 Good evening everybody and welcome to modern day debate tonight. We're gonna be debating as the globe. Is it a flat? Is it a sphere? So we're going to hand it over to Alan for his opening statement there I think I'm gonna gotten that backwards, but yeah, correct me Alan. You got the floor Nailed it brother. All right, cool. So we're gonna go in with the prerequisites for the globe So the biggest one being motion. So that's something that I'm going to cover Let me set up the screen share. There's the button Screen share Yeah, ready when you are Yeah, looking for the particular sharing window Always disappear when you need it to be there, right? Dude, dude when I need it. It's like, no, I don't know where what to do Oh, well, it's a screen one. All right. Well, no worries. I'll just share monitor to Go for it. This is an opportunity for everybody to smack the like button because we're gonna have a lot of fun tonight All right in a second So let me know what do you yeah, what do you see on your end kinetics and dynamics is what we're seeing on our screen Right? No, it should be but I just need to know which window it is You know Maddox and dynamics if you push f11 it'll full screen. Yeah F11 so do you tell me do you see the the notes panel or is this the actual presentation actual presentation? Got it. Okay. We're good. It's just on the opposite window for some reason. Okay one second. All right Sorry about that. No, it's all good. Yeah, it just looks messed up online. Okay. Okay, so Kinematics means measurement kinematics means measurement kinematics means measurement Kinematics in kinematics relative motion is true some kinematic variables that you might see our t x v a etc So distance velocity acceleration, right? Those are all kinematic variables Now this is gonna be important because we're gonna be covering motion in the sky So when things move in a circle the kinematic relationship becomes extremely important because you can use these variables to describe the motion For example, the acceleration of the stars must be equal to their velocity squared over the radius right, so that's kinematics now dynamics gets into the prediction of future motion based on Real forces in that system. So the distinction there is kinematics is motion Irregardless of the cause of motion. It's just measurements of the motion, right? And the dynamics is predictions of future motion based off of real forces Okay, so in 1810 to 1818 a guy named Ergo Francois did some experiments with a telescope To prove If the earth was in motion or not So what he did was assuming a fixed ether and that light propagates through this this stationary medium The earth would be moving through it and you would have to adjust the focal length of your telescope to compensate for when viewing stars when you're receding or advancing towards them in six month intervals What Ergo found is that he had is that he didn't have to make any telescope corrections So this is a huge failure for the for the dynamics of heliocentrism as if the motion if the motion that is required existed It would be manifest in these measurements So here's here's a summary of the second experiment that Ergo did involving a telescope So in this one he have covered the telescope with a prism What he was looking for there was the ab to see if the aberration angle would change when the starlight was Passing through just regular air and when it was passing through the prism What he found was that the is that the aberration angle is independent. It doesn't matter It requires no further correction meaning that the starlight is already coming in at an angle So to further settle the matter in 1872 George Airy came in with his telescope and to Finally put this put this matter to rest right who's who's moving is it us or the sky So the situation here is the telescope requires a slight angle to keep starlight coming in at the center You were to fill the telescope with water that would slow this though That would slow the speed of light down and you would have to make additional corrections to keep the Starlight in the center if the Earth's velocity is what was causing the deflection in the first place, right? so what what airy found was that He didn't have to make any further corrections So that's a huge problem for heliocentrism. So here's the measurements that he put out So this is in regards to kinker fuses hypothesis of an ether So this is again a stationary ether so that any corrections that are made to the telescope can be attributed to earth's velocity, right? one second So that's the the important part to note here. This is not an Area didn't fail to detect the ether, right? This is a velocity measurement Where the correction angle would be entirely attributed to the velocity to produce it, right? So they they had a prediction that they were going to have to correct their telescope by 30 arc seconds when it was filled with water And they only had to adjust it by eight arc seconds So that's a it's another colossal failure for the dynamic predictions of motion for heliocentrism Now we get into Kepler's laws and Newton's laws, right? So Kepler's laws and Newton's laws they say are covariant meaning you can derive one from the other But it's actually just kind of a trick because the mass in these and these equations cancels out and it's all about the Constance so the big G the big M and the T for the periodicity of the event will output a cubed proportional radius For the for the orbit or for the semi or for the semi major axis for the for the orbit And it's all cube proportional. It has nothing to do with the mass of any of these planets So what they do is though is though? They'll take a they'll take a They do everything in reference to the Sun So it'll be like the Sun versus Mercury's orbit or then the Sun versus Venus's orbit the Sun versus Earth Etc. Right all they're doing is just adjusting the periodicity of the event and the constants remain the same and The output gives them proportional orbital diameters, right? All right, so That's covering the the sky optics and kinematics and dynamics So in addition to that if Earth's orbital velocity truly existed in Newtonian dynamics was correct You could measure Earth's orbital velocity with interferometry with first-order measurements and no such measurements exist So 1887 Mickelson morally attempted to make measurements of Earth's orbital velocity They got eight to seven or they got four to six kilometers a second Then Mickelson Gale-Piersen where they were saying they were going to measure the sidereal rotation this time instead of the orbital velocity because they gave up on that by this time, right? So they they got fluctuations matching sidereal time measured in diurnal time And this was another big failure for relativity because the whole purpose of this was they were supposed to be calculating it based off of curved space-time and they had to swap it in for Flat space-time because they couldn't get enough inertial mass to To