 Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth versus Globes, and we're starting right now. With the globe side in particular, Amy, thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours. Thank you so very much, James. Flat versus globe. After all, when we look outside our window, when we talk and walk to the store, or even take a cross-country train, the land around us feels flat, though there are numerous reasons why the Earth is an elliptical sphere. That is to say a sphere that is not perfectly round by about 21 kilometers. However, the Earth is most certainly a globe, because this is what gravity does to large astral bodies with gas stars and rocky planets like our own. And science has been learning about gravity for a long time, with Galileo, who in 1654 began to perform experiments at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Learning that it didn't matter how much mass an object had, both small or large, round ballsy held, fell to the ground at the same time. Or Isaac Newton, who may note that every object with a mass attracts other objects with math. This is indeed what keeps us bound to the Earth, as the Earth's gravity vastly outpowers our own, the same with our Moon, but not with the Sun, who has an even larger gravitational pull. Though it wasn't until the early 1900s with Albert Einstein that we could start to understand gravity from a more three or even four-dimensional level. From the top-down perspective, it looks like objects with massive gravity are attracting their object, which is true. But what's really going on is gravity's force is making a bowing effect, like a bowl. However, our velocity is so fast, or 107,000 kilometers an hour, that instead of us going straight towards the center we create in orbit, the same which is true of our entire solar system. Though we've known the world is round for thousands of years, ever since Eritastinies began measuring shadows in different cities. He began to notice that directly overhead at noon there was no shadow in Cyan, but a very long shadow at Alexandria, showing the first empirical evidence for around Earth, which was then followed up with Aristotle observing ships under the horizon as they left. Though many of the time thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, or an ether. So how do we know what's correct if even we in the past can be wrong? The answer is science, or the process of exerting a phenomena, gathering data, creating hypothesis, making a predictive model, analyzing our results, then submitting them for peer review. The peer review of academia and experts is crucial, because other scientists should be able to do the same experiment, then gather the same results using the same model. This process allows humans to lead out their own bias, helping us create modern medicine, engineering, and the capabilities of leaving our planet. We have live feeds of the spherical Earth 24-7-365, along with many countries working together, like at the International Space Station. Though this gets down to the crux of the debate. Well, part one of the thesis. First, how can we trust government institutions like NASA? NASA seems to be the big bad when it comes to, let's say those that are not sold on around Earth. Has the government ever lied to you? Has the media ever lied to you? Most sane people would say yes to both of these, but that also starts from the pretense that they are hiding something massive, like the shape of the Earth, from us. Now, the why question seems to annoy Flat Earthers. They say part of the problem is we can't know what's in people's hearts and minds, or even half of everything if they're hiding it from us. Sure, but once again, it does assume atheist, theist, liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist. Every political spectrum, every religious ideology is in on it. And so I'm not sure what that leaves us, because that never happens. If the New World Order has this level of control, it's amazing. My other counterpoint to this is that the government frags a lot of things up, and that stands for both sides of the aisle. In fact, there are no main whistleblowers from the New York Times. Hell, even Fox News would be working with MSNBNC and CNN. Even Donald Trump would be in it, because Space Force by definition has to believe in some form of space to fly to. At that point, it is every institution of power, big and small, that I can think of. Thus, part two of my thesis is who holds the burden of proof? Someone skeptical of the round earth or a believer of the flat earth will say, either way, will say that it goes back to the original statement. Don't we see a flat earth outside our window? Well, yes, outside our window looks flat, but that's a single data point. All of the current empirical evidence, testable, verifiable, the overwhelming amount shows that the world is in fact spherical. Which means the burden of proof is on those with an alternative viewpoint to present what sort of model and methodology we can use to make predictions like those in science. Finally, there is no condescension in my heart, metaphorically speaking. Another thing that I know flat earthers bring up, because they say round earth supporting people look down on them for even bringing up their point of view and won't give their ideas a chance. Well, I'm coming in with a Socratic method, but in open mind. My bar is going to be high, along with something that survives scientific consensus, because from what I can tell this is an epistemological debate about are we going to accept science or not. Thank you. To Leo. I don't really know what to say with respect to the subject of tonight's debate simply because I don't know what I could say that hasn't already been said, probably close to a million times over. So I guess I can just start with some really basic things. What I want to mention is all of our navigation systems depend on a spherical earth, they wouldn't work on on a flat earth just as a result of the geometric pattern that we have to lay out. And that it matches that of a spherical earth so the planes trains ships wouldn't be able to get to where they're going if we didn't account for these surveying has to account for this as well, particularly on the larger scales. We've got a number of humans orbiting about what is it, 8,000, 6,000, 5,000 something miles above the earth, something like that in the International Space Station who taken pictures of the earth. They like my my partner here Amy said that we have there's live feed cameras on it you can find them on YouTube if you just you YouTube live feed International Space Station you'll get it and you can look at where it's at over the earth. We'll hear the same things well that's just CGI okay show me how and then they can't. And another thing that Amy mentioned that I think is just a nail in the coffin is gravity, one of the most accurate and well confirmed models that humans have ever developed. There isn't a single prediction it's made that hasn't come true. So, when we look at it and again this is something my partner said already going going back to that there's just not much to really say on this that hasn't already been said a million times over. When we look at the, at the preponderance of the evidence when we look at what what what we can detect to the most accurate degrees. It seems that what we find is we live on a planet, and this planet is a sphereoidal in its shape and in orbit to star. And my main confusion with with people who believe in the flat earth is why is it so crucial what turns on on the earth being sphereoidal or flat. It's such an important hill to die on and I guess I'll just leave it there. Got it and want to say folks is your first time here at modern day debate want to say welcome we hope that you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from whether you be flat earth globers politically left politically right you name it. We're glad that you are here and have to let you know we have many more juicy debates coming up. For example at the bottom right of your screen we are thrilled to announce that this November inspiring philosophy Christian debater has agreed to debate atheists debater rationality rules. They both agreed this is going to be a huge one you don't want to miss it hit that subscribe button so you don't miss that upcoming debate as well as many others as there are many more to come. With that we're going to kick it over to our flatter side want to say huge thanks to all of our guests for being here want to remind you folks attack the arguments instead of the person as always whether it be in the live chat or in the comments. And a special thank you as iron horse had filled in last minute while in his hot tub he said yes I can fill in for Davey I will be there even though I am in my hot tub. He pulled an amaranth on us tonight and so we on Twitch are switching it over to the pools and hot tubs streaming category as iron horse has taken modern day debate there for the first time. But with that we're going to kick it over to our flat earth side thanks so much for being with us with it gets it and iron horse thanks for jumping in for Davey. We appreciate it even being willing that you said yeah I'll be there right now. Thank you very much over the floor is all yours. You want to go first iron you got it. I'm quite happy for you to go with that I'm as I said last minute stand in so obviously you've got something prepared I don't so I'm quite happy for you to go mate. Okay. Yeah I'm anything prepared but I'll address everything that they just said so. Thing that I thought stood out was the claim that gravity is like the most well known proven idea ever and it's now in the coffin, etc. And it's never made a prediction that was inaccurate. That is just patently false of course on the cosmological scale, relativity predictions are drastically wrong. Like to an egregious degree. For example as early as the 30s applying relativity to the sky we saw that the galaxy distribution of mass was off by 97% that the galaxies only had 3% of the mass needed based on what relativity predicted. The expansion rate is far too fast and needs more energy. You have constructs called dark matter and dark energy on a defined they're called dark because they don't interact with electromagnetic spectrum. And we don't really know what they are and then we assume that their material. And how much you will think they're off 10 to the 120th power some argue about that anyway long story short, relatively on the cosmological scale, literally did make predictions that were wrong, drastically wrong, not even in the ballpark of being correct. And it's been known for a long time. And in addition, it's also completely inaccurate on the quantum scale, everything that gravity has claimed on the quantum scale has been thoroughly debunked. For example, superposition just destroys the idea of the distribution of mass, creating, you know, equidistant curvature of space and time. And there are many different other examples. So it doesn't work a quantum scale. The localization of gravity being Newtonian gravity, which is 9.8 meter second squared little G is of course downward acceleration. And the average in which things fall, Amy mentioned that somebody was dropping balls from a tower and they were dropping at the same rate. Well, it's an agreed upon average things don't actually always drop at exactly 9.8 meters per second squared. Just an average and it fluctuates. And that doesn't really matter once something goes down it goes down a regularly similar rates. So long story short, that's not in any way what is claimed anymore. And I can quote you Walter Lou and from MIT, explaining to you that every phenomenon we see on the earth, everything that we experienced everything that's held together on the earth is all because of electricity and the electric nature of all things. And that it's 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity even claims to be. So there is no evidence on the earth at all that's exclusive to the idea of gravity. And that's ironically the only place that the math for gravity even works. And so obviously what we're being told from this other side is drastically misrepresenting what the truth is. There is no evidence at all for gravity that just one example. You can beg the question, reify it. But the truth is everyone knows that the modern version of relativity is best case scenario drastically incomplete and has to be updated and does not account for any of the phenomena observed in the cosmological or quantum scales. So there's the first thing. Secondly, he said something to the effect of long distance measurements have to account for the curvature of the earth. Well, what actually happens is is we take a plain surveying data, right where we assume a flat earth, we get a vertical line that we drop horizontal or perpendicular to the horizontal plane to get our level and then we make measurements and small increments. And then we stitch those together over long distances. And then there's something called geodetic surveying. And what they do is they take the stitch together data from the plain survey data, right, and then they look out over distances of take azimuth readings and different things like this. And they go into the observations with a predetermined window, meaning anything that they see that falls outside of it, they just throw it out. Actually debated main surveyor on here is geodetic surveyor. He openly admits this. So they throw out every single observation that doesn't fit within their presupposed little window. He actually explains that if he hadn't done that, he would have got a radius value way too big consistently. He has to throw them out. So this is basically cooking the books or Texas sharp shooting fallacy, right, where you just kind of like the idea that they shoot the gun and then they go draw the circle after they shoot the gun. They throw out all the data that doesn't work within their presupposition. They then take a weighted mean average within that predetermined window and they try to get within 90% accuracy of the NDSA model or the presupposition of the goal, the globe. So if we actually look at the evidence, it doesn't work at all with the radius. So that's what's ironic. And the whole fundamental part here where she's saying basically the idea is that we have the burden of proof because we're challenging a rubber. Well, she actually alluded to it, right? So all empirical evidence actually shows us that the earth is a stationary topographical plane and that is geocentric. That's what all evidence ever shows us. So that's our default position. Okay, I mean, based on all evidence, he brought up planes, planes assume a flat stationary earth. I just talked to pilots the other day, I have them on video admitting, yeah, yeah, you have to fly the plane like it's flat and stationary. Their navigation routes are called great circle routes. You can have circles on a flat earth also. I didn't know if you guys knew that, but bringing up the fact that they fly with circle routes is literally irrelevant to the earth being the globe. So all evidence, actually ballistic missiles, I can, I have like probably over 50 documents right here on my computer that the military constantly assumes the earth is flat and stationary to do anything long, long distance ballistic missiles. Electromagnetic propagation over a flat earth for ground weapon systems. All fighter jets, helicopters, you name it. It all assumes a stationary topographical plane. They assume a dielectric plane for electromagnetic propagation, etc. And so all the evidence shows us this. All of our actual measurements as we just covered the physical measurements that we have, they're actually using plane survey data. Then we sit together and assume a globe and have to throw out a bunch of stuff. So everything shows us that the earth is flat. All empirical evidence shows us the topographical plane, right, and that it's stationary. And if it's stationary, that means it's what's called geocentric and meaning that the earth is the center. Now, this is what the default position is. This is all empirical evidence ever. They say we've known for thousands of years. This isn't true either. Even if you believe the story of Erotothnes without primary documentation, he was just a minority in the world at the time anyway. And like they said, they thought it was geocentric. So long story short. Yeah, you have the burden of proof. If you think the earth's a globe, I do not care if you want to misrepresent it and say that everyone in the world must be in on a lie. No one thinks that everyone believes the lie. Everyone believes the lie. They were all told the lie when we were like five as well. They don't think they're lying. There's not some like concerted conspiracy with 7 billion people working behind the scenes to trick us or something. They all believe the lie that teachers believe the lie that NASA employees believe the lie. People just believe the lie. Okay. And so that doesn't that's a misrepresentation of what we're actually saying. And the truth is, again, you would need empirical evidence. So I'll try and wrap it up pointing this out. You need to provide physical empirical evidence that the earth is in fact a sphere with a radius of 3,959 miles. And that is tilted on a 66.6 degree axis wobbling and spinning 1,037 miles per hour East going around the sun 66,600 miles per hour in a vacuum. This is a positive claim. And you claim that the universe is expanding in all directions infinitely and we can't really tell and it looks like we're the center with even distribution. But I think that means that it's probably going to look like that everywhere else. Right. And you come up with all these frantic ideas of how to keep your piece your story together. Theoretically, we need actual physical empirical evidence. And when we went and looked for it, which is why the government admits they censor this egregiously is because you can't find it. And we actually falsified the radius where he said that the boats go over the curve of the earth. They actually do not. Right. We see the horizon far too far for the geometric limitations of the globe Earth. And what that means is that the horizon is not a physical geometric location that tangibly blocks anything. It's an apparent location that fluctuates. We have observations that are 10, 15, 20 times too far requiring the radius be over a quarter million miles. So no boats don't disappear over the curvature of the earth. Right. Erotothnes he assumed a distant son assumed parallel rays and then use spherical geometry to beg the question that also doesn't prove the earth's a ball. Right. And there's no primary documentation that guy even didn't do that. So long story short. Yes, we do want the physical empirical evidence. We know that NASA was founded with Nazis and has consistently lied ever since we've caught them lying many times. And so no, we don't blindly believe the government. We know where do we think that NASA is the one federal government agency that doesn't lie. So long story short, we measured the surface of the earth. It's not curving. And if the radius value is not 39, 59, and that's been falsified, the entire model is wrong because every single aspect of the model requires that. And I'll also let you know ahead of time there is no motion ever been proven that the earth is spinning. There's no evidence for it whatsoever. And even Einstein himself will tell you that centrifugal and Coriolis effects would happen if the sky is moving around the earth in a letter he wrote to Ernst Mock. And there's no physical empirical evidence that the earth is spinning or curving. And so yeah, that's why we're here and you make claims that are a violative of natural law. So we want empirical physical evidence and then we'll just tear it apart if you think you've got it. And I want to keep something to wrap it up, but I want to really soak this in for the audience. We used to think the earth was a globe to bro. Okay, so this like arrogant condensating tone that people come into the conversation with acting as if we're ignorant and incompetent and inept is very disingenuous. We all knew that the earth was a globe to at one point. At least we thought we did. We all know your position. The truth is most flat earthers have studied it way more in depth than the people that mock and ridicule people. Okay, so we we learned the story and that's why we know it's not true because there's no evidence for it. So yeah, there you go. That's my opener. You got it with that. We're going to jump into open conversation. Want to let you know, folks, we are going to have a Q&A after the open conversation. So if you happen to have a question, you can submit it two ways. One is if you type in at modern day debate in the live chat and then put in your question as well as if you want to do a super chat. Actually, I forgot we mentioned the description. If you're like, no, I don't want to do a super chat. I don't like it that YouTube takes 30%. You can use a Venmo or PayPal as well. And those we also put at the top of the list for during the Q&A. But again, if you want, you just put at modern day debate as you don't have to pay. We try to get to some of the unpaid questions as well. Assuming that we have enough time at the end. So with that, thanks very much to our guests for being here. They're all into the description. Want to say that folks, keep that in mind. I'm going to remind you of that later on throughout the debate. But with that, thank you very much to our guests. The floor is all yours. Did Flatterthos get an opening? Or did he forgo his? I think he did a short and sweet one and then handed it over to Austin. But do you understand that? I actually did ask Boston if he could just go first. I wouldn't mind having a bit of an opener, you know. And give you about a minute. Sorry about that. It's the time just got eaten up pretty quick. Austin had a lot to say there. I misunderstood, bro. So I just started to make up the whole time. But that's my bad. I can give you a short and sweet one. How about that? And then if you guys would like a little bit of extra time, Leo and Amy, we can give you that before we go into open conversation. That way it's balanced. Go ahead, Flatterthos. Let her rip. Yeah. And I just, um, yeah. Well, I had plenty of things I was going to say, but if I only got a minute, that limits me a bit. Um, basically navigation, I think it's probably a good place to start because on the Flatter, the way all our maps originally started was we basically had a magnetic northern center. So all navigation both had a magnetic compass and a fixed polar star. So all our maps and charts and everything correlates to that. So east and west are always going to be big circles around the northern center, and that doesn't change the thing. But the only thing that really changes is people then assume that it's a globe because as soon as you get far enough away from Polaris that it disappears from view, which we call the equator, they assume they've descended into the underworld, which naturally enough they see in the sky this big crucifix, which is the grave marker, which is what we associate with death and the underworld and all that sort of thing. So basically it's basically a holocaustic, just nonsense to say that we actually did descend into anywhere where simply whenever you travel, everything appears to change, including the stars and naturally very high things appear to get lower and lower. And that's all that Polaris is doing as you get further and further away from it. It's not evidence that you're actually going over curvature for that to happen. So it's a simple matter of perspective of everything getting lower in the distance. It doesn't prove that you are actually descending or going over a curve. Gravity was a rather big go to, and I don't think we need that one to go too far into that because we know that anything that's lighter than air or floating air, if it's, I mean, if it's lighter than air, it actually ascends, it goes up, and if it's heavier than air, it descends, it goes down. That's a really straightforward, basic thing. So nothing in physics actually changes from what we know and observe, just because we know the Earth is flat stationary. The only thing that does change is if we don't have to assume something dropping is actually moving diagonally sideways 30 times faster than it's actually dropping, which we have to assume if the Earth is spinning at the speeds that the globe is like to believe it is. There's five minutes. You got it. Anne, like I said, Leo and Amy, if you'd like a minute to counterbalance that just so there's exactly... I just want to make really just quick points that, you know, relativity, tons of empirical evidence, it really goes to what kind of empirical evidence. In a second, I would