panoramic pictures on your phone. Stitch things together. It's not fake. And you cannot CGI live feeds you ding dong. But where's our live feed? Go look it up. There's at least two satellites that have lies feeds at this point. They're only they're only behind by like a minute or two minutes or something like that. I tried to look for a 25. You say the computer is taking it a little bit of time to render. Well, this guy just said that live streams that you did. The commenter said life. You just said a live stream is yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, let's go. The very last one. Tim, we I'm sorry. We can't take any more questions folks. Tim says really name one. This is why we laugh at you. Two seconds of research would tell you what technology you're using for NASA. What? There's not a bunch. That's his answer. It doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter. All the stupidest argument. It's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard on 9. That's saying a lot. They say many tools like the cordless drill by Black and Decker is because of NASA because they needed cordless drills in space. Dude, I'm glad that they turned everyone into atheist nihilistic psychopaths, bro, because it is pretty convenient to have a wireless drill. Or are you Christian? I don't I don't believe in mainstream Christianity, but I believe in a creator because I'm not a psychopath. Yes or no question, bro. Just saying no. I gave you my answer. Were you raised? Were you raised religious at all? Because I have a theory that all you guys were raised religious and then you became really jaded with God and then you found science and science said, hey, we're here with just truth and facts and evidence and you guys just fell in love. Yeah. And it's been alive. Well, your theory is debunked on my existence. So there's that. Yeah, I wasn't raised religious at all. So both of your parents are atheists? Um, my mom's no longer an atheist. She's now religious, but she raised me very secular. She was a religious person of no. No, she wasn't a religious person when I was growing up. She's recently become more religious. But you look around and you see a world that you think is accidental that's here by happenstance. No creator, no thought behind it, nothing. Trees, seeds, plants, animals, birds, everything's just as some star exploded. The earth doesn't have to be flat for me to understand that there's a God. He didn't say that. It's called a strawman. All you say is I don't care. I don't care about that. I just I'm just making my point. But do you think that there why was there no atheists 300 years ago? 400 or 300 years ago? No, there was like there's a lot of things that we couldn't explain. There were atheists very few. They're having atheists throughout history. Not really very few. But you know, there's just things that couldn't be explained and God was a convenient way to explain these things. Still can't be explained. Step in, right? Signed, stepped in and said we can explain it all and gave you guys some. No, that's not what happened. Oh, we are going to say. Forget it. We appreciate our guests so much. If you're listening via YouTube. Don't forget our links are linked or our guests are linked in the description box below. And not only that, but at the podcast, all of our debates end up on the podcast within about 24 hours of them being live. There are thousands of downloads there. There's zero ads on the podcast. Highly encourage you folks. Check it out. And if you're listening via the podcast, you can find Austin with it gets it and journalism and also David's and planner walks. Links in the description box there too. So I want to say thank you guys. It's been a true pleasure to have you tonight. James. Thank you. It was amazing. That was crazy. This is something else, man. I'm going to go to the post. I'll be back in a moment, folks. Stick around. We'd love to get to say hello. So stick around. Buzzing. My dear friends, want to say thanks for all of your support. Thrilled to have you here. Oh, baby. Don't worry. My camera is coming back in just a moment. In the meantime, want to say hello to you in the old live chat. Javi Gonzalez. Thanks for coming by. Did I say it right? Let me know if I pronounce the right as well as coffee mom. Good to see you again as well as nanology. Glad you are with us. And also, first last, thanks for dropping in. Glad you are with us. My dear friends, it has been a wild debate to be sure. Highly encouraged. You check out our links of our guests in the description box below. And not only that, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up on modern day debate. My dear friends, we are excited about the future. Modern day debate has been growing insanely. And we want to say thank you for making it grow as it has. Thank you for subscribing. Thank you for hitting like. For real, little things like even just hitting like, that helps us, that boosts us in the algorithm. Also, when you hit subscribe, that also shows YouTube that we're a channel that's attracting new people. And so, YouTube is promoting us big time. And it's thanks to you guys. Another way that you guys have helped, for real, I check the stats on our videos. I see a lot of people have shared our videos. So if you're like, man, oh man, I totally thought that, this side got destroyed in this debate. And I've got to like, I've got to get the world to see this side being exposed. And then people share the