 Hey everybody, today we are debating Flattered Thirsts Glowworth and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate. This is going to be a fun one, folks, believe me. Really excited. I want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more debates coming up. We are very excited that this Monday, if you have never seen Jesse Lee Peterson or Professor Dave explains, both of them together, the internet might explode. It's going to be fun, folks. And also want to let you know, though, for the gentlemen that we have here tonight, this is going to be a lot of fun. These are season debaters. They've got a lot of energy and I want to let you know both of their links I put in the description for you. So that way, if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. I want more. You can hear more by clicking on their links in the description box. And also want to let you know for our format, it's going to be fairly flexible. We'll have 10 minutes flexible opening statement from each side, followed by open conversation in Q&A. For Q&A, if you have a question fired into the old live chat, and if you type in at modern day debate with your question, it will make it easier for me to get every question in that list. Super Chat is also an option in which case you would be able to make a comment toward one of the speakers that they would, of course, get the chance to respond to. We ask that you be your usual friendly selves for that. And it would also give you the basically will push your comment or question during the Q&A up to the top of the list during the Q&A. So with that, we're going to get started. Flat Earth Aussie is going to be giving his 10 minute opening statement and want to say thanks so much both Flat Earth Aussie and Team Skeptic for being with us. This is going to be a lot of fun. We really appreciate you being here. Yes, James, it's a pleasure to be here. Yeah, pleasure. Absolutely. And so with that, Flat Earth Aussie, the floor is all yours. Well, thank you, James, for the opportunity to spread awareness and truth on your awesome forum. I do appreciate it that it gives me the opportunity to find someone willing to take me on a my particular favorite topic. I hope good health has returned to Team Skeptic and that those who create hate sites against what would name them have come to their senses and realize they would be far better to expose me openly and in public if they don't really believe there's something about me worth exposing as opposed to trying to stab me in the back and silence me with deception. A certain Mike Cartoon has been busy doing just that after opting out of an agreed discussion and has been doing his damnedest to prevent me from making public appearances since for reasons best known to him. My attitude is quite the opposite, Mike Cartoon. If I wanted to discredit you, I would do so in an open debate, which you seem to be running like a little girl from every chain to get. No offense to little girls. So it gives me great pleasure to finally have a discussion with my old mate Team Skeptic. I first assumed he was a flat earther with a name like that, but it turns out he is in fact Team Mainstream Bootlicker and hasn't got a skeptical bone in his frail body. We will witness him attempting to storm only at every attempt. He will provide zero proof of his illiosensitive belief, apart from a declaration that higher authorities have known of the thousands of years from back when science was looking down wells, measuring shadows of sticks and estimating long distances between cities by a number of days chemical caravans took a long winding desert and mountainous roads to reach a destination. This is undoubtedly going to be the highest of the advanced sciences who are going to be the highest of the advanced sciences who will invoke for his case. But should he attempt to move into the modern era, I'll gladly meet him at every challenge, since this is actually my personal area of expertise, and there's not a single claim I won't back away from. In support of my own evidence, I offer the illiosentric model itself and all its ludicrous claims as the best evidence that earth must be flat and stationary. They claim the ground beneath our feet is moving 1.35 times the speed of sound, yet no flying vehicle, bird or insect, no floating feather, walking balloon, cannonball projectile, nothing any observable physical sciences has ever detected this absolutely ridiculous claim. But I'm least concerned with that and far more concerned with what they refer to as the annual orbital rate of motion. It clocks in as a highly suspicious 66,600 miles per hour, suspicious in so much as they also claim a tilt of the earth from 90 degrees to 23.4 degrees, leaving us also with this highly dubious figure of 66.6 degrees. But let us not concern ourselves with mere numbers, which may be either paranoia, deliberate design or mere coincidence. Let's concern ourselves with the physical facts. This rate of claim to motion to move just one day, slightly under one degree around the sun, comes to 1.6 million miles of almost linear distance. This is the problem I need all you true believers to try and wrap your head around. I know most of you struggle with just the actual rotational level and orbital speed, but combine them, we must, to expose the web of life while believing and defend so vehemently. And so expose them, I will. The numbers become so staggeringly huge that the globe defender will actually accuse me of having no ability to comprehend them. Therefore, my argument comes from infidelity. However, the exact opposite is the case. Yes, we all struggle with comprehending 93 million miles. That's how the great deception works. So let's scale it down into a model even the most indoctrinated globe head might be able to comprehend. Let's take a small plate and put it on a larger plate, filled with just enough water that the smaller plate can spin on the larger plate. Nice and slowly, let's say it takes an hour for the smaller plate to rotate once. We place a small P on the edge of the smaller plate, then put both together onto the edge of a very large lazy Susan on a big outdoor table. In the center of the lazy Susan is placed a bright lamp that lights in all directions, but the nature of the two plates is that only the half facing towards the center of the lamp is illuminated at any one time. So that the moment the P reaches any edge further than the half facing the center will be in darkness. We'll call the darkness night and the light big day. Now, since one total rotation is one hour, the day part is half an hour, the night part half an hour. Nice simple numbers. Now we start to spin the lazy Susan in such a manner that it takes 360 hours for the entire plate to return back where it started. I'll round it down because 365.25 rotations just gets messy and I'm trying hard to make it simple. You're going to be faced with multiple problems with this experiment, but I'll try to keep them as simple as possible because the spoiled team won't know what hit him. And there were dozens of other things I'd rather go through, but we reduced to just one at a time since 10 minutes is barely scratching the surface. The main one I wish to elaborate upon, since it's the hardest to grasp, is the motion of the P itself. It represents any place on Earth like the one you're on. Just for the sake of this discussion, you are the P. So as the lazy Susan slowly revolves around the lamp and the P slowly revolves with its smaller plate, it may be constantly going clockwise around the lamp, but due to the spin of the smaller plate, sometimes it seems to be going backwards relative to a lamp and as soon as it enters night, it is going forwards again. This is what experience teaches me. Most people have the hardest time grasping, hence why I've simplified it as much as possible. The overall speed of the P is never constant. Only it's been upon the larger plate, but since the larger plate is spinning in a larger circle, we could technically draw two circles to represent the part of the P. The inner circle is closest to the lamp, the outer circle furthest from it, the outer reaches of both plates and the outer rim of the lazy Susan. Both circles are a constant and the average speed of the P would be the two places where it appears to rise in set relative to the light from the lamp. However, the rising point is the most acceleration because it's going two forward speeds together, whereas the setting point is going maximum backwards speed compared to the normal orbital, or lazy Susan speed. It's not a negative speed, but it means, especially not if your lazy Susan has an edge of 93 million miles from the lamp and a small dish has a radius of 4,000 miles from the centre. But I'm sorry, such large numbers only appear to fantastic nations, I mean, apply to fantastic matters, not something we can comprehend in reality. If we were to apply the heliocentric speeds to such an experiment, what we'd find is that the P would in fact be travelling every day at maximum speed, amounting to something easier to understand in terms of max speed, despite sound having nothing to do with it. It's just easier to break it down since we know the speed of sound is a massive 767 miles per hour and the speed of the P is moving 1,040 miles per hour and the lazy Susan is spinning at 66,600 miles per hour. We can just say the P is moving 1.35 The lazy Susan is a constant rate of Mach 86. To add the P to the orbit and top speed becomes some Mach 88 and the least speed, kind of going backwards and forwards at the same time, becomes about Mach 84. A total daily difference of about Mach 4, a speed at which even the most highly trained fighter pilots will pass out back, but newborn babies just take in their stride, slumber. Time for meeting, I quickly throw one last nail in the globe coffin and say that the P on the plate never changes speed going around the lamp so that every time it takes just one hour to make one rotation, it is slowly losing alignment with the lamp in such a fashion that after 180 spins, it would actually still be facing the same way it was 180 spins ago, which was directly towards the lamp. However, now it is directly away from the lamp. In real terms, that is equivalent of not taking four minutes, about one degree, off of every single rotation of the clock and that the P represents. A clock is a fixed measurement of time. It does not add or subtract anything to its fixed measurement, meaning one rotation is one rotation. I know my opponent will attempt to skew this fact of motion and time by invoking this Hyderia Day, which is merely a measurement of the stars in relation to the sun and not at all the relationship of the earth to the sun. There can only be one explanation for this, which actually makes sense. The sun is the hour hand going above the fixed plate and shines directly above the P at the same time every day, representing 12 midday. For the P to be the measured unit of time, it would need a daily adjustment and our clocks are all the proof we need to know that never happens. To my opponent, the incapable of grasping this simple debunking of his insane view of the reality upon which we live, I'm more than happy to discuss more simple matters, such as perspective and convergence. My other area, I feel strongly as my areas of expertise or even gravity or density and buoyancy as maybe better described as. All three of these topics have great interest to me and I could probably discuss any of them for well over an hour, if anyone capable of actually holding rational debate, I think I'm sadly afraid my own mate team skeptic here is not capable of. Thanks so much, flat earth Aussie. For that opening statement, we will now kick it over to team skeptic. So thanks so much and wanna let you know how there folks, we are pretty laxadaisical in the old live chat. So we've always had one rule, which is obviously no hate speech. And we've also been, I mean, you have to be really, really bad in terms of if you're just constantly harassing somebody, we'll at least give you a warning first. And so far I haven't seen anybody doing it. We haven't, it's very, very rare. We'll give you a warning in case that's the case and just say, hey, you know, try to keep it somewhat positive here. It's okay to rough and tumble kind of tussle and debate, but we at the same time don't want it to go too far. So with that, very excited to have team skeptic present. The floor is all yours. Yeah, thank you very much James for having me on tonight. This is actually one of my first appearances since being sick and getting back into the swing of things. So this is a good opportunity for me to get back in and get into doing everything. So thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Flat Earth Aussie Jesus for coming on tonight. I know we had this planned out before and it didn't work out, but tonight should be a good evening. So I'll get right into my evidence. All right, so I'd first like to start out by saying that the evidence that I present tonight, I'm gonna try to present observable evidence that anybody can do for themselves. And the second evidence, the things that people can't do for themselves, I'm gonna provide organic or natural examples of my evidence. And I guess we'll start with that first. We're gonna go with the ciliate lexotis, which has the ability to detect the downward force of gravity. So give me one second to share my screen real quick. Okay, so this is ciliate lexotis right here. I'm gonna play this. This is not a... Imagine, though, if the contractile vacuole was not working, job little vacuole. Ciliate lexotis is a common resident of different aquatic habitats, but they prefer a distinct zone in the water. A Goldilocks zone for oxygen. I like the concentration to be not too high and not too low. And in the body of water, unless something weird is going on, the oxygen concentration is higher at the top and lower toward the bottom. Because of its specific oxygen concentration preference, lexotis needs to know which way is up and which way is down so it can find just the right spot. But how could a single-celled organism know up from down? Well, lexotis can sense gravity. It has organelles called molar vesicles that each contain a spherical mineral granule, the molar body, attached to a hair-like cilium. Sorry, these friends zip around so quick. It could be hard to get a good look. Okay, essentially, a ciliate lexotis has an organic accelerometer inside of it. Yes, it's different than what we would consider as humans accelerometers because we immediately see an accelerometer and we say it tells it. Every accelerometer we are familiar with gives us a value that we can detect or that we can read and tell us what the local acceleration values are. However, the original accelerometers, or anybody can really build an accelerometer at home, simply by taking a button, tying it to a piece of thread, getting a protractor and making a half circle on a piece of paper, and hanging it from the top and the middle when the button hangs straight down, that means you're under only one influence and that would be the influence of gravity, the acceleration down. When you begin accelerating in any direction, the two directions that the measurement will read forward and backwards, you'll notice that the button will swing back when you start walking forward and then as you maintain constant speed, whether it be still or at a higher rate, that button will lay straight down and then if you start walking backwards at any point or slow down the rate at which you're moving, you will notice that the button will swing forward. These are natural accelerometers that any child can build and test acceleration with. Well, Ciliate Luxodus has one built in. This is organic, this is not man-made, there's no way that anybody can say that this is pre-programmed into this single cell organism. So there is no explanation for this, we're talking about single cell sizes here where there's no different density within the molar bodies and within that area, there's no different densities inside of the area where the granule is contained. It's just a fluid, a granule, and the hair-like filament that holds the granule up. When it needs more oxygen, it detects if it needs more oxygen, then it knows to swim away from the pull of gravity and when it is in an environment that has too much oxygen, it then knows to swim towards the pull of gravity. Now it can be on its side, it does not have to be straight up, it can be on its side because it has that accelerometer in it that tells it which direction things are being accelerated in. That right there goes to show you that gravity or at least some accelerating force does exist on the planet. Now, I don't know that Flat Earth Aussie Jesus has any explanation for this, but I would be completely interested in hearing it as there's really no other explanation other than gravity to explain that. My second piece of evidence would be evidence of rotation. We see, I wanna bring up the equatorial traversal of the Sun during the equinox. This goes to show you this one observation that anybody can make on Earth goes to show you that number one, the Sun is not close to the Earth, and number two, that it's much, much larger than the Earth. Now, as the Earth rotates, it rotates what we see from the surface of the Earth underneath the Sun, or the Sun really, it appears that it goes over our heads. If you're standing on the equator at the equinox, as the Earth rotates, the sub-solar point follows a straight line to an observer standing on the equator, meaning that it rises due east, goes over your head directly, makes a straight line, goes over someone's head at the equator at solar noon, solar noon is when the sub-solar point is directly above the observer, and then we'll continue along its straight line until it gets to the sunset, which is due west. So it never makes any kind of curved line, it's simply a straight line from sun up to sun down, it occurs twice a year on each equinox, and then it's a result of our cosmology, the geometry of our cosmology. It also is a result of the Earth spinning underneath the Sun as it rotates around the Sun during its orbit. That would be my second argument. There's no way to explain the straight line of the Sun that it makes over the equator on the equinox. If you have any flat Earth map that's out there that makes any effort at explaining sunrises and sunsets, always has the Sun making a circular path that centers around the North Pole. This would mean that the Sun would rise approximately 45 degrees north of due east and set 45 degrees north of due west on the equinox, and it doesn't do that. It simply follows, the sub-solar point follows the equator all the way around the Earth, and then it begins its trip either to the northern hemisphere for summer in the northern hemisphere or to the southern hemisphere for summer in the southern hemisphere. These have been not just documented, but they've been recognized and studied by ancient civilizations that relied on knowing when the equinoxes were so that they could anticipate good weather, bad weather, know when to plant. They built monuments around it and anchor wide. Think Stonehenge was built around the equinox. Machu Picchu was built around the equinox. These are worldwide monuments, megaliths, that are put on Earth before man started lying about the shape of the Earth. They already knew whether they took the time to take from that knowledge what the shape of the Earth was or not. They understood that on these days, the Sun rose set and made the path it did, and it represented something significant to the world, to the civilization of that portion of the world. Let's see the third piece of evidence. I will say a curvature. We'll use it with curvature, sigma octanus and, let's see, Polaris. Sigma octanus and Polaris are both points of rotation or sigma octanus is really close. Same with Polaris. While it is really close and while it appears to us to be a point in the sky that doesn't move, if you look at Star Trail videos or anything that's shot with a good camera, you will actually see that the North Star does actually rotate around the center point as well. The North Star, Polaris and sigma octanus are both observations that anybody can make, especially my friend here, Flat Earth Ozzie Jesus, who just so happens to live in the Southern Hemisphere. While I don't have that option, I'm forced to only be able to use the North Star as navigation. He, however, can go out every night, look due south and see that sigma octanus will always be there for him. Now, anybody in South Africa, South America, New Zealand, Antarctica, they're all going to see this same star, the same point of rotation due south. Okay, there's no way to explain that except for on a three dimensional globe Earth. All right, those are just points of rotation. Now we can talk about where the point of rotation lies to the observer on the Earth. An observer at the North Pole will see the North Star directly overhead. Now, as he moves each degree towards the equator, he will also see that the North Star will drop by one degree until he reaches the equator where the North Star is on one horizon and the South Star, the sigma octanus, the southern rotation point is on the other horizon. And as he moves south heading towards the South Pole, he will then notice that the point of rotation will rise one degree with each mile that he goes down or each, I'm sorry, each degree that he goes. I might've said mile in the first. It's approximately 69 miles. So for every 69 miles, for every one degree he would go on the surface of the Earth, the star would drop one degree going towards the southern or towards the equator. And then as you left the equator heading towards the South Pole for every 69 degrees or 69 miles or one degree on the surface, the sigma octanus would then rise one degree off of the horizon. This right. 