 People of the internet welcome to modern-day debate tonight We are debating the flat or the globe earth and we are starting right now I am Kaz I'm Kaz host of the atheist Ed tonight We have what's it gets it versus Tony and each person is gonna get 10 minutes for their opening statements And I believe what's it you're gonna go first so what's it at your first word? I was thought your timer the floor is all yours How's it going I'm gonna share that presentation there if that's cool Okay, I'll stop your cover one second Screen all right, whatever you're ready. Oh, all right So here we go do where do we live globe or flat is what I see the debate is called So we'll get into it. So here's the overview We'll cover the proper way to logically navigate the subject followed by a logical examination of the two propositions So we have a three-part presentation fallacies the globe and then the true earth so we have Fallacies are invalid arguments. That's what a fallacy a logical fallacy means that it is an argument that is not valid So we're gonna go through some of the basics. We have the ad hominem fallacy attacking the person instead of the argument For example flat earthers just don't understand basic science The credentials fallacy dismissing an argument by asserting the person who made the argument doesn't have the proper credentials For example, you don't have a degree in this subject Strawman fallacy attacking a misrepresentation of the other person's argument Why don't we fall off the edge of your space pizza a pill to majority? argument for an unproved conclusion based on the beliefs of a large group of people Example seven billion people leave the earth to ball, but you think you're right a pill to authority argument that because of perceived authority Belief something to be true. It must be true an example all scientists agreed the earth is a globe Poisoning the well using ad hominem attacks to preemptively discredit the opponent example all flat earthers are science denying religious conspiracy theorists and We have begging the question fallacy when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion the globe model says the sun goes beneath the earth So sunsets prove the earth's a globe And we have shifting the burden of proof flipping the burden to the person who denies or questions the assertion being made This is a very important one in this conversation. It happens all the time For example prove the images from space are not real. You don't prove negatives. You're we're challenging the assertion being made and Those are important to keep in mind during the debates that seem to be frequently occurring in this discussion Okay, so we'll cover the globe some of the basics. It's a very specific model claims So we have the overview it has three primary foundational claims that must be verified one is curvature two is motion and third is the vacuum of space So we have the curvature the globe model makes very specific dimension claims if these dimensions are falsified the entire model is Fossified quite literally everything that the globe model is built upon uses the r-value One of these examples of how this has occurred is we actually have an arc of vision We see in a circle. We have circular eyes. We cannot see forever contrary to certain people's opinions. So this is how we view Visual space around us. So we have our zenith and we have our horizon and we take different angle measurements to the sky So here you go. This is a depiction of what would be called an azimuthal grid You have your azimuth your horizontal direction here at the bottom Then you have your altitude to different stars and you have your zenith and then we take these different positions and what it gives us is a Celestial hemisphere aspect effectively an azimuthal grid of observability This is the very thing that was used to engineer the dimensions of the globe So if you then say the sky matches the globe model that proves the globe that is a textbook begging the question fallacy Again when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion it is literally built upon the sky We went and looked at the sky and we made measurements and then engineered a globe Earth model based on those observations So then turn and point at the sky and say look it matches the globe Earth model is very fallacious The second one motion the globe model claims that the earth is a tilted wobbling rotating 1037 miles per hour and revolving around the Sun 66,600 miles per hour at the same time It is claimed that the earth flies through the galaxy 500,000 miles per hour and through the universe 1.3 million miles per hour So this is a claim that has to be verified. I have the wrong picture here But of course this is a positive claim that we are in fact spinning and in fact it's antithetical to all observations and direct attempts to measure these claims Her Einstein but when I was a student I saw that experiments of this kind had already been made in particular by your compatriot Mickelson he proved that one does not notice anything on earth that it moves But that everything takes place on earth as if the earth is in a state of rest So again if we are denying or questioning the assertion being made that the earth is tilted wobbling spinning Revolving flying through space and then you tell us oh well We can never actually measure it everything on the earth happens as if the earth is rest We don't have some type of you know burden to prove that it's not moving Okay Next we have the vacuum of space the globe model claims that the earth's atmosphere exists within a vacuum without the air pressure Equalizing into the available space. So here's a depiction of the globe model and what it claims Of course this that verifier Violates natural law as gas will always feel the available space gas pressure air pressure same thing here at most means gas So it would feel the available space This is contrary to natural law to claim that it just sits within a vacuum So you would have to actually be able to verify a mechanism that would cause that and simply saying the word gravity as if a deity doesn't do That of course here's a depiction of something being flat seems we have to cover the basics So everyone gets it flat earth flat is not a shape It is a description of a surface as an object is as flat then it's called a plane shape So more specifically earth is a topographical plane So all of these on the right here are flats. These are plane shapes flat is not a shape Okay, you can have tons of different shapes that are flats a general description of the surface Of course globe is a shape claim here are some evidences of flat earth. We have mirror flash tests So from long distances, this is from I think roughly 18 miles We used infrared and you see the mirror flash and don't see it and it goes through the horizon So how does that work that there's the horizon that supposedly curvature of the earth Which is the water and then we see an infrared a mirror flash from like just 1.5 meters off the ground We see a mirror flash come through the horizon consistently When it's on the beach So that doesn't seem to make sense if even if it was a fraction How's it going through the horizon once it reflects with line of sight that debunks the globe? That's flat earth evidence that establish a horizontal line of sight as to long distance laser tests Or we can just believe that every time something debunks the globe So the laser always wins at the perfect exact rate of the curvature of the earth, which is just an unfounded claim We also have tsunamis that never wrap around Antarctica. Here's a depiction So we actually have a very famous one in 1960 the earthquake lasted 11 minutes It was a couple days worth of crazy waves and tsunamis and they actually seem to bounce back from the Antarctic region now on a globe Of course, there's a very well-known phenomena within tsunamis tsunamis that they wrap around land masses But they never ever wrap around Antarctica. That's supposedly a land mass on the bottom of a ball And I know that some people like to push earthquakes and tsunamis and hopefully we get into that because I just can't wait So there's a debunk of the globe that can't happen. You would have earthquake You would have tsunamis wrap around the Antarctic continent So I would love to see some evidence that we have so I have ties and pedromic points also known as tidal notes So according to the globe earth We actually have a moon that's locked tidally locked with the earth causing the earth to have tides and actually pulls the water behind it That would be an even distribution of gravity causing the grad the tides on the earth But we have points all over the earth called Amphedromic points that are tidal nodes in fact extreme concentrations in them and there's not an agreed upon explanation even Theoretically within the globe model other than the claim that some of them are close to oceanic basins So there's actually not an answer. This makes no sense other than on a flat earth It makes perfect sense. We have the magnetic field. I think I have three minutes left Here is an example of one of the problems with the globe earth magnetic field We have a lack of symmetry in the southern hemisphere now Of course on a geo dynamo model with a magnetic field You would have the same magnetic field in the north and the south on a globe But we don't have that and this is just one example actually we have tons of examples But here is a depiction of course of the magnetic flux reading over a plane and it matches perfectly with ferrule cell images That's exactly what we'd expect to see we would expect that the magnetic field gets weaker towards the south until you get all The way back to where it wraps around so the data matches a flat earth, but not a globe earth We also have radio transmissions using horizontal line of sight So oftentimes globers say that's something about bouncing off the atmosphere, but they get confused There is skyway propagation Which is the claim right here of the globe that it bounces up and down and then you have groundway propagation This cannot bounce off the ionosphere and I showed last time on the military document that they have a 10 foot tall tower That shoots 500 mile long transmissions that can be picked up That's physically impossible on a globe and you have to claim that it just bends around the globe and again Not even agreed upon explanation in theory how that could possibly happen So and so in summary hopefully we get to the actual specifics of the argument and we avoid Sophistry which is the use of fallacious arguments with the intention to deceive for example If I straw man flat earth and everything I think it should be the case on a flat earth then therefore it's stupid and I'm correct So yeah, basically we have empirical evidence that establish the default position We can go through all the specifics and we need to establish that the claim that everything is the opposite of what we observe is actually true And hopefully we get to that without drowning in fallacies. Thank you very much All right Thank you so much Austin really appreciate it and now we will kick it over to Tony for his opening statement Tony at your first word I will restart your timer the floor is all yours Yeah, just a moment. I need to know I'm set up my Sorry, I just need to upload a Few things No worries Just want to let everybody know while he's looking that up that we will be only be able to reading We will only be able to read the $10 and up super chats tonight because we'd have to get out of here early Austin has prior engagement. So we have to get out of here by nine o'clock sharp So if you have a super chat that's $10 enough that will definitely be read otherwise I can't guarantee anything And I was saying that we have Okay, no not because I need to convert it into I need to convert the presentation into PDF for you So just because you don't support my file size It can you can just share the screen on Streamy right here. Okay. Can I? Yeah, just go down to the bottom in the middle where it says present click that and it says share screen All right, okay. All right, so what we're going to do here is Can you see that presentation? Not yet Okay Let me see Okay Yeah, okay, so it's coming in Okay, so this is the distance formula for a spherical first for idle earth Every distance between two points measured on the surface of the earth can be well approximated using this formula Provided we know their latitude and longitude. We can test this formula For instance, we can test the length of the railway track between to cooler and Calguli the straightest and flattest piece of railway line in the world the track separation is 1,280 kilometers the spherical estimate of the distance is 1,250 kilometers This formula will always work for any two points on earth's surface And if a flat if the flat earthers want us to take their claim seriously They need to find us two points where it doesn't here for instance We can look at the submarine cable joining Sydney and Hillsborough, Oregon cable length 13,528 kilometers spherical distance 12,320 kilometers we can test the Spherical distance formula using the propagation of tsunamis this in and of itself kills the flat earth And I'm surprised that which it blundered into it We can see here the tsunami travel times compared against observations of sea level rise at tide gauges We can compare the travel times for Earthquakes against the spherical distance formula and they always work You will notice that the first arrival times for all these waves curved down Which is to say that the further you get away from the source the faster the the faster the The wave seems to be traveling I've highlighted the P waves and the S waves there. There are two reasons for that One is that on because the earth is for idle It's actually traveling a smaller distance than it would be on an equivalent flat earth Secondly, it's traveling at greater depth where there is higher velocity Therefore these downward curving seismic velocity profiles Proof that the earth cannot be flat in the second case we can go to Pkikp waves which are waves that travels directly through the earth from