link. That helps us a ton. So people shared, I see that in the, we're basically where we see like, where new people are coming from in the analytics page. It's like Twitter threads or people are sharing it in Discord, even Reddit. All over the place. So we want to say thank you guys for helping us grow as it has. And join us while we are young, while we are small. Because modern day debate has a big bright future. And it's thanks to, like I said, thank you to you guys for making modern day debate great. It's also thanks to the guests, the speakers that we have had on. They make this channel great. They're the lifeblood of the channel. If it was just me debating myself every night, it'd be very sad. Amanda, thanks for being with us. So share with your friends. I agree. If you thought this was a fun debate or if you're like, man, this is a great debate where people can see this side being exposed and where it's, you know, exposed that it's wrong. Hey, it's a great opportunity. Share the link and let the world see it then. Because it's a neutral platform. If you thought that one side was more persuasive than the other, it's meaningful. The reason is if one side wins, it's not, and by wins, I mean is more persuasive. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be more persuasive. And I think that's usually what we'd refer to in terms of winning in a debate. I think people are like, oh, I'm like anti-competitive. I'm very passive. And like, is, and they're like, you know, it's bad to say win or lose and like, I don't think it's bad. And like, it's not bad. It's not morally bad or in any way low character to want to win in boxing or basketball or anything like that. And I don't think it's wrong to want to win in debate in terms of just being more persuasive. I think that's fine. Like morally, I don't see why that's like, a lot of times people say, well, that seems like morally lower. And I'm like, okay, it seems like a, just a naked assertion rather than our argument. But I want to say if you thought that one side was more persuasive than another. I highly encourage you. Hey, share this debate as it's meaningful if one side was more persuasive than the other because it's not because the moderators jumped in and took a side of like, hey, you know, globe Earth is true or hey, Flat Earth is true because here at modernity debate, we don't do that. It's a fully neutral platform. We moderate fairly and we also only put out debates. We don't have any position videos such as videos that say, oh, Flat Earth with, you know, it's so stupid or Globe Earth is so stupid. We don't do that. We let you decide in the comment section because our vision ultimately is to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can have their chance to hear these debates on a level playing field. That's important to us. And what are our values because for us, it's important to us that we stick to our values. And one is we want things to be fair. We want it to be a fair platform where you don't have moderators jumping in and taking sides, which is just gross on some channels. I see this as like, wow, it's like you didn't really want a fair debate on your channel. You just want it as the moderator to see your side look more persuasive or look more, you know, to look more like it's true, whatever it is. And I would say, again, in those in those cases, people aren't stupid. They know they're like, huh, well, it looked like one side might be more true, but mostly because the moderator just jumped in and took a side and helped the one side. That's gross. Isn't it nasty? It's so cowardly. It's so like, and the fact that some people would even let the moderator help them like debaters. I would think, wouldn't the debater be embarrassed that they would feel like they need the moderator to help them? If it's genuinely the debater that's skilled, they're going to be able to point out the fallacies or the lies or the gish gallop or whatever it is on the other side. And again, they're not going to need saving from the moderator. Now, Surgeon General, thanks so much. It is true. We have a new discord. If you have not seen this, I'm going to pin this at the top of the live chat right now. Surgeon General, thanks so much for all your hard work along with Hannah and Amanda and others. It's amazing. So I highly encourage you to check that out. Tim Pryor, thanks for your super chest tonight. We really do appreciate it. It really doesn't mean a lot. Thanks for your support that way as well. Nanology says James Wink at the camera. And question. The answer is glad to have you here. Mr. Plant, thank you for coming by. Iron Horse, good to see you says. Let's see. Andre Balas, thanks for coming by, as well as Sean Hawkins. Good to see you. And Regis Terzlober. Glad to have you with us. Sean Hawkins, did I see you recently in an email? Is that you who we were talking? But anyway, Javi Gonzalez, thanks for coming by. We want, we want to welcome you with open arms. Glober Mom, thanks for coming by. Says good night, everyone. Glober Mom, sleep well. We hope it's a great night as well as Mr. White, thanks for being here. Twelyn, thanks for coming by. And I know that if you're in the live chat, you've subscribed because we have live. What is the word I'm looking for? We have subscribers only chat mode on right now. And so I want to say thank you for having subscribed in our tech. Thanks for being a subscriber. Roman Conan, as well as thanks J.J. Hemcrete Bear. Thanks so much