actually like to show some of the journals that not only accept relativity, but use them in their models and journals like nature. And so the question would then be, what kind of journals would you accept? Do you have any of your own or anything kind of like that? I would appoint the same goes for gravity. But just like Leo was saying, gravity is one of the most well-tested theories that we have in science. And so I could also show articles utilizing gravity and showing why it's the scientific consensus. But would you believe that? The question I really am asking is, what sources would you accept? And then, you know, it's not a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. We didn't draw anything around it. We are being descriptive, not prescriptive. That would have to be an assertion that need to be proven. You know, one of the things I just want to point out, they all reutilized the globe to get cheaper tickets and faster routes. I don't, on their model, the model they tried before would be like a flat disc, and it doesn't explain why things would be colder in the equator. Like the south is in the center, so why would it be colder? No burn to proof. That is obviously not true. In fact, that's going to be the majority, I think, of the debate tonight, because I don't think that they can fulfill it. And everyone's told a lie in fifth grade. They mean scientists and your teacher. They mean the teachers are lying to you. And we want to, I just wanted to know things like what are under the flat earth. And the last point would just be, and there's a common meme in flatter of circles, NASA funded by Nazis, Godwin's law, all this stuff. This is, you know, not only that, but these are still the same people that are in control of us. Is these type of national socialist type of people? And so, I mean, there's just no evidence for that, but it is a common conspiracy narrative. Thank you very much for that last bit of opening. We're going to jump into open conversation. Thanks very much to our guests. The floor is all yours. Okay. Objectively, NASA, when it was founded, what SS officer of the Nazi regime and charges base exploration. This is just a fact. So what, what turns on this with respect to the flat earth? Like not NASA could have been founded by like aliens from like a third, fourth, fifth, sixth dimension. It still wouldn't matter. Like, yeah. Well, that's a good thing. I didn't claim that it proved the flatter than, huh, Leo. I didn't say that you did. I asked, actually asked you a question. I asked you what. Yeah, I said, we don't trust NASA. They've been approvably sure in suspects since the very beginning of their creation. What about what the shape of the earth turns on the reliability of NASA? That's what I'm asking you. That's the fundamental source of where we claim to have all kinds of verification. No, it's not these pictures of earth from space. I'm not sure it just beat the global consensus of physicists and the empirical literature that we've collected from the telescopes that we have. You used a telescope to see the earth as a ball from space. No, we don't need to. Well, that's what we're talking about. You asked me what's the relevance to it. I said they claim that they have pictures of the earth being a globe in space. And yeah, that's all dependent upon us believing space agencies and What about the people that knew that before NASA? What? But what about the people that knew that before NASA? They don't have. Why is it that you're not addressing my actual point, which is I am. You're claiming this is all pictures of the earth and space. Wait, are you not claiming that all this data is rooted in NASA? What? Are you not claiming that all this data is rooted in NASA? Pictures of the earth from space. I explained space agencies as well. Well, that's not the only way we know that the earth is, you know, spheroidal. It's not just a picture. Okay. Never said it was. All right then. So you would you acknowledge that it doesn't really matter what NASA says. There's a variety of places. It matters. It matters because in your opener, you invoked alleged pictures from the earth, from space. Sure. I didn't say anything about NASA though. Okay. So name one picture from space. That's legitimate. And you take a picture of the globe in entirety. Just that we just lie about it. Yeah. Just don't know the life feeds from from YouTube channel. So you can literally watch one life feed that shows the earth thing of ball and entire. I don't know the name of it. Just Google it. Google doesn't exist. I would also like to ask just why there isn't like a single. Flat earth picture. Why we can't seem to get one. Why is there not a single globe earth picture? So yeah, that's what I mean about like the burden of blue. What about it? I feel like every time I'm going to ask a question or like any logistics about anything with the flat earth. You're just go. It's what creation is do with evolution in my opinion. What's your obsession with always trying to turn into a religious conversation? The point here is that. Because. Funds. I answered that. Impulsively interrupting me. That would be awesome. So. Now you're speaking again, but I'll let you finish. You answered the question. Why do I always try to bring it back to you guys? Just. Is okay. Awesome. If you want to go for another like 20 seconds, I'm going to let you do that. But then to be fair, you did ask Amy a question. So before it goes too far, I don't want to let you go more for more than like 20 seconds. I got to give Amy a chance to answer why the. Religion topic comes up so often. Okay, that question. Okay, whatever. Yeah, that was a rhetorical question, obviously, because we're not debating religion. But the point is that when you ask, why don't we have a picture of the earth being flat from space? It's disingenuous and hypocritical whenever you also don't have a picture of the earth being a globe from space. And yet you're claiming scientific consensus and evidence. We don't claim to be able to go to space. So it's a straw man and it's disingenuous. What about us? Good rebuttal, dude. You're crushing. Wait, so I'm just going to assume you don't know what what about isn't this. I know that you're not addressing the actual substance. Yeah, so let me let me just tell you then what what about isn't is it's when somebody says, Hey, so how do you explain X and you need to go? Well, but what about why or this or that? How you explain that's literally what you did. She asked you, why don't you have a picture of this and you said, well, why don't you? What? Well, how come you're asking me like, yeah, you just what about it? Just to explain that we don't think you can go to space. Leo, do you need a note? So you're saying so. So then you're, you're, you're affirming that you don't have pictures of the already said that we don't think you can go to just want to clarification. That's fine. Are you confirming you don't have pictures also? If I might buddy and say something that's, um, we've had some major changes in technology in the last few decades. And the biggest change we've had is the digital camera and we've had the ability now to record, you know, hours and hours of footage in very small amounts of space so we can send these cameras up very, very high. It's something that we could never do for thousands of years. You know, we couldn't do this 1000 years ago. We've only been doing it for the best part of maybe a decade, two decades at the most. And we can send these balloons up to about 25 miles high. It's about the highest they go. And every single non edited and non fish eye lens image that we get proves and shows the earth is flat. And not only that, you get no clarity whatsoever of the continents. Our atmosphere is too thick. So anything that they showed us from the late 60s or early 70s pretending to show a blue marble from outer space has to be fake because you can see the continents clear as day. They're just something's taken from an airplane through around window. So all of all the evidence we have, all the pictures we have of the earth prove that's actually flat. Except the ones from the International Space Station. And I just want to make a comment that the reason that it often goes to religion, although I think this is more about epistemological debate because we are arguing about what kind of tools we use. We're arguing about what kind of data I think Leo and myself extract mainstream science. And the reason I bring up creationists or specifically to paint with a thin brush, the young earth creationists is because what they do is they don't try to prove creationism. They know they can't the flat earth. There's in my opinion, know that they have a much harder uphill battle to try and prove that. And so what they try and do is they try and shutter the burden of proof. And that's why it is similar. Okay, you're self projecting because you don't have any actual physical. Did you guys not even listen to the opener that all physical measurements of the earth are using plain survey data when you do geodetic surveying, you have to presuppose the sphere and combine the plain survey data every time that we use any military technology, it assumes a flat stationary plane earth, which means every single time that you have successful use case, that's physical empirical evidence of a stationary plane. So I would like to clear for the audience because you guys aren't seeming to be particularly honest right now. There is no real picture of the earth as a ball from space in entirety. And the only one even claimed is 1972. Anyone that tells you anything different is lying. Himawari 8 is not. ISS is not the whole earth. Nor is it actually what the earth looks like. You can easily fake that with convexity lenses. There is no real picture of the earth being a ball from space. And it's 2022 and they claim they got one in 1972, but we still can't get one. All we get is CGI. That's not sketchy at all. So I wouldn't invoke anything to do with pictures of the earth. Sure. Why do people in the northern hemisphere and people in the southern hemisphere see completely different stars? Yeah, there's all kinds of reasons for that. So, so for one, you can easily replicate it. Well, are you going to listen to the answer? Yeah, I was saying like go on. Give me give me listen. I was saying it. Easily replicate it with a type of container that would alter your perspective. You can do it with concentric circles on a piece of paper and literally have a container. I don't understand. I asked if you were going to listen. Yeah, but I'm not understanding what you're saying. What is what a concentric circles have to do with this? Listen carefully. Okay. Why do people in two different hemispheres see? So first off, where is the dividing line between the hemispheres on your model? Okay. Is there anything you can pull up and give me where you would divide the two hemispheres or do you just deny the concept of hemispheres? I mean, these are serious questions. I'm asking. Well, they're stupid questions and you keep interrupting the answer. I don't care. Are you going to answer them? Are you going to run from them? Well, you probably have to stop interrupting me. Thing we're going to have to do is go into two minute sections just to be sure there's not too much interrupting though. I appreciate your passion on both sides. So go ahead. Austin will give you two minutes and then we'll give Leo two minutes as well. And then Flatter the Aussie. We haven't heard from you for a while, but well, I don't. By the way, Flatter the Aussie a.k.a. Iron Horse. The only reason I keep muting you is there's just a little bit of feedback bouncing off because I think it's because of the mobile. So that's nothing personal that I keep muting you in particular. But go ahead. Austin for two minutes. Yeah, so I was trying to explain it. There are many different observations that would explain it. You can use a solenoid or bar magnet. You will see this very thing the way that the toroidal manifestation of magnetic fields. You can use a ferrocell or supercell. You see this literally exactly the same thing being two different sets. But in addition to that, it could also be demonstrated and replicated with perspective alone. If you have some type of containment, we can literally use a little tight little like dome like container and we put an over concentric circles. And then based on where you're looking south, it will look like it has convergence around a central point and it will look like it's going the opposite direction. I showed it on the last debate on here. So you can literally replicate it now. Actually, the stars debunk the globe though because we can see Polaris many degrees below the equator and we can see the Southern Cross many degrees above it. So the stars don't help you at all as well as I take time lapse of the star trails and they never intercept with the marine horizons and the Earth's curvature is actually blocking the sky. But the time lapse doesn't actually intercept with the marine horizon ever. I've taken it dozens of times and in addition to that, you never see shooting stars or meteors coming up from the horizon, which you also would have to on the globe. So stars debunk the globe. I explained two explanations. I explained it on a flat Earth. So there you go. It seems pretty simple. The claim exclusivity is disingenuous. I'm sorry, but that doesn't answer my question. Where do you draw the line between the northern and the southern hemispheres on your model? Like if you could show me a map, maybe share your screen, show me a map and draw the line where, or the circle rather, where you divide the northern and the southern hemisphere. That's what I was asking. Nothing that you said answered that question. You asked about stars. The alleged... No, I asked you about what I just clarified that I asked you about. Did you have an answer to that question? Are you going to keep running to something else? There's an arbitrary line called the equator. We don't even claim definitive maps. What's wrong with the equator on the flat Earth? I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I asked you a question. Where would you define it? Same place. Okay, so you assume a sphere. Got it. Amy, anything you want to say? Sure. I want to do one actually final leaf branch. Another reason that I shouldn't harp on religion is because not only was Aristotle pagan, but it was medieval Christian theologians, the scholars of the time, who kept the knowledge that the world was round for the past few thousand years. So this actually should bring atheists and theists together because it would have to include all of them in the massive conspiracy. I will say pilots will go out of their way to tell you they need the world to be round so that they don't hit into bodies like the mountains. And so the other thing they often will bring up containments, the gas in the container and things like that with ignoring that gravity is the force that is pushing down. And so sure, if you don't have gravity, it would be very mysterious. But it would be we wouldn't know what was going on. But because of that it would have to be two minutes to either flat earth, Aussie or Witsett or you can split it. You got it, bro. Yeah, I wouldn't mind having to say Leo is very concerned about hemispheres. That basically means half a sphere and you can also have a sphere of influence. A sphere doesn't necessarily mean a three-dimensional circular object. Something can still be a sphere without necessarily being a circle. And as I said in my opener actually is that the equator just happens to be the equidistant point from the fixed northern star that was used for thousands of years for navigation that they decided they'd gone into the underworld so therefore they invented this idea of sphericity because they couldn't understand any other reason why something would appear to go beneath the horizon. And one of the best proofs of this is actually is Africa because before the Suez canal was ever built there's a place at the tip of South Africa called Cape Good Hope. Now I've got this name Good Hope because that's what you needed to get around it. And if you look at the AE map as a muscle equidistant map you can clearly see that if you head south to go around West Africa you're clearly going way, way, way out of reckoning. So that's what these sailors are doing if they weren't actually going southeast the whole time they're getting further and further and further from the coast because the coast actually goes severely towards the east as it goes south. And so because they believed they were on a globe all this time because that's what some smart Greek dude decided to tell them that that's what they were on, they were so far out of reckoning that they thought they'd gone far enough back east once they reached far enough south that they were nowhere near to going around South Africa. And so that is, hey, that's one of the best proofs that we have from antiquity to show how wrong the globe always was and always had been. In fact, if they had had just gone south of the west they might have even found South America by that stage because they were so close to it but all they were really interested in at the time was getting to India where rather than going to Silk Road full of all the bandits and whatnot, that it was considered safer to sail around Africa and go back up again to India. So there's so many ships around the ground and that's why we're trying to get a tape of good hoop because that's what you need. Leo or me or both? I just wanted to say one of the reasons we know the world is round is because of circumnavigating the earth because of being able to go in a single straight line and getting back to where you originally started which would not be possible on anywhere but a globe. So I know they try and present their flat pancake which once again I have seen that and it makes no sense to me it brings up all sorts of other logistical problems like I want to know on the flat disk model why is it colder in the south pole? Is there any? Why? Is it the why is there like never snow in the east? The ice stone is out here but then there's a center. Why is the center cold? Because the sun goes around the equator and sunlight is what produces heat when the light hits the ground and reflects off of things and so because it's coming in at such an angle of incidence it doesn't matter how far south the sun appears to go during our summer we still have longer, hotter summers but Antarctica is still so far outwards that even at its lowest point when the sun is nearest to us making the biggest circle around us it still doesn't have enough effect zero degrees in Antarctica that's exactly how you'd expect on our flat earth. And why would it be any different between the north and south pole in a globe, right? Because it should be exactly the same. It actually makes perfect sense on the flat earth. The earth is tilted. Oh, there's tilted so the south pole stays cold that's your answer? Well, that is the answer, yes. It's not the answer. The north pole gets a very summer. I didn't say they don't have summers as a result of not receiving nearly as intense sunlight and that's a result of the tilt and rotation of the earth, yes. But I had a more interesting question for both of us. Why would the equator not be the one? I think if I remember right, I might be wrong about this. Was it the two minutes for Leo and Amy yet? Because I can give you a chance to ask the question, Austin, but only after this. Well, I also want to know if you're answering any of the questions, James. So this isn't a debate anymore. This is one person says something and they just literally intentionally breezed past it and talked for two minutes with soap history. In about 10 seconds, I can give you a chance to ask that question, Austin, but I just want to give that last roughly 10 seconds that was left there to Amy and Leo. Well, I just want to point out, I don't think when they say that it sounds like projection. When I ask for integrity of things like the dome which we should get to in a second or no one answered what was under it why there can't be a 2D picture on a large scale, I would also like to know now that you're saying that both poles are both cold, how far away is it? Okay. So what happens is they don't answer any of the points we make and then they spam us with like 50 questions and then claim we don't answer. No one claims there's anything beneath a flat earth. You can only go 7.8 miles down. So no one makes any claims. You claim something 3959 miles down, but you also can't go any further than 8 miles. So why don't you tell me what's beneath 7.8 miles since you think you know how to prove it? We don't claim to have pictures of the earth. In fact, the fact that the equator is the hottest place on the earth debunks the globe because according to the globe, it's tilted at 66.6 degrees. So the direct ray of 9 degrees is the globe. It doesn't debunk the flat earth. And I actually have a picture, a video. Can I share my screen at 13 seconds long when someone claims that pilots have to assume the earth is curving and spinning to fly planes so they don't hit mountains. Right? Which is just, it's just a lie. So I mean I'm going to play this 13 second clip as the end of my time here because it's just, I don't understand why we have to be disingenuous. So hopefully this is going to be heard. If you're sharing video, they won't be able to hear it unless when you do click screen share, you'd have to click share audio also. So if you click share and then once you select I think we're good. So basically it's like the earth spins and curves but you fly the plane like it's flat and stationary. Yeah. So it could be flat and stationary. Okay, one more time. Yeah. So basically it's like the earth spins and curves but you fly the plane like it's flat and stationary. Yeah. Okay, so sorry. I just it's frustrating to me when people act like you have to act like the earth's a ball to fly a plane that's patently false and absurd. He would die if he did that. We'll kick it over to Leo and Amy for two minutes. Yeah, so I don't care what a couple of pilots say. I care about like the actual systems of navigation that are utilized. So I wanted to get back to the question that I wanted to ask before. What is the diameter of this flat plane that is the earth? We don't make claims about that. So you don't know. You don't know what the diameter of the flat plane that is the earth is. We don't even assume that there's like a circular diameter. It's illegal. So you're saying it could be infinite. It could be infinite. I didn't claim that. So you don't know. You don't know what it is. That's illegal to privately. 60th South latitude. The tilt of the earth is 23.4 degrees north on its axis. I don't know where you're getting 66.6 degrees. 