one side to the other You can see these waves highlighted here in the purple And they make multiple tracks they make multiple tracks through this they rebound here for instance We see the stacks for global Seismometers and you can see highlighted in red the clearly detectable wave forms for the P for the various Pkikp Reflections we have flat earth seismic models and we use them quite a lot in mineral exploration We send down seismic waves. They reflect off various Surfaces and they are detected by geophones and we use these Accurately and reliably to determine where mineral deposits might be underground Which leads the question at what distance over what distance scale are Flat earth seismic models Accurate and indeed this has been something that has been looked at by seismologists here You can see two papers the effect of ignoring earth curvature and locating earthquakes at what distance can the earth no longer be treated as flat We've looked at this question flat earth seismic models do not work on distance scales greater than a hundred and fifty kilometers there's also a class of Seismic wave the rally waves that travel around the earth from the focus to the antipode and back again and the same Behavior is observed by pressure waves here for instance is the pressure wave after six hours from tongue from the Tonga eruption And here it is for that. Well three days later These waves start out from the focus they go around the other side of the earth and then they come back and they repeat this over Multiple circuits. We saw this for the Tonga eruption. We saw it also for the Krakatar eruption. We can Determine that the earth is not flat because sunlight makes it onto the bottom of clouds You know, there is no way for the light path to get to the bottom of the crowd and clouds Unless you're invoking refraction in the wrong direction Refraction should occur to the more dense medium Not the less dense medium and moving the Sun further away Doesn't make it any easier to get your light to the bottom of the cloud The side of the cloud will intercept the light beams first Whereas on a spherical earth. This is very easy to explain now wits it made a very dishonest claim in saying that the sky matches the The spherical earth Is one of our arguments. No, it's not that the sky is compatible with the spherical earth It is that it is incompatible with a flat earth If you go, you know, if we double the distance from the north pole We expect double the angle But the elevation of say Polaris or any other celestial object as you move away from its Ground point does not match the object cannot have a finite height at that distance, you know, the the lines here do not Intercept Similarly, you know the idea that these photographs have been faked in 1965 I'd like to know what computers that was done on because in 1965 we didn't have that capacity We can also go to reciprocal zenith angles if the earth were flat reciprocal zenith angles would add up to Exactly 180 degrees, but they don't whenever we do these observations carefully They add up to more than 180 degrees This is incompatible with a flat earth and here are a bunch of publications on the subject where you will note that refraction effects are calculated and removed on a Triangle on the surface of a sphere The angles always add up to more than 180 degrees and in fact the area of the spherical triangle is implicit on Is exactly equal to r squared times the spherical excess So we can we can and have tested the spherical excess accuracy by comparing it to the area of the triangles that surrounds The if the earth were planar then the triangle should always add up to 180 degrees that doesn't happen here again are a number of number of References on this point And finally and most dammingly GPS simply tells us where stuff is in space Using various analytical techniques and we can tell that the earth is ferroidal GPS is utterly inconsistent with a flat earth and the Any claim otherwise is um delusional nonsense That's the end of my presentation All right. Thank you so much, tony really appreciate it And now we will go ahead and kick it into the open discussion section in just a moment But first I just want to let you know Especially if it's your first time here joining us at modern day debate that we are a neutral platform Hosting debates on science religion and politics and we want you to feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from If you have a question or comment for one of tonight's debaters fire into the live chat and tag me at modern day debate Super chats will go to the top of the list tonight We are only reading 10 dollar enough super chats to save time for the end because we have one of the guests has to leave early We ask that you keep it civil attack the argument and not the person Insults will not be read and that goes to the general discourse of the live chat as well Actually, do I still have two and a half minutes left because I have another presentation that I'd like to show in that case Sure, uh, go ahead Um okay, so I'm here for instance of the rally waves that I mentioned. I'm sorry. Can you see? Sorry, what do you see? You're seeing that one The epicenter and the antipode Yeah, the epicenter and the antipode I can't find it on my screen. So I'm wondering what's going on Um Oh, there it is. Okay So here we go. So if we have we're going to assume that an earthquake occurs at the top of the sphere at the north pole um If the earth was feroidal what we would expect is that the seismic energy would spread away from the epicenter it would get to about the equator relative to the Relative to the source and then it would start converging on the antipode That's what we would expect And indeed that is what we observe One minute. Do you have anything else for the opening? Yes, I do So 45 seconds left. Okay Here we go So here is some data from the macquarie rise earthquake. Can you see this? No, not yet yet to reshare the screen Okay, stop that Yep. Okay. There you go. I'll reset it to one minute. I'll give you one more All right. So here's observational data of seismic arrival times for the macquarie rail for the macquarie rise earthquakes You can see the Epi center is the star there. You can see the blue circles are expanding out in a circle from the From the epicenter if you now turn your attention to the right You will see that the blue circles start converging on the antipode You will get to a point at about this stage where you stop getting signals This is because the seismic waves have to pass through the core where their velocities are much slower and now you get them So what we observe in earthquakes is exactly consistent with what we expect from a seismic model And is utterly inconsistent with a flat with a planar earth It simply cannot be explained and I look forward to it Letting the word reflection run through his mouth as though I haven't anticipated it But thank you. That's my time All right. Thank you so much. Tony and where was I I was saying that if you have a question for the debaters $10 super chats end up tonight only Our guests are linked in the description below whether you're listening on youtube or via the podcast So if you like what you're hearing tonight, please go feel free to click their links Do it as soon as you can hit the subscribe button because we have plenty more debates coming your way that you don't want to miss including on Oh don't have the date on there the 27th, I believe at 8 p.m We'll have steward net connectly versus I mean nadir nadir Ahmed. They're going to be debating is christianity true and that's going to be Coming up soon So you don't want to miss that hit the subscribe button and finally just want to let you guys know about the debate com the debate con Sorry coming out on Saturday, april 22nd In fort Worth, texas the link is in the description below if you want to get your tickets to come in person Please get on that as soon as you can Thank you so much and with that we will go ahead and kick it to the open discussion So gentlemen i'm gonna put 60 minutes on the clock and that your first word have at it. Thank you so much Okay, what's up man um well Apart from so you asked a number of questions It seems only fair to answer them Why do tsunamis bounce off antarctica and not reflect around and that would be because antarctica is atypical of all the continents in the world In having a very deep continental shelf At around about a depth of 500 to 800 meters So the propagation of tsunamis as they interact with that shelf is very different from the other from the other continents And the reason the continental shelf around antarctica is so deep is because of the load of the ice sheet That's on top of it the mass of that ice sheet depresses Depresses the continent of antarctica and makes the shape of makes the shape of the Continental shelf atypical. In fact, I happened to work across the corridor from one of the world experts in tsunami tsunami propagation and He had no idea what flood earthers were even talking about using tsunami data in fact If you neglect to include Coriolis effects in tsunami propagation, you get demonstrably Wrong answers you can't match the observations And Let's just take it one at a time That doesn't answer the question if the if the radius of the waves is going all the way out to Antarctica Then there should be waves that wrap around it so no No, so there aren't so the the radius of the waves isn't greater than Antarctica Um, it will eventually get right greater than greater than antarctica. Yeah, but that depends on how close you are to antarctica What the ray angle is So and the amount of and the amount and the amount of diffraction I noticed that I noticed that the particular tsunami You're claiming your claim is that the propagation of tsunamis is Is inconsistent with a With a sphere earth geometry um I've talked to Tsunami experts and they say Appeal to authority. I covered the fallacy. No, no, no. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you left out one of the fallacies Which was delusion. So if we don't Don't have authority So if you if you were at a party and you walked up to somebody who said I happen to be the greatest mma fighter in the world and you said oh Can I watch any of your fights in a god? They don't let me compete because there's a conspiracy against me Well, those guys seem pretty good. Well, that's all active and CGI and I also happen to be the world's best printer the world's best fighter pilot and The world's the world's best chess player. They just don't let me compete because you know, they've got these weird things about qualifications and and You know, um, and it's all and it's all a conspiracy against me You're claiming you are claiming personally To be the world's greatest cartographer the world's greatest tsunami expert the world's greatest seismologist The world's greatest geodesist the world's greatest geophysicist the world's greatest seismologist the world's greatest astronomer and the world's greatest astronomer if Anybody came up to you at a party and claimed to be the greatest thing and and also to have revolutionized our understanding of general and special Relativity and to have overturned optics. You've claimed all of these things And you have no qualifications. You have achieved nothing You can demonstrate nothing Um in regard to any of these fields. You've got obligations. You've got no work. I'll be finished shortly. I think we should let Uh, what's it have before a little bit? Let's go ahead. All right. All right. I just I gotta do this Okay, so you just brought up that I don't have credentials. Thus. I must be wrong I literally know it's called a that's called a credentials fallacy. It's okay to You calm down. Okay. You didn't straw man me and claimed I claimed to be the greatest All these different things never in my life. Have I ever done that? Also, I agree that when people like dedicate their life to study a field They obviously have expertise in that field and their opinions value Valued but that doesn't mean they're automatically right. So like your argument isn't correct because someone with The authority position you appeal to says it that's what the fallacy is and you also went a long way around not answering the basic question Which was the the waves are going to be wider Did an article is claimed to be on the globe? Which means the waves that don't hit an article's continental shelf would wrap around Antarctica, but that's never observed. They actually come back. They reflect back which makes sense on maybe a Four reasons by four reasons. I already explained No, okay, you know the yes, I did I gave you the data and you know You're you're claimed that just because I talked to my mate That's not the issue. The issue is that there is an extensive scientific literature out there That explicitly explores all of these All of these models and the details of them how they work and whether or not they are consistent with the observations You haven't appealed to a single one of those. You haven't used a single Scientific you're just saying well, it doesn't make sense to me. Well, okay Oh, you're not answering the question makes sense to you. So what? Let's make sure we're on the same page Let's make sure we're on the same page So say that the wave's not really big and it hits the continent Then what will happen is it'll start to spread out and get I get that okay And you're saying that the continental shift is different Our shelf is different and and in Antarctica is this deeper. So it doesn't allow it to wrap around That's what you're claiming. That's irrelevant if by the time the wave reaches Antarctica It's wider than Antarctica than the parts that reach it are going to wrap around the continent. No, because the because the The mechanical propagation of tsunamis is depth controlled, right? The the tsunami itself is not A uniform a uniform pressure wave from the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the ocean most of the mechanical forcing most of the mechanical You can say straw man all you like you're just reinforcing that you don't know what you're talking about if the the wave can only Diffract if it