30 seconds or so. Okay, this right here is evidence that the shape of the Earth is a spherical globular shape that's almost a perfect sphere when looked at in its entirety. That's it. You got it. Thank you so much. And we are very excited for us to jump into the open conversation. So this should be a very exciting. We're glad that you're all here. And with that, the floor is yours, gentlemen. All right, Bob. It's quite a nice team skeptic that you're bringing up evidence of bacteria to talk about the shape of the Earth. Could you explain where they know you were going with that in the first place, mate? Yeah, the whole point of that presentation was to show you that this single-celled organism relies on the existence of gravity to know where its Goldilocks zone is. It's optimal zone in water is. Because... But in buoyancy, it wouldn't do exactly the same thing. You know, it's more dense below and less dense above. And where life is coming from is above. Yeah, but it's a single-celled organism. So that means there's only one cell between the water on top of it and the water below it. No, it doesn't. There's still multiple cells of water above and multiple cells below it, just because each one cell doesn't mean the water. No, I said there's one cell between the water above it and the water below it. The only thing between that, the water above the ciliate luxotis and the water below the ciliate luxotis is a single-cellular organism, the ciliate luxotis. So... But that cell is made of multiple things, right? Yeah, but let's say the cell is oriented in an upward fashion and then let's take it when it's oriented in the horizontal fashion, like a vertical versus horizontal. It still knows which way down is without needing to change its biology. To turn to... Yeah, it's like everything else that we observe in the nature of reality, with or without this imaginary force of gravity pulling everything towards the center of your body. You can discount gravity if you'd like, but you have to come up with an explanation for what it is without just saying density and buoyancy. No, that doesn't, that doesn't... Because I can show you where density and buoyancy falls apart. Okay, go for it. Okay, give me one second. That's five seconds. Oh yeah, I mean, come on now, you know, I got to pull the... I do normally have all this stuff saved. I had to reboot my computer and reformat everything. So it might take me a second to pull up some of my evidence. You can't just throw me off the top of your head how density and buoyancy falls apart is the explanation for the nature of it. Yeah, so... It's basically all that we observe then. Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. I already have the video pulled up. Give me one second to share that. All right, now, I'm gonna ask you a question. Flat Earth Ozzie, why do bubbles rise in water? Would you agree that it's density and buoyancy? Absolutely, yeah, there's like... Okay, great, that's all I needed to hear. One second, let me get it set up. I don't know if my screen's still showing or if I got to go read. Give me one second to get it. Okay, yeah, my screen should still be showing. Are you seeing this Ozzie? I'm just gonna call you Ozzie. It's Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie, you know what I'm saying? I gotta give you guys that respect. I love my Ozzie subscribers, so. Okay, but here you go. When, if it was just buoyancy and density, when you drop the bottle here, okay? The density of everything does not change. Would you agree that the density of the water when the bottle is dropped is still the density of the water, correct? Absolutely, yes. And the same goes with the bubbles. I mean, everything within the bottle is still the same density it was before it was dropped and it's the same density is while it's being dropped and after it's being dropped. But an object in motion is not the same thing as an object at rest, but yes, go. Okay, so yeah, because all right, so in the buoyancy equation, there is a variable for acceleration, which is gravity, okay? Because you can also say that when a density tower is sitting there and it's not moving, it's not accelerating, right? You'll agree with that. Okay, it's not accelerating. Okay, great, great. So because it's not accelerating in the buoyancy equation, that number should gravity not exist would be zero. And that would mean that there would be no buoyancy. Okay, there would be no such thing. And you can, do you have a better buoyancy equation? So you have a buoyancy, mate. One thing is more dense than the other. So when you combine the two, the more dense one has more resistance than the less one. So it displaces the less dense one. Okay, so I'm gonna play my, where it's resisted by something more dense than it. That's how density and buoyancy combine together. Right, so right now what you're trying to do is you're taking the buoyancy equation minus part of the buoyancy equation and still saying that you're going to use the buoyancy equation. So I don't need an equation. I just use the. You just said buoyancy and density, okay. Density is mass divided by volume. You would agree with that, correct? No, it's actually mass times volume. Density is mass divided by volume, not mass times volume. Okay, let me ask you a question. I think density is the mass according to how much volume it takes up. So I don't see where you're going. Mass divided by volume. All right, mass divided by volume. Why would you divide it? It is the volume that it takes up. Okay, let me ask you a question. Okay, let's say that we're just gonna give the volume number. We're just gonna give the volume two different volumes, okay. You have one that has a volume of one. Okay, one units cubed. And then you have another that has a volume of 10 units cubed. Okay, now you have an amount of gas that weighs 10 units of mass, okay. If you have 10 units of mass in one unit of volume, is it going to be more dense or less dense than 10 units of mass in 10 units of volume? If you compress that, is that what you're trying to say? Of course it's going to be more dense. Okay, okay, yeah, you're right. You compressed it, right? So 10 divided by one is bigger than 10 divided by 10, correct? I'm not sure where you're going with this, like. Because density is mass divided by volume. Because density is mass divided by volume. I'm trying to help you out here. I thought you were trying to tell me. I don't say how it's divided by volume. I just explained it to you. I just explained it to you. What's bigger, what's bigger? 10 divided by one or 10 divided by 10? Come on, if you're ready to change the world into knowing that the earth is flat, you should be able to tell me which is bigger. 10 divided by one or 10 divided by 10. I think I'm going to have to make sure I'm compressed gases, mate. He's talking about the shape here. Because you're trying to rewrite the buoyant force equation. I'm not trying to rewrite nothing, mate. I'm telling you, the observable nature of reality is the observable nature of reality. Okay, so let me play my video then. What the hell are you talking about? Because I'm trying to explain to you where you're completely wrong, okay? First off, density is, listen, density is mass divided by volume. I'm not trying to prove you wrong here. You should just go with me on this because I'm right, okay? Okay, then I'll say it. Okay. Density is mass divided by the amount of space. Because 10 divided by one, which would equal 10, is bigger than 10 divided by 10, which equals, or 10 divided by one, which equals 10, is bigger than 10 divided by 10, which equals one, is that correct? Do you agree with that? Yeah. Okay, so the density would get bigger as the volume got smaller. That's what we're trying to say. You're compressing the total of volume into something smaller. The density would get bigger as the volume decreased. All right? But you're not gonna compress anything without a container, are you? Okay, we'll get to that in a moment. We'll get to that in a moment. Back to what I was saying though, because in your situation right here, when this model is dropped, according to you, if you had to make a prediction, your prediction would be that those bubbles would continue to rise because they're less dense than the water. Yes or no? No, something in motion is different because the resistance force comes from what's beneath it while containing it. What do you mean by that? The bottom surface is the dense part. That's where everything goes to according to the natural laws of physics. Okay, so why? Okay. It's a resistance. That's fine. It's a resistance. That's fine. It's a resistance, right? Okay. It's going to be doing something different because no longer being resisted by the same force. So for those out there that are trying to hear the right answer, let me give it to you. You've got a force 9.8 meters per second squared in acceleration, gravity pulling down. When you drop that, when you drop that, okay? You're right, I said it's an acceleration. It's an acceleration, gravity. It's an acceleration. It's a measurement of things that accelerate. Everything accelerates at that number. You'd have to explain why. You'd have to say, this is the reason why it is specifically 9.8 meters per second squared. That's what you would have to be able to. We can explain that. You guys can't. Y'all fail, we win. Okay, you can't disprove. Okay, so back to what I was saying. Should what all the scientists have already proven to be right is right, which it is. So we'll go ahead and explain it as if it is. The gravity, the acceleration, the gravity causes, causes the bottle, the water, the air in the bottle, and the straw all to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared, okay? When it does that, you get a opposite force. And everybody's felt this. When you're in your car and you accelerate, you feel a force pulling you backwards. It's a fictitious force. There's really nothing there pulling you back. It's simply the consequence of you accelerating. But it's a force and it needs to be dealt with. So when this bottle is dropped, you have the 9.8 meters per second squared force pulling down, as well as you have the 9.8 meters per second squared fictitious force pulling back up due to the bottle and the water and the bubbles inside the bottle all accelerating down. Those two forces combined together, those two forces combined, I'm gonna let you answer, I'll let you answer. Those two forces combined together, 9.8 in one direction, 9.8 in the other direction. They cancel each other out and you get zero. When you apply zero to the buoyant force equation, the force that you get for buoyancy equals zero. So my prediction would be that those bubbles inside of that water during free fall will not rise to the top. And here's the proof. Resistance so a lot closer to zero G. Let's see what happens. Okay, water bottle drop without a box. Three, two, one, drop. So you can see at the bottom of the bottle, the air bubbles in the water just completely stop and just stand still. And another thing to notice is notice that before I drop it, the bubbles are all squished because the pressure on the bottom is greater than the pressure on top so it squishes the bubbles. But when I drop it, since there's about equal pressure on all sides of the bubble, it's almost round. So this test is really cool because. All right, so I'm gonna turn it over to you, Ozzy, and let you try to explain that observation. It's quite simple, isn't it? Because there's no resistance when something is in free fall motion. The moment you take away the resistant force, which is the ground beneath you, then everything is going to be in free fall motion at the exact same rate because they're all in the same medium, which is generally speaking there. I think we can easily prove the fact that it's not gravity causing things to drop. By the simple fact, we can drop a steel ball and a tennis ball off the side of a bridge, and they will hit the water at exactly the same rate because they're falling to exactly the same medium, the density of air. And since most of our experiments are done in the medium of air, since that's the one we generally live in, it appears that all things of any mass will drop at that exact same rate. The moment they hit that water, however, the density becomes different and the lead ball is gonna keep going down while the tennis ball is going to start to float. So pretty much, where's the gravity now acting on the tennis ball exactly the same amount that it was acting on the lead ball a second ago? Now, it was having, it's not doing anything whatsoever. It's allowing the density and buoyancy to prove that that is why things move through the medium that they're in because of their own individual mass per volume, not the volume per volume. If I put a lead ball on top of a wooden table is it gonna just fall right through because it's more dense than the wood beneath it? Of course it's not because it has... Okay, well then your argument is invalid. Your argument is invalid. Density to give it resistance. Buoyancy with resistant force, the table has enough resistant force to give it buoyancy. Okay, so let me ask a question. Let me ask you a question. No, let me ask you a question. No, I'm just telling you what you just said. You said that they're both gonna meet it until they reach something that's as dense as them. Did you not say that when you were talking about? So now it's sufficient energy, right? Now it's all the sufficient stuff that you're just gonna need to explain away the inconsistencies in the original portion of the argument. You put a parachute on the ball, that's gonna be sufficient resistance to slow it down as well. Yeah, that's air resistance. You're right, you're right. I wanna ask you really quick. This is just because, so sorry to interrupt, fellas. Just because our producer is having a challenge of getting your audio balanced. I think this is about as high as we can get it from Flat Earth Aussie. And so in order for a producer to crank it up, are you able to team skeptic to, is there any way you can turn the gain down on your mic a bit? It's not high, it's just that Flat Earth Aussie. Oh, I can do that really easily. It's a microphone from the 20s. Okay, there we go. Yeah, do me a favor, hold on, hold on. Yeah, listen, Aussie, do me a favor before we go any further. Go ahead and do a mic check with him. Whoever the producer is, level his mic out to where you need him, and then I can easily turn mine down. So get him set first, and then we'll do mine, and then we'll continue on. Deal, okay, praise you there. He's gone. Okay. He's gone. Okay, can you let me know where the audio for desktop audio is set right now? Okay, is it as far as it can go to the right? Let's bring it up further just for Flat Earth Aussie, and then we'll kind of adjust from there. Deal. Thanks, producer. Excellent. All right, now to get me leveled out, I turned mine down to negative 12 dB, am I okay? I think we're balanced. Thank you so much. Yeah, no problem. Okay, so, again, your arguments don't have very much merit. Let's talk about a card. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I don't have much merit, but I don't have much merit. Yeah, I know, yeah, everything you just said makes no sense, all this density, buoyancy, crap, if nonsense, no, because when I just showed you a point where your argument fails, you then had to come through and make some ad hoc explanation. Well, that object's in motion, and how physics work, whether the object's in motion or not. In fact, the same physics, hold on, hold on, the same physics that describe what happens also predicts what happens. We've seen in the free fall motion of the vomit comet, our density tag doesn't work because it's all in free fall at the same time. Okay, so again. It has resistance, that's the buoyancy equation. You're not going to say resistance. Yeah, yeah, what is the buoyancy equation to you? What is the buoyancy equation to you? There's that buoyancy equation. You're different from everything you say. Then how can you say that it's buoyancy? But Ozzy, how can you say it's buoyancy if you cannot tell me how to predict what you're saying? You can just say, oh, well, it's density and buoyancy, and I should just understand what you're saying. I should just understand, okay. So, no, no, no, but what's the buoyancy equation? How do I know that things that are more dense are going to float? Okay, tell me this, how much is a piece of ice, how much is a piece of ice going to sink into the water? Ah, mate. Now use the buoyancy first equation. And upon which it's in. I said water and ice. I said water is common, the amount of resistance from the medium. So water and ice, they're both water, aren't they? No, the water doesn't rise. I need you to make a prediction for me. I need you to predict how much of that ice, how much of an ice cube is in the water. Yes, I can easily predict it. I can easily predict it, right now I can use, yes, absolutely, I'm a wizard. You know why? Because the buoyancy first equation is not that fucking hard to understand. It's because you don't understand it. Is it water? Nor is it anybody in the audiences. You need to figure out what buoyancy is and then come back with your buoyancy argument. I told you what buoyancy is. You didn't even know what density is. You thought density was mass times volume. Yeah, you think it's the volume of the volume. You're talking about, how can you just say that gravity is density times density and buoyancy together? You don't even talk about how they're together. You just say together. You just say, is this the buoyancy together? Come on, explain to me. That's not the equation I can work with. Something different, since obviously we can't come back. Okay, then explain the, no, hold on, hold on. No, no, no, no, I'm not going to, you brought up the, Oh yeah, you brought up the, I brought up, I offered and you, Yeah, but in the rebuttal, you brought up the silly elixodus and the gravity. So we're going to talk about that first. You've been wanting to talk, One second, one second, I'm so sorry, so sorry to interrupt, team. We are getting even more feedback in the live chat. Please, let's go back. They said, in the live chat, they said this is actually worse. So praise, if we can go back to the original setting for the audio and then so sorry to do this, I promise this is the last sign. No, it's okay. At least be better, because apparently we've taken it to a place that should not ever go. Praise, I should have known actually. So praise, if you're able to clip it back to about, I think you said 14, where it was. In fact, I would even, if I remember when we hosted last month, you could even bring it back down to, I would say maybe like five or 10 for the pluses on the gain praise. And then I think that will just kind of play from there and it should at least stop the clipping. Praise you there. Praise might be getting a hot dog right now or something. Okay, thank you for your help. Very embarrassing. Okay, I would bring it back down to 10, maybe even five and we'll bear with it. Thanks so much, appreciate it. And thanks for your patience, Team Skeptic and Fly Earth Aussie. We're not a problem at all. I know about the, I deal with fight to flat earth. I know about technical problems all the time. The dude's internet hamster will just stop running in the middle of a show. Not a technical problem. That's an actual problem, but we fly earth is very tolerant. We put up a cool source. Thanks for your help. All right gentlemen, thanks so much. The floor is yours again. Okay. So you're still rattling on about resistant force, not being the force. You think it's a pulling force as opposed to the resisting force. I'll tell you that what we observe as gravity is a resisting force. And if there is a lack of resistance, something will drop. That's just the nature of it. If it's all dropping at the same rate in the same medium, it will drop at the same rate in the same medium without the resistance. As soon as it reaches a place of resistance, that's when everything equalizes. That you're trying to say that the mass of something is divided by the volume. I say the mass is the volume and it's had depth in that particular given moment. Oh my God. Okay. So if I have a ball that I can hold in my hand that weighs one kilogram and I have a ball that I can hold in my other hand or that I have to use two hands to hold that weighs one kilogram. They both have the same mass but which one is more dense? I'll make you proud. My bike's one kilogram. I'm not gonna slap myself hard enough for everybody to hear it but right now I'm fucking phase palming. Not even kidding. No, mass and density are not the same thing. Density is when the increase in density is when you take the same amount of mass and you shrink it down, you increase the density. So if you have a one kilogram ball that you can hold with one hand versus a one kilogram ball that you can hold with two hands, the one kilogram ball that you can hold with two hands is going to be less dense than the one kilogram ball that you can hold with one hand. Okay, that's fine because you're talking about the volume. So it's less dense. That's big. Mass or density is equal to mass divided by volume. The buoyant force is, you just agreed with me. You just agreed with me. No, I did not. Oh my God. It's less dense. Just because it's a bigger volume, that's what makes it less dense. If it was a smaller volume, it would be more dense. That's what I'm saying, Ozzy. That's what I'm saying, bro. Listen, bro, listen, listen. That's what I'm saying the whole time. Density is equal to mass divided by volume. When you increase the volume, you decrease the density. You agree with me, right? Yes, of course. Okay, well then, density is equal to mass divided by volume. That's your first mistake. We got past it now. I'm not here to tell you that that's a globe-earth proof. I'm here to tell you that that's a basic understanding of math and science. Well, yeah. I'm saying it's times. Either way, you're still gonna get the same answer, aren't ya? No, you're not. No, you're not. I was actually pretty good at maths back in the day. No, you, I, citation fucking needed, Ozzy. Citation needed. You can reverse an equation and still get the same result. I think to just quick last interjection, thanks for your patience. Flat Earth Aussie, I think if you're able to move closer to your mic, that's a good idea we got from several people in the live chat. I don't know if it's one that you're able to move closer to. So sorry about harassing you about this Flat Earth Aussie. Thanks for being a good sport. And then- I've tried, but it just makes me basically get bigger. You have a terrific face. It's the best face. And with that, thanks gentlemen. Okay, so back to my ice cube. I still wanna know, how is it that I can predict how much of an ice cube will be above water based on its density? And, and hold on. And the buoyancy equation. And the buoyancy equation. I can take those two equations that you're using to say that things fall down. And I can use those two equations to prove to you why an ice cube, which is less dense than water. Okay, Aussie Jesus, you hear that? An ice, no, no, no, an ice cube, ice is less dense than water, yet it still semi-submerges into the water. And I can predict based on my knowledge of the earth, I can predict how much that ice cube is gonna sink inside of the water. Can you do that with anything you just told me to explain gravity? You're hilarious, mate. Like seriously, you've made observations, the same observations we can all make. Ice is water. It's just the fact that when it freezes, it's cold air expands slightly more. So that's why it's... So is it less dense or more dense? Is it less dense or more dense? Technically less dense per volume. No, not technically, it is less dense. Ice is less dense than water. Okay, no, ice is less dense than water. Why does it not sit? Ice is less dense than liquid water, okay? Why does ice not? Why does ice not float on top of the water? Why does it sink down? It semi-submerges. Why? Because it's basically almost exactly the same density as... That doesn't matter. That has no bearing on anything whatsoever. If your argument, hold on, if your argument is that things that are less dense will float on top of the water, then there should be no reason that ice sinks in. I can tell you why. Where did I say, team, where did I say that it floats on top of the water? I said density... I'm saying it. I'm telling you... It's going to the amount of resistance. And the amount of resistance of something that's virtually identical to itself means it's only going to float at the... So what is it resisting? What is it resisting? Why is... What is water resisting? The ice is less dense than the water. This doesn't go to your lead ball because it's more dense than wooden table. Therefore, wooden table holds lead ball up. Ice is here on balloon, is it? Yeah, come on. Get real. What is it? That's a non sequitur. What is that having? That has nothing to do with anything. Flat Earth Aussie Jesus. You can't just start melding things together so they fit the situation, okay? You can't just come in here and say, well, they're close. So therefore, that's why ice sinks. No, that's not why ice sinks. If your definition of density... If you're... Listen, listen, listen. Okay, please, please be quiet while I finish this. What we might have to do is maybe go with like two minute statements and kind of go in through these intervals. So we'll give two minutes to team and then I promise we'll come right to you once he finishes this idea. We'll come right back to you, Flat Earth Aussie. I have no idea. Okay, so if your explanation of density and buoyancy describes gravity, right? Density and buoyancy. Well, what part of that describes why an ice cube semi-submerges into water? My turn now. As I kept trying to explain to you, team idiot, is that the density difference between water and ice is so minimal that they basically exist at the same level. If we were to compare, say, a helium balloon in that same environment, the helium balloon is obviously going to float. In fact, it will even float in the air and go up to its highest level that it possibly can according to the density of the surrounding medium of the balloon itself to stop it from going any higher. So you're talking about things of such minimal difference of density that that's exactly why we use examples like density tower to show us how density and buoyancy works. One thing resists another thing to X amount of degree. When you're talking about ice to water, you're talking about virtually identical density. Just one is slightly more dense because it's slightly more volume and therefore it floats at the surface, not on top of it, unlike, say, a ball full of air would do. Well, let me step in for a second and say that all of that is stupid and it's not correct. The density of ice is 8% less than water. Therefore, 8% of the ice will be on top of the water, not underneath it. No, 8% of the weight of the mass of the ice will be above the waterline, 8%. That's about right. It is right. It ain't no about right about it. It is right. Now, why does it not sit on top? It does not matter how much, how less dense a thing is. Okay, so tell me this then, honestly, Jesus. At what point do we get a defined level? I mean, does it need to be 12%? Does it need to be 15%? No. If your explanation holds, then anything less dense than what's underneath it, it's gonna float on top of it. There would be no reason for it to be pulled down. Oh, for fuck's sake. We've just agreed that it's 8%. That's it, 8%. And? 100%. If it's 100%, then it will float on top. But 8%. If it's 100%, it doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense. I mean, if it's 100%, if it's 100% less, then it's like zero. That's right. And then it'll float entirely 100% on top. It doesn't have mass at that point. If something, as a density of zero grams or 100% a meter cubed, then it does not exist. It has no mass. It has no mass. No, we've just decided that. I mean, you can say what you want. Your insults don't bother me. Your ice is 92% as dense as the liquid water. Therefore, 92% of it will not rise above it, but 8% will. Why? Why? Because of the lack of water. I can explain it. I can explain it using the two equations that you have already brought up. I have never brought up an equation. Here you did. You said density, mass divided by volume, and buoyancy. That's an equation. The resistance force. The lack of resistance. No, it's rho Vg. The frozen water. No, it's rho Vg. Rho Vg, where G is really A. Rho Vg. Sorry, I don't speak formula. I speak English. I know you don't. I know you don't. Everything I said just went completely over your head. However, you did just say that the explanation for gravity is both of those formulas, density and buoyancy. You said that. While I said these are the formulas, which they are, you're the one that said that that's what the explanation for gravity is. Now, can you put those two? Can you explain to me then with your formula why the steel ball, once it hits the water, keeps on dropping, but the tennis ball does not. Even though they both hit the water exactly the same time. Can you tell me where this formula works? Yes, because the total volume of the tennis ball, the total mass of the tennis ball and all the air on the inside, hold on. I understand that. The total mass of the tennis ball with all the air on the inside of it, that's the density, is less than water. Well, let's say it's a solid rubber ball. Okay, then they're both gonna fall to the bottom. No, no, the solid rubber ball still floats. Well, if the solid rubber ball floats, then it's less dense than the water. I don't know what your density is of the solid rubber ball. You gotta give me something more than that. I was thinking a solid rubber ball that you said in the water and sink to the bottom. You're talking about one that floats on top? Okay, well, then that's all, that rubber ball. I bet you're tennis ball then, that's fine. Let's say it's full of air. We know it's less dense. So you are now agreeing with me that it's a density and buoyancy issue. Yeah, yeah, 100%, yes. But, okay, but hold on, Flatterthosy Jesus, hold on. In the buoyancy equation, there is gravity. So if you're agreeing with me that it is density and buoyancy, then you are therefore accepting that gravity is fact. No, I'm just saying it is. Yes, yes, yes. No, I know, buoyancy, rho VG, rho VG density, mass divided by volume. Okay, buoyancy, rho VG, where G represents gravity. Okay, so can you explain to me then why medium of air, the tennis ball and the lead ball are the exact same size, same volume, ball at exactly the same rate? Because there's not enough resistance to make a difference. Aha, so it's resistance. Yes, of course, when you're dropping it through a medium, if the medium is the same. Yes, of course. But, and when you look at the equation for force, F equals mass times the acceleration, the gravitational acceleration, the force of the lead ball is being pulled on more than the buoyant force is able to hold up. And will fall until the ball reaches the buoyant force that equals the gravitational force pulling down on the ball. The force pushing up would have to equal the force being pulled down. So density and buoyancy explains it perfectly. Thank you very much. Yes, it does, but yes, it does, but you have to also, you can't just redefine buoyancy and say the density and buoyancy describe that. If you're going to use buoyancy, hold on. Hold on, Ozzie Jesus. If you're going to use buoyancy, but you don't think gravity is a part of it, then you need to redefine what buoyancy is. At least give me an equation that will describe what happens. Resistance. Resistance, there's resistors that give resistance. Are they buoyant as well? That is the force. Electronic resistors provide resistance. Is that buoyant as well? No, it's resistance. Okay, so your definition is fallacious. Please define it better. Please give me a more well-defined definition of buoyancy. I've given you one. Ro, V, G. A mass in a given volume, a resistor in an electrical current where it's exactly the same way as anything else that resist something, in that it has more resistant force than what it was otherwise flowing through. So instead of the medium area, it's through a wire current and then this thing comes along and resists it and therefore is given a certain number of resistance. Okay, but is it buoyant? Is that buoyancy? In a sense, it's... No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. Not even close to similar. Not even close to similar. It's so similar, it's not funny. No, it's not even close to similar and it's not very funny. Well, I disagree. Please give me the buoyant force equation that you use to make your predictions that are based on buoyancy. I do not use equations to make predictions because every medium through which something is moving through is different, whether it be... Yes, but it all works with the same physics. It all works with the same physics and they all, no matter whether we use mercury as the liquid substance, water as the liquid substance or air as the fluid substance, it doesn't matter. It all follows the same equation. Rho, V, G. After resistance of the medium, exactly. Take away gravity, but okay. So you accept gravity. That's what I don't think you understand. I'm really struggling. You are telling me that you accept buoyancy as the explanation for gravity but you refuse to accept gravity as part of the buoyant equation, the buoyant force equation. You're like ready to throw that out but you wanna say buoyancy is the reason this happens but buoyancy is not really buoyancy. Buoyancy is really resistance. No, I tell you what you're just trying to say though is that your gravity, what you believe to be gravity is pulling things sideways into your ball and upwards to the underneath of your ball with the same force that we can observe in reality of everything just dropping. Everything just drops. You use a plum bob to make plum to the level of... Why does everything drop? Why does everything drop? Why does everything drop? But why does everything drop? Density and buoyancy. Yeah, you can't do that. No, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have zero idea what you're talking about. No, you don't. No, you don't because I asked you for the equation. No, you don't because I asked you for the equation for the buoyant force for your equation for how you make predictions to make sure that what you're saying is right and you can't even give that to me but you can tell me that it's buoyancy all day long. Well, here's the buoyant force equation. Row VG, learn that. Go learn what those terms mean. Then come back and say, I can explain it without gravity now and here's the equation. Until you can do that, you have no argument because your argument will lies on gravity. Okay, so your two minutes is now up. Thank you. I'll get my two minutes, then maybe put a word in edgewise. You're the one saying that the gravity works sideways and upside down according to your theory of your magic spinning space ball in outer space. We don't say that. Gee. What are you talking about? Sideways. The ball is downwards. Okay. What are you talking about