90 minus 23. You don't measure off of 90. Do you know anything about trigonomics? You don't measure. That's not how you measure angles. Really? Yeah. Wow, you're just crushing today. You measure them off of zero degrees. Oh, yeah. You would measure the x-axis angle of tilt in either direction based off of where the x-axis is, which is zero point. Yeah. It's perpendicular to the point. Hold on. There's a little bit of if both sides are talking they can't hear either of you. So just to be sure that we have it where it's... I want to give you a chance to respond to the questions. Awesome, but I also want to, Leo, if you wrap up that point and then I just want to make sure that Austin had enough time to respond to the actual question. You go off of an axis and the axis from which you're measuring is zero. Then you go from there and then orthogonal to that axis in some defined direction assuming you're in a space where you can do that gives you your 90 degrees and also another dimension. Awesome. Yeah, yeah. So you can take it from 90 degrees either way. It's objective that it's running perpendicular to something. So that was just a grasp of straws, non sequitur or anything being talked about. You said you don't care about what two pilots say. It's not what two pilots say. It's what every single documentation of any plane ever flown ever says it's designed to fly over a flat stationery earth objectively. You claimed about the navigation. I just explained it to both of you guys. So there's something called a great circle route. She claims circle navigations impossible on a flat earth was also just patently wrong. You can go east to west updating relative to north and come back to where you started doing a circle on a flat earth. But you cannot fly a great circle on the meridian north to south on a globe earth because it's first of all legal circle navigate and no one's ever done it. And secondly, you would actually have to be updating for the earth moving underneath you east the entire way. So over five and a half hours going 550 kilometers an hour you have to adjust 3171 kilometers to the left or to the east and you never do that. So literally great meridian routes flying planes debunk the earth also everything you're saying is actually backwards. In a second, may I, in fact, can I share my screen? Sure. No one's going to address the point again. I don't even know what you said. I don't know what you're talking about. So it's just it's just like gibberating at this point. I don't think they don't realize that the earth is actually orbiting the sun and they just rather ignore the fact that it's going 66600 miles per hour. Why would I ignore that? That's just a basic fact. Well, I'm not ignoring it. It's just basic. Why would I just hold on. I do Amy, I think had somebody they wanted to show iron horse and Leo, but we'll give you guys we'll give Leo a chance to speak after for the remainder of the two minutes and then we'll come to you iron horse. I promise. Well, I just wanted to go over and I wanted to know if they had any tests. This is a paper on another case of space time curvature and relativity just quick abstracts. Now it's our author any tennis successfully measured the space time curvature by the edge of the sun there by confirming Dr. Einstein's remarkable forecast an additional test of relativity comes to mind. So this is just that we then have the curvature of the earth and I will just read after going after 72,000 feet upwards they saw the curvature of the horizon so you can check out this paper on nature and then finally from the University of Nevada you can go over why we know the earth is round but what I would like to know is why you guys think that it is flat in any published papers and when I often ask for published papers or anything in the peer review community, I get that this isn't fair but is there any universities that support? Amy, I don't think you're on the right tab. Am I not on the right tab? Wait, is this the Eric tab at the top? Is that what you're on? You had said nature and so I was like wait but that's just Eric. Well Amy's pulling that up. We want to remind you a couple of things folks if you enjoy these debates and want to see more hit that like button as that boosts us in the algorithm and we appreciate your support. And I apologize to the entire audience that was just me having a goober moment but another test of space-time curvature and relativity. Everything I was saying also is accurate to what I was just saying. I just want to show the actual journals and then I wanted to actually know if you guys have any journals or any models from peer review institutions. Because it seems like these are the guys you don't trust. The universities, the academics, the peer review journals. It's called a pill to authority fallacy and a pill to majority fallacy. That's not what that is. Very rudimentary fallacies. Just like your picture there no one thinks that's the earth. That's called a strawman fallacy. Every time that we make a point and you ignore it it's a good herring fallacy. Everything you guys are doing is fallacious. What you're doing is called the fallacy fallacy. You've got to give two minutes to Austin. Yeah. I'm specifically addressing the context of the fallacies that you're using. That's literally what you're doing. Right here I can explain to you there are tons of people like you mentioned Arthur Eddington they supposedly saw a star behind the eclipse. Because most of the people they just Google answers they don't even know them. They just repeat what the article says at the top. So I'll help you out. They said they saw a star around the eclipse. Arthur Eddington is right here saying that based on Mikkelson Morley it appears that we only had one viable alternative and that means that the velocity of the earth through space might happen to have been nil. That's a quote from Arthur Eddington talking about how the earth could be stationary. Right here is Einstein saying I've come to the conclusion that there's no terrestrial experiment that could ever prove that the earth is moving. Stephen Hawking in 2007 said you can't prove that the earth is moving. So all these claims you're making about relativity and all this stuff, the people that actually proposed it said you can't prove it's actually true. That's what relativity says and there's no physical empirical evidence for it and it's been debunked on the cosmological and quantum scale. I've explained that many times. So the problem there is that when they say you can't prove it what they mean is that when you look at the mathematics of relativity so a good example to sort of paint the picture here is if you are in a car driving down the road at 100 kilometers an hour and you go past a post that's on the side of the road you're going past that post at 100 miles an hour but there's no difference mathematically in the mathematical expressions there are equations there between the car moving past the post say north at 100 kilometers an hour or the post moving past the car south at 100 kilometers an hour but that doesn't mean that when you see a car go past the post at 100 kilometers an hour that you don't see that it's the car moving past the post what is being shown is that there's just an intrinsic symmetry entailed in the equations That's not what he said. That's all that they were expressing there when they say that they can't prove it is that you can show that the earth is moving just take the earth, make it stationary and then just move everything around it at the same speed and you'll get the same thing mathematically much the same way that if you do car past post or post past car they're mathematically equivalent that's all that they were saying and Stephen Hawking has in fact clarified that's what he's saying and I just also want to point out it's not an argument to authority we are trying to talk about what the actual authorities are so I will ask again if you have specific journals if there is some sort of scientific peer consensus that you would be able to appeal to I want to go back to this so I have the first nature article another test of space time curvature and relativity I can screen share again if you would like to well then I guess we'll just get two minutes of piece of scattergun points I understand I made one point she's scattergun points right now it's not our fault you can't follow the discussion don't self-projecture you guys each have two minutes on each team oh no it's just as long as he's conceiving that relativity is empirically sound that gravity is empirically sound if not we're gonna have to go back into those articles he wasn't able to present any articles of his own he said it was a fallacy when it wasn't so these are the actual authorities so I don't know who he would appeal to beyond himself go to Austin for two minutes okay so he's just objectively wrong he said what he is saying that's not what he's saying he literally says in context of special relativity giving a speech on Mickelson Morley being what led him to come up with special relativity is that he came to the conclusion that no optical experiment could ever prove the earth is spinning not that he has another quote that he explains that the coordinate systems could be interchangeable that's not what he's talking about here though he then goes on to a further quote which I've actually read special relativity obviously has and that's what this quote is from and he explains in excruciating detail that what he's saying is no terrestrial experiment could ever prove the motion of the earth Arthur Eddington said that in context of Mickelson Morley the only other alternative would be that the velocity of the earth would happen to have been nil they are not talking about mathematical relativity they are talking about how they actually can't prove it because of relativity and he makes it very clear he's saying that no optical or terrestrial experiment could ever prove the motion of the earth and this is cited in stubbornly elusive illusion or whatever that is called by Stephen Hawking in 2007 where he explains you can never use any terrestrial experiment to prove that the earth is motion and that's literally what relativity is saying literally what he said is patently false it has nothing to do with just math because motion is relative to how you can't prove it's literally wrong because motion is relative go ahead what you say motion is relative but what about reality now in reality that car might have been moving but the post is standing still and that's reality so you can be mathematically correct about something but be still completely wrong about reality itself the car is moving but well that's what relativity is all about it's saying exactly it's stationary and not moving the sun is moving or alternatively the sun is standing still even though it's half going over half a million miles an hour but alternatively you can say it's still and the earth is moving mathematically that's correct but in reality what's happening is the earth is still and the sun is moving so reality is basically just making up stories to try and explain why reality doesn't work according to the expectations of people who would like to believe we live in spinning ball turbulence through space we're not expecting that in two minutes I would also like to go maybe to this dome because I want to know we kind of went over last time why would love to know really what it's made out of what's its integrity if it's going to last forever why we can't seem to get scientific evidence of it don't know if Leo I don't know anything about a dome our GPS satellite set 14,500 miles above the surface of the earth so I don't understand that I don't even know what to say because I would have to give a $800 community college lecture on relativity and I don't really want to do that so there's really not a lot to say everything they said was correct it just there are symmetries in the mathematics in which you can transform the coordinates of systems and get the same results so using fancy terminology that you yourself don't really understand is just not it's not going to be good for you you can't measure the motion of the earth from the earth because motion is relative you see in special relativity when you actually go like watch lectures on it you learn about something called inertial frames of reference and so the earth is contained in an inertial frame of reference you couldn't show that it's moving from its own frame of reference because its motion in its frame of reference is relative to transformations or boosts to other frames of reference and the discrepancy between them is a difference in the motion of those two objects motion is a relative concept this was known even before Newton thank you very much and what are the Aussie as well as Austin you can go first yeah once again it's just moving the gulp I said to speak by saying well inertial actually means the art of staying still so when you say inertial frame of reference really it's a meaningless claim and that's basically what usually does is it tries to obfuscate everything in the fancy term so that the average person can understand it whereas when somebody really understands the subject they're able to explain it in such a way that even the lowest IQ person can actually understand it that's how you know your subject because you're able to make others understand it so the more you're trying to obscure it in weird references and whatnot inertial frame of reference well that's basically saying standing still so yeah the earth is standing still everything we've ever done experimental wise proves the art of staying still and the other things we observe are the things that are moving and never once does that prove that the art itself is what's moving while the other things are staying still or moving as well we have to insist that everything's moving that our sun itself is going 514,000 miles an hour now that's absolutely ridiculous we see it wafting overhead it's absolutely ludicrous once you, even if you get to that speed because first of all you've got to say that you're spinning on your axis at a supersonic speed it's about Mach 1.35 then you've got to say we're going around the sun approximately Mach 87 Mach 86.8 and the sun is moving about 670 Mach and all the globe ever has to argue so it is saying no but sound doesn't exist in space so therefore you're wrong it's got nothing to do with the sound itself it's to do with the fact that we're talking about speeds and we're talking about incredibly huge speeds none of which have ever been detected apart from watching the sun itself moving 15 degrees per hour and we watch it coming towards us it seems to get higher it seems to get lower and that's exactly how perspective works something I've proven by watching chemtrails I've watched the plane come towards me spraying a chemtrail and the plane seems to be flying straight up and then I've filmed it and as it goes over I'll film it going away it seems to be going straight down 10 minutes later that chemtrail dripped it across the sky and you can see it is absolutely perfectly parallel and flat to the ground which in itself is flat it's just a question yes can I just address that I would first of all no like to know how they can think an atmosphere can survive and if it's the dome then I would like to know I don't know it was your turn Amy I thought it was your turn to not talk right now two minutes I thought we were doing two at two Iron horse just finished on behalf of the flat side so now it's your turn so they just get two minutes total then also right correct I don't want to talk forever then yeah I've been timing it it's been two minutes each side okay it's been a very fair amount but I just want to know how an atmosphere would stay on there I would like to my saying that is the creationist to go to or the flat earthers seem to be their job is to sound technical while the scientist job is to convey information I don't know how much more time is left but I do want to screen share um one more time I just would like to get this addressed the fact that I want to know that the National Geographic Magazine of January which contains a long account of flight by Captain A.W. Stevens contains an earlier photograph taken by him in the Andes from a height of 21,000 feet which also shows the curvature of the horizon from nature so I just want to know like what journals they're getting why they disagree with the people that are submitting these or how much time do we have James 56 seconds left okay that's perfect I shouldn't take all of it but maybe I will so I find it interesting that our opponents are sitting here talking about well you guys don't seem to understand relativity no no no see Einstein Hawking they were saying this and I mean Whitsitt himself said you obviously haven't read his book Relativity the Special in General Theory will I have and this that and the other but then I start using just slightly more complex terminology and then oh well you needed you needed done this down like you're just throwing out all this fancy term I just that there seems to be a disequivalence there I find that funny they just reiterated I iron horse just reiterated the same thing well there's symmetries in the mathematics between it being the earth moving and you know everything else stationary or everything else moving in the earth stationary and I already explained how you have that in specifically the equations of relativity with the post in the car awesome and iron horse okay so obviously never said anything about complicating you being over complicated and I had it all I haven't talked since you went on your nonsense non sequitur rent but the point is that if you have an inertial and accelerative frame which is what you claim is Coriolis so you need an inertial and accelerative frame for Coriolis that means that whenever you're flying a plane on a great circle route on the great meridian north to south that you would have the earth spin underneath a plane east and you would have to account for right so I pointed out to you that you were you've been wrong every time you talked about relativity you said that they were just saying about the math being interchangeable which is objectively wrong it's not about the math it's saying we can't improve it with optical experiments meeting using lasers or any types of light we can't use terrestrial experiments it's literally what it means in the context he was talking about Mickelson Morley was his interferometry which fell to measure the 30 kilometers per second around the sun's orbit but then Michael single Pearson matched it perfectly within 98% the prediction friendship so you're just you're just hand wave dismissing everything with sophistry and that's why this is really frustrating and I call you out live so this is also Edwin Hubble explaining that if our misinterpretation of the redshift is inaccurate if our interpretation of it's inaccurate then we would actually have a limitation of spatial dimensions but with no more redshifts are not primarily velocity shifts and it's very simple that the earth is actually the center it's a much more dense much more local medium well even within your own paradigm they're now talking about their misinterpretation of redshifts and the lack of distribution into the sky so long story short the truth of the matter is is Edwin Hubble and all these people including Einstein Arthur Eddington and Steven Hawking and many others they will tell you that there's no actual empirical evidence that the earth is in fact revolving around the sun it is it is a philosophical criteria of the Copernican principle in which we think it is illogical that the earth would be in a special unique position and that would be too arrogant of us so we just interpret the data presupposing that the earth is moving philosophically because we could never actually empirically prove it yet then you have globers run around talking about how they prove that the earth is moving and we're ignorant and stupid but the truth is that the actual she keeps on asking for consensus of scientists I'm giving it to you they all tell you that there is no scientific empirical evidence that the earth is moving it's a philosophical decision objectively can I just make the notion that we are not saying that flat earthers are dumb or stupid or anything like this I know that is a common thing to be looked down upon just for holding your views I really am trying to come in here with an open mind but if our bar as skeptics as far as Leo and I are concerned I think we're both naturalists and so we want some sort of empirical prediction like models in science are actually able to make predictions that when put up to other scientists they are forced to concede that point often against their own models because the data is driven there and that's what I want to know I mean is there something can I also ask in this is there something wrong with the paper is national geographic was that what I just presented are they in on it I'd love to know I think we still have a few all you Leo 40 second or 49 seconds 49 okay yeah I just keep hearing the same things I've already explained over yeah many people who help develop relativity and used it talked about the principle of relativity I don't know why we keep reiterating the same point that's been answered three or four times now I just blows my mind there's I'm hearing a lot of words and not a lot of content and it's just it's making it really hard to like respond because there isn't anything to respond to it just it's just jibberating to me at this point I just I don't know what to do wow so yeah I pointed out that it's not actually proven it's a philosophy that he was talking about the math he's not talking about he's not talking about just the math he's talking about the fact that there's no experimental way that can ever be done to validate that the earth is in motion and now you don't want to address the point which is you guys hate the idea of religion you hate the idea of philosophy you hate your world your worldview is all oh I'm a natural I probably know much more about why are you interrupting every time okay this is the point it's ironic is I'm elucidating the ironic nature of that position is the globe earth the heliocentric model is literally a philosophy built upon the philosophical worldview of the Copernican principle and whenever you guys ask for oh you don't have consensus like her national geographic which says as you can see the curator at 21,000 feet antedetical to the actual geometric claims that Dr. Grass Tyson himself will tell you that's ridiculous but the point is that the actual experts you keep invoking and appealing to when we read them like I just now read the observational approach to cosmology page 63 from Edwin Hubble because people are asking for the references the truth is when you go look at the actual people that brought you the model including Stephen Hawking they say oh well we just choose this on philosophical grounds of modesty we must believe that the earth is spinning around because if not that would mean we have a special position in the earth and that seems unfathomable to us so you guys have been tricked into a philosophical worldview and you've conflated into science and you don't have any exclusive scientific or empirical evidence for any of the claims and yet you promote it as if you've somehow definitively proven something and since a bunch of people believe that we should just give way to you but no all empirical evidence shows the default positions here as a stationary plane so you need to fulfill the burden of proof without philosophy and I just want to say let's go Leo I've been talking a lot philosophy is very important in many ways I don't think what you mean by philosophy is what anybody with a PhD in philosophy means by philosophy you have no empirical evidence you didn't explain why two people in two different hemispheres see different skies you can't explain I can tell you're not if I asked you you wouldn't be able to explain the seasons you wouldn't be able to explain eclipses you don't have any empirical data you don't understand relativity you don't understand mathematics you keep saying well there's no experimental yet that's what I'm saying there aren't experimental results that could prove it because of the symmetry in the math like the fact that you haven't yet followed what it is that I'm saying is explicit demonstration of the fact that either you're just willfully ignoring the points that I'm trying to make or you do not have the cognitive capacity to follow along with the points that I'm laying out I don't know which one it is and this is why it's not impossible to move past these points you're not even following with the discussion and this is what makes it hard to provide responses because you're just not saying anything Amy, anything else? I don't know how much time we have one minute and one second I just want to keep on iterating although I would love to blame religion I find that I have religious brothers and sisters on this subject and to not include them would be a mistake like I said it is because of them that from a scholarly position we continue to know the world is round many of them will I would say and hopefully stick by our side throw things the identity politics and all this stuff away we're here because science and scientific consensus it's not a democracy in that not just anyone can throw but anyone actually with expertise in the field can go out and submit things or at least go out and get your results and get them published in actual journals I don't understand why that would be such a hard thing and like I said maybe this yes sure all you guys we're on horse I've been talking a lot so I'm going to let you go I just want to do one quote and then you got the rest of the time bro because they're just skating past it using ad homes at this point so I mean I think I'll let the audience decide but anyway this is Stephen Hawking he said all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look like look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe in particular it might seem that we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us then we must be at the center of the universe there is however an alternative explanation the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too this as we have seen was Friedman's second assumption we have no scientific evidence for or against this assumption we believe it only on grounds of modesty it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us but not around other points universe physicist Stephen Hawking explaining that it's a philosophical determination of modesty of the Copernican principle and we have no scientific evidence for it and that's the truth and we have all the empirical evidence iron horse you got it yeah