has a physical thing to diffract with Right, if the if the wave is up here near the surface and the shelf is down here There will be no interaction between the wave and the shelf Therefore the depth of the shelf with and I understand that you don't understand what you're talking about That's fine. Okay, and it's brave of you to admit it But now you're telling you you you and you and you just lied you lied a few minutes ago What you're so you said you said that you are not claiming to be the greatest tsunami expert on the planet But now you're saying that all of the scientific literature on tsunamis and on tsunami modeling Is wrong and that you're and that your Particular understanding of what should happen for these near for these near Antarctic Tsunamis is correct and they're all wrong. That's what you're not even answering the question So we can move on and we'll let the audience decide you didn't answer the question It's just objective But I bet most people in the audience didn't know that there's one place That's an anomaly on the earth that all of a sudden tsunamis can't wrap around them Even though of course, tsunami is wrapping around And it turns out to be the one that really did continental shelf that has a massive great ice sheet on it Yeah, okay Okay, but the radio the waves the radius of the waves would be greater than the alleged circumference of Antarctica, so it would still wrap around it. No We can get more I mean if it gets to interact with the continental shelf which it does it because the continental shelf is too deep So it just goes through it If you don't understand the physics of it, I'm not going to you know, does it reflect off of it? Yes, it will. I thought it didn't interact with it No, it'll end it doesn't interact with the shelf it interacts with the continent itself So bypasses the shelf hits the edge of the continent hits the shoreline and then reflects off that So all tsunamis reflect back from Antarctica. None of them ever wrap around it. Is that correct? Um, I wouldn't say that that would depend on the origin of the the origin of the Tsunami and the magnitude of it. None of them ever wrap around an article ever Um, you can claim that You're claiming that one does yes you source. Where's your source? Uh, all tsunamis. I showed it. I showed it. I showed a picture of tsunami propagation And I showed publications and I showed publications of Uh, uh all of the Yeah Who's saying that the uh, the tsunamis wrap around in the closet You know in order he's saying he's saying that he's saying he doesn't know if they do or not He thinks that they do so I'm like, okay. Well, I've never seen it. You got some evidence of that. I mean I'm pretty sure they don't A screen right now, tony Yeah, sure just a second Because we can get to I mean there's all kinds of problems with what you're claiming about earthquakes Such as Okay, so we have all we have non uniform wave velocity anisotropy of the actual waves themselves We have anomalous attenuation rates. We have shadow zones You claim that the the primary and secondary waves always disperse relative to the core and what they can penetrate and they always do it Quote-unquote objectively they do not I can drop all kinds of sources from harvard and stanford if that's what you would like let's see Uh deformation of earth materials introduction into a rheology of solid earth cambridge university press temperature iron content seismic velocity in the D layer actually explaining that the anomalous D layer doesn't match the model's predictions at all We have I have Literally 10 citations right here saying that it doesn't always work doesn't match the predictions We have all kinds of issues with the core with the mantle with the in-between area called the D layer Where we have anomalous velocities of seismic activity that don't match the model whatsoever Do you know what the D double D double prime layer is? Can you explain the area between the core and the mantle? Okay, it's the area just above the core mantle boundary um and Why is it anomalous? Because we have varying anomalous velocities right and actual dispersion What does an anomaly why are you asking me questions you claim that it worked perfect? I'm proving to the audience you made that up. It doesn't work perfect Okay, it's well. Yes. A model doesn't have to work perfectly to be right Okay, and why'd you claim it does all models are wrong Some models are useful as opposed to the flat earth model which is useless Okay, there is absolutely no practical application for which the for which the flat earth model is useful All all technology ever but whatever um bullshit You're making that up horizontal radio propagation radar technologies the way that we fly planes the way that we You're just lying. You are just bare face lying and you know you're lying You just gotta have a look at the smile on your face. You know you are bullshittings and you're using a lot of fallacies You can't produce You can't produce a single reference in support All I can is you say what the D double prime layer Has a different viscosity, you know, that's how we know it's there Because it because of the effect it had on the transition of waves through it and we know about We know about anisotropy In the mantle in fact the paper I referenced was just exploring anisotropy in the innermost inner core You say this as though it's something that Something that scientists are unaware of I didn't say that we're aware of and we're refining our understanding And building a more full understanding The fact that we discover stuff that we didn't know about before is not an excuse for rejecting the entire spheroidal model Okay, this is awful. Love flat earth models don't work flat earth seismic models don't work. I showed you the references I Um, if you want let's let we'll say can you respond please go ahead? Yeah, so i'm not saying that because there's some anomalies all of it's wrong I never said that they were unaware of it. These are all straw man's So what i'm actually doing is addressing your claim in your opener that it works perfect It does it it's not even close and i'm just going to list some of the problems So we have the existence of the ultra slow and super rigid zones So the current model predicts that the speed of seismic waves should be relatively constant in the earth's mantle But observations have revealed that regions where seismic waves travel much slower are faster than expected are frequently occurring We have the african That therefore the earth is flat can you just that that's a straw man No, no, it isn't a straw man. You're citing this paper. What was its conclusion about the geometry of the earth? All or nothing fallacy Um, you know what that is. Um, yes, I do know what that is define it You can't just cherry pick bits out of a paper that finally understand that you have no expertise to To understand and then say well therefore that justifies me in the conclusion that the earth is flat The topic under debate is whether or not the earth is flat if you're introducing These publications these publications must support your position that the earth is flat and they don't Okay, that's incorrect. That's called an all or nothing fallacy. So I don't have to believe Can you please show I don't have to believe everything that a source says to invoke them In fact, this is a hostile witness and this is actually a rebuttal to your opening presentations positive claims A You invoke this as evidence the earth's a globe and actually you claim Exclusivity that it would only work on a globe and we know so because of the verifiability of it But actually that is not true. I'm only I didn't say these people think the earth's flat I didn't invoke this as evidence of flat earth I'm I'm rebutting your inaccurate claim to the audience that it matches the globe perfectly or that it's close to perfect And that it can only work on a globe. No, I only got to do one thing on the list and you freaked out I didn't say but you're you're attributing to me. Okay. I know all of the stuff that you're about to say, right? There are low viscosity zones. There are high viscosity zones. Yeah, yeah, mate I studied seismology for my phd, right? You're not telling me anything new here, right? And you're but you are presenting you are presenting things that aren't generally known to the aren't known to the general public But seismologists all know and there are no flat earth seismologists We can prove using seismology the geometry of the earth. I know a flatter seismologists So what does that mean? What does that have to do with anything? Introducing um, show me his publications. I'm not seeing his name. He has a youtube channel though. Show me his publications What? Okay, it doesn't know. Okay. Well on youtube a guy on youtube is not a seismologist He is a seismologist But the problem is if I was to say his name you would probably go harass where he works or something So I just want to point out. No, I want to see his publication. Where is his publication? I'll start. I'll start again establishing that the earth is flat I'll Okay straw man. So I'll see if you Water straw man asking for references is not a straw man. I'm never met a glober. That's not like emotionally impulsive So perhaps we could dig in deeper into this low viscosity zone evidence if you guys wanted to talk about that specifically That might be more interesting Yeah, like I just I think this will be cool. Like let me just list off some of the freaking um anomalies or scrubs And then you can teach me you probably know more about it than me But you you were a bit misleading saying that it worked really well. It doesn't we have all kinds of problems Really well, mate, you know that is bullshit The these these anomalies that you're talking about they are Velocity anomalies of less than a percent. They are detectable But the the velocity variations are really tiny You know to say and to say that a one percent in one, you know These are fractions of a percent in velocity and you're putting them up like or the model doesn't work at all No, one of the reasons we can reject the flat earth geometry is that you can't do flat earth inversions on where on On velocity you can't do tomographic You can't do flat earth tomography and get consistent velocity results They don't produce consistent results and you get massive tomographic anomalies, you know multiple percent So the stuff that you're saying is imperfections in our model It's vastly worse if you use flat earth balls. You're incorrect. You just claimed that it's it's always less than one percent That is not true either. So I don't know why you keep seeing this kind of stuff It seems like you're trying to be misleading, but i'm just going to read off the list, okay And that's poisoning the world fallacy when you are you are intentionally misrepresenting things. I don't know Not Okay, you said you did We could Just give me just give me just a second and I'll let you go. Okay, man. You're you've talked most time kind of just Just a second. Okay, so we have the existence of ultra slow and super rigid zones I explained that we have the african and pacific lls For fees, which is a card large low sheer velocity provinces or regions in the earth slower Men or seismic waves travel slower than in surrounding areas the lack of equal distribution doesn't make sense in the current model We have the anomalous d-layer. We talked about that where we have all kinds of anomalous Uh discrepancies within seismic activity. It's not just velocity. It's all kinds of stuff We have anomalous surface wave velocities as well, right? And so I have all the different sources here if you wanted to look at them But it's from oxford press geophysical journal international. These are springer international publishing Uh a geophysical journal international origin of the pacific and african lls vps I have all this data here a cambridge university saying we have a tons of anomalies and it's way more than 1% I don't know where you got that idea. What do you think? What do you think the term anomaly means in science? Okay, in this context, it means that the model has a certain prediction and that the data is anomalous to the prediction It doesn't match. No, that's not what it means So it's a scientific anomaly is a deviation from a background average So what we so when we talk about a velocity anomaly, we measure that velocity anomaly relative to the background average So saying that there's a velocity anomaly is just saying the velocity isn't uniform You know similarly when we talk about temperature anomalies, we don't You know, all we're saying is that the temperature has varied from the background value That's what the scientific definition of anomaly is and the same is true with gravity anomalies We're not saying that seismic models cease to work We're not saying that gravitational models cease to work What we're saying is that there is a deviation from uniformity and we don't expect uniformity Because we can see we can see from the surface of the earth Earth's properties are not uniform at the surface surface and we can see you know from the existence of mid ocean ridges Subduction plates Etc. Etc. We can see that it's not uniform at depth Completely different isotropic. It's much more homogenous and isotropic in the under layers of your own model as opposed to topographical obstruction That's not the same at all. It's entirely different if you understand what gravity and the geodynamo model was You would know that it's much more isotropic and homogenous of a predictive model in addition You claimed it was one percent and I have a citation here that's saying that it's over 40 percent So that seems a little different Okay, I'll drop you the citation So like do you do you agree that you maybe misspoke that it's not always always under one percent? It says this If there are anomalies that large they must be extremely localized Okay, so we have p waves of course for the audience primary waves in the low or most mantle That's about four to five or 4.5 to five kilometers per second while models predicted the speeds of about seven to eight kilometers second This represents a velocity