for your subscription to modern day debate. Thanks for your support of us. Big pine sailing. Thanks for your support as well. You guys have got 511 people. We've got 359 likes. We can easily get to 400 likes. It just jumped up to 360. So we're only 40 likes away. We can easily get 40 more likes to get to 400. So seriously, we appreciate it when you do hit like. That means a lot. Dylan Mote, thanks for being with us. Thanks for helping our channel. Thanks for being a subscriber. Glowbusters, thanks for being subscribed. We appreciate your support. It means a lot. Ryan, thanks for dropping in. Thanks for your support. And thanks for being a subscriber. Iron Horse, thanks for being here. Kanye Twitty, thanks for coming by. Appreciate your kind words. Andrew Kroll, good to see you there. Thanks for dropping in, as well as one Neil. Glad you are here. And thanks for your kind words, Intertext says, because you're a great moderator, James. Nice job. Thanks for that. That means a lot. Ms. Sweet, thanks for coming by. Thanks for being a subscriber. It means a lot, as well as Nierka13. Thanks for being a sub. Appreciate you being a subscriber. It really does mean a lot. Seriously, that really does. You guys, your support, it means more than you know. And like I said, this channel, it can't grow without you. Like, you guys have helped this channel so much. Like, I'm just a guy sending out a few emails, and then I host. But, this channel is truly a community effort. Seriously. This is not like a, like, oh, that's like James's channel. No, like, I tell people all the time, it's like, no, no, no, modern day debate is not like my channel. I always say like, at modern day debate, we care about X, Y, and Z. Here are our values, fairness, competition, all these things. Those are important to us. And it's not an I thing. It's a community thing, because for real, you guys support this channel in so many ways. Thanks for your support. Troubling Tribune, good to see you there. Thanks for, thanks for having been a debater in the past as well. Troubling Tribune. I hope you're doing well. And thanks for your support of modern day debate. Seriously, it means a lot. As well as Angel, let me see, and let me know if I'm seeing this right. Ngu, Nguyen. Thanks for coming by. Did I say it right? Let me know. Tuellen. Thanks for being a subscriber. That means a lot. Big pine sailing. Thanks for your support of the channel. As well as Randolph says, thanks, James, your contribution to the free exchange of ideas is greatly appreciated. These debates are always well run and cover interesting topics. Thanks, Randolph. Seriously, that really does mean a lot. I appreciate that. Thanks for being a subscriber and a debater, Randolph. And Kanye Twitty says, when are you going to debate again, James? Someday I do plan on it. It's just going to be a while. I have to at least finish the PhD. I've only got about 11 months of the PhD left, though. But I love being a moderator. Like, I really do enjoy it. I love moderating. I love building modern-day debate. I love learning about the marketing kind of stuff. And I know people are like, oh, like marketing is like, makes it sound like fake. You know, it's, I think some people think like, that's not as genuine because YouTube's supposed to be like authentic and genuine. And so if you're marketing, that means that you're like purposely trying to grow. But we're not ashamed of the fact that we're trying to grow. We think that we offer something of value to YouTube. We really do. Namely, fair debates. It's a very rare type of channel where not only is the moderation fair, which is rare, frankly. It's out there. I will admit, there are some channels that do that. Big credit to them. However, they're few and far between. And not only that, even more rare. In fact, I think that modern-day debate is the only channel period that only hosts debates. That's it. No position videos. No lectures where I gave a lecture on X, Y, or Z. If there's an argument to be made on modern-day debate, there's always an argument opposing it as well. That's what we value. It's a fully neutral platform. And not only that, but it's fully fair because that's the thing. Sometimes people are like, hey, let's say I'm a flat earther. And I'm like, wow, I want to go on this channel and debate. But I realize a lot of this channel's videos are calling flat earthers the R word. I'm not going to say it because YouTube will, they don't like it when I say the R word. But they're calling them flat turds. We'll say that. And so a lot of them are like, well, why would I want to, as a flat earther, why would I want to go do a debate on that channel? Because they put my group down all the time. Which is understandable. It's like, why would you want to go help them promote their channel when they treat you like that? Now, if they're treating you kindly, then I think that's different. I can see why you'd be more open to it. But when it is, sometimes it's abusive. It's like, well, yeah, I agree. Why would you want to go on there when they have content that is so, you know, or if they, like wise, if they said globers are globe turds. That's one way to put it. If they said that, why would a glober want to go debate on that channel when they've got these other videos that are trashing them? It's like, why would you want to help them promote their channel by being a debater for them when they're doing that? Really, I would think that. I think it's a fair thought. Not