cheers mate yeah you pretty well nailed it being philosophical as where Leo is trying to say that you have to have a PhD in philosophy in order to understand philosophy and I think that's the most erroneous thing and that's the typical standpoint from nearly everybody in the scientific field is if you don't have credentials then you're not being scientific or you're not equipped to deal with these things there's a great saying where they said that the greatest candle maker in the world would never have been the one to have invented the electrical light bulb every new advance that comes comes from somebody from the fringe who was thinking outside in the circle who has not been heavily indoctrinated or educated with the very things that they are saying that if you haven't studied all the other philosophers of the world then obviously you're not a philosopher we're all philosophers, we're all scientists we all have a valid point of view and everybody who questions things that's being a scientist so you know, Amy only had evidence to show things of whether educating children in schools and all of nearly everything you see in these science things all these things that they show it's just about teaching children it's about putting it into their minds before they've even had a chance to learn how to think for themselves whereas any free thinker well that's time I do want to say some of the links the ones that are originally showing they were college level websites and universities trying to explain gravity to children I was going back and forth whether I should show them because one of them was like the shadow test but once again I'm going back and forth because I don't want to be condescending to be here and be like this is for children because you know this is an important debate in fact I'll even say I agree with when it gets it I think this is a philosophy debate I think this is a epistemological debate because in my opinion Leo and I agree with the scientific consensus that is where we get our data from and I believe that the other side relies on personal experience if I am straw manning them then they can explain it but that is what I've seen so far so going to what I never denied the importance of the philosophy in fact when I first spoke I said that the philosophy is in fact very very important so I in fact you could say I'd affirmed what you said so I don't know why you think you can attack me on that point because it seemed that that's what you were trying to do there I don't think you could tell me what Einstein or rather Stephen Hawking was trying to explain there when he was speaking but perhaps you can give it a go next time you have the chance to speak to Flat Earth Aussie what was it that you said that I wanted to respond to somebody refresh my mind the first philosophers oh yeah I never made the statement that you needed a PhD to understand philosophy the statement that I made was that I don't think people with a PhD would understand the word philosophy the way that Witsett was using it because I don't think that he was using it the way that it seemed that he was using it in a different way that a philosopher would use the term philosophy so I did not make the statement that you have to have a PhD in philosophy to understand philosophy we'll kick it over to Austin the end Iron Horse we're also going to go in the Q&A shortly folks so hang tight for that I want to read another quote because the reason it's important is obvious that it's a philosophical preference pushed on to children as if it's scientific facts you guys come say scientific consensus over and over and you want to re-spast the meat of the point but that's not my problem the audience will hear it this is Edwin Hubble he said such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe analogous in a sense to the ancient conception of a central earth that says cannot be disproven but it's unwelcome it would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomenon therefore we disregard this possibility the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs such a favored position is intolerable therefore in order to restore homogeneity and to escape the whore of a unique position we must be compensated by spatial curvature there seems to be no other escape Edwin Hubble explaining how they had to come up with this idea of relativity and keep pushing it and migrating it towards the observations of the time because they can't prove that the earth is not central and stationary and special and they don't like the idea that maybe the earth was created and has a special position so they masquerade philosophy and religion as if it's science so it's very ironic that we are taught as if we are science deniers when we're clearly not I don't notice anything otherwise we'll kick it over we've got about 38 seconds I'll just say amen to that he's basically nailed it there is this philosophical standpoint that they don't want the earth to appear to be special it's not like we wanted to be special we didn't ask for it to be special we don't expect to be special we don't think we're special just because we're on it but it turns out that if the earth does stand in this unique position in the universe basically at the floor of it then it kind of does make it special and so we should embrace that we should be thankful for it let's not just treat ourselves like we're insignificant little bits of random space dust time we'll kick it over I'd like to jump in here if I may Amy I'll be quick because I only have a couple of points we keep going back to this philosophical thing but neither me nor my partner here in this debate have denied the importance of that I also noticed that Whitsett didn't actually explain I was expecting him to he didn't explain what Stephen Hawking meant by what he said and what Edvin Hubbell was talking about what he said which reminds me that he keeps going well here let me give you this quote and let me give you that quote and let me give you this quote this is what would be called a quote mine where one relies on snippets of quotes from people that they think support their position when in reality these people wouldn't support their position so people he's quoting wouldn't agree with the things that he's saying anybody that actually understands physics knows that they wouldn't agree with that but what was being described was this idea that at any point the universe is going to look like you're in the center of it because of its expansion and that being metric but you can't prove that because we can't go to every point in the universe so that's all they were expressing there that's all I'd like to say go ahead Amy Amy I thought and went the other way okay I wanted to bring out that special to me I can't help but get excited because I was trying not to bring up religion but I mean you went right back to God that we are a special creation and this is the main thrust behind why there is a flat earth I once again want to reiterate that I think that the vast majority of the fiest I can't even believe I'm saying this even young earth creationist would have to be on my side they would say sure God was the creator nonetheless we go with the scientific consensus because that is where all of the empirical evidence lies and you would need a new model to rebut that sort of scientific consensus you got it we'll kick it over to let's see here kick it over to iron horse and flat earth Aussie and then maybe what we'll do is maybe just for a last minute actually well since it's closing we'll give two minutes to each side and given that we had the globe earth start sorry I'm slow today globe earth started so we'll have the flat earth have the last word globe earth after iron horse in Austin and then one last time for iron horse in Austin you can you can go bro I've been talking cheers bro seems to me like Amy has been desperately trying to turn this into some sort of religious discussion which religion is basically just another form of philosophy in a way but it's one that people once they've sort of attached themselves to seem to take it more seriously than one than say a philosophy from the scientific point of view is that you are adaptable to change and I think that's what flat earth is we basically are we're all philosophers maybe religious in some way or another I was raised quite religious so I stopped going to church when I was about 14 and I started looking into eastern religions you know Buddhist and whatnot and basically the more I looked into things the more I started to accept the Christian religion so it's got nothing to do with the flat earth like a lot of people who do really believe in their religion find that the Bible has a lot of references towards flat earth and if that gives them peace of mind and comfort and helps them to be better people whatever I don't see any correlation between that and the scientific outlook of where we are like scientifically have we developed have we detected any curvature scientifically have we detected any motion or is it all just philosophical that's all a mathematical equation sort of thing and that to me is not reality reality is what we can and do observe what we can and do actually detect and so basically philosophy should be about understanding reality and not about making things up and then making formulas to fit that so that it suits your argument you know stationary plane of earth fix at the bottom of the known universe is the reality we all live with we all experience from day to day we know water seeks and finds it's stable I don't think that there's any greater philosophy than the truth and that's the truth and then Leo and Amy well I just want to first of all thank all of our analogators it has been great and if you are out there in the chatter sphere don't forget to like and subscribe and yeah I mean I wish it could be religion but Ken Hoven, C.S. Lewis Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Stephen Meyer these aren't people I would normally put in my camp and yet they are and that is because it is not just the atheist world view it is that we are willing to go where the science leads us it is not an IQ thing it is not a trying to look down or even win an argument it is if you are open to the truth if you are skeptical you will go where the evidence lies and that seems to be seemingly for a realm spherical earth you got it Leo the only thing I wanted to say is I just I haven't really heard in any good defenses of the idea of a flat earth we didn't hear any meaningful explanation of why people in two different hemispheres observed essentially did completely different skies we didn't hear explanations for you know the seasons we didn't hear explanations for gravity's ability to perfectly explain pretty much everything that it's been applied to we did hear Witzitz say that like it fails on the cosmological level despite anybody with any knowledge of cosmology knowing full well that general relativity is literally probably the greatest tool that cosmologists use so that phrase really that's why I almost choked on my beer when he said it like that one really was what I don't get it but I'll leave it there given that we gave the leader opening statement to Leo and Amy will give the final two minute with it and iron horse then we're going to go the Q&A folks I'm going to time myself iron horse so you get a minute too so yeah provably relativity's predictions on the cosmological scale are wrong this is just objective again as early as 1933 we found the only 3% of the mass predicted by relativity in the galaxies it's about distribution of what's in space and time and that's all that's there but there's dark matter and dark energy actually on science said in the sense that physical properties most exist or does exist in the ether but only in that sense it cannot be that of ponderable media so you don't understand it yourself projecting on to me but objectively relativity has been debunked on the cosmological and quantum scale it's a great university right there you have to give him his chance to speak Leo I'm sorry I really am so okay here does quantum mechanics incompatible with general relativity because of quantum field theory forces act locally through the exchange of well-defined quantum Pittsburgh or Stanford University of course there's numerous ones everyone knows that it doesn't work and that relativity is complete is incomplete at the best and so there's no evidence for that seasons work because the sun the sun moves closer or further away from a certain part of the earth while so complicated I explain the star trails are based on perception or based on magnetic calligraphy mainly guess these don't make any sense so alright iron horse you can go because that's a minute cheers brother yeah Leo seems to be a bit concerned about some of these things they're huge fields that could take hours and hours for each one to explain like for example eclipses basically what we've noticed over the centuries is that these eclipses all occur in regular repeating patterns so it's not a matter of having to believe one thing over another in order to understand that they can be predicted quite simply by the fact that they will keep happening at the same time every 18 odd years or whatever so that's neither here nor there with either model it still works for the planet the fact that we do see different stars either side of the equator simply is a matter of perspective it's like anything that you see if you travel to the next town are you going to see the same buildings you could see in the town you were previously of course not everything changes when you travel so everything makes perfect sense if you start to grasp the sense of scale and that's one thing I don't think the globes can do because they believe the sun actually sets below the horizon that you can physically see is only a few miles away I think the sun is going to be below that a few miles away it should be 6,000 miles away at least over 4,000 miles of drop we're going to jump into the Q&A do want to say folks thanks so much for all of your questions got a name a couple of things before we go into the Q&A first all of our guests are linked in the description below you have been properly exposed to them now for about an hour and a half so if you'd like to hear more if you'd like to learn more about their positions you can click on their links below right now in the description box and that includes not just here on YouTube but also as you may or may not know all of our debates on Modern Day Debate are uploaded to our podcast which also gets thousands of downloads by the way it's 100% ad free we don't make a dime off it we hope it's useful to you and our guests are linked in the description box there as well so that includes Iron Horse, Whitsit gets it Leo and Amy who are all linked in the description box there now let's jump into these questions I want to say thanks so much for your questions I'm going to move through these as fast as humanly possible this one coming in from Commercial Sound and Video thanks for your support didn't see a question but let me know in the live chat with an at Modern Day Debate if you had one you wanted to attach Deej says Iron Horse already won no need to continue thank you very much as I mentioned Iron Horse are you still in the hot tub bloody ice mate you're going to get pruned up there alright this one coming up Cameron Hall says Flurfs please use their two collective can they explain magnetic fields how can they work on your model since magnets can't be unipolar yeah it actually looks like we have a quadrupole quadrupole that on the earth and every single magnet has what's called an inertial plane through the middle of it so the better question is how come with all the scientific consensus that we've been hearing about re-iteratively all night they still can't explain the magnetic field on the earth in the globe model and Harvard explains why the dynamo threshold problem and many other things so the magnetic field can't explain on the globe earth and it works perfectly on a flat earth as there is an inertial plane in every type of magnet that exists you got it this one coming in from do appreciate it light of the twin lamp says James hi let's see are you a knife because you can cut butter with that giga-chat jawline that's very funny I'm sorry I forgot to read your super chest the other night we're going to read those in the post-credits scene by the way Daniel Hakekachu's name is pronounced Hakekachu like Pikachu with ha in the front Meladia thanks for your question says Witzit T-Jump has already given you the novel testable evidence you just choose to ignore it that's not our fault he jumped didn't do anything with him he just kept on like talking about magnetic fields that only work on a globe and he's wrong Harvard explains like I just addressed that they don't know how to explain it on a globe so yeah I don't know what you're talking about I've read all about the globe I learned all about it I read all the gravity claims all the modern claims all the modern problems I went out and tested the earth myself so it's not a lack of evidence that's the problem it's a lack of lack of legitimate physical empirical evidence to prove that the earth's a ball that spins that's the problem you got it and by the way was that over a year ago you and that was a good one that's in the debate it's been a while right two years maybe that was a good one but it's in the debate library here on modern day debate if you want to check it out folks as Aston says within I find your verbal reputations of gravity uncompelling I think they meant Witzit I find your verbal representations of gravity refutations I think they meant of gravity uncompelling please show us your corrections and calculations to the formula formula you don't know about dark matter and dark energy you didn't know that you're way off with your prediction on the cosmological scale and also on the quantum scale they want to try to differentiate it and say that it doesn't have anything to do with relativity it objectively dies though because relativity was the proposed background or the medium in which everything moves within in space okay and it was claimed specifically to have specific characteristics and not to be that of ponderable media okay that's what Einstein said and explains and yet now we have all kinds of information showing that you know for your expansion rate and for the lack of mass etc you need some other component that makes up 95% of it actually 96. something so that's the objective truth is relatively is at least incomplete it doesn't address most of what's there and it doesn't work on the quantum scale I just read it it's very easy to understand that superposition alone with the refute relativity there is no evidence for gravity on the quantum scale or the cosmological scale if it was actual it would be on all scales so yeah it's objectively not correcting every person in the field knows that can I provide a quick response to that go for it um so again like literally any cosmologists will tell you they took heavy general relativity because it's their most important to it like literally don't believe it just go to a university and ask um dark matter and dark energy we don't know what they are but we certainly know they're there and there's empirical evidence that they're there and that's because of relativity and the relativistic effects that they have on the environment around them thus confirming relativity and that's all I'd like to say on that no one disputes that they assume relativity and gravity and cosmology no one disputes that dark matter and dark energy comes from the relativistic application that's the point it doesn't adequately predict what we observe so we had to make up two different ideas and conceptual abstractions to make up for the mathematical discrepancies relativity is not correct it's objective to the next one we got a lot of questions this one for you though Leo Elijah Freeman says to Leo Paul Larson planetarium director says at international space station height with 3% of earth being perceivable the horizon would look flat not curve rebuttal I don't even know what that means I don't know who that is I don't know what they're talking about you got it this one from Mark Reid said why is it always about NASA what about Chinese space agency Russian space agency what about any of the 77 agencies from different countries around the world that say that the earth is a globe oh I I was like Austin so let me come back to that question once Austin comes back or did NASA take him from the Levoi well let's actually let's hear from you Flat Earth Ozzie does the Flat Earth model have a dome or no dome what do you think Iron Horse oh you're on mute still I'm of two minds about that I believe it could well be domed but when I read various descriptions of the firmament there's at least three translations of that from the Bible one which says it stretched out one says it's beaten like flat metal and the other says like molten glass and I believe that if somebody had never seen a frozen lake before and seen ice then that description fits all of it so it could be a flat sheet of ice that's sort of like hovered above us by the pressures of the various gasses and stuff beneath us and so it could more or less be a frozen hydrogen or one of the lightest gasses but it doesn't sort of rule out the fact it could also be dome shaped it could potentially take on the shape if in fact it is supported by some sort of wall outside and tactic as surrounding it I'm very open minded about it but I believe it could be just as flat as the Earth itself you got it this one, oh awesome they did have one for you while you went to the restroom this one coming in from Markry it says why is it always about NASA what about Chinese space agency or Russian space agency or what about any of the 77 agencies around the world that say that the Earth is a globe Austin none of them claim to have a real picture of the globe and entirety from space not one of the 77 have you seen like the Chinese landing the rover on the moon it's hilarious it's hands down the fakest thing I've ever seen in my entire life it's even worse than like our faked moon landings they don't turn to governmental space agencies I guess the idea the premise is you think they're all in on it they're all lying and blah blah blah they all agree to the Antarctic treaty so yeah they are objectively on an agreement that we can't privately and freely explore past the 60 stop latitude long story short none of those places actually offer a real picture of the Earth from space even to be claimed to be real so yeah they're pretty useless as to this discussion you got it and the Batman folks I want to remind you we're looking for substantive questions talking about so and so is afraid to debate with it or so and so is afraid to debate me it's not as substantive as we're looking for for the Q&A so we are skipping over just pure insults this one coming in from David George is where did with it hear about dark matter we're not here about dark matter I don't know when I first heard about it some years ago based on the cosmic microwave background you can look at like the european space agency explain the problems of the cosmic microwave background and many other things and then I found out that actually dark matter what we now call dark matter the discrepancy of dark matter was known for a very long time as early as 1933 it isn't like a new problem it just relativity is the best explanation we have to this day to explain things like Mikkelsen morally with special relativity and general relativity so it hasn't been updated or replaced dark matter isn't a new problem and I first heard about it because of the cosmic microwave background and how they called the distribution being central to the earth the axis of evil because again this is a philosophical world viewer religion and they you know science doesn't denote things as morally evil because it disagrees with your theory so yeah cosmic microwave background comment on do we have to go forward or it's really quick just on the axis of evil there is no axis of evil this has to do with pole measurements of the cosmic microwave background and they only exist in like a few of them and there's at least 1400 different measurements this is not even a statistical anomaly this one coming in from do you want to say Sean Hawkins by the way for some reason I don't know why you were triggered when I called out somebody about not attacking the guess based on demographic variables as always we want to follow YouTube terms of service so Sean Hawkins you're just going to have to learn how to deal with that because I did rebuke SH maybe you thought that I was talking to you when I said SH there's an actual username named SH so chill out Sean Hawkins says why is Austin scared