discrepancy of about 30 to 40 compared to model predictions I'd like to see that paper Okay So where did you get the less than one percent thing? Well, I looked up tomographic results for the upper for the upper mantle Okay, and they they agree to within less than one percent. So, you know, I didn't make that claim out of thin air and I would like to know the The that the other question that I have for you is what is the geographical scale of this but you aren't giving me the paper I will drop the paper for you in here. But like the point is that you miss You're you're insisting on debating something and they're not giving me access to the paper I just said I have like 10 papers here that support everything. I'm saying I just said I'll drop None of them support anything that you're saying what you do Unless unless what you're saying is there are minor variations in the spheroidal model 40 percent Then yes, that was well that depends on the that depends on the geographical scale That I can't come in on because I don't have the fucking paper because you can't put it in the chat apparently Because I can't I'll drop them on the chat, but I just want I want to make sure I'm giving I only want the one with the 40 percent Don't drop them all. I'll be here all day trying to read them. I want okay. There you go. It's in the private chat, bud There you go Even cited for you Okay, so let's just kind of recap here, right? So like the in reality the the mechanism for these waves isn't even agreed upon They don't even know what the mechanism is. I want to make sure I don't misspeak So I have like the notes I took here, right? There are all kinds of different proposed mechanisms that aren't even you have the acoustic mechanism the convection mechanism The standing accretion shock instability theory to propose the mechanism They don't even agree how it works now the globe the anti-flat earth proponents what they do is they bring this up to say We know exactly how the waves work the primary and secondary wave the p and s waves in the earth We know exactly how they distribute We know what exactly the layers are and we know that it goes through the globe and we can predict it every time In reality that does not happen What they classify as primary waves go where they're not supposed to go and the same goes with secondary waves Waves that aren't supposed to penetrate the alleged core do penetrate it We have all kinds of discrepancies with the velocities up to 40 percent in certain areas, right? We have all kinds of discrepancies. They don't even know the mechanism And then there's an entire layer between the core and the mantle where there's everything is off It's completely chaotic and unpredictable. So and then that's why I pointed out in fact Earthquakes causing tsunamis don't help you because the tsunamis never wrap around Antarctica It makes more sense on out in our situation where they would bounce off of Antarctica So you've created some narrative where it makes sense in the globe You say this you say this you assert this and you've got absolutely no observational evidence supporting it I showed tsunami travel times compared with um compared with sea level records. I did it in my presentation We take observations. You're just making assertions You you you you don't use observations. This um garnero et al paper Reckons that seven percent is the size of the p-wave Is the size of the p-wave anomaly? The um, yeah, it does read the abstract Oh, so you didn't even go to the citation. You read the see this is the In two minutes in two minutes. I can't read an entire scientific paper. I cited it page 149 through 158 I'm pretty sure it says it right there. I don't know why you're like the entire paper, mate Okay, well, it says right here that it predicts 4.5 to five kilometers a second compared to the prediction of seven point Or it predicts seven to eight and it was measured 4.5 So that's more than Measured. How did they measure it? a size um a seismometer uh a seismometer Okay, measure velocities At the core mantle boundary Oh, what did they use to measure it? So what they do is they calculate the velocity using tomographic models. Don't they they don't observe it They don't measure it. No, this is an important distinction They do a calculation from the things that they can observe Right. They wow we got to go ahead. Sorry. Um Well, you know, if you're not interested in having it explained to you, that's fine No, it's hilarious. You just admitted that it's just calculative assumptions based on models Which is a beggin the question fallacy. So if you want to move to the next subject we did No, it isn't because we can exclude flat earth models We have tried we have assumed the earth is flat We've tried to model it assuming that it's flat and it flat out doesn't work We tried to model it assuming a globe. It doesn't work Yes, it does work. I just told you why it doesn't work There are um, no, you didn't you cited a bunch of scientists who don't agree with you And this this is where we get back to the the delusion aspect such a foul You think you think that you are capable of analyzing and properly interpreting These papers and you aren't you cherry pick bits and pieces out of them And then you present them as though you fully understand and as though the authors would agree with your conclusions How you have interpreted the data, but you have no qualifications that would permit this Instead you have delusional self-confidence That you can read stuff that is meant for actual specialist off fallacies Um, uh, no all true Adam fallacy If you turn if you turn up at if you turn up at an airport And tell them that you've read the manuals and you should be allowed to fly a plane. What do you think they're going to do? If you turn up at a hospital and Tell them that you're the world's greatest brain surgeon and they should let you operate Do you think they're going to let you do it? No, you're going to want to see your qualifications You don't have any if you don't have any field of credentials If they don't if if they if if you don't have any qualifications, then let's see your achievements Let's see what it is that you have done have contributed to human understanding and human technological development or any Or any flat worth. Okay. First of all, uh, that's completely irrelevant And there are all kinds of flattery through that done a lot of did a lot of things and a lot of the people I think there's a globe they assume a stationary topographical plane to do most of their technology Anyway, so it doesn't really matter what you're what you're saying This is all my man chill just monologues. This is all sophistry. Everything you said was a fallacy We've already spent 30 minutes on it The truth of the matter is is I just named off just a fraction of all the problems with it. I have written down You misrepresented the truth in your presentation and acted like the model works perfect and debunks flat earth But that is not true. I didn't buy the model works perfect at any point and you keep on repeating works every time That's what you said what I would what I said was Works every time model represents reality. Well, the said works every time accurate The model is accurate every time. Okay. Let's go back to um, let's let's bring up the p i key We can we can we p i k i p waves you brought those up. Oh, right. Sorry. I can't understand what you guys are saying right now Um, I'm just like I want specific Instead of like these like big like, oh, you don't do anything. Oh the like let's get into the specifics, right? Like stop using all kinds of fallacies. They don't make you pass logic for a phd I guess but it's just a bunch of fallacies and you personally attacking me just wasting time. I don't have a lot of time tonight. So Um, you want to get into specifics fine? So, you know, let's let's get more atoms. So we have p i k i p Actually, we can actually We can actually show up here are an infinite number of Uh, of are you sharing the screen again, tony? I will try and get the screen. Okay. So p i k i p wave amplitudes do not match the predictions the atmospheric conditions mess them up You have the wave frequencies not being consistent and you have the um, the wave polarization being inconsistent with the model predictions So even the p i k i p waves you brought up don't work the p and s waves. They aren't like some amazing To p k i k p waves proves that the earth isn't flat A wave that goes through the earth from the source to the other side Cannot be on a flat earth. Can it? First of all, you're assuming it's going down vertically through an assumed spherical model and assuming the density layers and the elemental composition of those layers And you're using a horizontal sedimentary layer model. That's been debunked. The elemental composition has nothing to do with it, right? You're using your density layers. You're using a sedimentary horizontal layer model, which has been debunked It's been debunked your sedimentary model layers been debunked Can you see this presentation? Do you need to assume sedimentary layers for it? So um, this is there's nothing about sedimentation in this Well, you don't you don't use horizontal sedimentary layers inside of your model. Um, we use um, uh, you don't know what sedimentary Layers means what you mean to say is this a radially symmetric model that's being developed. Yes, it is Oh No seismology has nothing to do with geology really. So the layers of the earth has nothing to do with it Um, yeah in in in reality. Yes Okay, but there's something called a great unconformity Before we move to the next point, uh, let's hear what he's got to say with this uh, so we get off the screen This is an infinite number of predictions Okay, these curves right here With these curves represent predictions of when particular phases from particular earthquakes are going to be detected by seismometers at a particular angular distance from the focus and we can see Um, so whenever there's an earthquake you could disprove this you could disprove this model You could simply point out that this model is incredibly wrong is just absolutely inadequate and doesn't even get close to reality Um, you could do that by just looking at observations. You could find one one, um earthquake where the pattern of first arrivals is um utterly incompatible with this And let's return to this stack. You can see here's the first 10 minutes down the bottom 20 minutes 30 minutes 40 minutes You can see that the waves are traveled As far as they can go 100, you know 180 kilometers within 20 minutes But the waves keep bouncing around back and forth for you know hours um, so um, and they sample the various um, you know, they sample the various um, uh forms of the world and you haven't even addressed Rayleigh waves Rayleigh waves as I pointed out previously travel from the epicenter to the antipode and back again Through multiple cycles. This is not possible on a flat earth. Explain to me how it is Uh, where do they go to and come back from? They start from the epicenter and they radiate the earthquake Okay, and then they radiate and then they come back from where they radiate out to the antipode You know, maybe it's better if I just show you so they do a full symmetrical loop around the globe and then they each other And then they come back. Wow. It's almost like there's something that reflects them and they don't just wrap around Fantastic. I was hoping you'd say that in fact, I warned you during my presentation But I don't You've made 10 different false claims already like Care what you were saying I just just for the chat to know, right? I have one two three four five six seven eight nine ten Sighted sources in here that explain exactly what I was saying earlier, right? So it's it's a it's a fact that the entire seismic model is Completely anomalous and flooded with then why do we get paid then? Why do we get paid to um to do underground surveys to people think the earth's a ball They want to explain earthquakes. They assume the earth's a ball, dude And this is what I want to do another one of the subjects in the earth is flat And we can show that the flat earth models don't work We can make your assumption. We can take your you know My phd was actually in flat earth seismic models because the mathematics is easier, right? We know how to do this and we get accurate results over short distances But when you try and do it over long distances, it doesn't work. It's on the globe I'm even on the globe. So basically what you just admitted was Yes, they do work on the globe and I don't work perfectly because we don't have perfect information about what's in the interior of the globe So we are learning Yeah, that's one point like it's been it's been whatever half the debate and like this was your point And I gladly just talked to you about the thing that you know more about But I want to point out that you did admit to everyone that well You don't actually directly observe them or measure them with any type of equipment It's a calculative model assumption You then said that we know with extreme accuracy using a flat model what it goes out to 150 kilometers But then outside that doesn't work, but it doesn't work outside of that even on the globe model I just listed all kinds of anomalies. I dropped all of my sources. So if we can move on to another subject He's created a logical fallacy there and I'm not willing to let on to it. Um an imperfect. What is the fallacy? The fallacy is saying that saying that spheroidal seismic models are imperfect means that they are equally As inaccurate as flat earth models. That is not the case flat earth models are demonstrably vastly Incredibly less accurate than spheroidal model. Can you use a flat? We're bling over details I don't know the answer to this when you use a flat earth model What what depth are you using in your model? um, we can go down to Arbitrary depths. We've got that was actually the point of my phd was adapting we can go down as far as you like We've got numerically stable routines Can I go down five million miles? If you want to if you want to have five million miles of stuff in there, sure Okay, so this is my point