only that, but a lot of channels I notice, a lot of debate channels, they don't even link their guests. I'm like, what really? You're not even willing to link your guests. Like you don't even have that basic fairness. So we always link our guests. No matter how controversial, like, we're willing to do that. And so I'm just amazed. Like we are providing, so in other words, we're not ashamed of the fact that we want to grow. We're thankful that you have helped us grow because we believe that YouTube deserves a better class of debate channel. And we're going to give it to them. Some people, they want to ban certain ideas or certain people. You could say that they want a prohibition on ideas. Very sad, nasty guys. We though will be what you might call your idea barons. We are going to produce ideas. We are going to produce debates. And we are going to make it big. And I've got to say it's all thanks to, like I said, the debaters. Thanks to all of you as listeners. Thanks for your support. Thanks for being a subscriber for MM4D. Appreciate you being a subscriber, as well as MsSweet. Thanks for being a subscriber. So I love you, James. Love you too. Thanks MsSweet. Appreciate that. As well as Truthers, Out of Comedy. Thanks for coming by. Thanks for being a subscriber. That means a lot. CBZC says, James, your channel rocks. Keep it up. Thanks so much. Thanks for being a subscriber here. It means a lot, seriously. And not only that, C Montreal says, good job. Good show. Thanks for that. Appreciate your encouragement. Gen8208, thanks for your kind words. That means a lot. Appreciate it. Thanks for being a subscriber here. As well as Big Pine Sailing. Thank you so much. So seriously, do appreciate the neutral platform, James. That means a lot, for real. I really do. I really do appreciate that. And thanks for being a supporter and a subscriber. Pure Aussie Gold. Seriously, we really do appreciate you. And Javi Gonzales says, you deserve it, James. Thank you so much for that. And Javi Gonzales says, good luck with your last mark on your PhD. I've got about maybe 11 months left, and then I'm done with the PhD, which is going to be, it's crazy thinking that. I'm like, I can't believe it. Because it's like, I felt like I was going to be the PhD forever. It's, I'm on my fifth year right now. So what is it? It's fall? So I've got another, yeah. So I've got, it's going to be less than a year, about 11 months, and I'll be out of here. So I'm excited for that. Thank you guys for your support. As well as Claire, thanks for your kind words, says it wouldn't be here without you, James. Thanks for that, Claire. Thanks for being a subscriber too. And JJ Hemcrete bears as James the best moderator on YouTube. Thanks, JJ, seriously. And thanks for being a subscriber. Appreciate that. And, well, that always finds its level. Thanks for your support. Thanks for being a subscriber. Surgeon General, thanks for giving out those gifted subscriptions or gifted channel memberships earlier. Mark Reed, thanks for coming by. Says, good to see you, James. Thanks, Mark. We appreciate you. Thanks for being both a subscriber and a debater. And Surgeon General, thanks for coming by. Says, yeah, congrats, buddy. You've earned it. Thanks so much for your support. Jen8208 says, I love free speech. Amen to that. We want to give everybody a fair shot, no matter how controversial. So thank you guys for all of your support. I should go. It's getting really late. This has been four hours and 20 minutes. That I've been in this chair and haven't gotten up. So I want to say thank you guys for all your support. We're excited about the future. Seriously, modern day debate has big things planned. As you can see in the bottom right of your screen, Matt Delhonte will be debating Nadir. That's next weekend. And it's next Saturday in particular. No, I got that one wrong. That one's on Friday, actually. And then this one that you're seeing on screen, that one's on Saturday. That's Arun Ra versus Perfect Dawa. And whether or not there is evidence for Islam. So we're excited for those debates. It's going to be really fun. You guys seriously appreciate all your support. Thanks for your kind words, Amanda. Thanks guys. I love you. Thanks for making this channel amazing. It really does mean a lot. And I am excited about the future. We at modern day debates are excited about the future. And I've got to tell you, there's so many volunteers that have made this channel. One last group of people I want to thank. Amanda helped us find a location down there in Dallas. We appreciated that very much. As well as, thanks for it in the chat, reminding people, Amanda helped us find a spot for our last conference, which we had an in-person conference if you didn't know about that. It was awesome. And thanks for doing that, Amanda. And then people like Sweet Pea and Hannah and Randolph and others who, in the live chat, thank you for reminding people to subscribe or hit like. That helps us too. We appreciate that. Not only that, but we've got so many volunteers like Chris and Bob and Brian and Kaz and Amy. And we have just got so many people that have put so much time into helping modern day debate. So seriously, it is truly a community effort in making this channel what it is. So we appreciate all your love and support. We're excited about the future as big things are coming. And we will see you at the next debate, which is, as of now, next Friday, you don't want to miss it. So we'll see you then.