to debate me Austin like I'll give you a chance to respond to this now I'm not scared to debate anyone I am on discord oh lookly available like all the time I debate Glovers like 10v1 regularly whether their phd's you name it so I'm not scared to debate you you'd have to come to where I am if I every single person that got triggered I take their ball way hits me up frantically begging me to debate them I would never be able to get anything done so there's your answer you keep asking you ask about Polaris which is a really stupid question so if you want to debate me come into Earth Awakenings on our Flatter discord 2.0 on discord and then you could debate me or I'm going to have a fire show here soon you can come on and behave and be cordial and respectful then you can also come on there you got it and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from hates stairs says iron horse and wits it can you elaborate on your electrostatic gravitation hypothesis it's odd to dismiss quantum mechanics but also claim a force on that scale is responsible for Earth's gravity kind of weird bro I don't know that he yeah so everything that is matter is intrinsically electrostatic all molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic that simply means all matters electrostatic we know that it's 10 to the 36 to 39th power stronger than gravity even claims to be and again Walter loon from MIT will tell you everything observed on the Earth is electric and up to thousands of kilometers and that due to the scale our nature of quote-unquote gravity it doesn't come into play until the planetary scale because electrostatics wouldn't be strong enough so why would yeah we haven't agreed upon average of downward acceleration everything that accelerates down is intrinsically electrostatic we have an electric gradient on the Earth which is equipotential increase of 100 volts per meter which means you have to have to Gaussian surfaces which answers the dome question there's obviously a surface above as is there is a surface of the Earth that's the only way you can get equipotential electric gradients and so long story short yeah we have an electric gradient we have a Gaussian surface we have everything intrinsically electrostatic as much as the air as well as the Earth therefore all downward acceleration is electrostatic acceleration objectively nice or something on the electrostatic thing quickly or so strong interactions aren't electrostatic and that's because they're stronger than the electromagnetism when you look at a proton it has two valence quarks two of those quarks have a plus two-thirds electric charge one of them has a negative one-third electric charge so why do the two plus two-thirds charges not repel each other because strong interactions holding them together are stronger than electromagnetism so in fact the structure of most matter in the universe is actually the result of strong interactions not electromagnetism you're referring to things like the Pauli exclusion principle you know electron orbitals things like that which is important I mean you're not wrong there but when we're talking about the fundamental structure of matter that's strong interactions not electromagnetism and just so you heard Leo just admitted it's all electric yeah elementary charge of two yeah that's what I said electric charge elementary charge is is electric that's charge it's literally all matters held together with electrics they have a misinterpretation of electrostatics they call it the exchange of virtual photons in particle physics so they don't even understand what electrostatics is I'm using the word electric but just objectively just so you guys know even neutrons and everything is electric within their own particle physics paradigm they just don't know what they're talking about this one from javidbenz Cosme says modern day debate there are too many people speaking over each other two versus one is not as good as one versus one I get it but at the same time folks is actually pretty darn controlled tonight sometimes I have to tell you you know it's not always going to be like if you want a boring debate channel go check out intelligence squared no offense but I mean sometimes the debates are boring and sometimes their debates are good I'll be honest but if you really want like super controlled and your grandma's type of debate channel like that's not modern day debate all over Pete Perez says can you explain the midnight sun in Norway in a flat earth model yeah the sun gets closer to the center the way I say it is the sun is always going around the equator but as it gets it spirals around every day so from the spring aquinox well it's always opposite on either side of the hemisphere so from September 22nd to December 22nd it's actually spiraling closer to the earth which makes it appear to create a bigger circle above us and as it gets higher and higher towards June 22nd that's when it appears to make a smaller circle and because of that appearance it actually shines its light directly down towards the inner part of the earth or the inner center the northern part and they'll see it more when the sun is actually furthest away from us it's exactly like when you're looking through a tunnel or a tube the nearest side is going to appear a lot bigger and the furthest side is going to be seemed to be a lot smaller but all you have to do is turn it around and you'll see that they're both exactly the same size so that's all a perspective issue and it has real world effects because the further away it is then the smaller it's above us because our atmosphere is what causes the sunlight it's not the sun itself, it's the actual atmosphere I think I hope I explained that as well this is from Oliver V Perez can you explain the midnight did I just say this one this is a David Ben Cosme says wits it witty city I don't know what came with that Mark says Leo why aren't you wearing a seat belt what does this mean I have no idea this one bro Steve Parnas says Austin always kills it he needs better adversaries backhanded compliment well ladies thanks for your question I challenge wits it to a youtube boxing match juicy and mohasdavid George says wits it I've seen Jupiter in my telescope how I don't think that we ever disputed that something called Jupiter is in the sky so I would just say to the INC if everything that you say to flat earth is a strawman and it misrepresents our actual position an intellectually honest person would kind of step back and be like maybe I misunderstand the conversation maybe I haven't thoroughly seen what it is that they're saying yet yeah Jupiter's in the sky no one disputes that planay the great word for a wandering star that's not new we know it's up there I document them as well can I just ask a quick question would it soon be in the dome would it be outside of the dome you don't we don't have to make those claims I don't know I think that there's a super fluid my god it looks like there's like something that acts like a super fluid and the mimic could actually be magnetic calligraphy projection as far as I'm concerned so I don't know that's non sequitur to debunk the positive claims of the earth and that people walked on it so I'd also like to put into sense and say that what we think of as the firmament which some call the dome it basically acts as a lens which is where the lights that we do see the sun and the stars that's what causes them to appear as physical light to us and possibly even much lower atmosphere within the 12-14 mile range and personally I do think that the moon is a physical object inside or within a dome in our atmosphere and that it actually reflects or projects the solar energy that it gets into this lower what I call firmament b the 12-14 mile 12-14 mile high place where sunlight exists I think it projects energy into that and in case of holographic projection of itself and that's why we all see the same phase of the moon at the same time that's my personal belief I don't share with other flat earthers but that's how I see it you got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question and Oliver Perez I got the one from the sun in the Norway the midnight sun right in Norway see this one coming in from David George says Mr. Monster says when a robot launches off how come it doesn't hit the firmament every single time how come sometimes the rocket keeps going into outer space there is no dome you can't actually verify rockets go to outer space I document them all the time they have parabolic trajectories I've documented them in infrared as well like yeah rockets go in the air there's no doubt but they just go over the water and parabolic trajectories why don't we ever have outside footage of seeing it continuously go in and out of the atmosphere from an outside perspective even if we did it would improve it but we don't even have that it's a long story short you can't use the begging the question the globe earth and the claims from NASA to then say can you explain this as a flat earther I mean it's a very ignorant way to go about it but you can't verify that these things go to space I don't believe space agencies they clearly lie you got it thank you very much for this question coming in from you to have heck you says what does Iron Horse think about the Pauline Panstown what does that mean I think that's a bit of a reference to an Iranian politician called Pauline Hansen and she's sort of a little bit controversial because she came out in the first place when she first started she was quite um considered racist simply because she spoke up against Asian people and I think Pauline Panstown is a comedian who makes fun of us so I try to avoid politics as much as possible I think it's all a bunch of nonsense so nothing else to say thank you very much for your question Mark Reed says after show on the Amy Newman channel open mic as well that's linked in the description folks you can find it right now and all of our desks are linked down there as well whether or not they have an after show so highly encourage you to check out their links including Amy's after show this one from Mark Reed says Witsit why did you not address the dome why did you dodge the question could you answer it please yeah I did just a second ago we have an electric gradient on the earth equipotential increase of 100 to 120 volts per meter and the only way that this can be replicated on the earth or demonstrated is to have two Gaussian surfaces and that creates a mediation of pressure that gives you an equal distribution and that's what we have on the earth showing us that there is something there of course also the second law of thermodynamics seems to necessitate that the necessary antecedent to gas pressure is physical containment so something must be containing the at most and the electric gradient works perfectly as if there is a Gaussian surface above us you got it and thank you very much for your question coming in from mister we got this bitter truth says if earth is flat then sun should be here at some point there will be no sunrise and water will fall due to edge of earth limit even travel flat your claim is because your holy book says that earth is flat I think that he covered that earlier but I mean I'll say I don't think that the earth is flat because any book or any religion as though that's ridiculous and ignorant I don't like religion I think it's stupid I think when people cop out there thinking of religion then their brain wash people kind of like the heliocentric model but I think iron horse has an answer yeah basically what you said they're trying to confuse the two models they're trying to put the flat earth into a heliocentric model whereas that's not the way it works whatsoever the flat earth is what we know is fixed at the bottom of the known universe and what we see moving around above us is what we see moving around above us we don't assume there's an edge only people who have been indoctrinated into the globe or false models even think about an edge an edge is not even part of our equation this one from Joshua Kelly Leo says Leo pompous attitudes and ignoring the rebuttals that's not a good way of showing intelligence in your argument well the point of an argument isn't to show intelligence to begin with so I don't know if they understand what the point of an argument is number two I don't think I did that so it doesn't matter and if I may just really quickly to comment you know it never mind I forgot the point I can't you got to this one from do appreciate it Robert Summers says it's hilarious how much the flat earth folks hide not having a model sorry some of these are a little bit punchy I have a flat earth model they say hold on once I adult so they can say quote we don't claim that tell me one positive claim and it's evidence Austin or iron here's a dielectric plane with an inertial plane because we have a magnetic field so it has to be within an inertial plane so in a way that it could exist there's a dielectric electric or electrostatic plane topographical plane that's stationary it's got a lot of electrical evidence supports and I do have a flat earth model her name is Kai it's my wife you got it this one from can I also before you do that I just want to make a quick comment I don't know how you could get a finite flat earth without an edge it would have to be infinite for there not to be an edge container could touch down Amy we talked about this last time and the fact that you can't have a model of reality reality works at full scale so everything that we see works at full scale it doesn't work on a smaller scale so to try and think of earth in a model you have to actually go outside and look at things to see happening at real full scale to understand how it works you cannot model it down unlike the heliocentric model we need to see things in tiny models thunder storm both are wrong according to their own research since mountains are not flat and the earth without water doesn't look like a sphere apigraphical plane has been said a solid 20 times right the earth without water does look like a sphere a sphere which is the word specifically I use this is just like this one from this one from spheroidal as in iron horses bicep that's what we mean by that this one coming in from the lee boy says how has the dome never gotten dirty or worn out why has condensation never collected on it why is it pristine how do you know it has or hasn't collected on it or what condition it's in when you can't go there it's illegal to probably explore across the south latitude it's illegal to even try to shoot rockets up that high of an altitude you have to get permission from the government to get a certain type of fuel to ridiculous question maybe go ask the government while they have declassified documents that say that they had an approximation method to determine the brightness of the firmament container on the earth and that their approximation method was proven accurate maybe that would be a good question not to mention that observable laws of density and buoyancy and things like dust and smoke and what not to not reach above a certain height so it automatically it's self cleaning doesn't even have anything to clean from it just doesn't nothing reaches it can I make a point to that because it was the point that I wanted to make earlier do we need to move on I don't know if you want to make a quick point so notice how when the flat earthers are pressed to actually give the details of the model things that sort of just like follow from from what they're saying they always talk about well we can't show that where we're not allowed to go there there's always an excuse when it comes time you know when the chickens come home to roost they come home empty when you when you're talking with flat earthers no look at hams this guy's crushing well I didn't I didn't add ham I don't think you know what that means are always just like vague dismissal insults no that's not what it is anyway yeah it is there's nothing about the history of what we've detected about the firmament in the first place but it is interesting you just said you couldn't detect it when Amy asked you the government says they have an approximation method to determine the brightness of the firmament and the approximation method was proven accurate this one coming in from do appreciate your question David George says wits it word salad so delicious so sad Po I forgot what you mean again so a Po is that they are so close to a line it's almost unavoidable are they a troll or do they actually believe it it's hard to tell that is a Po but I love all of our interlocutors here we'll give we'll give Austin a chance Austin are you a Po this person they're insulting your honor yeah well I mean I know for a fact that what they told us the earth is is 100% not true and that's why I don't make definitive claims about the earth in entirety because that would be dishonest and in addition word salad is when something literally doesn't coherently make sense in the order that it was presented like blue chicken wall egg yesterday why that's not what I did I made very coherent concise points that isn't word salad maybe look up the words if you don't know but the truth is yes I do think what I say I would never be able to live with myself to go around promoting lies can I speak one point about the last question with the dome it is interesting that not only are there smudges but you would think there'd be cracks or some sort of integrity problems either it is self-maintaining or someone is maintaining it will I send the rep replace itself because if the temperatures are that cold then the gases that are up there composing the actual thing then they're completely just freezing straight back into place the minute we hit them with a nuclear bomb assuming nuclear bombs even exist so whatever sort of firepower is sending at them it is self-repairing and in fact if you're also looking to operations high jump and deep freeze well even admiral bird admitted that the second one whatever I can't remember the exact order they come in but the second mission was the reconnaissance mission and the reconnaissance mission was to try and retrieve a machine that was used to drill through the so-called wall which itself repaired and was growing back around it and they couldn't get the machine back and that's after they retreated and there may have been a lot of other events that they haven't disclosed at this stage but basically that's the reason why we have the Antarctic Treaty is because we cannot penetrate this so-called wall it self-repairs this one comes from Mr. Monster says Ocean currents prove that Earth is rotating via the Coriolis effect do you disagree? well what proves it? he said ocean currents prove that Earth is rotating via the Coriolis effect it doesn't rotate via anything and the Coriolis effect is that of the inertial accelerative frames of reference giving you a different perceivable differentiation, yeah a inertial accelerative he just shakes his head and all the time it's so frustrating I'm not actively wrong with shaking his head no I don't understand but anyway inertial and accelerative frames you're so smart guy so inertial and accelerative frames but I explained how actually North to South debunks that because they didn't claim the atmosphere moves in lockstep with the Earth and then I also have a letter from Einstein which very clearly says that view to the Machian principle as he wrote in 1913 if the Earth was stationary but the sky was moving around it you would get a translation of motion to the interior Coriolis and centrifugal effects and that's Einstein applying relativity himself explaining that principle has to be true to invoke the Arthur Eddington experiment so these are just things that people don't understand I don't dispute that there's some type of effect because there's an ether vortex drift that we're top of the Earth as far as I'm concerned but it doesn't really matter it doesn't prove the Earth is spinning and even Einstein would tell you that this one from bitter truth says in order to prove Earth is flat you must know cosmology with it what is universe expanding equation my gravity is so weird yeah so like the Friedman equations the idea that the universe is expanding in all directions that's the problem is because we looked and saw even distribution away from the Earth at the center point and so then we only had two options one is that the Earth is the center point or two is that it's going to look like you're at the center no matter where you are that was the quote I invoked with Stephen Hawking that's what he's clearly explaining earlier was well either the Earth is in the center in all directions and we determined that we believed the latter on grounds of modesty meaning it's a philosophical Copernican principle that you would have to think that you're in a special unique position to think the Earth is in the center so we disregard it so I mean it's pretty simple yeah the universe expands in all directions allegedly and even distribution relative to your perceivable location in whatever part of the universe it is which is an ad hoc explanation to explain what we saw and we've now debunked it and now you're off by 10 to the 120th power with your expansion assumption David George we got that one bitter truth says where did all the anti-matter go what is quantum physics explain me string theory how black holes form and why there's high gravity in the center of a black hole they don't ask they don't say who these questions are for I presume it's for Austin based on their last motion I mean I can explain those things I don't think Austin could these are global questions Leo stop self-projecting dude I would debate you I don't know what that means so it's impossible it's impossible all you do is like you're coming across like really kind of condensing here you are concerned about so to answer the question there's just to hear what Austin was saying there while I think he was accusing you of interrupting and then you interrupted them while he was accusing you but we'll come right back to you Leo go at Austin give you another 10 seconds and then we'll come back to Leo yeah all those different things are things that I fight against the idea of all the reification fallacies within quantum and cosmological current studies so I don't I don't feel a need to answer I think he was maybe asking the global but I'm just saying like condescending remarks void of substance of specificity doesn't actually mean anything in the real world taking it to Leo go ahead Leo yeah so from somebody who actually understands the field of cosmology at least better than what it does what I don't know what they mean when they say explain quantum mechanics string theory the only thing you need to know about it is this wrong where did the dark matter go I don't understand that question go anywhere why are wise black why is gravity high in a black hole because they're an extremely large amount of mass and an extremely small location relative to the amount of mass which naturally because of Einstein's field equations results in extreme curvature and space time this has been very very very precisely measured it's well understood and it explains numerous features of the reality that we observe you gotta thank you very much for this question coming in from Samir Farsane says the moon is a globe no a globe orbiting a pizza this one coming in from David George this I don't know this is what from him say it says for Austin great job can you tell everyone about the impossible lunar eclipse coming up thank you yeah in early November a cell and no in eclipse is supposed to occur and be observable from the east coast so knowing eclipses where the sun and the moon both appear in the sky during the lunar eclipse which is a geometric impossibility according to the global earth model the earth blocks the light from the sun and cast a shadow into the moon of course they claim that it's just an illusion and it refracts both the sun and the moon up even though it's actually beneath the horizon and we see the sun but it's not really there but you have to sell a million eclipse which debunks the global earth model as also knows the impossible eclipse and it happens in early November on the east coast can I just ask about if either of you because we are driven to black hole cosmology because of gravity and so my question would then be do you guys believe in black holes no it's just an idea and actually relativity can't even be applied to singularity so it actually can't mathematically even compute black holes yeah it helped with the prediction of black holes but it can't be applied to a singularity so no I don't believe in fairy tale mathematical constructs this will come in from do appreciate your question Dave Hinkel says for the glovers please provide a valid direct measurement of