you're claiming to have represented the flat earth with your seismic data And you assume thousands of miles below our feet when the flat earth knows that you can't verify anything past 7.8 miles And there's actually a dielectric plane That's within the inertial plane or the block domain wall of the magnetic field that is not materially accessible And that's what all science and physics say so you strawman flat earth I covered that in my presentation though. No, you didn't look like this is this is gibbering nonsense This this these cesspool pardalian regurgitations of utter gibberish Don't impress anybody because anybody with an ounce, you know You use this to sort of convince your flat earth flat earth buddies that you know what you're talking about when you when you just Wrap it off a bunch of lots of labic gibberish And and and and it's um No, it's a description mate You want to address my point about the depth assumption you apply to a strawman version Of a flat earth. Well the the reality is that The reflections from depth attenuate very very quickly if you just have a If you just have a an arbitrarily deep the sources that we're looking at You know the the larger sources if you apply them, um, you know It it it doesn't work. He can't work Um, you know and I explain to you why the b and s waves You you looked at the you look at the arrival times of the p and s waves and how they seem to be getting deeper on a flat earth The the wave a p wave coming from uh coming from a source has to go down Go across and go up and that is extra Extra mileage on it on a spheroidal earth where the surface is over that it's taking a shortcut through Right and it's traveling at greater depth So the fact that the p and s wave arrival times curved down is direct refutation Of the flat earth models the camera has to be observed the observatory you say that but again, you're delusional You say you say You say stuff Well, what's the evidence ask? What's his evidence? Yes. Okay. Okay. So for one you're building all the all the interpretations Evidence observations, mate. Where are your observations validating your position? Yeah, so we have to see an idea with me. Don't don't don't use your sophistry show me your evidence Show me the observations Where are your observations? Um, yeah, like so we can use the same data that you have but the problem is that you're interpreting the data based upon all kinds Of assumptions like the different layers of your The same without the assumptions Okay, but we can't well the thing is we can't verify below 7.8 miles So you're you're making a calculative model assumption based on all kinds of theoretical ideas of the layers And it admittedly doesn't work and they're constantly changing it. It's just That your phc's in pseudoscience doesn't work. It is admittedly Not completely accurate. That is a very that is very very different That's like saying that radar isn't completely accurate. Therefore radar is useless Okay, we can we can just make up the distance to things Because radar isn't 100 percent nowhere close to as accurate as radar Um, yes, it is 40 percent 40 percent. Um Assuming your claim is true through a body that is at the thickness 20 Kilometers, right? So that so it would be in that Um, it would be in that for about 0.4 of a second. Well, no 1.232 seconds So it would be about 0.8 of a second anomaly So there's it was less than one second normally on a tiny sub fraction of the wave packets And you're claiming you're claiming on that basis that the entirety of seismology can be thrown out Even the beats that the oil companies and the mineral exploration companies rely on to get to make the computer that you're using No, I just like to I like to argue with the bait the people on in like their field of expertise And I've demonstrated that this is just a glorified begging the question fallacy You presuppose that the earth is a sphere. You didn't make You yourself said you don't make We've tried flat earth. How many times do I have to say it? We have tried flat earth We've used them and then you say you just assume it's a sphere. No, we've tried modeling it as flat and it doesn't work Yeah, but you never but through your You know, you've got this cobweb of delusion around you. You can't even take any information I've explained this to you 10 times already in this debate. No, you're my rebuttal And we have used them. Okay. Look, I gotta calm down and you work All right, you can't just scream and thus get to interrupt me need to chill Okay, like the point is that I rebutted you said we used the flat earth and I said no You made all kinds of like depth assumptions that flat earth doesn't actually make or believe at all You took the globe. I did you you took the globe. Listen, man Took the globe I did of the depths and how to interpret the waves and then tried to put it on a localized Horizontal region and then you came on the internet and claimed you tested flat earth So, you know, you had to know the depths. That's what all seismics built on and we can't verify past 7.8 miles We do not make fairy tale claims about what's beneath that you taking density layers Based on a globe model and throwing it on a horizontal region and then saying it doesn't work on flat earth is ridiculous No, that's not what we do. We allow the velocity profiles to vary. That's what tomography is So we start from a base model and then we allow The um velocity profiles to vary in response to the observations So we don't just make assumptions and when we allow the flat earth models the flat earth tomographic data to do that It doesn't produce consistent results You get different velocity profiles for the same region from different earthquakes and different seismometer Combinations the flat earth combinations can't work that happens on the globe No, it doesn't I just cited it You know, you didn't what you cited in papers what you cited Minor imprecisions in our knowledge in our knowledge and understanding of the earth at great depth That is not the same as saying that the model doesn't work at all Now first of all, you're just saying it's minor, but it's up to 40 percent. We have the s wave shadow zone Wait up. Wait up. Wait up, man So we have the s wave shadow zone waves that are completely blocked when they encounter the liquid outer core Resulting in a shadow zone the opposite side of the earth as well But this shadow zone extends from about 103 to 142 degrees from the earthquake epicenter and is characterized by a lack of s wave arrivals However, some s waves can be converted to p waves when they encounter the boundary between the earth's mental and core Allowing him to travel through the liquid outer core and reach the opposite side of the earth as a p wave So whenever their model doesn't work and it goes through where it's not supposed to they say Oh, well, we can convert it and vice versa. You have p wave shadow zone issues You have p wave reflection you have p wave diffraction you have s wave scattering You have discrepancies and p wave velocity anomalies Magnitude discrepancies. So we've spent most of the debate on this. Can I bring up one of my points now? Dude, because because we buried no no absolutely not So you you don't get to spout a lot of bullshit about the discipline that i'm a nurse I'm an expert in and then move on If you want to move on to another topic, I get the last word on the subject that I'm an expert in Oh, you had the juice like that bro come now. Um, so the um All of that all of that stuff that you were just saying that you were just mattering about Um has no, you know, we understand how sound waves work Right, we can do experiments on the propagation of sound waves through solids in the laboratory In fact, we get rocks from volcanoes We put them at high pressure and temperature and then we run seismic waves through them So you claim that we don't know what's happening with the seismic with seismic properties at depth is untrue Because we do do experimental recreations of process of conditions inside the earth using rocks that come from inside the earth So that's just nonsense. Um, and the other stuff that you flouted Sounded like sounded like um sounded absolutely correct There isn't a seismologist who on the planet who would disagree with you and none of them Say for your anonymous friend who has no publications that we can that we can reference Um, uh, we'll agree with you about your conclusions You know now we're gonna run and if One final point if seismology is completely useless Completely inaccurate and utterly without value Why is anybody paid to study it? The straw man fallacy. I didn't say it was completely without value. It just built upon a begging the question fallacy. So Affirming the consequent Reification fallacy. All right. So anyway, we tested the flat earth Again, you're going to have to shut up with this nonsense. You straw man the flat earth There is no flat earth model that can explain the observations and until there is you're useless and irrelevant You straw man the flat earth So no, no, no, no, this is how science works, mate Science is about explaining what we observe in reality Flat earth cannot explain what we observe in reality and when when confronted on the subject It just goes yeah Yeah, we can't explain it. So what what does that matter? Well, it actually It actually matters, mate because we do think we get results in the real world lives depend On seismic models and tsunami propagation models being accurate and billions of dollars of infrastructure depend on them as well and people pay Good money to understand the processes that drive them and how okay their life And you don't get to say all useless No, I pointed specifically why I was wrong. We can move on but like just beg for the question of the model You don't get to say it's just wrong and then move on No, if you want to I specified why it was right up and move on Well, you're the one that's actually avoiding substantive specificity like it's the plague, you know Like i'm bringing up specific problems. I'm the only one that brought in I'm the only one okay I'm the only one that has produced measurements No, actually, I just showed uh, I you said less than one percent had a correction in front of the whole room And now you're pretending you've been teaching me so hey, we can move on now So like there's something called ground wave radio transmissions Okay, and so we can shoot them from according to the military Three meter tall tower a horizontal line of sight propagation Over 800 kilometers right from like a three kilometer. So I mean a three meter tall tower Yeah, sure. I'll drop a citation So the point is that I want to see if you can answer the question Which is that if we shoot the propagation I actually showed this on my last debate right the military document If I shoot horizontal ground wave propagation from 10 feet up And I shoot at 497 miles Right, how could I reach my target almost 500 miles away? If there should be 32 miles of vertical earth curvature blocking the horizontal propagation of the radio wave wave guiding Wave guiding. Yes Okay, you want to explain to me what what you're what you're attempting to say Um, I'm attempting to say that there are physical principles that we can use to guide waves like what? In this particular in this particular case. Um, I don't know Yeah, I think you're but it's okay to say you don't know at that But that doesn't that doesn't so um, but that doesn't mean that um, and again You haven't shared the reference with me. So how would I have any idea that what you're even claiming is real? Well, it's funny because I dropped 10 references with you that you ignore But now you want to reference so well, you only want to reference whenever you'd want to try to come at flatter It seems you want to ignore the direct and specific refutations of your like They're not refutations they are minor imprecisions No, it's 40 percent is it minor 40 for a tiny fraction of earth's mass You know, um for a for a neographically limited and very depth limited Layer within the earth We have huge discrepancies low down as well. So we're not going to go back into that because you're just going to make stuff You brought it up, mate. You brought it up Yeah, I was I was making a point. You don't want to discuss it Um, don't mention it. I said you ignored all the other Again, you know Again, they are minor in they these are my presentation Well, apparently you want to talk about seismology the entire time you brought it up again You don't get to just bring up stuff and pretend that oh no, it settled this way Okay, if you're going to reference the seismic stuff wheel go back to the seismic stuff Okay, I think I already talked about the seismic stuff. Don't mention the seismic stuff Well, I know there's going to be like like really zealous people in the chat that no matter what they're going to say You're right because you appealed to pure ph. E over and over but people that can critically think will hear that actually I had to correct you and you were wrong It's whatever it's a begging the question fallacy. We can how do the radio waves work? You're delusional how do the radio waves work? This is the this is the simple this is the simple reality with it You are delusion. You imagine that you have a very professional I'm not at work Am I at work? Am I getting in an intellectual setting? No, I'm not. I'm talking to a delusional man self projection I'm so Basically, this is the thing that I have observations from reality. You haven't even given me the Reference that you allege you claims the phenomenon. You literally said and I quote we don't make actual observations We make Assuming the model I've told you observations of tsunami travel times. Are those observations? Well, the tsunami travel times don't help you out Our seismic waves our seismic waves observation is the propagation of rally waves observed and measured Yes, it is. Well, they're not they're not directly observed as they go through the entire Pressure to size it. Rally waves don't go through the earth. That's why they're surface waves. So they're surf Yeah, the surface waves anomalies. I've already brought up to you that there