sideways? What are you talking about sideways? One second. I do think it's a good idea if we go to those two minute intervals. So, and I did a bad job of implementing. Well, I'm just asking him to tell me what he means by the sideways pull of gravity. I'm not 100% sure. So the ball, mate, has one down, everything else is sideways, then it starts going upside down all the way around it. That's your spherical ball. You are saying that the G pulls everything towards the center. This is your argument where's observable reality, everything we can do in physics says G is down, straight down, everywhere at all times. There is no. To the center of the earth. Oh, shut up for a second. Oh, fuck. To the center of the earth. Yeah, I agree with you on that. No. Start again. Yeah, I agree with you. Yeah, in Australia, the center of the earth. Go down again. Don't give me this here in Australia. Australia is just as upright as everywhere else for the rest of the world. No shit, right? Thanks to gravity. Thank you, gravity. Pulling everything to the center of the earth. I appreciate that. So let's jump into a two minute interval. So we're gonna go for two minutes. We're gonna let a flat earth Aussie make that case and finish up those points. And then I promise we'll come right back to you, team. I'm good. I'll mute my mic so I don't interrupt. I'll yell at muted mic. That's a really good idea, mate. But I've made my point. There is nothing apart from up and down. I thought you had. That's why I interrupted. I thought you were done making your point. I thought you needed to get my mic. Okay. You just said you were done making your point, you idiot. I think you're just summarizing. So let's let a flat earth Aussie do that summary of that point and then we'll come back. I mean, you don't have to use the flat earth or the two full minutes if you don't want to flat earth Aussie. Thank you. The first use as much as it takes to make my point is that the fact is that up and down as proven with the plum bob and the spirit level, one is perfectly perpendicular. You got a 90 degree level across the provably level as according to the nature of liquids, plain that we live upon. There is no example of somebody going 500 miles away where you can just zoom in on him. Maybe it's not even that far. Let's just say a hundred miles away and seeing his plum bob going at a slight angle to his spirit level going at a slight angle that never, ever, ever, ever happens. There is nothing spherical about the nature of the plane upon which we live. Everything proves water level, perpendicular and the gravitational force, which is not a force at all. It's just a measurement of time and distance of something in the medium of air, 9.8 meters per second squared is just the normal observation of the natural physics that we can observe. There is nothing ever showing that something will go sideways in comparison to your particular perpendicular. They are all perpendicular no matter where across the plane we go. Now, team, knock yourself out. All right, everything you said was wrong and you're more on. There's no such thing as a universal down. So we don't think of the earth as being down from the North Pole and then everything works sideways. No, it all pulls to the center point. So at any point on the surface, down is towards the center of the earth. That's it. Sorry if you don't get it, but if you can't understand that concept, then you're in no position to be arguing for the flat earth. None. Mate, I understand your concept 100%, hence why I say, just as you just said, if down from the North Pole is down, then anyway towards the center has to be sideways in respect to that. How fucking- That doesn't matter. Who cares about the respect to that? Who cares about the respect to that? That's not what we're in respect to in respect to the surface of the earth, it's always down. And in respect to the earth as a whole, it's always towards the center point, the center of mass. That's the problem with your whole belief though. The problem with your whole belief is that you've now negated reality. It's not a belief. It is. It's not a belief. You've said there's no such thing as up and down. Everything is just in and out, in and out. Well, you can say what I said all you want, but that I didn't say that. Down is always in the direction of the local gravitational force. Always. Yeah, exactly. Okay, so you know what a centrifuge is? Do you know what a centrifuge is? Well, something that spins around really fast to separate blood and plasma and stuff like that. You know what that is, right? Like a spinning thingy? Yeah, a spinning thingy, okay? Inside of that frame of reference of the vial, guess what? Down is not towards the center of the earth when it's spinning. Down is towards, it has one vector going down towards the center of the earth and then has another vector due to the acceleration of the spinning. You take those two factors together, you take those two factors together and you can calculate how much force is being applied on the inside of that vial. That's right, you're applying a force. You're talking about the natural observable physics that we see in our everyday world. Yes, I am. Drop a ball of water and see if bubbles rise in it. That's natural, there's no manipulation. It doesn't ordinarily drop. Who cares what it ordinarily does? Are you kidding me? We don't have to set it, we don't have to prove it under your specific terms. You don't even, you believe that people in Australia on the globe earth model, they're really upside down. That is the limit of your education and your intelligence. Once you said that, this debate is done. At this point it's just entertaining the people, right? Because you just said that there's universal down. We'll go back into the two minute interval. So we're gonna give two minutes to Flat Earth Odyssey to respond to that, and I promise we'll give you two minutes as well, team. Thank you, James. I appreciate that because he interjects at every chance he brought it yet. He says that the natural nature of a bottle of water is to be dropping. No, it's not. That if you left the bottle of water alone, its nature will be to remain at rest. Once you interfere with that, you are not talking about the natural laws of physics. You are talking about something you've interfered with. The natural laws of physics as an object of rest remains at rest unless another force acts upon it. Once you act and act another force upon it, that's when you can start to make observations of what happens in the laws of physics. It doesn't happen otherwise. Okay, so my question to you, my question to you, F equals MA. Who gives a, hey, hold on, let me address that point before you start waffling onto the next point. You just said F equals MA. You're right, F equals MA. Therefore, if there is no acceleration on an object, if it's at rest and there's no forces on that object, it's never gonna go anywhere. It's gonna sit in the same spot, right? So when you drop a tennis ball, why does it drop? Like a resistance from the air. Oh my God, that's not F equals MA. What are you talking about? Now you're contradicting yourself, you idiot. Don't contradict yourself, Ozzy. Don't contradict yourself. You just said F equals MA. Let's give Ozzy a minute or two and then I promise we'll come right back. Yeah, got that. You're exposing yourself now as the idiot when you project as the same I'm an idiot because you just said you lift it up a tennis ball and then you dropped it. If you didn't lift it up and you left it at rest, it would remain at rest. You lifted it up. You didn't, no, no. They shut the fuck up for fucks sake. You applied an energy to it. You put an action onto it. You put an action onto something and the reaction is it dropping. If you didn't pick it up, if you didn't apply the energy or a force to it, it would remain at rest. Go for it. Okay, so now my question is if you pick something up and you move it up, you pull it up and you move it over one foot, is it gonna drop down to the same spot? Is it gonna react to all the energy you put into the ball to pick it up three feet up and one foot over? Are you gonna drop it and is it gonna fall to the same spot? No, it's not, is it? Yes, I'm serious. When you say stupid shit, like your gravity's pulling in sideways. When you say stupid shit, like there's a universal down. Yes, I have to go back to very much basic. You're applying the ball. Because you do not understand when you're holding a ball up and you let go of it. The ball, if you don't push the ball, you are not accelerating it. You are not putting any force into it. Why does the ball move? Why? You just said, if you don't apply a force to it, it won't move. Yes, it will, okay, well, then how about this? There's a ball. It will go in a parabolic arc. How about this? There's a ball on it, there's a ball on a hill and I dig a hole in the side of the hill and I dig a hole all the way up to the ball that's been sitting there or rock or whatever natural object you wanna put out there and I dig a hole up from the bottom, not getting to the rock, just getting close to the rock. What's gonna happen to the rock? Is it just gonna float there or is it gonna fall through? It's gonna fall down, why? It depends on the amount of resistance of the ground. Oh my God, what is it resisting? What is it resisting? You keep saying resistance, resistance, resistance. What is it resisting? I'm not following your statement. What is it resisting? I have now taken a situation where you said the only way is the only way you could ever get something to move is to put energy into it. Okay, now I'm talking about an object that's sitting on the hill you can make it just a natural random rock, okay? Hold on, I dig a hole in the side of the hill. I dig it straight up to the rock so that way I never manipulate the rock. I only remove the dirt underneath the rock. I don't even get all the way to the rock. I leave one little centimeter of dirt between the rock and the hole beneath it, the hole I dug. Now what's gonna happen to that rock? Is it just gonna sit there? No, it's gonna fall, but why? Why is it gonna fall? You don't have an explanation. You can say resistance, but what is it resisting? Okay, you said resistance, what is it resisting? No, you missed the entire point. What is it resisting? No, what is it resisting? Answer that question, what is it resisting? It's the lack of resistance. No, what is it have to resist? What is it trying to resist? If the resistant force is insufficient. Now you're making shit up, resistant force, give me an equation. Hold on, we do have to let him finish. Let's let him finish that point. If the resistant force is insufficient or sufficient, whatever you were saying, I'll ask you. If it's insufficient, then it is lacking. What is it resisting? Okay, we do, let's let him finish, like, one or two seconds. Tell him, ask him, what is it resisting then? He needs a time, he can't, the mass, why? Let's let him finish one or two seconds, okay. Why, why, James, he can answer these questions, okay? Why is it resisting the mass? If the mass is not moving, why does it need to resist it? I'm trying to answer you, team, but you don't give me a chance. As I just said, mass is itself a force in that it has weight per volume. And therefore the resistant force beneath it must be sufficient to resist it. And if it's insufficient to resist it, if it lacks the resistant force, then the thing won't drop. And so if you've gone and removed all the resistance beneath it, it doesn't mean that you've lifted that rock up under that spot. You've just removed the resistant force beneath it, so of course it's going to drop until the place where it has to resist. The higher time that you talked, you could have just said it was resisting its weight, right? Exactly. Okay, this is why I interrupt you because nobody needs to hear you talk for fucking three minutes to get one simple answer that you're just gonna beat around the bush for. Guess what? Weight, weight is a force. Do you understand that? Weight is a force. Mass times acceleration, F equals MA. Just as you spoke about it, yes or no? Did you not say that F equals MA? I said that weight without resistance will appear to be a force. It's not a force, but you may think of it as a force. No, it's a force. No, it's a force. You take a scale and accelerate it slower than 9.8 meters per second squared, and it will still measure a weight on a scale, but it will be a reduced weight. In other words, you have two competing accelerations as long as you're not accelerating it at 9.8 meters per second, you'll have an acceleration vector still going down. So let's say you accelerated at 4.4 meters per second or what, 4.9 meters per second. When you did that, it would weigh half as much on the scale. That's what weight is. You are now accepting that mass is accelerating. What's accelerating the mass to generate the weight? The mass is its own force, in a sense, so long as there's nothing to resist it. When you've got something to resist it, the resistance... You have a citation on that. Is what you can measure. If you drop, say, the same mass in a pre-fall airplane, the vomit comet, and you put a scale beneath it, it's gonna measure zero because the scale is falling at the same rate as the mass. The mass itself has not lost its weight. You've just lost the ability to measure it according to conventional circumstances, but the mass is always going to be the same mass. It doesn't ever change just because we lose the ability to measure it according to the standards that we like to do when we're putting it upon a solid wall in the medium of air to measure something. That's all. You're the one that said it was resisting its weight, okay? If there's a rock on the ground and it's not accelerating, it shouldn't have weight. Why not? It still has that. Because it has no weight, it's a force. It's mass times acceleration. No, it's a mass. Yes, no, yes. Versus the distance and force. No, no, you're wrong, you're wrong. Mass is a property of an object. Weight is that property of an object times whatever gravitational acceleration or whatever acceleration it's under. That is what weight is. Get it right, yes. And are you redefining weight? Are you redefining weight? Mass and volume. Flat Earth Aussie Jesus, are you redefining weight? Are you redefining weight? Okay, then go learn what the weight, what weight is before you try to tell me that I'm wrong. Mass and volume. You have no clue what you're talking about. You sound like a fucking dumbass. Mass and volume are the given, right? The ability to measure something does not change the difference between the mass and volume of the particular object. I didn't say you did, did I? So that's the same mass. If that was the same mass that it always had, yes you did, you tried to say that. No, I did not. No, I did not. You're wrong. You said that you removed the resistant force of the rock beneath it, that it should just float. That's what you said. It should, according to you, if there's no acceleration, no, not mass, acceleration. Flat Earth, listen, Aussie, listen. Don't give me no acceleration, mate. Hush, hush, listen, listen, listen. You said that objects move under acceleration and you said F equals MA. I never said acceleration, that's not long. Did you say F equals MA? Did you say that? You said that. No, you, oh my God, Flat Earth, Aussie, you brought up F equals MA when I was sitting there quiet and during your two minutes and I was like, oh good, I'm glad he brought up F equals MA because according to F equals MA, yes you did. Okay, one second. According to F equals MA when if there is no acceleration, if gravity doesn't exist, then when you drop a ball, if there is no force, that ball should not accelerate ever. It should just sit there and float. That should be what happens. No, I said it's not. Yes. A resistance of the air beneath it that allows it to accelerate. And you're wrong. Because it's mass. And you're wrong. And now if you drop that same thing in, say, a cauldron of oil or, you know, down a well, the resistant force is going to be greater and it's not going to accelerate at the same rate that we can measure it moving through the medium of air, which is basically a large lack of resistance. But you're wrong. If you drop it, thank you, pardon? How am I wrong? You're wrong. You're wrong. See this, we can measure it. I showed you, I showed you, you already admitted that you saw, you already... It's not going to accelerate the same rate. Right, because there's less resistance. The air does not provide enough resistance to slow down the tennis ball. Exactly. So it allows it to accelerate. And, and what? And what? That means nothing. That, yes, you're right. That's the buoyant force. Row VG. It's a lack of resistance. No, row VG. That is the buoyant force. That if you were to have... Right, I'm VG, man. I think you need a bit of strength. That's fine. I understand that it confuses the shit out of you and probably frustrates you that I bring up actual equations that you don't already know, even though you're the one that brought up buoyancy and density. Okay? You didn't know what density was. Now, you have no clue what buoyancy is. How can you bring up buoy... Hold on. How can you bring up buoyancy as an, as a, a evidence when you don't even realize that buoyancy has gravity in it? Jesus Christ! We're going to give two minutes to Fyterthos you to respond. And then I promise we'll give you two minutes as well, team. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate that. So you invoke this force of gravity to explain why your amoeba learns up and down even though it's in a medium of water which obviously has less pressure above it, less pressing down on it and more giving it buoyancy beneath. Even a single celled organism can learn the difference between density and buoyancy. But you invoke a force, an attractive force due to the mass of something beneath it. Whereas it's actually the mass beneath it which is the resistance force. That's all there is. It's resistance. In the medium of air, as we keep on describing, there is a lack of resistance in the medium of air. Pull out a parachute, okay? You've got a fair bit of resistance in that medium. But if you don't pull out the parachute, you're just going to drop the same rate. The lead ball and the tennis ball drop from a bridge in the same medium of air hit the surface of water at exactly the same time. However, one will keep going not because of the force of gravity, simply because of the force of the traction between it. That was a bit rude. I didn't mean, it's the only way I can get it to play. It shouldn't have had audio on it. That you've been talking for more than two minutes anyway. I'm just letting you ramble on, oh yes. Yeah, I am. I look down at the clock. I look down at the clock when you began waffling and yes, you've talked for more than two minutes just now. I'm just getting something prepared for you to submit to show how stupid you are. So give me one second to get that. You can't speak for yourself, okay, fine. Okay, so now that it's my turn to show, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen in one second. All right. So this is an experiment that was done, or demonstration, I can call it. It's weight is 152.166 grams. I'm going to let it stall. Looks like an electronic scale to me. Now we move the heavy lead ball under the scale, adding its mass to the mass of the earth. The weight has increased by 1,000th of a gram, which represents the attraction between the pyramid and the ball. When the mass under the pyramid got bigger, the force of attraction did too. And that's your evidence for gravity. Is that what you're really trying to say? No, I want you to try to explain that. Explain it. How did the resistance change between the two balls just because you moved one under the other? For the first point, I don't think there was two balls. I think there was a pyramid. Whatever, the two objects, hold on. It's not the place I've been able to do it for this to happen. And I would say that they were probably made out of the same material, most likely lead, as we basically can see in nature, like it packs light. So the fact that the lead wants to join with the other lead does not prove that this 1,000th of a gram. Did you say like detects like? Have you ever tried to put two magnets together, North Pole to North Pole? That was a dumb ass statement by you. If that's your explanation, that's a horrendous explanation. Do you have anything more signed? I said materials, right? Not a pole. Okay, well, magnets that are both, you can take identical magnets, identical magnets, that were made from the same material and put two North Poles together, they will repel each other. So everything you just said was wrong. Now try to give me something, a scientific, or at least a well-defined explanation for what just went on in that video. Okay, TS, I will try to explain. Maybe if that pyramid was made of wood or glass or something else, we would not see the same reaction. But we don't know that because we never got the opportunity to test different substances. All we got to see was lead, in fact, it's a lead. So, it doesn't really prove a damn thing except something that you're trying to prove that you want to prove. Have you ever? Let's try with wood, you know, try it. Try a lead ball instead of using a giant aquarium the same weight full of water. Okay, have you ever seen an experiment or ever heard of an experiment or ever in your own personal experience in life, ever seen lead attract another piece of lead? No, but I have heard of the... And why would you make that statement? What's that famous gravity? Why do you add hawk and explanation for something that's right in front of you? What's that famous gravity experiment you normally do? I can't believe that. That I normally do? Are you talking about Cavendish? Cavendish, there we go. I didn't bring up Cavendish in here. You didn't, no. But generally, people who like to believe in gravity will say that Cavendish experiment proves the attraction of mass to mass, even though they're both resisting the mass beneath them or as I'm saying, anything of a light material will eventually seek to be with a light material and come to rest at it. It doesn't prove that that's a mass. Okay, in the Cavendish experiment, in the Cavendish experiment, the Earth pulls, the acceleration on both balls is equal, okay? So they're only experiencing acceleration between each other. They both experience the 9.8 meters per second squared towards the Earth. But we don't really have to worry about that. They're being pulled on equally, both of them are. Now, why are they coming together in the Cavendish experiment? Why is one ball attracted to the other? Exactly, and my point is that nothing is ever really at rest, especially if it's suspended on a string or some sort of pendulum. All they're really gonna do is eventually come to rest against one another and that's just the nature of anything. It wants to come to rest somewhere if it's not allowed to. Do you have any kind of scientific proof or evidence for this? Yeah, the Cavendish experiment. Something I could see and repeat and do it myself and see it and repeat it? Yeah, the Cavendish experiment. The Cavendish experiment, if you're gonna reference that, then you need to reference how it doesn't show that it's gravitationally attracted between the two, there's a gravitational attraction between the two balls. No, I just showed that anything that's not fully at rest. No, you didn't show, you said, you said, you said that everything will eventually come to rest, but you didn't show that everything will eventually come to rest. You keep saying these things, but you have nothing to back them up. You said density was mass times volume, you couldn't prove that because it's wrong. You have said that buoyancy is the reason for things falling to the ground, but you didn't understand the buoyant force equation, nor did you even realize that the buoyant force equation has gravity in it. Come on. You, what are you, I'm pointing out, I'm pointing out everything so far, no, I'm pointing out everything so far that you don't understand that you walked into this debate thinking you did understand it. You cannot ad hoc with bad explanations. You're not pointing out a damn thing, mate. All you're doing is making accusations of things. I pointed out, I showed the video where it showed, I showed the video where there was an increase in force, pulling down on an object, simply by sliding another object underneath it. You tried to ad hoc it by saying what? Like things, attract like things. Citation needed. Okay, citation needed. You're not just gonna say it, show it to me. Go grab it, I've been, hey, every time I've said something, I've been able to pull something to back up what I'm saying. Now I'm asking you to pull something to back up what you're saying now. Anything. Okay, fine. We're gonna give about two minutes to let him explain this, go ahead. You've got drops of water condensation on a window. It's a cold day. The water is condensing down it. The drops sit there. You move one drop towards the other. As soon as they touch each other, a light attracts light and they become one. That is an example of light attracting light. Things of the same nature want to be together. That is just the nature of reality. That's just a very simple example that comes to mind. You could use drops of mercury. Two individual drops. As soon as they touch, boom, they're one big drop of mercury. There's multiple examples. Just because lead is a solid doesn't mean that one solid suspended close enough to another big mass of lead isn't going to want to have some form of attraction which can be measured with very, very, very delicate scales, by the way, as we've seen in your laboratory experiment, of about a thousandth of a gram, which is nothing. That's not even a speck of dust difference. I'll do this. Thanks, James. All right, so everything you said is okay when you're talking about liquids and molecular gases, maybe, but it does not mean that the same properties are going to hold true for physical solids like lead. Do you have anything that backs up what you just said, that two pieces of lead touch and they fuse together to become one piece of lead? No, but over a given amount of time, or you're basically talking about... Do you have any proof of what you're saying, though, or are you just making it up? I'm asking you for proof. I'd like proof. In your finishing, please give proof. The nature of reality is such that everything exists at our given observation of it. So something like lead, it is technically a liquid, but it is such a slow liquid. My God. In this particular temperature, it appears to us to be a solid. Even water can appear to be a solid if you hit it fast enough. Everything in the nature of reality exists according to its temperature and density and buoyancy. So if you want to talk about lead, it is basically cold, like very, very cold mercury. You know, it's like water. When it's really, really cold, it becomes a solid. But when it warms up, the temperature, the vibration, the frequency of it changes you and heat it up so much, it turns into a gas. Okay. So all other things of physicality on the same sort of spectrum in their own level. Okay. So now you're trying to say solids and liquids are pretty much the same. Like lead as a solid is not the same as lead as a liquid. They might be molecularly the same, but they do not have the same physical attributes and physical properties. Yeah, exactly like. You drop a solid piece of lead into a cauldron and it's not going to conform to the container. You put liquid lead in there and it will conform to the container. There's a huge difference. Exactly. Okay. So when you put together two pieces of lead, why do they not fuse together? Because they're too cold. They're too cold. That's your, okay, great. You're just, you're off, man. You're off. Why? Why do they not, why does the lead stick together then? Why does two pieces of lead stick together in themselves, hold together as pieces of lead? Why don't they just disintegrate? What's holding them together? What's holding the two pieces of lead together? What two pieces of lead together? I'm about to drop. I mean, not holding them together to each other, holding them together as one, each one. You have two pieces of lead. What is individually keeping them from just breaking apart and staying together as a solid? They're very nature of their substance. That's pretty straightforward, mate. The very nature of it. That's not a fucking answer, though. That's not an answer. That's the nature of physics. No. Oh, give me a break, give me a break. You just said, like things attract. Ozzy, listen, I'm trying to explain to you how bad your argument is, okay? You said, like things attract. Listen, you said, like things attract. I have told you, what if I put two, like things together? Will they not become one? You said, well, when you see water droplets at water, they become bigger water droplets, okay? I take two pieces of lead, I put them together. They don't become one bigger piece of lead. Because they're not in the liquid form, are they? Because they don't attract each other like that. No, because they don't attract each other the way you think they do. Yeah, but tell them they're in the liquid form and they will if you heat them up. It's a temperature thing. That's irrelevant. What are you even talking about? That is completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with it. Yes, it is. Why would that even make a difference? No, okay, okay. Flatter Ozzy Jesus. You, hold on. Listen, we started in this conversation because you tried to explain that observation by saying, like things attract. Like things go together and they form one. Then you jump from saying two solid lead objects attracting to each other are the same, are very similar to two pieces of water coming together and forming a bigger water droplet. I'm going off of your logic. Your logic is faulty. We're gonna give two minutes to Flatter Ozzy and then we will, let's see, I can't remember who started. If one of you would be so kind to defer to the other and giving them the last word at some point, we'll go into the Q and A pretty soon here. Like maybe in the next five to 10 minutes. And so we'll give you about two minutes, Flatter Ozzy, and then we'll kick it back over to team for two minutes just to make sure things don't go too off the rails. Thanks so much. I'll give Ozzy the last word no matter what. The crowd needs to laugh and I'd like to give that to him so he can have the last word. So say what you guys say now. I'll say what I gotta say and then you can have the last word. Thanks for giving me the microphone and still a larynx script to just jump in and speak anyway as he does. He's a bit of a rat bag like that, but we're all used to that. I just told you you could have the last fucking word you fucking moron. So you spent time fucking telling everybody that you didn't appreciate me giving you the opportunity. You guys are being hard on each other and I think that it might go smoother in terms of getting the ideas out if we move forward. Yeah, so unfortunately this debate went completely haywire because all that we ended up discussing was the fact that team septic tank could only talk about amoebas in Ponskum and we never even got beyond that. We were talking about density and buoyancy, like I write down quite a few points here that I would have preferred to have discussed by personally confusing solstices with equinoxes, watching lights in the sky. There's nothing to prove the shape or nature of the ground we need. There's sigmarite tantris isn't even visible to the naked eye. The drop is a normal part of any person. I kind of read down writing. And degrees would get bigger as we observe the sun. If we are on a spinning ball, for example, looking at the sun over there, the degree of the amount of motion of the sun as we're moving, if you get it by a protractor, it would actually be getting faster as it went further away as opposed to when it's closer to us, but we see a constant bit, because the sun is moving a constant within degrees above us all day long. Back again to his light against light thing. He also is talking about is something suspended artificially above something beneath it. And therefore you might detect this slightly natural attractive force, as we say a thousand of a gram, virtually nothing of this thing wanting to be downward forced towards itself. You put them next to each other, of course they're not gonna move to each other because they've got the natural density downwards that's already resisting them, but you suspend one artificially above it. Okay, it wants to be towards it. As far as that goes, I think I'm just gonna let Team Septic Tank now finish off with his last comment. All right, so my last comment starts with, you don't know what you're talking about because I did mean the equinoxes because the sun makes the equatorial traversal on the equinoxes and the equinoxes alone. On the solstices during the, let's say the summer solstice for the northern hemisphere, the sun's gonna rise 23.6 degrees north of the equator. And on the summer solstice for the southern hemisphere, it's going to rise 23.4 degrees, I'm sorry, south of the equator. Those are the solstices, the equinoxes is the only day that they rise due east and set due west for all observers on earth, still something that flat earthers cannot and will not try even try to explain. Now, let's see, he said something earlier about moving faster than the speed of sound. I'm sure that he doesn't understand what he's fucking talking about because if his logic held up that any airline, any pilot flying at the speed of sound wouldn't be able to talk. No, the speed of sound is relative to the medium. So if the medium's moving with the earth, even if it's spinning at 1,000 miles per hour, if the medium's moving at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, of course, if the medium's also moving at that speed, then the speed of sound is still going to be the same within that medium, that's just physics. Let's see, I didn't completely understand his plate spinning nonsense. He didn't have any graphics or anything to back up what he was saying. So just kind of had to get as much as I could from what he was saying and I just didn't catch it all. But again, he came in with density as mass times volume, which was hilarious. He tried to use buoyancy as an equation that as an explanation for gravity, not even understanding that the buoyant force equation, which describes buoyancy includes an acceleration force. And when you're talking about, let's say, a pool of water and why things float or sink, that acceleration force is gravity. Still could not explain as to why, even though ice is 8% less dense than water, it doesn't float on top of the water, it actually semi-submerges. The simple fact of the matter is that any object with weight, no matter what its density is, if it has weight, it will sink into the water slightly. Those are just facts, any object. Take it, try it, do it, helium balloon, put it in a vacuum or whatever, I mean, I'm sure you can't do it in a vacuum, but go get a balloon that slightly sinks down and put it in a fish tank and look inside the fish tank and tell me that that balloon is not semi-submerged and why it's semi-submerged is because it has weight. That weight will pull down on the balloon and all the contents inside of the balloon and the water has to support that weight. Guys, up through the fucking sky, dude, come on. Hey man, shut the fuck up while I talk. Isn't that how you talk to me? We are, if you guys are ready, we can jump into the Q&A. I wanna say thanks so much to the speakers. The speakers are what make this fun and so we appreciate you guys hanging out with us, both Flatter, the Aussie and team and also folks, as we've always done, pretty laissez-faire about how we have these speakers go and so only occasionally we kind of like keep the guardrails on and then also, I know that there is some disappointment in the chat and I will address it. Namely, I know that some of you are quite triggered by the fact that Nathan Thompson is a mod and I would say that if Nathan Thompson is harassing people, if he's beaming to people, and it's true, I did tell him because he, team, you'll be perhaps surprised to know he called you an idiot and I said, Nathan, whether you're a mod or not, you don't need to do that. And my point though is, if you just tag me and you say, hey, this mod, whether it be Nathan or somebody else, if you say, hey, this mod is kind of coming down hard on people, they're not gonna make a person feel welcome here at the channel, then let me know and I'll kind of peek at it and see how bad it is. But Nathan Thompson having a disorderly conduct, I'm not gonna unmod him because of that. I almost got a disorderly conduct before. I mean, it was basically the cop's discretion that I didn't and probably there are plenty of, there are probably plenty of other mods who have had disorderly conducts or whatever else and so the only real thing to be a mod because we don't care about your views. You can be a flat earth or you can be a mod. The goal is for the channel to be neutral and so the only thing is we just don't want whether a person be a mod or just chilling in the chat. We don't want them to be harassing people. And so some of you though have said and so you know why some of you have called you a crybaby. I don't take it back. Some of you are really, I mean, it's very sad, just sad. So in the reason, and that's like a tiny percent, 99.9% of you, thanks so much because you're just kind of like, yeah, you know, whatever, like, but even if you ask like, why is Nathan a mod? I'm okay with that. It's okay to ask, but some of you, the ones I've called a crybaby, if you were calling whether it be Nathan Thompson or anybody, if you're calling them a predator, listen, it's true, he's a radical. He was trying to share his message with kids and that's what got him the disorderly conduct. But if you're