earth curvature repeatable and verifiable hydrostatic equilibrium as a result of its gravitation meeting the resistance of the material that which the earth is made of which is the reason stars and planets are spherical you got it thank you very much for this question coming in from Gord Zilla 37 if empty hubris proved the globe looking for more than just an insult this one from hillside says Leo I actually want you to read it I'm sorry please change Leo you're behaving like a child who has had his ball taken away relax they lied I can act that way who is it that they mean lie do they mean that the people who told you that the globe who knows they didn't lie just because we can look at the data it's independent of the person it's all presupposition that begs the question bro well here to make it fair David George says James wits it lies why explains you've got plenty of people on both sides people get fired you know I've told people I don't understand it myself but this is one of the most fiery contentious topics like no joke we host abortion we host everything and this flattered versus globe is probably the most aggressive topic there is some of you are saying this flattered what's the next stop flying east from the US England, Greece, India China, Japan then what if USA again it's a globe if not and why east to west circle navigation is 100% possible on a flat earth isn't complicated bro so please stop saying that it just makes you look just draw a circle draw a point in the middle and then put a compass there you're going to update relative to north and come back to where you started the only thing impossible on a flat earth would be north to south circle navigation you got it and this one thank you very much for your question Dave Hinkle for the Glovers please provide a valid direct measurement of earth's curvature repeatable and verifiable also I think Leo did give an answer for that I just want to ask if they would be able to do the shadow test that we've been doing for thousands of years if we could get some sort of empirical data in fact if it was a flat disk it should be that many of the same lights ahead would be directly over at all the same time but they're not that's why we have time zones they have radically different hours depending on where you are on the globe gross misunderstanding of everything sorry send in love right back to me too you got it if we consider that the sun is actually local as we describe it to be then that's exactly how it works is the hour hand above the clock face of the earth which is similar to a 24 hour clock face and so of course that's exactly how it works the stars move about 4 minutes per day faster so that's why we all see the same stars at different parts of the southern hemisphere at night time because we have local time zones and we only see the stars at night they're actually going slightly faster than the sun so everything works exactly as you'd expect it once you understand how things should appear above the stationary plane of earth you got it thank you very much for your question I just put a poll in the live chat this is a juicy one we've never done this before in particular it has four categories I'm flat earth and my side either one or lost and when I say one or lost obviously what we really just mean is who is more persuasive so sometimes people are like there's no such thing as winning but anyway Mr. Monster says does every flat earth does every flat earther believe believer think that images from the James Webb telescope are CGI and why reference Hubble instead of modern day scientists because the actual postulations that Hubble made are still the foundational glue of what we think to this day that's why I'm explaining that even he will admit to you that if we're wrong about redshift the earth could be geocentric in a much more dense environment where the lights are much more local and it could be much younger and now James Webb ironically is saying that redshift is wrong I tried to explain that I was trying to cram it in within two minutes so no I don't think that the images are entirely fake you can take a picture of this guy but they are of course layer with RGB filters red, green, blue and then they are enhanced via computer imagery and this is just well known so that's the problem the interpretation is the problem and then your presupposition of redshift is also a problem which is why Hubble was brought up because he's basically the father head of your position and he explains it's just a philosophy no we observe it, it's not a presupposition they readily admit that all the images yes we do there's a lot of artistic impressions taken from radio waves anyways they're not even seeing what they're saying background radiation I just got to point out that when he says we see it just so the audience knows we objectively don't, what we see is that there's even distribution with the earth at the center and they say oh well it would look like it was the center no matter where you were in the universe so we actually see the opposite of what they claim objectively that's actually not, just for the sake of the audience that's not at all what we observe there's a lot of plastic redshift but we can actually factor out the redshift as a result of the gravitational radiation because the light is traveling over such a long distance that's known oh my god what is it the something sacks, something sacks something like that I can't remember right off the top of my head but that's how well measured it is that we can separate the redshift as a result of gravitational lensing from the redshift as a result of the expansion observed for over 100 years it doesn't rely on interpretations we literally look out and see this you can deny it that's fine you're wrong, you can be wrong and you can be happy and you're wrong I'm not emotional I'm just showing that you're wrong, you don't know what you're talking about you don't understand anything about cosmology cosmology isn't a religion and you should probably not talk about things you have no understanding of gotcha and this one coming in from do appreciate your question nominal says Leo considering the majority of the universe is claimed to consist of dark matter slash energy what proof do we have of its existence and why is it important to gravitational theory because we measure dark matter through its gravitational effects in the rotations of galaxies galaxies rotate so quickly that if it was just baryonic matter which is sort of the matter that we can see holding them together that it couldn't hold them together they're rotating too quickly but they don't fling apart why and why is it also that they lens light more than they should and we can there's more mass there than there should be well there's obviously something they're contributing to the mass most cosmologists think there's some particle we can't observe that is that because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic radiation there some think we have to make modifications to gravity but nobody in cosmology denies that the anomaly is there and with respect to dark energy that's just the fact that the universe expands exponentially quicker over larger scales than it does on shorter scales and some energy is going to have to contribute to that and that's what dark energy is so these are directly implicated by the observations we make the fact that we don't fully understand exactly what they are doesn't remove the fact that the anomalies are there and we know that they are there mathematical discrepancies because relativity is wrong they're not mathematical discrepancies alone but go off about things you don't understand if you had a question I did not see it in the live chat so just at me at modern day debate and I saw a super chat but not that question in particular this one coming in from where do the votes that disappear beyond the horizon go after they disappear they don't always disappear at the same location like a physical tangible earth curvature this is just objective see this is what's funny they say that we can see the curvature of the earth from the surface then we say look the horizon is 10 times too far they say oh you never see the actual curvature of the earth it's just the apparent location because of refraction you can never see it then they turn around and say again that's blocking that boat when we zoom in we can see the boat again it changes based on angular resolution limit perspective and then the conditions of the most of the air which is what you're looking through and then you eventually reach where you can no longer see any further so it's not even it's not even complicated I don't understand why it's so misunderstood I mean this is why my boy Eli superchatted to talk about the ISS and they just skated past it how they explained that the ISS would only see 3% of the earth from that height and you wouldn't see the curvature that's supposedly he said 5 to 8,000 miles they claim the ISS is 255 miles and they claim you cannot see the curvature and then Amy's showing us citations of 20,000 feet you see the curvature now you're claiming we can see it on the ground and the ironic part is they'll say left to right instead of straight on blah blah blah you can't see the curvature according to the math and you guys just go around saying that you can it's just kind of weird so can I just make a point about that I would want to know do you have any papers that are actually saying that there is no curvature again it's not saying no curvature Parla Larson the planetary director of the world's biggest planetarium you never see the curvature of the earth on the ISS at 255 miles shows the math because you only see 3% of the earth and you just claim that you can see it at 20,000 feet in a plane so see but don't you I asked for a paper and you're like this one scientist who Leo and I probably think you're quote mining like that's why we asked for papers because it removes human bias it removes just our feelings or opinions about it no no peer review with human bias baked in doesn't remove human bias peer review removes bias so I don't know so I can close a theory explaining that the etheric framework that would absorb quantum no because it's not rooted in any any debate me as I would destroy it yeah I know it's because you don't understand the subjects self-rejecting intellectuals look like a fool like you do now says a guy with veins popping out and I just put it in place this one is we'll give you a short and pithy one iron or thank you mate I've made a video about perspective and it's pretty straightforward is that everything beneath you converges upwards towards either everything above you converges downwards to our level and that's why we have a convergence points that we call the horizon and we can't see through the horizon because everything beneath us isn't see through so it's a pretty straightforward thing but anything that gets further away than that point of convergence of your eye level which is due to your viewing height it's just not going to be seen so it's not actually going below it or it's not disappearing anyway it's just been hidden by things nearer to you which visually appeared bigger thank you James this one coming in from who must move fast nominal says the invisible matter that we can't detect is called quote-unquote dark matter from NASA I don't know what NASA has to do with this this was this was observed like independent of them like that there are tell it like every telescope can measure this this isn't I'm just I don't understand why they rely so heavily on NASA as if like NASA is the only the only institution that talks about this like it's just it just demonstrates how little they actually understand of the subject objectively we don't know what dark matter is it's a mathematical discrepancy based on the relativistic but I no one knows what it is they say we know it's there electromagnetic spectrum of radiation so they can't prove it they don't know what it is you're right and we know it's there what's your point the discrepancy based on your presupposition begging the question of relativity in the heliocentric model no so they say it doesn't react well I didn't say that I never said that we did can you tell me why galaxies are held together despite orbiting at rates that should fling them apart yeah we have a much more dense medium yeah so what what is that what is that I don't know what you mean by superfluid I don't even think you know what a superfluid is can you tell me what a superfluid is you'll get there you don't know what a superfluid is you don't know what dark matter is and you just claim that you can see no I never said no I never said that all you can do is from and everything because all you do is the person said I don't understand when you hear my voice that's a great time I'm the one that's my role to bring order so if you hear my voice I don't understand why you wouldn't defer to me instead you want to keep talking over me so this will give you a chance to respond with it really short and heavy because we do it we've got to we spent a lot of time on this question so short and pithy and then we've got to go to the next one oh yeah by definition it doesn't react with the electromagnetic radiation or electromagnetic spectrum which means you could never see it saying you see it is nothing like that we see that the galaxy is allegedly new to space too fast if we assume relativity and the hallucinogenic model yes there's a mathematical discrepancy relativity has been debunked this one coming in from did iron horse really expose himself during this debate someone in live chat said this is coming in from brandy beckett says flat earth believers what evidence would convince you that we actually live on an upside down pyramid earth what that was for us yeah we're of the opinion that we try not to believe in ridiculous impossible things that's why we understand the earth is flat water to behave we understand that water must be contained by higher edges on all sides not just somewhere outside out of mind so whenever somebody presents a ridiculous proposition we just think okay yep next can I just comment that the reason that water is contained is because of gravity nice nice reification fallacy what is being reified the idea of gravity a conceptual abstraction that attributes physical properties to space and time that we can measure objectively and have for hundreds for over hundred years you cannot measure space and time bending and yes we can we have yes one what do you know what no just one question do you know what a little rents boost is I don't I know I didn't think so I didn't think so by the way I want to say this so they claim that they measured a gravitational wave displacement in LIGO this is one of the measurements they have for cargo and it's the idea it's the idea that they measured the displacement of a string one ten thousand one ten thousand the width of a proton yeah wow gravity proven you don't have proof for it it's a concept I don't know what you mean by string it doesn't use strings it uses lasers and yes we can measure we can measure the sensitivity in the displacement of those lasers on those scales that that's what like supercomputers do well how do you think we like observe the Higgs boson how do you think we've done the deep any elastic scattering to know what protons and neutrons are made of yeah you just know fuck all about physics you probably couldn't tell me what a tensor is relativity has been debunked on the quantum and cosmological scale this is just object you're literally just a parrot in a cage at this point and that is also not true the quantum mechanics and general relativity are facts the theory of everything which is a PR term is us trying to figure out how to tie both of these facts together you are wrong you'll get there that's what that's the opinion of physicists but I just read Pittsburgh University saying that they're incompatible so we can move on the sinister porpoise says has iron horse solved the P versus non-P problem does he mean the Q some sort of C window if P not Q sort of thing I don't know what's he talking about the P versus NP I'm sorry James W says after show on Amy Newman's channel defend your flat earth sky daddy as they say okay open mic James still getting a lot of feedback buddy see it bounce off your mic that's true and but yes all of our gas Austin and Leo and iron horse name your link to the description and after show on Amy's channel this one coming in from Samir says flat earth you have a model on formation of rock pizza uh no one claims a pizza that's called a straw man policy Elijah Freeman says Leo said we can see the globe from the international space station Paul Larson says that's mathematically impossible respond to previous super chat given the clarification Leo well nothing was clarified you just said well some guy disagrees okay I don't care show me the math then okay we'll be sure and message the math and you can see it because people on the international space station have said yeah you you can see it I don't think I said that you can see the globe if I did then you're just nitpicking at words obviously what I meant is that we can see curvature on on the earth from the international space station also I just wanted to clarify when I said the international space was like 8000 or 10,000 something odd miles I completely missed but I was trying to talk about the GPS satellites not the international spacing that's like what 245 250 miles above the and then I looked it up in the GPS satellites are 14,500 above well I just I just misspoke well naturally everything I just want to say I just want to say this so actually with the whole curvature from space you can do the math yourself okay and there's a video it's on my channel when I debunked the astronaut in OTS but there's a video where you can hear Don Pettit and astronaut on the ISS talking to another astronaut about how once they use the fisheye lens it drastically changes it and the other guy says wow I'm gonna have to start learning how to use this I love the fisheye lens literally they use it and they're talking about something that imposes curvature onto it it maintains a certain angle so if you're looking down you'd have a downward convexity imposed onto a flat earth it's not even slightly complicated to explain even if there were people up there and that distance is not accurate this one coming in from Brandy Beckett says how thick is our flat earth iron horse says thicker than a bowl bowl of oatmeal we'll give you a chance to respond yeah I don't believe that the earth has a thickness I believe it's potentially limitless but to the best of our knowledge as Witz had already mentioned earlier we can dig down to as deep as about 7.8 miles which isn't very far really it's not even they say the thickness of the crust is about 14 miles so to believe that earth even has a thickness I think it's basically in a relevant question all that we do know is that the earth we only need the top few inches of soil to grow our food and it floats above or sits upon some great depths which are really not necessary to know never gone deeper than 8 miles so why would we make a claim beyond that only the globe earth does that geology constantly changes yeah right it's called tectonic activity thank you for affirming you're changing you are such a clown the entire globe earth prediction the whole way down 7.8 miles was inaccurate with temperatures the amount of moisture the amount of density the actual elemental composition it was wrong the entire way down 7.8 miles you just don't know what you're talking about this one coming in from something that's calibrated to work sorry James sorry something that's calibrated to work in the medium of air and so as soon as you put it through a the ground or through a vacuum or whatever you believe it to be then that calibration of the thing they're using how many waves per second that's propagating is going to differ and it will give you completely a false reading this one coming in from I just want to know do you guys think there was a time when the government agencies didn't have control when people could just freely go to the dome and see it and come back and oh I'm sure you could do that sorry go ahead a huge amount of technology even building ships most ships weren't designed to go much more from one island to another or one continent to another to actually travel beyond Antarctica and once you hit that ice you need an ice breaker to even get to the ice wall which is even just Antarctica and then you've got nothing you've got no supplies, no food, no nothing so I really don't think that it really mattered to people of the past and really to us now I think the only way we can do it is with airships something that can float above it all and who knows we might even hit an actual wall and not be able to go any further so yeah I don't see that as particularly relevant to what people of the past are capable of doing can I ask do you want to move on James if it's really short and pithy I can give you a chance no it's fine because it was a question so you just go ahead and continue I'm sorry Samir says are there people living on the bottom side of the flat earth nice touch again no one makes claims like that it's so weird that you guys ask questions like that he just explained to you that I've seen it's like an irrelevant question and the deepest you can go is 7.8 miles that's the deepest ever dug so why ask us the question when the truth is you're the side making claims beyond what can be verified we're not doing that that's our whole point we want to empirically verify this they still think they're in outer space that's why they think that way this one coming in from do appreciate your question you guessed it brandy back at strikes again if we have no way to know how thick our your flat earth is then how do we know our earth is not actually an upside down pyramid shape well we don't have empirical evidence for that so we would have to be able to get to the area where you could measure some drastic steep drop off for anything like that to be viable and also physics alone doesn't allow that so we again it's based on what can be empirically demonstrated the earth is improbably and measurably a topographical plane when they ask the globe there's what we always do for direct physical measurement of curvature he then says oh well I think that's how hydrostatics would form around the earth and it become a ball because there are no direct physical measurements of earth curvature and they're only showing a topographical plane that's all we are addressing is what we know and what it does is falsify what they hold us the earth was that's the whole point thank you very much for this question coming in from coffee mom iron horse why is it day for you and night for us on a flat earth model well I did actually explain that a little bit earlier is I basically said that the sun is small and local and it acts basically as the hour hand of what we would think of as a 24 hour clock basically going around the equator getting higher and lower to give us the seasons and so wherever it's directly overhead which now it's actually 1pm here in Australian time 2 minutes away from so some in the middle of the day so therefore whoever is diagonally opposite if I pointed straight north and went the same distance through the north pole to the other side well that would be virtually there 1am in the morning that's exactly how it works is exactly how you'd expect it to work the earth is divided into 24 slices of pizza if you want to use that terminology and that's our time zones that makes absolutely common sense and in fact what doesn't work is if we were on the globe and we were going around the sun and we use a clock to measure ourselves spinning once every exactly 24 hours then every normally moved a degree around the sun which is nearly a day then our clocks would actually be out by about 4 minutes so that every 6 months we'd actually be having mid day at midnight according to the clock so the clock is flat earth proof because it exactly measures 24 hours every single day you gotta thank you very much for your question coming in from sky scion says I think Amy's obsession with religion shows that Amy is the one in a religion but she doesn't even know it lol I always appreciate when anyone uses the word religion in a negative manner so I just want to thank the questioner we should keep on doing that but no I've been actually doing trying to do the opposite I really I want to go as big 10 as possible yes especially the ones that are for scientific consensus when I which I think are actually the majority are on Leo and I side and so it would actually be easy and simple for me to just make this an atheist verse theist debate but no I think this is an epistemological debate this is