are Sighted it in the chat. Minor anomalies. They don't get you to you can't explain Why it goes around the earth multiple times from epicenter to antipode and back again You didn't explain they don't always do that. They do what pun? They don't always do that No, because the earthquake isn't big or isn't always big enough for earthquakes. What about the ones that are really big and still don't do that They're too deep Oh, so basically they always do something that they don't do rally wave rally wave formation is dependent Is a result of p and s wave interactions at the surface that create these sort of accordion style Defirmations, they're the most damaging seismic waves, by the way And they propagate once at the surface and created they propagate around the surface. They don't return to depth So that's my No, you raised it. You raised the question and now i'm answering your question and now you can't You did you you brought up size? You know You lied about rally waves You lied about um You know and you're trying to you're trying to pretend like minor inconsistencies Uh, um, uh somehow enough to invalidate the entirety of science You just keep trying to say stuff to make it sound bad. You're like, oh minor discrepancy. No, I said 40 percent There's all kinds of surface wave anomalies. You interrupt Incessantly you straw man. Incessantly you constantly ad-hom. You're not good at the big. I'm sorry This is without lying Okay, so again projection. So can you explain the radio waves? like no Okay, so you can't explain the radio waves. What about how and there's the magnetic field isn't symmetrical as the globerth The globerth model would predict Not predict that the I studied geomagnetism for my honors in mathematics the earth's magnetic field. There is absolutely no claim of um symmetricality for earth's magnetic field. That is absolute nonsense Where's the size site site your source that tells me the site your scientific paper that tells me that earth's magnetic field should be symmetrical Yeah, I will it's there's a paper right here all about the uh Asymmetry of the magnetic field from harvard and how they're using supercomputers to try to fix the discrepancy now Of course, it's not trying to be perfect Symmetric it doesn't not supposed to be perfectly symmetrical But it's supposed to be overall symmetrical. It's a geo dynamo model coming from the center of a sphere So the northern and southern hemisphere should be symmetrically dispersing from the center, but it's not but it's not So that's entirely that's entirely dependent on the conductivity of the material in the um in the mantle Uh, I don't even distribution of conductive material in the mantle will result in gravitational anomalies. You're also Ignoring the um, you're also ignoring and while a lot of geo dynamo researchers like to assume that the mantle just isn't conducted It actually is um, and we you Yes, you're going against So the point is that I just now broke down that it should be symmetrical. It's not symmetrical And they actually say that they would have you claim that it should be symmetrical But again, you're delusional with it. Where is harvard claims it harvard claims it. You haven't shown it. Had you I'm about to you're constantly asking for citations I have to go find each one of them, man. The point is that you've offered no citations other than what you had in your presentation Show us the citation Show us the citation Okay, I have to find it I have tons of files But the point is that you can deny it But everyone else at home can go look up asymmetry of the geomagnetic field based on the geo dynamo model And they'll see i'm telling the truth. And so actually for the are you're claiming that the mantle What time are you claiming that the mantle is causing it? So are you claiming that the southern hemisphere has an entirely different distribution within the mantle? Yes, in fact, there's a sub-pacific anomaly Most of the it's called the south atlantic anomaly and that's not what i'm talking about I'm talking about what's what's in the southern hemisphere's mantle that's making it so much different than the north I don't know Right, okay, so this But you know, it's just see you need to demonstrate you have made the claim The the claim that All scientists or all geomagnetists believe that earth's magnetic field should be symmetric Prove that Why are you always straw man prove that? Just prove you're straw man. So first of all, I never said all scientists anything I'm not fallacious. So I don't say things like that. That's ignorant All scientists don't think any one thing only like glow proponents that gas light say that But the point is that based on the fundamental understanding of what a geo dynamo model is If you understood a dynamo process and how you actually There's no there's no So they they claim that there's a dynamo process which has convection currents that come from the core that create the magnetic field And so since the north and the south aren't symmetrical They say there must be something going on in the core that we don't fully understand that's causing the southern hemisphere to be Significantly weaker than the north that has nothing to do with the mantle Um, well, you know, I'm I am your evidence the evidence So you've you've pulled off you've pulled a swiftly here Your assertion was in your presentation that because there are asymmetries in earth's magnetic field Therefore the earth must be flat Um, no, that's not true. Um, I can tell you just from and just from variations in mental conductivity There should be asymmetries and you'll claim that there shouldn't be asymmetries is false You'll claim that the paper you're referencing Um suggests that um, the geo dynamo is model is completely wrong or that the flat earth Uh, uh or the yeah The northern hemisphere um No delusion you asked me to sign the papers. I just dropped three of them in the chat And Yes, mate and you know, um, none of them prove that none of them will claim that the earth is flat, right from it I'd ever clean that. Do any of these do any of these based on do any of these Papers that you just dropped claim that the earth is say that on this basis We we conclude that the observed geomagnetic field is inconsistent with um, uh, spherical earth It's inconsistent with this Geo dynamo model. I just cited it So the audience knows i'm not lying about citing it because you're just ignoring them So there's the southern hemisphere geomagnetic field the new insights into secular variation in geodynamo space science reviews 206 207 through 233 We have the southern hemisphere ionospheric asymmetry and total electron content and its relationship to large-scale berkland currents And we have the southern hemisphere geomagnetic anomaly evidence for a hemispherical difference in core mantle boundary heat flow So there you go There's three of the papers and they can listen back to this dream and see that Actually just speaking accurately about your model that you don't understand No, this is You are you are so delusional The the idea that the observations don't agree with a particular model Um requires that the model be revised fine But that doesn't make the model completely useless and in and in need of being scrapped Which is what you're suggesting you're suggesting that no Spherical model um with a geodynamo in it can explain the observations That is not the conclusion that any of these papers reach what they have Yes, they do it's it it will be in the bit of the paper labeled conclusion In a bit or most certainly yeah, yeah So they they admit they can't even use supercomputers to mathematically fix this problem yet They have no idea why because of course based on the geodynamo based on the geodynamo model The core should be evenly distributed on all sides of it So it should be symmetrical on the outside as well because convection currently supposedly It doesn't work. It doesn't work So the radio transmissions you had no answer for you don't understand the magnetic field You basically just conceded that the waves don't ever go around Antarctica So we can move on to another point in the last minute You claim that tsunami waves never went around Antarctica and you never proved any you never provided any observations You never provided any observational validation for that whatsoever in my presentation Um, no, you didn't you I showed a picture of a very big wave of A wave um, you know a tsunami a tsunami Yes, you're claiming on that basis that all tsunamis behave the same way as that tsunami no, I'm saying Their mechanism and their um, uh, and their magnitude that is a that is not a valid citizens No, but if you understood how fat if you understood how logic worked, I can't prove a negative So I'm saying on the evidence I've seen I've never seen where they go around Antarctica You even gave an excuse as please stop you gave an excuse as to why they didn't go around Antarctica You said that there's a reason and then I said Okay, if you have evidence that they wrap around an article, please let me know and then I'll look into it um My claim is that the propagation of tsunamis in all circumstances Is very consistent with our models for tsunami propagation That's my claim And you have to go into the scientific time You know I just want to add one more thing None of the papers that he's referenced say what he say what he claims they say Again, this is just The that our models that the models of the geodynamo dynamo process Are not consistent with observations requires that they be modified fine But none of them are going to say therefore the geodynamo doesn't exist Or therefore the earth is not spheroidal the fact that scientific models have imprecisions in them as I said All models are wrong Some models are useful except for the flat earth model. It's not useful. It is never useful Well, yeah, that that that's a bit of another statement It can be used on very short length scales or to grossly simplify the mathematics that you're dealing with Or explain all celestial phenomena and earthquakes and tsunamis. Okay, cool All right, so let's go ahead and move on to the q&a. Shall we gentlemen? Yeah awesome, okay, so Let me go ahead and switch over my graphics here and put 30 minutes on the clock So since about how much time we have before nine and once again ladies and gentlemen 10 super chats in upper What it's gonna get priority tonight. So Please be understanding of that and when we put 30 minutes on the clock right now There we go and the first question coming in from Sorry All of this is a long list. I hope we can get through all of them Okay from arcane visions for ten dollars. They say to austin Can you explain the three-body problem and why super computers are unable to mathematically model Just the orbits of the earth sun and moon under current heliocentric theory Uh, yeah, because the dynamic relationship assumed which is built upon the kinematic and geometric assumptions The mass distribution relationship can't even be mathematically theorized So they have to break it all down into two body equations Then try to get a temporary solutions and then build an overall assumption So yeah, even super computers can't make your model work and it's all built upon math Then it seems likely that maybe your model is wrong. Yeah, so um The model is we're not gonna be able to have time to have everybody uh to respond to both questions to each question So i'm sorry, but we're just gonna have to have the person who's been asked uh Respond, I'll try to get any questions for you, uh, tony up to the top two as well Um from coconut cream pie for ten dollar. They say where is the sun? However to answer this question. We need to we need two axioms first One the sun exists and two the sun is a higher elevation than mount everest use evidence for your answer I'm not sure that's for so you can both respond to that one Okay, well, we can bounce radar waves off the sun. We can also point to the fact that after a Coronal mass ejection it takes three days for solar storms to reach earth Um, if the if the sun is local, why does that take so long? Why can we predict? Um solar storms before they get here Okay, so yeah, you think that's you you assume you shouldn't wear your waves So the sun I think that's in my previous 93 million miles away. That's absurd to me And why why do the radio waves take a certain amount of distance even if that was true? Which it's not by the way they created an entire new method of interpretation whenever they allegedly bounce right off the way You should stop just reading believing everything on the tune dot net But anyway, uh, there would be a different medium than what you assume And yeah, so the sun is local, but it's has an apparent position based on what we perceive So yes, the sun exists. Yes, it seems to be higher than mount everest But it's also an in within an azimuthal grid of observability So we can only see so far we have a visual curved limit to our space our visual space And so we see in a parent position We don't always we don't see the actual position of some physical tangible sun And uh, understanding this fact you can explain every position of the sun all throughout every single year on a flat earth Sorry, sorry, I'm sorry, no For you for ten dollars the questions for you says if we know the mass distance velocity of the sun moon and earth How is it super computers can't even mathematically model the orbits aka three body problem? And how can heliocentrists claim to have a working model? Okay, so the um issue is mass distributions within earth and within the moon these Not constant um, and they cause perturbations in the gravitational attraction between earth and moon in particular That's what causes the instabilities that um that you're Interlocutor that my interlocutor is asking for But uh, I find that irrelevant to the topic of conversation the topic of conversation is the shape of the earth And what I find Interesting about wits its answer to his last question was that he made a lot of declarative statements about what's happening And he produced absolutely zero observational evidence for it didn't even reference observational evidence You know, we