like, oh, he's a radical, I'm sorry, if you say that he's a predator, you're like, oh, he's a predator. It's like, okay, he's a radical, but don't try to use something that has the connotation that makes him sound like a pervert predator. So that's why I'm calling some of you guys crybys. And so some of you, look, some of you are still ticked off. I'm like, hey, unsub, I don't care. We're sticking to our values. We are a channel hosting the meaningful questions of life, science, religion, politics, on a neutral playing ground. And so if you don't like it, like, you can unsub, I don't care. And it's amazing that some of you guys think that I'm like, oh, I'm like, no, you're gonna unsub because you think that I'm being too fair. I don't care. Okay, so let's jump into it. I love this channel. I love this channel. And I wanna say that this channel gives opportunities for people to get their voice out. You have great people coming on, even Flatterthosy Jesus. I wanna let you know, man, that last little outburst right there was just me making fun of the way you kept telling me to shut up. I really wasn't upset with you. And I said, shut the fuck up. I was just clowning you back for saying that to me. I actually enjoy having these conversations with you and other people like yourself. So now that we've, we're done with the debate and I, well, I, hey, you know what? To me, this is a competition. We're both in here to win. We're both in here to get our point out to the audience and the best man. I'm just saying that it's just the truth. Well, that's, hey, you're trying to convince me that your truth is more, well, not me. Let's say you're really out here trying to convince the audience that your truth is more right than my truth. Okay, so it is, it is a competition and I do get worked up into the competitive moment. I just want you to know that there is no personal, I don't personally dislike you. Gee, Aussie, Fiaj, I don't personally dislike you, Fiaj. Well, the beard, the beard starts, the beard gets me going. But after that, I think you're a decent dude. I just wanted to make sure that we leave you not mad at each other, okay? Cause I'm having a good time. I'm enjoying myself tonight. I haven't been gotten this worked up in a while. I'm having a good time. Let's have fun. We do appreciate your passion, you guys. To you, James, while you were talking, though, about the moderators, I'm just, I just wanted to put in my two seconds worth of opinion there and say that it seems particularly strange to me that one of your moderators calls himself quite old. He thought I was going to get wrecked before this debate even started. And I just think it's a little bit unbecoming to see a moderator be so biased towards one particular guest on your channel before the debate even starts. And I'm just wondering why such a person would even have a blue- I'm gonna, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you. I'm gonna address that right now. Cause Robert made well. I saw your comment in the live chat as well. And totally, brother, I get where you're coming from. Flat Earth Aussie as well. Both of you are making the same point, but from, I think, opposite sides of this debate is that it's admittedly different here in that we, I'd say the only thing the moderators can't do, and this is a little bit, like I said, it's true, it can be confusing that I'm supposed to be totally neutral with regards to what is being debated. So for your guys' discussion up here, I'm supposed to not take any sides and be pretty radical. I try to be, I try to do that. The other thing is in the live chat, we actually do allow the moderators to take a stance. The stance, it's okay if they say like, oh man, sorry, Flat Earth Aussie, but if they say, Flat Earth Aussie's gonna get wrecked or he did get wrecked or vice versa. That's something I'm like, that I'm okay with. It's that if somebody though is harassing, like if Nathan Thompson is like, I did give him a warning. I said, don't call people an idiot. And that's also something that we're kind of hoping people will not do if they're just chilling in the chat as well. And so thanks for that feedback from both Robert Madewell and Flat Earth Aussie. So yeah. I just think that a moderator should be moderate. That's the whole point of the word, isn't it? They should be moderating. They shouldn't be using their personal bias to express opinions necessarily. I mean, they can still have an opinion as long as they're not putting down somebody, especially somebody who's been an invited guest upon the place, trying to work himself up to make a debate and just being told by the moderator before we're gonna get started on, you're gonna get wrecked. That's like, that's to me, out of order. I could see how it's a good reason for if you guys wanna have a debate, but I'm open to it. I just, the only trick here is I don't want to squelch the autonomy or the freedom of even the moderators saying that Flat Earth or Global Earth is gonna get wrecked. And so I get where you're coming from. I know and we try to treat the guests as well as possible, which is why we're super to laissez-faire. Cause it's like, I hate, the last thing I wanna do is control you guys. That's why I hate using the mute button. Cause I'm like, oh, I'm gonna invite you on and then I'm gonna start muting you. I just feel like a tool if I do that. James, I'm sorry if I ignored your... That's okay, no problem. I'm sorry, man. I was just into it, you know what I'm saying? I was just, but I do have a question though, Flat Earth Aussie Jesus, you're the second Flat Earth that's come onto this show that's complained about fight the Flat Earth being quote unquote mean to them. Nathan Thompson had a problem when we were showing all the prison memes that we had of him, you know, in the black man gang bang thing. He didn't really appreciate that either. And I understand that, but is that pretty prevalent in the Flat Earth group? Do you guys just have a problem with accepting, you know, harsh criticism or jokes that are, you know, that might make you feel like you're less of a person, but really they shouldn't because they're a joke. I mean, do you guys all get hurt so easily? First of all, I'm not you guys, I am myself. I speak for myself and I speak for anybody else. And second of all, I just think that fight the Flat Earth is a fucking idiot. And I'm sick of seeing his face everywhere I go. Now I'm trying to come through a neutral platform and everywhere I go, there he is. I can't avoid the creek. And he tells me that I'm the one stalking him simply because he's always there. I think he should get a light. And I just don't think we should be a moderator on pretty much any platform. He doesn't deserve that status. We're gonna keep him as a moderator. I don't wanna go too much more further with fight the Flat Earth because he's not here to defend himself on mic, like on a microphone. He is in the live chat. I'm sure he appreciated what you said, but I, before we go further, if you guys wanna debate, I'm willing to promote it if it's on Teams channel, fight the Flat Earth channel, your channel, Flat Earth Aussie, we'll tweet it and put it on Facebook and stuff like that and even give it a shout out during our streams. I mean, we can have a debate in the future, Flat Earth Aussie Jesus. The debate topic will be, did you get wrecked tonight? Fight Flat Earth will take the positive, you can take the negative, but you'll get wrecked again. Yeah, so as long as your brains live because you're not a high-pounding draw. Oh, mind Onion says this is getting pretty personal. Flat Earth Aussie Jesus, you're not taking anything I'm saying personal are you? Cause I'm not meaning it to be personal. It's just in fun. Being personal. Okay, yeah, so you're not personally taking it. Like you're not feeling like I'm personally attacking you as a person, are you? Mate, everything breaks off me like water off a duck's back. Same with me, man, have fun. You can say whatever you want about me too because I have a good time with this and I love what I do. I'm pretty assorted on the two feet I stand upon. I know my stuff. I know what I'm talking about, finally. Something in my throat. Things that people say against me do nothing except prove when you point a finger that it's normal for you pointing that at yourself. So, good luck to them. Gotcha. And I would mention I want to give like a shout out or something that I'm like, hey, I'm open to this is in fact, I wouldn't say it's just a possibility. It's something that I would say there's truth to this. H2O Water, a friend in the live chat says but you are supposed to listen to the debate as the moderator, James. Your moderators are supposed to take care of the live chat while the debate is ongoing. That's true and that's something that I should learn to like kind of let more, like kind of defer more to the moderators and it's like I've been a little bit probably maybe over-involved in that. So I would concede that that's something that I have to work on. And then I'd say- I actually appreciate the fact that you don't intervene too much and you do let us have a little bit of toe to toe. I like that too, James. I like that too. Thanks, I appreciate that. It doesn't work occasionally, so I can say what I've got to say. And for the record, the only reason Nathan is a mod, someone said it's because he pays me. He gives a dollar a month through Patreon. I've never seen such a cheap patron. Just kidding, Nathan, I'm teasing. But I mean, but it is a dollar a month. It's not for the money. It's because we really do want to have people from all walks of life be a part of like moderators, Christians, atheists, flat earthers, globes. And like I said, I will consistently apply the rule though. Like if Nathan is being abusive to people in the live chat, I will apply it. I'll say, hey, Nathan, we're not gonna have you as a mod anymore. And that's what I would do to anybody, glober, flat earth, whatever. So anyway, thanks for your patience on that kind of channel housekeeping stuff. Appreciate it, folks. And we really do hope you feel welcome. I know that, let's see. We've got a lot of questions to get through. Ilia Moon, thanks for your super chat who gave a face of someone with spirals for eyeballs. I'm sure, I'm shocked as well. Foehammer 335, thanks for your super chat who said, get them daddy skeptic with daddy in caps. You have a fan out there. Yeah, I like it. I like that daddy in all caps always. Steven Steen, thanks for your super chat who said, team skeptic and flat earth Aussie are actually secret lovers. We are. Something we didn't know. All right, thanks for that. We're email lovers. I'm on top. Okay, no, none of that. Carrie Oliver, thanks for your super chat said, keep licking those windows. Gross. Knuckle dragger. I don't know what that means. Who's licking windows? Yeah, tasty, tasty windows. Okay, thank you. Next up, thanks for your super chat, the Athens 619 who said, I need ranch for this word salad. And he was talking about straw manning, LOL, the irony. I think that might be for you, flat earth Aussie. Yeah, I miss that. What was it? Something about the dining board. Let's see. They said, I need ranch for this word salad. And he was talking about straw manning, LOL, the irony. Yeah, back to the honor board. Gotcha, thank you. Steven Steen, thanks for your sick super chat. In quotes says, James Koons is an alpha daddy, quoting Jesse Lee Peterson. That's funny. I don't know if you guys saw on Twitter, Steven hired Jesse Lee Peterson to talk about me. It was like very, that was interesting. Jesse Lee Peterson will be on Monday. It is going to be insane. I am not sure what to expect, but it should be a fun one, I hope. Fight the flat earth, thanks for your super chat who said, to summarize flat earth Aussie's arguments, I quote, I don't understand physics. Ross, please explain why we can measure both rotation and curve. You've never once detected any rotation and you've never once detected any curves. What the hell are you talking about? Gotcha. Thanks so much, appreciate that. And thanks so much for your super chat from Kang024. No, no, no, Kang024 said, question for Aussie, please explain the detections made by L-I-G-O experiment. A LIGO? Well, I think it's described in the very word itself. LIGO or GO-LY, we've never detected gravity, waves anywhere ever, so come on, get real. You got it, thanks for that. Super chat from Kang024. Thanks again, they said, question for Aussie, Aussie, given the sun does not change, angular size in the sky relative to an observer, please explain sunsets and sunrises. Your limits of vision are generally limited to, say, about three miles either side of where you exist and the Earth is like all the part of the sun is about 25,000 miles. So if you even think that you can see half of that, you've done pretty well. Learn some scale. Gotcha, thanks for that. And thanks for your super chat from Monkey Cat Pat Pat. Appreciate it. As I said, try all you want team. Flat Earth Aussie doesn't understand anything. Oh, Flat Earth Aussie, I'm sorry. That's okay. Gotcha, very calm. Kang024, thanks for your other super chat, said question for Aussie, please supply proof images of Earth from space are fake. In other words, how do you know that these images of Earth from space are phony? Because simply there are no images from space. And if you think you've been to space, then you should go back to watching the market as we all did as a kid. That's your intelligence level. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat from Kang024, said question for Aussie. Again, please explain how an equatorial mount works on a flat Earth. By a single axis of rotation, I'm talking something moving in a single axis of rotation as opposed to dual axis of rotation, which they don't do. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from, let's see, Joshua White, who says, Flat Earth Aussie, do you have a physical model that explains star rotation reversal from north of the topics in parentheses counterclockwise to south of the topics in parentheses clockwise on a flat Earth? Yes, I do. It's called the flat Earth. And you can just go out and have a look at it. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. J.L. Warren, who says Flat Earth Aussie, how do you explain that if you plot out the definitively known distances between all major cities on Earth, the plot points form a sphere? I've never seen that. I'd like to see it be shown. Thank you. Super interesting. And thanks for your super chat from monkey cat Pat Pat, who says if the Earth was flat, wouldn't Flat Earth Aussie be able to see the North Star? No, it's too far away. Don't you understand a single thing about distance and perspective? The further away you get from something, the more it appears to go down. Once you reach the equator from the North Pole, that's the point where Polaris disappears. Now, if you think that you can see beyond a convergence point, then, you know, it must be too hot. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. K-024, who says question for Aussie. Given there are hundreds of amateur weather balloon, high altitude flight videos, clearly showing Earth's curve using non-fish eye lenses, please explain their existence. There's not a single one that shows curvature. If they're using a non-fish eye lens, they are proving it is 100% physically flat If you think you're seeing curvature, all you're really doing is just seeing a different nature of light if you just go far away from the sun, that could kill a mind. It's the nature of light you're seeing, given the appearance of curvature, not curvature. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. Rick's world, who says the sun would have burned up its fuel by now if it were small, why can't we see a small sun spotlight on the dark side of Earth? My eyes can see stars. Was that to me? I think so. They said the sun would have burned up its fuel by now if it were small. Why can't we see a small sun spotlight on the dark side of Earth? My eyes can see stars. Yep, okay. So the sun isn't fuel. That's the first thing you have to learn. The sun is not fuel. It is an interdimensional portal from another dimension where it allows energy from that dimension to create an apparition of light in our upper atmosphere, which is the hydrogen and helium layer. And that apparition that we see is what we call the sun, but it's not really the sun at all. It's just the apparition in our upper atmosphere, which we cannot go beyond. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from our dearest friend, Gabriel Kay, who says pressure equals mass over volume. He said it's mass times volume, small case V, large case V, maybe that was a typo. Game over, Ozzy. Is there an equation mass times small case V times upper case V? I'm, it must be a typo. I think it's pressure is equal to mass over volume, but he said that it's mass times volume. Game over, Ozzy. I see what they're saying. Okay, does that make sense? I think basically they're just confusing the fact that mass and volume, virtually the same thing, the density of the mass is what changes in the same amount of volume. So yes, when it comes to a gas, you can compress more of it into the same amount of volume, which will increase the density, but in night chat, as we say it, density and volume pretty well, straightforward. Gotcha, and thanks for your super chat from the banner of Hamura Akemi, says, math him team, math them harder. Yes. Oh yeah. Gotcha. I love some math. Sleepy Dan, thanks for your super chat, who said ice cubes do not change weight when they melt, despite water being more dense than ice. Density does not determine weight. Relative density is BS. Yeah, well, you can put as much ice cubes as you want into a glass of water. And as they melt, the water doesn't overflow. They're still the same basic density, just that the volume changes as they melt to remain volume. Super interesting. And thanks for your super chat from club as he likes to be called. Caleb says, Flat Earth Aussie, best reason for why government would hide Flat Earth. All right, that's the other day. I wish I'd remembered what I'd written. Basically because government is made out of the two words, govern, to control, meant, the mind, mental. So to control the mind, once you've grabbed the grasp of somebody's mind and convinced them of some lie, so big, everything else flows pretty easily and you're pretty easy to control and you'll do as it holds. You'll be a good little slave and you'll make money for your owners. You got it. Thanks for your super chat. Cash 22 said, we would be able to see both sides of the moon on a Flat Earth model. No, you wouldn't. The moon is always too high. The same reason you never see the top of an airplane when it flies from a horizon horizon. You only ever see the undercarriage. The moon is in a choir. You're only ever gonna see the bottom side of the moon. There's no way that anywhere on a Flat Earth you would see more than the bottom side of the moon that we always see. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. From Kengo24 says, question for Ozzie, what kind of cognitive dissonance is required to hold your beliefs and at the same time live in a world that is completely constructed using the physics that you deny? I think if I didn't, they constructed my world out of physics, I did not. No, I observe all the actual physics we can observe. And I just tell them how it is. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. SparkyNJ says, flight or a Flat Earth Ozzie, so are you saying that A times B is the same as A divided by B? So is 20 times five, the same as 20 divided by five? I think they're going back to that pressure volume mass. You know, you have to find the answer in the first place. So 20 times five being 100 and then 20 divided by five equals 100. So all you have to do then 100 divided by five equals 20. They're still got the same and it's whatever I did. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. Fight the Flat Earth, who said question for Team Skeptic, can you whistle? Answer for Fight the Flat Earth, fuck off. He knows I can't whistle. Not what I'm typing in. Oh my gosh. Okay, Jessica G, thanks for your super chat. Said question for Gandalf the Gray on the left. Is Australia real? Question for Team Skeptic, can you whistle the Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye Song for the win? I'll let him answer it first and then I'll do the Na Na Hey Goodbye Song. Nothing is real. Everything is just an illusion of your mind. It's all the construct of your senses. Gotcha, moving forward. Okay, thanks for your super chat. From Fight the Flat Earth, said question for Santa. Flat Earth, Santa, what's the equation for resistance? It depends how hard I punch you in the face and how much resistance you have in the teeth. Oh my goodness. Oh, it's like it's getting... It varies. Somebody will say they have more resistance than others. Gotcha, thank you for that. Kayla, thanks for your super chat. Who said Aussie, have you ever battled a kangaroo? No. Oh, well, as a kid, yeah, once I got whacked really hard across the legs by a Tyler one, but my dad had shot. I thought it was dead. It wasn't, it nearly knocked me off my feet. Whoa, that I did not know. Gabrielle Kay, thanks for your super chat. Who said, Team, why do you speak like Reds? Find your way, peace. Yeah, since I've been on the internet or since I've been on YouTube, I have been constantly... Suck in the dick of Reds. No, I've been constantly misconstrued as Reds. Like people would say like, hey, it's just Reds, other channel. And the funny thing is, is that my PlayStation name was Red Eye District. So when I first started my channel and people were like, hey, Reds, is this you? I was like, yeah, that's fucking, that's crazy. Like how'd y'all find me? I haven't told anybody about this. But yes, I've had many people. I think it's great, man. Reds has a fucking sexy ass voice. So if I sound like him, then fucking I'm doing something right. True, next up, thanks. Christopher Hogan, thanks for your super chat. Who said, for Flat Earth Aussie, how do you think is, how is the ice wall? I'll read it just as it is. I'm making sense of it. Quote, how think is the ice wall and how thick is the ice wall? And why can't I see it from my local beach? It's only about seven centimeters and because it's just over the horizon. Okay, thank you for that. And thanks for your super chat. I'm sorry, Wilson, who says, does level equal flat? Absolutely. If you look at the dictionary definition of level or flat, both of them contain the same thing. Flat and level are synonymous with one another. And just because something is level doesn't necessarily mean part of me. Just because something is flat doesn't automatically mean it's level. But if you use water or any sort of liquid surface to make a level, it will be flat. I'm sorry, did you, you opened up with saying that level is flat and then you just said, just because it's level does not mean it's flat. I said, does it mean flat doesn't mean it's level? Oh yeah, flat doesn't mean it's level. Right. So it's contradicting. No, no, no. You can't have level without being flat. Here you can. Well, you can because it's like about 12 or 14 different dictionary definitions of the word level. Like you can be on a level of a game or a level of a building, but in general, the general term of flat and level together mean flat and level just like the ocean. Or something to be flat and level, it must be flat and perpendicular to the pool of gravity. That's flat and level. Well, yeah, exactly. At all points, there's no way where it suddenly starts going sideways. Okay, well, and that's, but yeah, but if you take, Sean, oh yeah, it does. Yes, it does. And that's a, that is a dictionary actual level. Yeah, that's the dictionary description of what level is, is it's conforming to the surface of the curved earth? No. So everything at sea level is at the same distance from the center of the earth. If you believe in imaginary pulling forces of such ridiculous things, but. Yeah, the ones, you mean the ones that dictate our lives? Hell yeah. The natural nature and the natural physics of the world we live upon. Flat and level means flat and level, not curved and level. No, flat and level means flat and perpendicular to the pool of gravity. That's what flat and level means. You're pulling it too hard, man. Okay. Next up. Sigefreto Sarabia, thanks for your super chat. Who said, skeptic, you've said down is inward toward the center of the earth. If so, what force would be acting on three boxes one foot apart in free fall? Would they have to come closer together if there's an inward force by a core? Well, if I understand it right, yes, they would come together. They would come together, I believe, not only by their attractive force, which is real, real slight, but because the plums that they would be falling along would bring them together as they approach the center of the earth. Very convenient, isn't it? Because the plum that's like 500 miles away would be going a much different angle, but anyway, every second. Yeah, I know, right. So if you drew, let's say you took two objects and you put them on those two plums at the distance of the moon. And as you brought them together, if you followed the line that they had from the distance from the moon to the center of the earth, they would get closer to each other at every point along their path. They would constantly be getting close together. So you're saying that life isn't parallel now? But no, I didn't say that. We mean, life isn't parallel, that doesn't make any sense. The line from the moon would be doing the same thing as a physical line from the moon. That's just the sun. Let's say it's two physical lines from the sun, isn't life ever been a linear pattern? And now all of a sudden you're saying they're converging towards the earth. Well, okay, so when you look up and you see the sun, do you see the sun as three million miles big, like right up on your face, or do you see it as a half a degree in the sky? I see it as pretty much the same size as the moon. Yeah, it's about half a degree in the sky, right? Okay, but the truth of the matter is, is that that sun is much wider than the earth. So those lines are converging down on you. And even when you look, if you're looking at the very middle of the sun, then you're having to look at a slight angle from the middle of the sun to see the outside of the sun. In fact, 0.25 degrees or 0.26 degrees, you're gonna have to look from the center of the sun to the outside of the sun. So the parallel rays that are parallel in all direction, or not parallel, the rays that diverge from the point source, from every spot on the sun, one of those rays comes to your eyes. And it's all getting, all those rays are converging as they come to your eye. Let me say the entire sun, all at once. Why is that? That's why you see the entire sun all at once. So all the rays are converging to my eyes or all the rays are not converging? No, all the rays are going in all the directions, right? Because light from point source, hold on. Yes, when you turn on the light bulb, hold on, hold on, hold on. When you turn on the light bulb, be quiet for a second so you can let me finish. When you turn on the light, does the light shine in one direction or does it go in all directions? Obviously in all the directions. Okay, same thing goes for the sun. From every point on the sun, hold on. I do have to give Tim the last word on this one because the super chat was for him. Yeah, from every point on the sun, the light goes in all directions, even back into the sun. Okay, that's just how it works. It goes in 360 degrees in a sphere heading outward. All right? Now you on earth, when you look up and you see the sun and you see the whole sun, you're seeing a ray of light from every point on that sun converging down to your eye. Now, when you take one step over to the left of where you're at now, you can still see the sun, right? Well, that's because there's rays coming in that are converging to that point also. And if you get further away from the sun, they get smaller. Why? Because those rays converge closer and closer together to your eye. Gotcha. Next up, thanks so much for your super chat. Appreciate it from Taryn Martian. Appreciate it. I asked for Flat Earth Aussie. How do density and buoyancy alone explain how pressure is measurably greater at the bottom of a swimming pool compared to at the top of a swimming pool? Oh, that's a very easy one, because when you've got more of something like more water pressing down on you, then less water pressing down on you, then you've got more pressure pushing down on you. It's pretty bloody. You still haven't explained why it pushes down on you though. It's all the same density. Yeah, because it has more mass, the more mass of the water. But what's making it press down on you? Once you go down two waters, once you go down three waters, four waters, five waters. No, I understand the concept of pressure. There's more pressure. Yeah, I understand the concept of pressure, but what you're, but hold on, but what you're failing to explain and I guess what they're asking is why? Why does the mass on top of the water get pulled down? You're already telling us that it's density versus buoyancy. Well, water is fairly incompressible, right? So the water, the density of the water at the bottom of the pool is the same as the density of the water at the top of the pool. Yeah, there's more of it. But I understand that, but why is it? I don't know, it doesn't matter to you, but size and the amount actually does matter. No, but why? Gravity is the reason why, but you would need to explain why it's not. We've got to give him a, well, once he responds, we've got to move forward and then just because the question was challenging him. So go ahead though, why was what? There's more over. Gotcha. Okay, thanks so much. And then let's see, so sorry to kind of cruise through these. I know that a lot of these are deep and so you go longer, but I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat. Who said, why can't I see Mount Everest from Ohio flat, right? Now there's a thing called distance diminution, where everything in the distance appears to get smaller. You might be able to see a boat, pardon me, five miles away. If you zoom in on it, pardon me, something in my throat again. You've also got this thing called convergence point. And the convergence point is a cutoff point. So if something is further than that point, you're only going to see what can appear to be above that. So once you've reached your convergence point, generally three to five miles away, anything that's above that, you might be able to see it. The only way you can change that is by getting higher in elevation to see further. It's got various. Gotcha, thanks for your super chat. Sijafredo Sarabia says, skeptic if on a car, what's the explanation of why a suspended balloon does not hit the back of a car? If you consider the rotation of the earth using force equals mass times acceleration. You might be on mute. Oh, was that for me? Yeah, they said, I'm sorry, I thought the question was for him. You can go ahead and repeat it, I'll answer. Yeah, they said if on a car, I'm not sure if they mean on or in the car, what's the explanation of why a suspended balloon does not hit the back of a car? If you consider the rotation of the earth using force equals mass times acceleration. I don't know, I know the answer to that and I can answer it, but what I'm saying is I don't know if that was meant for me or him. I was like, good luck. First off, let me ask you a question, Flat Earth Aussie Jesus, do you understand why a helium balloon does what it does in a car when you accelerate it? First off, do you know what happens? It's less than the air. But what happens to the balloon in the car? It goes forwards. It goes forwards, right. Okay, because you have an acceleration in one direction. It's less than the air, so. Okay, but hold on. Everything on the inside of the car is accelerating at that point, right? You agree with that, right? Okay, the air, the balloon, the frame of the car, everything. So as it accelerates, yeah, as it accelerates, it gives a fictitious acceleration force in the exact opposite direction at the speed that you're accelerating, or at the rate that you're accelerating. So when it does that, yeah, when it does that, it gives a vector of acceleration that must be taken into account as long with the vector of acceleration of downward towards the earth. So let's say if there was no downward acceleration to the earth, then the balloon would just go straight forward to the front of the car. It wouldn't have any kind of degree to it. Like if you look at a balloon, if you hang the balloon from the bottom and you accelerate, the balloon will lean more and more forward the faster you accelerate. That's because you're adding more and more of an acceleration vector on the frame of reference and to the atmosphere on the inside, causing it to turn, the vector to turn more and more towards the back of the car, forcing the balloon further and further forward. So that's why it happens. The same thing, this is the exact same reason why a balloon floats straight up when you put it in a car. Why? Because we have an acceleration vector pulling everything down. Gosh, let's see. I want to give a team the last word on that one just because it was a challenge to him. Feel good? Okay. Sphere itself, thanks for your super chat. Says, really James again with the sexy? Come on. Making me blush. I think that, as I mentioned, is actually 65 year old Earl, the postman from Alabama, but I appreciate that Earl. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat. Says, earth is shaped like James's sexy haircut. Come on, what is with you guys? Staying new to more today, thanks for your super chat said. If there is a resistance force, what does force resist? Max. Gotcha, thanks for your super chat from dearest friend, Lois V. Said, easy win team skeptic. You got a fan out there, team. Oh yeah, easy win, easy, hashtag easy. Yeah, we never got past your amateurs. Gotcha. Sphere itself, thanks for your super chat. You said, no, I'm not Steven Steen or a 62 year old garbage man. That's, I mean, I guess that's good. Okay, mouth breather, thanks for your super chat. Who, these are, we already addressed this, but fair to read it. I'll take the heat. Said, how is Nathan a moderator when all he does is insult the opposition? Promise folks, I will keep consistent with that rule. If he is being abusive or harassing, I will unmod him. Ranger man 9404, thanks for your super chat. Who said, I don't know what's lower, flat earth Aussie's mic or volume or his IQ. Well, it's pretty hard when you're upside down, trying to cling on to a spinning ball, come on. Gotcha, oh, what a charmer. Thanks for your super chat from Sparky, New Jersey. I think that's what the NJ stands for. Correct me if I'm wrong. They said, if like attracts like, human biology is alike. Why haven't we all combined by now? Which one of you said like attracts like? I think we tend to be attracted towards one another according to our species, you know? Like, yeah, I've seen some pretty effective horses in one day, but you know, I've kept my distance, I've done the right thing. I think in some places they might go, but yeah, we tend to stay according to our own kind. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from the Athens 619 who said, it's hard to pick between GM Truth, who was on last night, and Flat Earth Aussie for the Dunning Kruger Award. Flat Earth Aussie doesn't care, he's not even responding. I'll give it to GM Truth, it's over. But GM Truth, is it, do I understand right team that he's one of your buddies? You guys are pals, you hang out and stuff? I'm trying to save him for many more stupidity that, I mean, there's no saving that guy though. I've kind of given up. My 2020 New Year's resolution was to convert GM Truth from the Flat Earth. I didn't need him to stop believing in God, I didn't need him to, I didn't even tell him that he needed to believe that the Earth was a globe, I just need him to realize how stupid it is to be a Flat Earther. But he's stuck on stupid and there's not much he can do about anybody that's stuck on stupid as bad as him. We're talking about something like gecko strength stupid stuck on him, you know what I mean? Like you couldn't peel that stupid off of him not with a metal spatula and some fucking industrial bleach. It's just two burnt into his personnel, personnel. JL Warren, thanks for your super chat. I was throwing my poop at some people earlier so I've got to take the heat back. Said, I'd like to know why those of us who object to Nathan Thompson being a mod and seeing his behavior supported by MDD are being told to unsubscribe. To be fair, I only told the people who were saying that he's a predator to unsubscribe. So I agree, trying to spread the Flat Earth position to young kids during a school day or probably any time I would not condone, I don't think it's a good idea, but to say he's a predator is like, you know that as connotations of things that like we have no reason to say that. That's a pretty serious thing. So that's why I was telling people, some people like 0.001% unsub. Well, let me ask you, let me ask you a question. And this is, I'm not trying to rag on Nathan, I'm really just trying, would you consider somebody who financially sought out to attack old people? Would you consider that a predacious behavior? I think you're right. It doesn't necessarily have to be sexual in reference. I'm not saying that he is that type. I definitely am not trying to say that he's a child predator. That's to me, I agree with you, that's wrong, but there is predacious behavior there. And I can feel what the people in the chat are saying, but I also understand you got a channel that you got to run and it's your channel. You should do what you want, man. Like this way it is. Would concede there are different types of predatory behavior for sure. Some sexual, some non-sexual, like an example being fiscal, kind of predatory behaviors. I don't know everything Nathan does in his life. If you have, if there's something like that, I'd obviously be concerned. I'm not gonna bad talk the guy because it's not my, he does enough for himself. I don't have to do anything to help that out. But this is new to me. I appreciate you. But yeah, and again, Nathan, I hope if you're in the live chat right now that you have been not harassing people because that is something that, but I do also, I'm gonna throw another challenge out there to the people who were saying, hey, Nathan is, you know, he called team an idiot. And I myself told him not to do that. But like, are you also holding other mods accountable who might be using that kind of language? And Bella charge, thanks for your super chat, said at Flat Earth Aussie, why does rain come down in drops and not one bit of water under that logic it would, or sorry, I butchered this one, said, okay, starting over Flat Earth Aussie, why does rain come down in drops and not one bit of water or chunk of water under your logic, it should just be one giant drop of water. Or a huge chunk of water. Talk about the ultimate power move, Flat Earth Aussie just walked out on us. We'll ask him when he comes back. Tim Pryor, thanks for your super chat says, sorry, but having Nathan Thompson as a moderator is as pointless as Betty White getting a boob job, LOL. I didn't know that she did. That's a good, no. I'll really afraid to Google that. Cedric Vredo Sarabia, thanks for your super chat. Let's see. I'm trying to understand this, and I'm also trying to understand if it's like fitting within what would be suitable. Let's go to the next one. Thanks for your super chat from, let's see, Tioga, who says James quote, beta daddy, appreciate the love. Thanks for your super chat. Was that you, Flat Earth Aussie? No, that was me. Oh, I was doing that, Jesse Lee Peterson. I was like, beta. Oh, I get it. Okay, Flat Earth Aussie. Okay, Flat Earth Aussie, you had a question before you did that power move and walked on us. Tim Pryor, let's see. Christopher Nabella charge said, why does rain come down and drops and not just one giant chunk or glob of water by your logic? It seems that rain should just come down as one huge glob of water. That's a really good question. And I've often won the same thing myself. I guess it's probably got something to do with temperature and humidity and the nature of water itself. And even though it appears to come down and it drops, by the time it hits the ground, we can see it's seriously flat. So yeah, I'd like to know that, too. Why doesn't it? Gotcha, thanks so much. And appreciate your super chat from Christopher Hogan, who says, question for Team Skeptic, what happened to fight the Flat Earth debate yesterday? I don't think fight could, well, I think that was gonna be on the plot hole, but I don't think that fight could connect for whatever reason. So it ended up being just J.L. Warren and a COVID-19 denier. Gotcha, thanks for your super chat from Dim Sum, Nim Sum, who says, team, calm down, I need to adjust when you talk. Oh, yeah, but James, you've seen me in person now and I've had a few debates. You could tell, oh man, I get, like, I'm active, man. I like being, getting up and jumping around. So I apologize if I was raising my voice. I think that came in during that time when I was finishing up in Flat Earth, I was like, Jesus said something, I was like, hey, shut the fuck up. So I think that's when that happened. And I'm sorry for raising my voice. Like I said, I was really just trying to mock him for telling me to shut up all those times, but it did come off a little bit loud and angrily. And that's not the- What are you trying to speak? I haven't made quite a bit. Yeah, but I mean, I'm right, so. Next up, we can't go to, let's see. And team's right. If you've seen them in that in-person debate in Dallas with Nathan Thompson, tonight is what we would call sedated team skeptic. And it's pretty calm and compared to how crazy- I'm trying to be better, James. I'm trying to be able to get more of my point across. I think sometimes my points get lost because I get overworked to be like, to be in that confrontational, like I love confrontation. Like I'm one of those people that didn't, like I don't mind it, you know what I'm saying? Having very intense conversations with people that I've never met before and just being very strong-willed in your beliefs and whatnot. So I enjoyed the confrontation. It would be worthwhile, wouldn't it? Absolutely. And- Just to speak in absolute crap most of the time. Well- The beliefs in mathematical formulas without any grasp. They give us predictive powers. If they didn't give us predictive powers, I would lose my confidence in them immediately. Predictive powers, no. Hold on. I don't wanna go too far. It's very sweet bowl. We, let's see. I agree though. I appreciate your guys' passion. I also appreciate one thing about both of you guys that you do really well, is I like when there, I think it's like this like triumph of human growth or development when you can disagree with someone really strongly. You're like, no, I totally think you're wrong. And I'll just say it out loud. But then afterwards, you're more than tolerant. You're like, you're kind of like, yeah. You know, we don't have to have bad blood over it. Like we're not gonna hold a grudge. We disagree. Oh no, I have fun. Oh cool. This is fun. This is fun. Why not have fun doing it? You know what I mean? Like this was, I don't feel like I wasted my time tonight. So that's good. I think a lot of- You wanna sit at the bar and have a drink with somebody as opposed to sit around the camp far and eat their flesh. Right. Progress. And I think it's kind of like, I just think it's an awesome thing where we are to that point where we're not like, oh, we disagreed. Now we've got this like bad blood between us. We've got this like, we're gonna like cold shoulder each other. It's like, but instead of being just like, ah, water under the bridge. So thanks for your super chat. Dim sum, nim sum. Who says, oh, we read that one. John Rapp, thanks for your super chat. Who said Nathan Thompson does not have the character to mod. Well, we will check out what he's been saying. And I will also learn more about other stuff. If I'm as big as a flat earth in defense of Nathan Thompson, I agree with that person. I think Nathan Thompson is not a very good mod at all. I've been banned from his flat earth group that many times simply because I've said some rude word like, you know, I personally think Nathan Thompson does not represent the flat earth the way I would like to see flat earth represented. But, you know, it takes all kinds and good luck to him for doing what he does. Gotcha. Well, thank you for that. And Hugh Jarz. You have to look on your face. I am shocked. I'm sure I'm kind of wondering like what Nathan is saying right now. I can just imagine him like listening to this on his phone like looking at his phone and be like, what the heck, man. Okay. So Hugh Jarz, thanks for your super chat. Who said, what drugs is Ross on and can I have some, please? Yeah, sure. If I just drop around, I've got all the drugs. Thanks for that. And Tim Pryor, thanks for your super chat, said Nathan Thompson harassing kids, but that's okay. But in the chat, that's okay. Well, it's true. We said that even if he's trying to spread his flat earth message, I mean, we kind of, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I appreciate your feedback. I know that sometimes I would say this one, I don't really, this super chat doesn't bother me. Like I said, it's only like the ones where it's like, you know, when I fight the flat earth, thanks for your super chat. I said flat earth Aussie did get wrecked. Did I? I won't fight the flat earth. Yeah, yeah. Thanks for your super chat. G's Mundo says, fight the flat earth is not a mod. He's a very naughty boy. Okay. So next up, thanks for your super chat. Locan 16. Locan 16 says, flat earth Aussie is too chill. LOL, start yelling. You're very, you are actually very easy going. I have to, in both of these debates, you've been like pretty chill. Like I know that. I just don't believe in raising my voice. When somebody's raising their voice at me, it's just that themselves projecting the very angry side of themselves. I'm just like, you know, come to chill dude. I will take anything that you can throw at me and I will show you how when you throw anything at me, like you're pointing your finger, that's where your fingers are pointing back at yourself. I've got nothing to get angry about. Got you. You got it dude. And thanks for your super chat. Daniel Baker says, flat earth Aussie, how do you explain 15 degree PH drift shown on gyroscopes? I feel like I had to have said that wrong. This is only possible on the globe. How can you explain if the earth is flat? Citation please. Well, it's like anything that these people claim. They always claim it's only possible on the globe, but they haven't then done the background work then to say, how is it possible on a flat earth? And if you do do it on a flat earth, you would realize it's because the earth itself is stationary, the 15 degree per hour rotation means things that you're detecting moving above you. And it's not the earth itself moving. If it was the earth itself moving, then that 15 degrees would differ as per protractor from a single point and be much bigger towards the horizon. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from fight the flat earth. Said Ross, did I hurt your feelings? Big cry, baby. Ha ha. Nah, I've never had more feelings, like. Gotcha, thanks. Thanks for your super chat. Stupid whore energy strikes again. She says, James hit my bottom for abusing Christians. It was glorious. I thought it was just one that you were abusing. I didn't know it was multiple, but glad that I, let's see. McCabrey Malafika? Thanks for your super chat. Said, can we at least replace Nathan with a better flat earth? Like ranty or flat earth Aussie. They've never harassed anyone on video. Well, it's something that I will consider. I'm open. Like I said, I appreciate you asking so nicely. That makes me so much more responsive. Can you believe like sometimes I'm not joking. Sometimes I get an email because I tell someone I'm like, eh, sorry, I don't know if that topic is gonna fit with what we usually like have. And you know, they'll get mad and they'll say, they'll start their email. Well, hey, coward, why don't you do this? And I'm like, why would I like work with you? Would you start by calling me a coward? Okay, thanks for your super chat. Fight the flat earth who says flat earth Aussie, mctoon.net slash r measurements of curve. Gotcha. John wrap. He's got lovely bottoms, yeah. Gotcha, John wrap. Thanks for your super chat who said never measured rotation, fiber optic gyroscopes. Gyroscopes. Gyroscopes, you can bear with me. Ah, well, you know, it could be thermoscopes, I guess. No, fiber optic gyroscopes, I'll leave that to the experts. That's not my field of expertise. And I have a feeling that most of the people who are talking about them have no idea what they're talking about. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from dearest friend, stupid horror energy who says, how does Aussie explain that I saw anti crepuscular rays from my airplane window for hours as I flew from New York to Peru showing the sun is big and far away? Anti crepuscular, that's like saying, train tax as they go away from here, crepuscular, anti crepuscular is showing the opposite. It's probably actually showing that the sun is far away, but what you're seeing the sun rays coming through being the cloud layer is quite near. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from stupid horror energy striking again says, what weighs more, 200 pounds of feathers or 200 pounds of bricks? Oh, 200 pounds of empty head, for sure. Oh, very sassy, point and laugh. Thanks for your super chat. Who says, why is the moon upside down in the Southern hemisphere, flat earth Aussie Jesus? Because you're looking at it from the different direction. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from Mark Chenista says, flat earth there is quote level, unquote, is the young earth creationist, quote, kind, unquote. Club, thanks for your super chat. Appreciate it, said with that in all caps. Are you making fun of me? Are you copying me? They say, thank you for being here, folks. Keep sifting the eagles from the weasels. Appreciate that very good parody. Thanks for your super chat, cash 22 who said, please explain your theory on the sun being an interdimensional portal. Yeah, because energy has to come from somewhere. And what we're saying when it comes to the sun is that the sun itself is not expending energy. We only see the energy once it reaches that certain part of our atmosphere. So if this energy is coming from somewhere else, it must become another dimension, which is pretty much what I say all life is coming from. It's an energy from an endless source. That's hard to explain exactly, but it is coming from something that does not just burn out as we would think by a campfire with the sun. Itself is the apparition that we see in our atmosphere thanks to the fact that there is an interdimensional portal that is constantly delivering energy towards the earth to give life, as we say it. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from Nuga, who says, can we get Flat Earth Aussie to say, quote, I am the Knight Rider? No. Gotcha, thanks for that. Brian Stevens, thanks for your Patreon question, says, why does my drop of orange juice join my drop of mercury? Are they both, quote, like, unquote? I would think that actually the mercury would be on the top of orange juice, but I doubt that they would combine at all. Gotcha. Thanks so much for that, and I think that is all we have. So I want to say thanks so much, folks. It's been a wild night. We really do appreciate you. If we had a run-in, including with me and you in the chat, I think that, like I said, it's only like two people, but do want to say no hard feelings. I sincerely do hope you're well, and it's good that we do have people disagreeing here. So that's one thing, it's true. I might be a little bit, you know, sometimes I might throw a little heat at you, but one thing is, if I ever block you, because you criticize me, I hope you guys call me out and you say, James, come on, because I think that's fair. I hope you guys are able to criticize me and at least not be blocked. You might get some pushback, but hopefully I'll start, you know, hopefully I'll be open in my mind. Jackalope Hurd. James, mate, you deliver one of the best forums. You don't jump in and express your own opinions in between other debates. Unlike nearly every other forum I've ever debated by the time, I think you do a really good job of allowing two people to discuss something when it goes fine. So, two dos to you, mate, and thank you. Thank you. That really does mean a lot. I seriously feel encouraged. I appreciate that. And Jackalope Hurd master sent in the final super chat saying, wrench for team skeptic. Do we really not have you with a wrench? Oh, it's all right, James. I lost my wrench when my channel got hacked. They had to create like a, I had to create a second channel and then they transferred my old channel to the new channel. So yes, no, I'm not modded on here, but I don't ever expect anybody to mod me just. Gotcha. Well, you are modded. Just because I'm a mega superstar, it doesn't, you don't have to, you know? I honestly am happy to. I can't believe what happened. Did somebody like hack your account? I heard Sirus had his account hacked. Sirus the skeptic. You know, the thing is, is I'm, I am super, super careful with what I open, what I install on my computer. And I don't know how I got hacked. I honestly think YouTube had a glitch in their system because they deleted a lot of my videos that they said were uploaded by the hacker and they have proof of it. And I was like, no, those videos were mine. I'm the one who uploaded them before the, whatever the, when I lost my channel. But they did nothing malicious. If it was a hacker, all they did was disassociate my channel with from my email address. That's it. So I don't, yeah, I don't, I don't know. I saw Sirus's post and I saw that he also made the comment that all of his videos from a certain point were removed. I haven't talked to him to see if it was the same thing that happened to me. But YouTube told me that I was hacked. That comes from YouTube, even though I don't completely believe it. YouTube told me that. Wow, fortunate. Yikes, sorry to hear that. Maybe, cause you've been going on those websites you shouldn't be going on. All right, just teasing. I wanna say, really appreciate these guys. And like I said, I have linked them in the description folks. So if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. I wanna hear more. You can hear more because I put those links right there for you. They're waiting for you. Just a little click away and you can hear plenty more. So thanks for these guys. We really do appreciate these guys being with us. And thanks so much for being here with us listening folks. We hope you have a great night. Hopefully our producer is still awake. He might be gone, I don't know. Praise. Thank you for that praise. Go ahead, flat earth Aussie. Yeah, I was just gonna say, I do appreciate it and thanks very much for giving the opportunity to chat with team Skeptic once again. That doesn't happen too often. We did it once before when of course, was the moderator and so it sort of ganged up again. So it felt nice to be able to chat one on one without having any bias against me one by one. We appreciate both of you guys. You guys have been kind to the channel. We appreciate you guys hanging with us. And so with that folks, given that it sounds like our moderator is back. He's got his new toy, his voice modulator. Can I make one announcement before you close it out? You bet. Okay, I believe I'm gonna do a quick after show after this. Anybody that would like to attend it can find it on my channel and I'll bring a few people on. What's that? Can I come? Sure, sure. Well, I wouldn't keep you from coming. So I will. I would not keep you from joining our panel on the show. Does Fight the Flat Earth have your email address so I can just send him a link for you to join? Yeah. Okay, I'll send link to him and he can. All right, well, okay. Well, yeah, that's all I wanted to say. I'll be having an after show on my channel as well. You bet. And conveniently folks, the link to that channel where the after show will be right in the description already. So you can click on over there. And so yeah, I will encourage you. Maybe you never know. There might be an appearance by Flat Earth Aussie. Might be crazy. So feel free to click that link down below and go party at the after show. So thanks so much, guys. And praise, thanks so much for your help as our producer tonight. Folks, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care.