about do you accept scientific consensus or is it about personal experience this one is a religion rap says Leo and Amy please explain why flat earth is foolish dirt I don't know if that's like a if they're calling you a dirt or I don't know obviously wrong and that's all I have to say the strongest reason very profound it's obviously wrong if it's obvious then you should be able to demonstrate how it's obvious I can I have well I just want to say you know it is easy to just say that someone is stupid or something like that and to dismiss I think that skeptics we deal with a lot of in our opinion superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs but I think it is actually worth the time and energy to go through the research to figure out why they view the way they are we will consistently say you do not lose or gain intelligence by being a theist as an atheist or a theist so I would have to say you do not lose or gain IQ points by being a flat earth there I hope that Leo and I are just trying to appeal to good science for the empirical all you have to do is prove that it's wrong you know like if we can prove we have we prove the globe is wrong by there's no motion there's no curvature everything can be explained by perspective and diminution of things getting smaller distance at all exactly according to everything we expect to see on a stationary plane of Earth so if you are going to prove the stationary plane of Earth wrong you can't just say we have we've got thousands of proofs that's what you all say but you've got nothing you've never done it but I would worse to defend a belief that we have proven wrong I just want to say one final thing I don't think that either of our two interlocutors here Amy could like outline at least two of the points that we've made tonight so I don't think they're really in a position to say you haven't proven this okay whatever they're like five they're like the first points we heard when we first looked into flatter you're not even past the surface level misrepresentations and you guys often times you begging the question fallacies and then you assert your presupposition as if it actually proves what's in contention it's such a rudimentary fallacy that it just shows Dunning Kruger is clearly present but how are we using a begging the question fallacy in every scenario like with questions being asked for an example he said just everything I started to give it but both you guys interrupted because that's what you guys do you have to fundy mute the other because you don't answer questions you literally answering it but the floor is all yours sure yeah so the begging the question would be for example taking Aristothenes who presupposed a distant sun an infinitely distant sun with parallel rays and no refraction and then assume the Earth's sphere and then use spherical geometry or geodetic surveying that assumes the Earth's sphere use geospherical geometry this is begging the question fallacies this one from John we got this one Samir Farzain says gas in the dome why asteroids don't burn sooner can we see some asteroids please I don't I don't think that you at least comment well it's not an asteroid but it's common just hear Austin finish his sentence Leo for crying out loud yeah like actually all the meteors for example come from the same six radiant sources in a reoccurring cycle you don't ever see things come down from the sky and hit the Earth from magic outer space none of that's real they claim the reason the reoccurring is that things are dragging debris around in a cycle around us or maybe there's just a reoccurring electrical cycle to the sky and what's around us so yeah there's no evidence for these things and every time that they claim it's about to hit the Earth all the fire there's just chick kill bet can like maybe drink a beer and chill and laugh and then you guys are like oh we're all gonna die but you're not asteroids aren't real that's all part of the religion used to scare brain wash the masses go ahead Leo I don't I don't even remember the point I just want to point out that outer space is real we are orbiting our nearest star and the reason that we are able to breathe is because gravity holds an atmosphere here faceless reassert it again and again and again I'm explain facts Jesse L says Leo how far can we see on a globe model in what direction I mean that doesn't specify a lot I don't have much to work with here are you talking about outer space well what device are we using I have no idea I don't he's talking about over the earth I still what device are you using binocular like I'm not I don't have any specifications I can't it shouldn't matter there should be physical or curvature blocking you at a certain rate which is 1.225 times the square root but you still see off your telescope is gonna go off into like space and stuff like that so I don't understand how that solves the problem you'll get there this one from sky scion says Leo sounds like the kid in class that didn't study for the test when the teacher calls on them they make stuff up to try to sound prepared we see your cartoon poster Leo keep worshipping the 2D the 2D well space is four dimensional so I have I don't know what that means I also rather excelled when I was in school so I don't I don't know why people comment on like stuff like that it I also just want to jump off that we actually have nothing but cartoons and CGI to represent the 2D flat earth model now I know that is the lingo that they use however we have pictures we have videos we do not get the same in return we literally don't they're all CGI admittedly Himawari is stitched together and admittedly not real their website explains that they just take stipulations of data are stitched together data and put it on a flat on a globe earth assumed model of the blue blue marble you don't have real pictures we don't claim that anything is 3 2D we told you seven times in this debate that we've dug down eight miles and then you continue to straw man us with a 2D something which is ridiculous and goes to show that once again all you guys can do is beg the question and then use ad homes and then use straw man fallacies so I think the audience should understand for late fallacious arguments usually come from the side that is wrong well fallacious arguments doesn't mean that you're wrong it just means that the argument that you're using to the conclusion is is not correct it doesn't bear on the conclusion at all number one number two the distance drilled into the could the distance we've well that's not a straw man you're you literally just made the statement you're making fallacies and that implies that you're wrong except that it doesn't learn a fucking logic course so secondly digging down eight miles into the earth doesn't mean anything about its shape so I don't know why you keep bringing that up so yeah you're just not even on topic I explained we talked about the depth numerous times in the debate so stop straw manning us about something being what am I strong at it I'm explaining Amy just said that it was 2d we talked about the depth of the earth I'm not a three times so yeah but you responded secondly I didn't say that because you use to you not Amy I'm not saying that because you use fallacies you're automatically wrong you could be debating something that's the truth and just not be good at debating just be ignorant and you could use fallacies what I said was usually when the only thing that one side has is fallacious reasoning it typically is coming from the side that is wrong we think you're using fallacies you think but I just now continue we must move on I want to say folks one interesting thing is we did a poll earlier in terms of which side you thought was more persuasive consider this if you thought if you thought that your side that you were let's say here and seeing represented on behalf of you was more persuasive great reason to share the channel for real consider it if you share this video and you thought your side was much more persuasive well then you could say that your side one on a neutral debate platform and you can share that link with other people so that they can see it and that helps us as we're trying to expand this neutral platform where we give everybody a shot to make their case on a level playing field so if you haven't yet go ahead and share the video if you thought your side was more persuasive whether it be a discord group twitter group facebook you name it and this question coming in from says better sci-fi movie the matrix or terminator to what do you think the matrix or terminator to what was a better movie I've only seen the matrix and it's pretty good I actually think everything is backwards in the matrix and that the angels are the good guys and neos and Christ but I've never seen terminator so I'm not at the same matrix also I just want to piggyback off I do when I said two dimensional and I heard someone say it before me nonetheless my point was that you don't have anything but drawings or CGI and so that would be the actual point not focusing on the two dimensions because you can make a three dimensional flat earth drawing or CGI my point would be you don't have any actual photos or video of a flat earth so I didn't straw man you Amy not at all I didn't think so literally all pictures ever is of a flat earth and admittedly for the 15th time in this debate they don't even claim to have full real pictures of the earth being a globe in entirety in all of existence other than 1972 moon missions for like the tenth time so whatever bro all you have a CGI that's not answering my question I asked you why do you not have anything but cartoons and CGI and you're like all they give us is cartoons and I said all pictures are of a flat earth that's what I actually said but that's okay you'll get there you'll get there you can say I'll get there what you said was very silly but I still heart you I still heart you this one coming in from do appreciate your question thunder storms at the earth without water is shaped like an egg not a sphere what water just doesn't behave that way water fills its container and it will create a flat and level surface between any and all edges so it can't be egg shaped it can't be sphere shaped it can't be anything else other than the edges being higher than the water level and considering we know the known earth is at least 70% slightly more water then obviously the land masses which is above the sea level so therefore it just has to be flat it can't be anything else it's as simple as that that's the end of the discussion why does water find level fluid dynamics is the process that I always want to find is that because static water could do the same thing and to which you wouldn't apply fluid dynamics there's no dynamicity so that can't be an answer so why does water always why does water always find its level yeah why it has mass it has fluidity and therefore it will being heavier than air it will fall through air why is that being less dense than the ground it will rise above it and create a pool and create a sea whatever you want to call it it's always going to do that because that's just the natural observable law of physics but what is that law why does water fall through the air so it has a level of density and buoyancy I have a question can you give me the equation for buoyancy it has little g in it but the principle of Archimedes principle that's why you don't have buoyancy in space Archimedes principle it long predates the equation with little g in it and again I explain this because we don't use it little g is actually downward little g is actually downward acceleration that's what gravity is it's not actually the cause claim which is big g which is what's in contention no one disputes that things go up or down it's a mathematical construct and agreed upon downward acceleration the whole point of it is it's just a formula to try and describe what we actually observe it's not trying to say why it is what it is we observe it's just saying what is happening it's not saying why it does it resistance is the only force and resistance comes from the density of the medium that's in so because air has very little density it has very little resistance water has far more density so therefore it is far more resistant ground has far more density so it's even more resistant everything is a resistant force it's not an attraction force everything can be broken down to resistance not attraction and that explains relative density and buoyancy so why is earth's gravitational constant in the equation for buoyancy on earth and why is why is there no buoyancy in space why is there no buoyancy in space we don't make claims about fairy tales if you put a ping pong ball in a bag of water in space you can just literally look this up on youtube because astronauts on the ISS have done it the ping pong ball will actually sit in the water can you tell me why that is no one goes to space buddy well except that the astronauts on the International Space Station that are literally in a weightless environment you can literally see them floating now unless you want to say that oh that's just hollywood with their laser beam the water is there why is then you can do that we'll come back to Leo but let's hear from flat or iron go ahead for a minute yeah it's just basically saying that if you've got a glass of water in space well there's nothing to contain the water and water is made out of individual molecules so that's why it basically boils in a vacuum because it's returning back to its gaseous state so you can't even have a glass of water in space in the first place you wouldn't have it it would just dissipate into the gaseous components and basically what they've done is they've put a little sponge into a glass of water suspended that into it and say oh look weightlessness it's ridiculous it's a crazy argument well but except that the environment in the ISS is still 14 pounds per square inch because that's what humans are used to on the atmosphere so it is pressurized to number one number two there is still gravity in the ISS that's why it orbits the earth there just isn't enough to give rise to buoyancy because g is too small why is it that g is such an important factor why is it that if g is too small you don't have buoyancy I'll explain it if you don't interrupt right so little g isn't agreed upon average of downward acceleration everything's intrinsically electrostatic and actually we have an electric gradient that results in a downward bias so there is a slight downward bias not all fighters agree on this but it is pretty demonstrable in my opinion and everything's electric on the earth and so we factored this in so that we can actually mathematically quantify the effect of the buoyant force right so relative density seeking equilibrium or density to seek equilibrium in the process of seeking equilibrium so it's it's not really that big of a deal because it's in no way proven gravity it's just the effect of downward acceleration when agreed upon average for mathematical purposes that you're actually claiming big g is the cause of the effect and that's what's a contention and it's never been proven in a movie that's number one that's not the one that I'm claiming number two what factor in the equation for buoyancy gives is the it talks about electricity what variables are the electric ones in that equation again you're claiming that electric forces are affecting it then you need to give me with the with the dynamical variables for that electrical interaction are in the equation what are those okay so electrostatic just sets the up and down little g is nothing more than the quantification of the agreed upon average of the down so when things go down an answer to my question when we when something goes down we have an agreed upon average that's the effect of downward acceleration that's all little g is actually representing mathematically I'm explaining that what sets the up and down is actually the electric gradient we have on the earth which goes up 100 volts meter aqua potential increase and yes so things just go up and down it's not very complicated it's just a little agreed upon average effect and you know I didn't say that they mathematically call gravity into the equation it's just intrinsically what sets the up and down agreed upon average is the effects not the cause for like the fifth time answer my question what are the what what dynamical variables represent that electric interaction you just said well there's some variables that do that what are the variables give them a little the little g itself is a quantity that's gravity not electric that is not an electric force gravity what is it so what are the electric ones the little g itself is a quantification of the effect that comes from the electric gradient it's just the effect it isn't gravity itself downward acceleration is not what gravity is it's the effect of gravity which is big g we both have the same effect I'm telling you that the actual cause is electric because everything is you're claiming that space time bends and warps which literally is just insane reification fallacies I personally just no offense to you but I think it is actually just the resistance from the density of the medium that we don't even need to invoke any sort of electro sort of force whatsoever electrostatic or whatever that's just the resistance factor is simple enough just to explain why the thing will drop or why it won't so if there's no distance of the actual medium then that's basically all we need to say why I think drops or why it doesn't this one from Brandon Hansen says question for the globe Tards why does all the evidence and theories that justify the globe come after the assumption that the earth is a ball I would say it's the exact opposite saying that we have a presupposition is incorrect just saying like the sciences have a presupposition that the world is a globe is incorrect what has happened is a scientific consensus has been formed in that all physicists all people in the field believe that the world is round and we have multiple experiments for at this point hundreds of years I would say the first empirical was thousands but really it took natural philosophers to go into the process of science for us to really verify it this one from mj says awesome how many empirical evidences have been given I don't know what side they mean yeah I give a lot like every single time that we do anything in the world fly planes, helicopters, ballistic missiles any longer than shots anything like that that all assumes a flat stationary plane earth well every time it's effectively implemented the practical use case is physical evidence for that assumption of the earth being that way and then we physically measured it so all physical measurements show that the earth is flat so the amount of empirical evidence is all of it all replicated evidence shows that the earth stationary topographical plane what the globe reclaimed as well it does always look like it's stationary it does always look like it's the center it does always look like it's a plane but actually it's too big to tell it's curved and spinning and tilted and wobbling in a vacuum and it always looks like it's flat and stationary that's the actual position that's why we say we need actual evidence so the earth is the center of the universe just like Pluto is the center of the universe just like Jupiter is the center of the universe just like the sun is the center because that is how expansion in all directions works we have to be a central point wouldn't there no this one from Shakespeare monkey says I feel like I'm an ancient Athens being lectured to by this soggy Aussie soaking in his pickle barrel okay well thank you very much for that but it's like you look jealous right look charming in your hot tub Deej says sorry wits it but Iron Horse is easy they say he's carrying you right now so no not at all I think wits it's a bloody great job I just have a slightly different point of view when it comes to some sort of electrostatic attraction I don't think it's necessary I just think we have the bottom of the universe and that's what the earth is and we have everything else above us and I don't think we really even need to have a force apart from resistance to stop things from dropping any lower and that's what the earth is that's the resistant force that stops any lower this one from the crowd Eddie zero two nine says fladers I think they mean flat flat earths they said would you donate your brains to science when you go it would help humanity to find the flaw that leads to rejecting reality self-projecting because you haven't tested it out of yourself here's what the cartoons and believe them so Brandon Hanson says Leo why don't I have to take in the rotation of the earth when I shoot long range and why wouldn't the rotation affect the trajectory because it's not when he says shoot I'm assuming he means just like a shotgun or something or maybe like a bow and arrow like a compound bow or something because you're not going over here enough of a distance except snipers do actually have to account for those things when they're making long range shots so there are certain people who shoot that do have to account for that the average hunter doesn't the range isn't long enough that's what he's talking about shooting long range he's literally talking about why unless it's a sniper then he does have to account for it so if he says that he doesn't he's just lying well actually I know many snipers that don't but here's the middle ground here well not at all shots they claim that they factor it in mathematically but the wind almost always overtakes it so you never really have to account for it there's no barrel rotation itself so like you never really account for Coriolis it doesn't actually do anything and when you really shoot you're not accounting for that accounting for wind and spin barrel rotation of course you wouldn't account for Coriolis you're not nearly large enough scaled what about the airplane that comes much further than the shot bullet why does the airplane not have to account for Coriolis but this shot bullet over a period of three miles does but the airplane can just keep on flying in a straight line and have them worry about the earth movement or Felix Bunga going up to 128,000 feet dropping three hours later than being 71 miles to the east when it should be at least 3,000 miles to the west what happens if the earth ever move well airplanes actually do have to account for the Coriolis effect tell me how they do that I don't know how they do it I'm not a pilot but I know that they do I don't even know how they do it you can't tell us how they do it well a pilot would have to but it's going to depend on which direction the planes are moving one second too many people speaking at once go ahead, Iron Horse, what have you got we'll come back to you Leo he made a positive claim so therefore he has to have positive evidence in order to make such a claim he says pilots account for the Coriolis effect so a plane that flies at top speed of about 500 miles per hour it's spinning approximately 1,000 miles per hour towards the east how does the pilot account for that if you claim that he does well the Coriolis effect is an accounting for the opposite rotation of the earth you're already moving with the stationary earth before you take off so that's not an effect so I don't think you understand what the Coriolis effect is that has to do with the conservation of momentum as one moves laterally from the I think it's laterally from the equator as you're moving orthogonally from the equator either direction as a result of the conservation of momentum as a result of earth's rotation and your movement you will veer off of a straight path if planes are moving in the proper direction there are slight effects that they do have to and do account for yes they do not adjust for Coriolis they do not adjust for Coriolis I just want to clear this up they objectively don't also you can talk about the conservation of momentum well as you get higher and higher up off the earth spinning if the atmosphere was moving with it you would have to have additional energy higher and higher up it would violate the conservation of energy and momentum you do have it but there's no mechanism ever proposed for why you want me to give you one they also claim something called super rotation which they claim the top of the atmosphere is moving faster than the spin of the earth but they don't know why either which also violates the conservation of energy and momentum unless you have a mechanism in addition as you have the accelerative frame of the earth going underneath you you would have to bank to the left or bank to the east and speed up forward accelerating to catch up with it due to the conservation of angular momentum but