are talking about the shape of the earth I have presented the evidence the spherical distance formula the propagation of Rayleigh waves the propagation of atmospheric pressure waves These are observational observational phenomena that are completely unexplainable on a flat earth All right, awesome. Thank you so much from arcane visions once again for ten dollars. Thank you so much arcane They say to tony once again Bay of fundy at six thousand one hundred and twenty eight square miles Has a mean tide range of thirty eight point four feet Which which equates to moving four hundred and thirteen trillion pounds of water With that large of a pull force. Can people also jump higher at high tide? um No, what's happening at the bay of fundy is that the bathymetry and topography there are funneling the the tide So that it it's moving a broad wave, but it moves into a funnel and it gets sort of Lifted up. That's why the inertia of the Of the water as it is responding to tidal forcing Brings it into this funnel. The water level is is Rises that dramatically because of bathymetric and and topographic effects And this is something that flat earthers refuse to take into account in their discussions of of tides Got it. Thank you so much once again from arcane visions for ten dollars. Thank you again arcane visions tony I wait a rock every hour during new moon when pull of sun slash moon should be strongest since they are aligned And saw no change in weight 23.73 grams. Why does the sun slash moon pull water but not my rock? The problem there is the accuracy of your instrument Um, you know the tidal effect is not Is not sufficiently large to be picked up with only Two decimal places I work maintaining a superconducting gravimeter and superconducting gravimeters More than accurate enough to To detect tidal forcing you can see it. See it come across. We also see solid earth tides In the gps records and we also see loading due to atmospheric tides. So Flat earth approximate flat earth arguments that are based solely on water Don't hold any weight the gravity is a gravity the tidal effect on the solid earth And the tidal effect on say test masses inside this superconducting gravimeter are detectable measurable and agree with the theory Got it. Thank you so much next superchat comes in from nick for ten dollars. Thank you so much nick They are a critic of you tony. They wanted to say did you miss austin's last debate that he created a lot of flat Earthers with his demeanor and tonight you did the same and that you did a disservice to the globe How do you respond to that? I respond to that by saying Got it. Thank you so much and then from arcane visions once again for ten dollars They say to tony between solar noon and midnight at equator the speed a person experiences would change by 2074 miles per hour earth rotating with orbit versus against yet. We can't feel it measure it or detect it. Please explain so we have a system for measuring the accelerations that we feel but if that system were So sensitive that it picked up the rotation of the earth and other things it would be Barely useful. It would it would not be useful at all. It provides no evolutionary advantage for us to be able to feel accelerations. That's small They are tiny and and our body just isn't sensitive, you know our now our the The systems we use to detect acceleration simply unsensitive enough to detect changes of that magnitude but we can detect them with With instruments that are sensitive enough. We can build instruments that are sensitive enough This is one of the advantages we have over people who lived say 10 000 years ago Is that we can build vastly more sensitive instruments and we can measure and observe the effects And demonstrate that they're occurring All right, thank you so much. I'll let you both respond to this one Shane taft is saying for 999. Thank you so much. Shane They say that this is why this right here is why every day there are more flat earthers and less globe earthers Yeah, that's like the number one thing I get is that uh The way that people defend the globe just comes off a bit fallacious and uh It shouldn't be needed if the earth really is a globe, but yeah, that's all good. That's why that's why I do this If somebody's delusional enough to think that um, which it presented any observational evidence for his model I can't help him To watch the presentation bet Got it. Thank you both so much from troll nerd for ten dollars. They say thank you. So thank you so much troll nerd They say to witsit. It seems to me You don't understand like most non scientific people that terms like anomaly and theory have different meanings in a scientific context than in a colloquial language Anomaly means it doesn't the data set doesn't match the predicted data set and needs to be further explained and expanded upon 40 percent discrepancy Is means your model's wrong, okay? It means that your current understanding of that specific phenomena is incorrect That's just the way it is now I listed a lot of them But we would have had to have like impatience and not incest interrupting to go through the specifics of each one And it clearly just wasn't like a viable Uh, you know option right now, but yeah, anyway, it's all good to each their own The moderators are good. By the way, I'm not taking shots of you I'm just saying like it clearly was a little bit way too heated to work To have to go through like the depths of all these different specifics But um, I encourage people to listen to the terms I said and go look into it You'll be surprised that it's kind of like the wizard of Oz curtain that is size up seismology I did see a lot of comments in the chat about my moderation And I will say that I am all for letting the debaters Just dictate the narrative of this debate if they want to have a dumpster fire That's on them if they want to have a nice cordial conversation that is also on them It is not my job to control that. Um, thank you so much For from arcane visions for ten dollars, uh, Tony a Tony a plane seven miles high is carried along with spin of earth How does fluid atmosphere carry a solid in sync with earth spinning seven miles below? What altitude must be reached for this to no longer occur? Okay, so the fluid dynamics of um, uh, the atmosphere the atmosphere has been Entrained by um earth's topography for four billion years. Um, so the um, so that It's can you repeat the question because I I think that that's just an answer to it. There's there's you know Um, it unless it's acted upon by another force. It's just going to keep on doing that. So Do we repeat it repeat the question? Yeah, uh a plane seven miles high is carried along with the spin of the earth How does fluid atmosphere carry a solid in sync with earth spinning seven miles below? What altitude must be reached for this to no longer occur? Okay. Well, I think that the um, uh, that the There are multiple levels on which that a question on which that question is kind of meaningless Um, as you go higher the atmosphere gets thinner and less able to but the um, but it's not a question of the atmosphere um Carrying the airplane the airplane has its own inertia when it takes off and applies a force relative to the atmosphere and the atmosphere is moving um You know by 100 kilometers the atmosphere is fairly thin though atmospheric drag effects um are significant, you know, so at 200 kilometers atmospheric drag effects um, uh, basically pull your orbits out of saddle out of um your satellites out of orbit so All right. Thank you so much from flanker 420 for $10. They say I am an astrophotographer an amateur astronomer Why can I see spherical planets and moons with my optical telescope? I also track the sun that strays the say that stays the same size all day. How is this possible? Yeah So for one you just saying it's a sphere doesn't actually mean anything And you normally have to layer like hundreds of pictures on top of each other to get any type of real resolution. Um That's what actually happens, but it doesn't even matter if there were spheres up there That doesn't prove that the earth's a sphere. It's insane to think that um, and when it comes to the angular size change of the sun Well, uh, we have an azimuthal grid of vision. So I I'm not gonna share my screen Obviously q and a we don't have a lot of time, but um, you can go look at the uh, walter bizlin's model So thanks walter and uh, walter bizlin flat earth model You'll see that as the sun moves away from the observer in that azimuthal grid of vision The sun stays the same size because it's reaching your curved space visual limit And this of course the same thing used for time and day and solarium within, you know, even the globe paradigm That's how we actually map out the sky. We take an azimuthin altitude. So within that, uh Celestial hemisphere you would have a curved visual space limit And so you would only perceive the sun on that limit So it would stay the same distance from you and you wouldn't see an angular size change other than throughout the year Which is what we observe All right, thank you You have any observations to that I'm sorry Was it he wasn't addressed to wits it You're right. Clearly, but it was proceed Um, so do you have any observational evidence for what you just said? Uh, yeah, yeah, everything that we've ever done when it comes to taking measurements of the sky We take an azimuth in an altitude and it gives us a celestial hemisphere and time and day solarium also use that So we all angles ever taken to the celestial objects. Yeah I I missed your observations All celestial angles You just kind of serious From coconut cream pie for ten dollars they say another question What and where are the stars in the night sky only axiom the night time stars Lighted the night time stars light is fainter than sunlight Yeah Who's the question for What and where are the stars at the in the night sky? I believe that's for you with it because they're asking where the stars go in the daytime, I believe Yeah, yeah So we like the stars move over top of us and you can only see the stars from so far away Of course the sun lights up just a portion of the earth as we observe for all recorded history And so you you know lights obviously going to make the stars less visible. They move over top of us And then they reach your limit of perspective, which is current visual space Which comes back to our azimuth or greater vision. So just to say this real fast So everyone understands you have an azimuth, which will be like your horizontal directional angle that you take You have your zenith, which is directly above you and then you have your Altitude angles right coming up from that horizontal up to the zenith You have altitude angles and then you can continue that behind you This is how we get positions of this This is how we map out the sky right and we get a coordinate system a grid system And that gives us an azimuthal grid of vision And so that's just the limit of our perspective and that's why we can't see the stars forever They move away from us and they're beyond our limit of perspective Okay, my got it. Okay. No, let's move on. Shall we we have about one question per minute that we have left from the q&a So we have to move on from arcane visions for ten dollars. They say to tony Per nasa radius of earth is 13 miles greater at equator than at poles Does a flight from finland over the equator Have to increase altitude to make it over this increased radius. Why or why not? Okay, so planes fly at planes when they take off they set up they configure their their wings and the various flaps that they've got so that they will stay at an equal pressure If they go above that pressure they lose lift and they sink back So They'll just stay at the same pressure Altitude as they go along unless there's some pilot intervention so and the pressure That iso pressure isobar altitude Will stay the same height above the surface of the earth as you move along Roughly speaking But as long as they follow an isobar they don't need to do anything to get over that over that Button over the equatorial bulge You're muted brother. Thank you From arcane vision From arcane visions for ten dollars to tony If Pluto were the size of a bb. That's 0.73 inches in diameter The sun would be 8.45 feet in diameter with a distance separating the two of 6.8 miles Is it believable to you that gravity holds that bb in orbit 6.8 miles away? Yes Well, I mean you can't you can't do that calculation But you know the sort of yes The the gravitational just the gravitational forces involve just scale down So if there was nothing else around if that was the only configuration if those were the only two bodies you You had yes, that would be the gravitational configuration you'd reach Got it. Thank you so much from t baggins for ten dollars to uh I'm not sure yet. How do airplanes fly hundreds of miles straightforward without consistently and routinely Dipping their noses down to compensate for the curvature of the earth I just explained it's the following isabari. They're fine. They're following an isobaric Altitude so they are configured so that automatically if they if they go above the isobar They'll lose lift and they'll just drop back onto the isobar so by configuring their By configuring their wings and their flaps and various other controllers appropriately They can just follow the isobar without any intervention They do not need to adjust for curvature of earth because the isobar curves Naturally, and they do this actually adjusting horizontal. I'm sorry. Awesome. I'm sorry From earth is life for ten dollars to you witsit. When did you become a seismologist? Oh, I I'm not a seismologist But I just know that people that get a degree They think that they can just pretend that they have it all figured out But in reality they have all kinds of presuppositions Reifications when you're talking about things thousands of miles deeper than we have access to That's called pseudoscience and it's cool if you want to try to figure it out But don't don't misrepresent it like you know about it So, I mean all I had to do is go like look into it a little bit And there are well known discrepancies