they don't do that right they actually just maintain a constant speed relative to wind alone so yeah globe earth debunked exactly well that's not for somebody who claims other people like bloviate that you're doing a lot of bloviation I don't even remember what you said because it didn't even register do you want to refresh my mind on what your point was seems you're not even interested in a discussion you're not helping people understand I think that's one of the biggest things here if you shoot a sniper rifle and you claim that we have to the earth spins underneath it changing the path of the people when we shoot north to south if you ask somebody to explain it and then he's trying to explain it and you speak over him but he's not explaining it though that's the problem you can do that right after he gets done finishing but it's like when you constantly interrupt you do interrupt an awful lot I know because they don't answer an awful lot so here's the thing they probably think that you don't answer an awful lot except I can't explain objectively how I do they can't so here's the thing though Leo you have to have a perspective of their minds and their different interpretations of things I'm not saying that they're equally right but I'm saying like they probably think that you're not answering just as much each time but they're not interrupting but so we'll give it a chance Austin and then we'll go back to Leo the fundamental idea is that to claim this Coriolis with the bullet shooting north to south has to be adjusted for because of an inertial and accelerative frame of reference then it would also apply to the plane like Iron Horse brought up the problem is that planes in real life do not adjust for Coriolis the autopilot doesn't also when someone flies a plane manually they would have to know about that but they don't they maintain a constant speed they would have to bank and accelerate forward but they do not do that so claiming that most glovers then claim the atmosphere moves and lockstep with the earth which also isn't true it actually would lag behind due to fluid dynamics and so then we know that actually there would be an increase of energy proportionate to the increase of speed proportionate increase of altitude which means that you're violating the conservation of energy I don't want to go the super rotation at the top also would need additional energy to not violate the conservation of energy momentum you can't claim Coriolis and claim planes don't have to account for the spin of the earth at the same time great meridian, great circle flights debunk the globe if you don't account for the spin of the earth underneath you our Leo will give you the same amount of time you don't need extra energy you just need less friction so you don't even understand what conservation of momentum is I think you're confusing with the conservation of energy they're similar but they're not the same thing and there's less friction higher up in Earth's atmosphere because of the vacuum of space so I wouldn't surprise me if there are actually currents in the upper atmosphere that move at greater rates than currents in the lower atmosphere as a result of gravitational dragging people who actually understand these things they know about these effects they understand the equations that define them and then you have those that talk about things they have no understanding of I would also like to see any evidence that the atmosphere would lag behind with those sort of calculations because that is the definition of an atmosphere is the gases that are being pushed down from gravity wow the fact that we have winds that can go westerly that can go eastly the wind is actually acting independently to the atmosphere all the time the wind is the atmosphere what? yes, I don't even understand that what does that mean? the wind is the atmosphere moving no, they claim the wind moves independent of the lockstep because it moves in all directions it doesn't just move east wind speed going a particular direction are you asking if the wind speed is like do we take into account the rotation of the Earth before we account for wind speed when it moves further than obviously if you were trying to do reality we do we just assume that the Earth is stationary and then we can just observe the wind speed being exactly what it is which is what it is when this proves the atmosphere it sounds like you just said the water went with the ocean hold on, there's just one person at a time if you have an Austin I'm sorry it sounds like what you said is that the water doesn't go with the ocean and that is just non-coherent like the wind is the atmosphere so I don't know what you're talking about if the wind if you have a blender and you turn it on the middle mechanism that is rotating it's going to go a certain speed all the stuff outside the blender is going to lag behind the middle mechanism proportionate to the distance outside of it it's going to get further and further behind it it's fluid dynamic, it's a very simple concept so as you go higher and higher above it to go the same amount of distance or to go to a greater distance and the same amount of time requires you to go faster it's a very simple concept so that means that the higher you get above the Earth the bigger the circle is the bigger the orbit, the further distance traveled the atmosphere would have to be going faster and faster proportionate to altitude increase to keep up with the Earth that's just basic physics so then either it lags behind or it doesn't they claim it does but it's not very much that it's just like two miles per hour up to about the height of a commercial airliner so you don't have to really account for it because wind is a greater adjustment than that we have problems with it being intrinsically contradictory to Coriolis, you have to adjust for it there's a lot of conservation of energy and moments and both debunk this super rotation also does this one coming in from do appreciate it Brandon Hanson says Leo why don't I have to take in that one, Andrew Handelsman says I saw you and Team Skeptic at the theater the other day did you guys go to see Top Gun part two just thought it was odd seeing you together, cheers hang on the team no bro come on man Brandon Hanson says never had to factor it Leo I shoot 800 plus a lot yeah that's under the limit 800 plus meters I'm assuming, yeah you're not really need to then this one coming in from Deige thanks for your support of modern day debate want to say folks our guests are linked in the description we hope you enjoyed this debate it has been a lively one to say the least all of our guests Leo, Amy, Austin and Iron Horse fully in his hot tub, our link to the description which by the way thank you to our guests and thank you again Iron Horse for jumping in last minute I know that it's been a busy busy day and so we appreciate you jumping in for Davey and want to say though all of our guests are linked in the description including at the podcast folks so check them out you've heard their views you can check out their channels and with that thanks so much to our guests though it's been a true pleasure to have you appreciate it, thank you much bye thanks Amy and Austin I'll be back in just a moment folks with a post credit scene letting you know about upcoming debates so stick around and I'll be back in just a moment amazing my dear friends thrilled to have you here depending on where you are two seconds let me just move over I'm here, don't worry I'm still here want to say thanks so much let me say hello to you in the old live chat thank you for all of your support seriously it means more than you know here I am at the bottom left how's it going guys good to see you thanks for being with us I know it gets wild and it gets rowdy but I want to say we appreciate all of our guests seriously we appreciate you and we know that for our guests I would rather it be a wild passionate debate rather than if it was a quiet boring debate so we appreciate all of our guests we appreciate their gusto it was a great debate seriously it was tremendous amazing thanks so much seriously I enjoyed this it was a blast I hope you did too but let me before we continue I want to say hello to you in the old live chat crackerjack happy to have you here glowbusters thanks for coming by GA thanks for coming by and thanks to your super generous channel support we appreciate your support and yeah folks if you didn't know we do have channel membership support so we want to say hey highly encourage you check it out consider it as little as $1.99 you can use those epic emojis that you see in chat including calling people soyboy which is a favorite or using the amazing one so thank you guys we appreciate all of your support and thank you guys for being here in the old live chat a rowdy guy thanks for your kind words thanks so much for that we really hope you enjoy modern day debate as it is a virtual platform we strive to give everybody a fair shot to make their case on a level playing field that is our vision and this is just the beginning of our story my dear friends we are thrilled and excited and appreciate all of your support sharing the channel liking all those things really do help seriously thank you guys as we have hit 80,000 subscribers and we appreciate all of you each and every one of you thank you for subscribing as that helps as well thanks for becoming a channel member sapo man welcome to so much soy thanks for joining that channel membership level seriously your support means a ton and maybe you're like I'm not into the whole youtube I think youtube is kind of biased or whatever it is we have patreon that's another way to support the channel so I do want to mention if you haven't yet you can consider like hey let's say you join the patreon we have different levels that's something to consider it's as cheap as two bucks a month that's one way of joining at the first tier if you join it five bucks a month your name shows at the ticker at the bottom of the screen during the debates as we appreciate all of our supporters thank you so much and thanks for your super chat nominal says it gets quote unquote rowdy because religious zealots tend to get triggered when you challenge their religion well juicy I don't know which side you're referring to appreciate your super chat and TNA plastic good as you Jared a thanks for your your support of you of modern a debate seriously that really does mean a lot we appreciate that commercial sound and video says thumbed up thanks for that thumbs up we appreciate your liking this video as yeah it really does help the channel does grow when you might be thinking James how does it grow I don't understand like me hitting the like button I just don't understand that thanks for your support iron horse I see you there in the little live chat and thanks again for saving this debate to the two format by jumping in that means a lot and so I'll explain though because it like I said people might say I don't understand if I hit the like video does that really help you James I mean it just seems like it's something to you know just because you know it just kind of ends there no it doesn't really the YouTube algorithm from what I've read does factor this in in other words for example our YouTube videos our debates get recommended a pretty good amount we've got a pretty good ratio so that's a cool thing they get recommended more when you hit the like button so like I said if you want more people to see this debate yeah you can share it that helps for real like if you got a discord group or a globe earth group on Facebook or a flatter group on Facebook whatever it is you can share this debate and that that's a great thing because if you thought your side was more persuasive well then you're sharing material where your side was more persuasive on a neutral platform the other thing though is maybe you want other people to see it on YouTube for example if you hit like that means our video will be recommended to more people so for example when you're on YouTube like right now you can look just below the live chat and you'll see recommended videos so for me I have like Kit Boga closed on Sunday Kimble I have there's more Kit Boga rock collection modern a debate videos are more likely to show up in people's recommended videos if you hit like for real also though they're more likely to be ranked so if you search flatter debate this will probably be namely this video will probably be recommended in the top five at least for like the next like several hours on YouTube and that's cool because YouTube is basically like testing to see like hey how popular is this and usually it falls you know down the ranking but the more likes it gets the higher ranking that it'll get in terms of the placement when people search the phrase flatter debate so it really does actually make a difference so I'm trying to just give you the reasons behind why we ask you to hit like as it is a it's a real way of supporting the channel it doesn't cost you a dime sharing the debate as well like I said that helps a ton too like maybe you're like hey like I'm not I don't know about channel memberships yet and I don't know about Patreon yet I've never done either of those and I don't really feel like doing either of those well hey you know what you can help this channel buy let me fix this little this is driving me nuts I'm gonna fix this it's the last thing I do on screen do you see the little graphic there there we go that's better is you if you're like James I don't know about this I'm just not sure well I can tell you you can help this channel just by doing those things it really does make a difference I'm telling you we appreciate it and I've got to say good to see you there in the old live chat world of bliss thanks for coming by as well as random guy thanks for dropping in misses no 86 thanks for dropping in Scott Miller says hello thanks for coming by Scott and thanks KK Pink Factor we are glad you are here Sean Miller glad you're here Greg warrener happy to have you here and slang glad to have you in the live chat read just ter slow bear thanks for dropping in diamond s we're glad you are here as well as ozone mcweego thanks for coming by iron horse I see you there in the old live chat Amanda thanks for coming by really do appreciate your help in finding this new venue seriously we're gonna make this work one way or another if you got my email already whether we take use that venue or we might be able to talk our old venue into matching their price which would be a cool thing because that's a good bargaining chip if we say hey you know we got this other place and you know we could go there you know it'd be pretty good deal for us would you be willing to match it that's something that either way your help seriously means a ton Amanda so it is gonna help one way or another we appreciate it thank you for your time and your support and sorry that I was so late to get back to the environmental center so I appreciate your patience Joe the total good to see you and good to see you as well as rifa thanks for dropping in Felix glad to have you here Nick McIntyre thanks for dropping in glad to have you and see me Norfolk happy to have you here as well as ghost 24824 thanks for dropping in Amanda says the patreon is bomb meetings with James make it 100% worth it to go all in and that's right we do have meetings with me I'm actually like tomorrow we've got a meeting it is at 11am eastern time so if you are in the it's the front row seating tier for patreon that's another possibility is that I have these zoom meetings where just 10 bucks a month you know it's like basically the price of Chipotle once a month is basically there are meetings where I say hey what topics are really hot right now what would you really like to see that tomorrow for example is what we're going to be talking about a lot is finding out what topics we're going to probably have for our conference coming up in November which is going to be awesome master optics good to see you there in the old live chat as well as well as well as truth hour of comedy thanks for coming by as well as Greg Warner happy to have you here my dear friends thanks for all of your support helioskeptic good to have you Mr. Anderson good to see you there in the old chat is founded by Keith am I saying it right glad to have you diamond s thanks for coming by aha glad you're here I see you there aha grim theorists thanks for coming by and thanks for your super chat dingley bumbus says is COVID James saved is COVID James saved cheers Christ is the best wine maker thank you for your super chat dingley bumbus and is COVID James saved is are you asking am I okay from COVID I think I told you guys the other night on Wednesday I had COVID almost back to normal I do thanks for asking I appreciate it I am really close I haven't a stuffy nose still so I'm almost back to normal and I'm hoping to be back to normal tomorrow or Monday so that's encouraging but want to say yeah thanks for asking and looking out for me is yeah I've had as the third time I've had COVID is that crazy you guys and I just had it two months ago just two months ago and I had it I got it again but it wasn't nearly as powerful this time like this this time I got over it a lot better I've been able to handle a lot better I've been resting more but not needing to like sleep an entire day like back in July iron horse thanks for coming by thanks for the channel enjoy seeing it go from strength to strength again thank you iron horse for forgiving me and because as you know I had strong words in our email exchange and I appreciate you forgiving me it's true thanks for jumping in and you have did you hear my response about the young church shout out I did let's go to that so I saw you said Anna Kasperian said to Dennis Prager that MDD is a potential platform to debate leftist on it was awesome that is so cool to know I am so pumped because modern day debate hearing that now we're being you know that yeah some people are like even like that's something I had dreamed of I told you guys this like six months ago do you remember when I said someday you know these people are going to be on Twitter they're going to be these big time content creators like young Turks is like one of the biggest political commentary channels period like on YouTube and I said there's going to be you know big creators who are going to say someday like hey well if we're going to debate why not modern day debate I said you know it's going to happen folks believe me on Twitter we're going to be recommended and it's happening so the fact that Anna Kasperian it said hey like Dennis Prager like modern day debate would be a good place to debate leftist that's encouraging my dear friends it really is happening we've got something big going on here that means a ton I am encouraged by that I really believed it and it's happening even sooner than I expected so that's encouraging that Anna Kasperian said that and we are excited about the future you guys got some big stuff I told you I've got some juicy news I've got to tell you we are working I can't tell you yet because it's not confirmed but we're working on setting up a debate between I've got to tell you he's working we're working on setting up a debate between Destiny and a very very popular content creator on whether or not there's a satanic elite I will not say who the name is because we haven't confirmed it yet so I can't say that yet but I will tell you we're excited about that and then light of the twin lamps are you still in the old live chat let me know I'm going to tell you light of the twin lamps you sent to superchat the other day I want to answer it and then I can send this to you later and hopefully you see it said I would love to know your daily hygiene beauty and workout routines to achieve the giga chat physique that's funny I don't know if I have a giga chat physique but I appreciate your kind words my daily hygiene is I do use lotion once a day I should probably use it more than once because I live in Colorado super dry and then beauty and workout routines you know what I do no joke I'm dead serious about this I have read or I found online that it helps I use these micro needles like one of those like derma rollers I've tried to use that to help kind of keep my elasticity to have a little bit more what's the word I can't remember the word because I like when I was young I did not use a lot of sunblock and so now I use these little derma rollers they just kind of help keep a little bit more elasticity in your skin because I wish I would have used that's for real I wish I would have used I'm not making that up I'm very serious I wish I would use sunblock when I was younger because I usually told I look a bit older for my age and I'm not like worried about it like I'm only to be honest about it I'm not like afraid of saying it but yeah so I'm like hey you know okay like I want to try to keep that elasticity the there's like something in your skin you want to keep it I can't remember it but it's supposed to stimulate that but the other thing is I work out once every day and collagen that's the word sapple man thanks for and thanks for becoming a channel member sapple man seriously I appreciate that but yes collagen production is the right word it's I use these little derma rollers and it's you know they're like five bucks for a derma roller so it's not like it's and so yeah collagen but in terms of working out I work out once every day pretty much on average and yeah I'll say it's pretty accurate average and I work I lift I usually lift every day so a little bit not a ton but maybe 40 minutes or so on average and then yeah so but thanks for your kind words and asking baby squirrels thanks for coming by and then we appreciate you guys coming by thanks for all of your support I gotta go it's getting pretty late I want to say I love you guys thanks for all of your support seriously you guys make this channel fun it's honestly it means so much thanks for all of your support and yeah if you haven't already if you haven't checked out I am pumped about this modern day debate is on your favorite podcast app if you haven't checked it out you have to what are you waiting for I mean this is huge this is awesome so for example let me pull this up my favorite podcast app is podcast addict but I know most of you use either Apple or you use what is the word I'm looking for Spotify so if you use those that works too Google podcast we're on every single podcast so if you haven't yeah I mean you might as well try it and you can also maybe you're like well I've already tried the podcast you know and maybe you're even looking at it right now you can give us a rating if you rate us that helps us really for real give us a little feedback on there Damien Martinez has got those gains amen to that Damien thanks for your support buddy and but yeah so I'd encourage you if you have not yet check this out modern day debate is on every single podcast app and that way baby squirrels I love you too thanks for your kind words I appreciate that is that way let's say you're driving through town let's say you're like me you're driving through town and you all of a sudden have a bad spot or your service doesn't work very well because that happens to me a lot no joke it happens all the time and it makes me go insane however if I have a debate downloaded through the modern day debate podcast so for example like right here it's hard to see my phone but modern day debate you can see our logo there is you can download the debate and then you don't have to worry about if your service goes out as you're driving because you've got the debate downloaded how convenient have you tried that Mrs. No Mrs. No Mrs. No is this podcast which is cool it's a nice little you know trick we like that that's pretty cool and then let me see here I gotta move this I have this right there it is okay but yeah so pretty cool we're excited about that and yeah the podcast is growing it's 100% ad free we don't make a dime off of it we hope it's just a value for you as again the other thing is maybe you have limited data you don't want to pay for unlimited data well hey who can blame you you can download these debates on your podcast for free you don't need youtube premium or anything like that you just download them on the podcast and listen to them pretty convenient not bad huh so thanks for your support appreciate you guys I love you guys you guys make this fun and anything else am I forgetting anything thanks guys I love you guys if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up in the future thanks for all of your support guys I look forward to seeing you in the next debate as we have a number of them lined up for the next week and we look forward to seeing you then love you guys and have a great rest of your night