and anomalies that don't match the predicted value You do not have current explanations. I was just pointing them out because you know The globe typically misrepresents the efficacy of their model. That's all I'm doing Okay from arcane visions for ten dollars. They say to tony serious The brightest star in the night sky has a diameter slash distance ratio equivalent to viewing a dime from 375 miles can a light source the size of a dime viewed from 375 miles be as bright as serious I regard the question as Largely meaningless. I mean I don't I don't care for this Yeah, if it's as bright as a star sure if you set off a fusion bomb And you have a straight line to it. Yeah, you're going to see it It's a it's an insanely hot near stars We can tell from their spectrographic and from spectrographic analysis are producing their energy through fusion We can also detect the byproducts of this fusion When we point neutrino detectors at them for instance We can follow the trajectory of the sun as it goes around You know as it as it appears from some to somebody on earth as it goes underground and around and back up We can track it using neutrino detectors So the claim that it always stays above the earth is easily Invalidated But yes, if you have a bright enough dime at however much distance that is you will see it the photons will get to you All right, so ladies and gentlemen, we now have More than one super chat per minute left. So send any super chats further at your own peril We have way more than enough to get through the next 10 minutes So we're going to try to get through them as fast as we can once again From t baggins for ten dollars. They say to tony, uh, please calm down Why do lakes have tides? Why do lakes not have tides to the same degree like the oceans shouldn't the moon have the same effect on bodies of water That's strange Yeah, it's a matter of length wave Wave height is a function of how How long a distance you can apply the force over? so the reality is that the The the reality is that that affects the size of the certain size of the waves that you can have but also And this is this was what won't be laughed when wits. It was talking about tides When he said the gravitation the gravitational effect of the moon is constant tides only occur Because the gravitational attraction isn't constant, but over a small distance like a lake It it is pretty constant so the The distance from one side of the lake to the moon to the other side of the lake is not that big So that's why you don't see large Large tidal influences on small bodies of water Got it and then from zarax zaraxeran for 10 euros. Thank you so much zaraxeran They ask to wits it x-rays show the skeleton if there is a broken bone there is an anomaly So in your opinion x-rays are always false. Can you give a paper on how p slash s waves work on flat earth? Uh Yeah, so first of all, I didn't say that the moon's gravity was always constant I said it would be an even distribution relative to its position over the earth In addition to that Like I the point is that your clay he claimed in his presentation because i'm trying to keep it really quick that it always worked It doesn't always work at all whatsoever. No, of course you have certain anomalies Of course, you have certain anomalies You can watch it back word for word set always works and it doesn't there's huge anomalies up to 40 percent And there's way more we didn't get into so it's not it's about the fact that it's claimed to It's invoked to claim that it's proof of the earth being a globe when it clearly is not even understood All right, thank you so much from cool lambo for 20 australian, I think uh, austin eggs are one dollar at one store But two dollars at another what shape is the earth? What I totally clogged all right the earth is based on a topographical point out another shape Okay from sky scion for 499 uh to doc through phd tony, uh, literally Literally became like okay. I'm sorry. Hold on They are um criticizing you for your uh demeanor once again. Um Fantastic. I don't know Okay, uh, eric air plating for ten dollars to whits it Please give the reference for the radio wave propagation that dr. Tony asked for Yeah, sure. I mean he ignored all my citations. So Well, you do I'll drop in the stream based on all of the things that you put in the private chat And um, I can put it in a document or something whatever james wants to do as far as sharing with the uh the audience later I'll ask you about that afterwards. Yeah, cool. If you could drop it. I know there's like a discord I could try to get them in there, but uh, yeah, I showed it in my last I showed it in on screen on my last debate as well so Okay from earth is life for ten dollars. They say uh What's it I'm sure this means whits it do you agree with this statement sydney and johannesburg Are 6863 miles apart on flat earth not necessarily It's hard to actually verify I don't know Okay from that useful Yeah, you're all been proven wrong. So chill out from rs 385 for ten dollars How do you explain planes and boats going around the earth if your world is flat if the world is flat What are the edges of the world made up? Okay, I actually covered that in the in the freaking presentation circle navigation east to west Is this going around the north the fact that people still ask that questions and saying no one goes north to south around a globe Earth that never happens they claim it does but it's just Stop interrupting man. You have impulse control issues It's just a perfect example of how they misrepresent the truth if you look at it They actually dip over just a portion of an article pop back up They never go over and circle navigate north to south. So I wonder why there's so much line going on I don't really know So yeah, just circumnavigating north to south seems pretty simple to me and actually it's been proven That sellers in the south are normally off by roughly 14 to 15 miles a day using the globe model But we won't talk about that What these are pulled into 15 miles sellers in the south from earth's over 10 dollars They ask why does walters walter blisten built this land? I'm sorry Why does walter bislin's flat earth model clearly state that in order for the model to work Light has to bend in an impossible way Because he realized that he couldn't actually show it's impossible to map out the sky on a flat earth So he had to come over some type of way it would be Refuted and he claimed that the light would have to physically bend based on refraction by strawmaning a position that he made up Then he put arbitrary stars in random positions that he also made up not using real Stellarium data, which works perfectly Then he claimed that they would have to curve from his arbitrarily play stars And in reality the position is that the light isn't physically bending It's just an optical effect based on the azimuthal grid of vision and every single celestial object can be perfectly mapped out So the better question is why did walter bislin have to strawman egregiously lie based upon arbitrary play stars to claim it wouldn't work on a flat earth All right, and then from thomas yates for ten dollars. They say why does every single globe proponent melt down? They're asking you to Because it's because it's frustrating that witsett can just Barefaced lie like he just did He just gets up here. He launches into polysyllabic torrents that his followers That his followers lap up uncritically and then he makes bold faced lies about the status of the scientific literature Claiming that the spherical model doesn't work claiming that the spherical distance formula has been debunked claiming that seismology is a load of junk Claiming that seismology is pseudoscience He cannot name a single scientific institution on the face of the planet that will agree with you Nor can he name a single scientist on the face of the planet that will agree with him yet He and nor does he have any training in science yet. He has the term temerity to To cast dispersions on hundreds of thousands of people who work very hard at their profession every day and Because he knows that they all prove him wrong. So he's coming from a position of complete ignorance Complete lack of qualifications and he's just lying about my colleagues appeal to a motion in adams okay, and the last Over ten dollars super tech that we have is from globe merkers They are asking me to mute debaters when they are interrupting people and I would do that except for that stream yard Does not allow me to do that. They are allowed to unmute themselves So then it becomes a power struggle and if that happens, then what I'm going to do is end up having to end these debates As soon as that happens and I'm not going to do that. I don't know. I don't think you guys want that to happen So let's just let people have their arguments how they want to have them. Shall we okay? One minute left we'll get one of these less than ten dollar super chats in from sparky site for Five pounds. They say to wits it. Why don't you push the length contradiction nonsense anymore? Is it because you've been exposed to it Is it because you've been exposed in yet another lie? Okay, actually all the people that exposed me like ft fe mc tune They got thoroughly dismantled bryant mires, right the professor of physics has Fall off the face of the earth and stops doing uh, youtube about flat earth They actually emailed me about it It's because I was completely correct and length contraction is needed to explain the fringe shift that was missing Relative to the sun and all the globes thing i'm talking about relative to the earth itself because they don't understand it So what I actually said about it is exactly what einstein said about it in his 2015 and 16 published paper Called the special and general theory of relativity and it is that the uh That the apparatus contracted just the right amount that objects in motion contract But you can't tell from that reference frame you have to be outside that reference frame to notice It contracted just the right amount to make the earth look like it's stationary And you just happened to not be able to detect at the earth in motion I didn't stop bringing up for any other reason other than I like to talk about a variance of subjects And they seemed the globes were just bleeding out on the ground regarding that. So I just kind of gave them a break So bryant mires supports you why isn't he here? Traumann, but everything you say to strawman. Why isn't he here? Why isn't he supporting your position? I didn't say he supported me Oh, oh Okay, so you're cherry picking somebody's nonsense You're you're cherry picking somebody's interpretation and then you're all right. We have to get going y'all It's a nine o'clock. I know Austin has to get out of here. So let's go ahead and wrap it up. Shall we Uh, do you want to say bye to the audience real quick? I'll just do that quick Then we'll close it up Anything good very good like a quick and size like conclusion if you want to I'll stay around for that Great done. You got it Anything you want to say? um, so Which it was unable to address the distance formula and its accuracy when applied to seismic waves um, uh railways Submarine cables, it's um very accurate. I never claimed it was perfect He isn't able to explain rally waves and the fact that they propagate around earth multiple times He claims that minor anomalies will explain this they don't he was he claimed fallaciously that Spherical earth models are fatally flawed. They aren't that's why seismologists still have jobs They provide useful and meaningful results that are grounded in reality Which had spent most of this debate um Cherry picking from papers that he is not qualified to understand and misrepresenting their results as though they support a flat earth When they absolutely do not none of these authors would agree with which it's interpretation of their results So, um, he is lying when he says that um, these things dismantle Seismology or observational science. They do not It's just a very fine slide. Okay. We really want to get uh, let me get out of here now I'll just say a couple real fast like Just rewatch my presentation in the beginning notice the fallowies that fallacies that I said You knew what happened and then just listen back to the to the debate It's nothing but exactly what was in the presentation and he admitted that you have to assume the globe model You don't make direct observations with measurements or any type of instrument that you just make calculative assumptions based on the model He mis misrepresented all type anomalies and discrepancies and based on the lack of advocacy of the actual model No rebuttal for any of the flat earth evidence of long wave ground wave propagation, etc So I encourage everyone to just look into it research themselves and uh, Yeah, hopefully we can continue to progress where it gets more and more cordial and it's not such like taboo Let's fight to the death type of conversation. It's gonna stop lying All right. All right. All right, gentlemen. Thank you both so much for the spirited debate We really appreciate it. Thank you both. You have the lifeblood of the show I want to thank all the moderators and the audience and everybody in the audience who's sending questions and super chats We really appreciate all the discussion and all the comments and everything else um, also want to say thank you to james for creating this platform and um, I think that's everybody else so Uh, finally share it if you want to spread it and like if you loved it and subscribe once again Christianity is is christianity true stewart connectly and nadir Ahmed gonna be the thursday at 8 p.m For 27th and then debate con 3.1 April 22nd saturday in fort worth texas get your link the link to the tixas the God i can't talk tonight the link to the tickets is in the description below and as well as the debaters themselves If you like what you heard from any of them, please feel free to click their links We really encourage you to do that So, uh, thank you once again everybody have a great night and remember to keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable Have a great night