curve space-time proportionally, right? So this was a failure for relativity to show that relativistic mass and inertial mass are equivalent Because the way that they had to do the calculations it was a complete failure for them All right, and then Mickelson morally was continued by a guy named Dayton Miller who found a pericity in the in the measurements And when he did his final work, he started doing his measurements at altitude So he did his last measurements at 8,200 feet above sea level and found that the drift extent goes to eight to six to eight kilometers a second and This was further cooperated in 2002 in 2004 by Yuri Galev who showed Using two radio links that there is a vertical velocity gradient that gets stronger as you get closer to the sky So what he measured he cooperated Miller's work and how that works is that basically on the surface of the earth the speed goes You know is greatly diminished then as you increase in altitude you start getting a faster translational speed measurement And it increases with the square root of the height above ground level. So we have the linear measurements here starting from Mickelson morally 1887 and More of Miller's work and then Gallo's work So we have a linear gradient that's going up and that's my time I'm gonna kick it over to you Toby now Actually, I had another minute left on here because I started your time when you got screen ready, but fair ball over Oh You're on you. So let me go ahead and share my screen here. All right ready when you are Actually, we're still screen sharing so you're really ready to go Cool. So you guys see my screen there then? Yeah, we sure can excellent. So We have three globe claims essentially we have to claim a motion We have the claim of curvature and we have a claim of geophysics So before we get into all of it just so in case you didn't know if you believe in the globe You also have absorbed all of these paradoxes the particle wave duality the twin paradox the air infest paradox the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox Schrodinger's cat Heisenberg uncertainty a new newman cellager Gravitational paradox the information paradox Newton's shell theorem violation also a violation of maximum momentum and minimum energy Rotation and also a violation of curavisual space and many more. So let's start with motion here So we feel no motion all flight on earth utilizes a stationary baseline that includes planes missiles helicopters Here we go. We have a flight simulation showing that they use a stationary earth Here we have dynamic positioning equations and they show a non rotating earth here We have helicopter equations of motion and they use a flat non rotating earth So a question if pilots have to treat the earth as stationary and we can't perceive any motion Is there any way we can measure it answer? Yes using an induction rate the induction rate of light which Alan just covered we can measure absolute velocity as understood since at least 1818 in 1865 JC Maxwell worked upon Faraday's experiments And he used known values of the electric constant and the magnetic constant in his electromagnetic wave equations And he found that light behaves as an electromagnetic wave which requires a substantive medium aka the ether And if you look throughout JC Maxwell's works he repeatedly invokes the ether It was a very well understood premise of all of science up until this point And that's why in 1887 when they went to go do the Mickelson morally experiment They knew exactly what they were doing that knew their math They knew the induction rate of light and so that's they use interferometry to measure the motion of the earth Independent variable would have been the orthogonal vector direction of the interferometer and as they turned it They would have got a difference in the fringe shift and the result was that the earth wasn't in motion There was no orbital motion detected There was a tiny bit of a fringe and that tiny bit of fringe can actually be explained quite easily with a stationary earth and Etherwind so if we if we measure something to see if it's moving and we get no measurement It's not moving right well No, not really because I turn Albert Einstein in 1905 down the electrodynamics of moving bodies He says there's no ether. There's a one-way speed of light and it's always constant You're not allowed to invoke absolute space or absolute time everything's relative And he says, you know, he invokes imaginary physical experiments. That's how he derives special relativity He talks about an unsuccessful attempt to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium And then he invokes imaginary physical experience. That's how you that's how he derives special relativity So then you got 0.9c plus 0.9c equals less than c aka 2 plus 2 does not equal 4 because that's what Einstein told us With his crazy math and then in 1913 George Sanniet came along and he said, hey, look, I'm gonna rotate the interferometer What do you know as I rotate it the proportional velocity of that rotation actually gets measured in the friend shift So it's actually not the speed of light is not constant is read It's measured proportionally to its velocity and then in Dayton in 1920s Dayton Miller came and did a bunch more measurements He actually started measuring with interferometer with the interferometer over a period of time And he found a preferred directionless preferred direction of the speed of light the ether flow matches the motion of the sky And the measurement is greater at altitude and that's related to the motion of the solar system But then in 1925 they came along and they tried to measure the exact same thing Even though they already measured it once and they said they got a null result this time they measured it again They said, oh, that's the rotation of the earth So then in 2001 you're a Gallup came along and now all this time They've never once acknowledged what Dayton Miller said the fact that at higher altitudes you actually get a greater ether wind And but Gallup came along analyzes worked on the same thing that Gallup also did his own Experimentation which corroborated the exact same thing which Alan already covered and then in 2004 Rui Yong Wang came along remember how they said you can only measure that velocity in a rotational vector Well, guess what Rui Yong Wang explicitly showed that it's actually You can be shown with a a linear vector So if you can if you can measure rotational motion of a linear vector that means in 1887 They would have measured the motion of the earth, but they didn't so and he says here You know this would suggest a nanoscale sensitivity He comes he patented a speedometer based off this exact thing and and he worked with the Naval Research Laboratory to do these experiments You know, they gave him money They are they loaned him its fiber optic gyros that he used to do the experiments So make of that what you will but so let's move on now to the pendulum in 1954 Marisa Elias observed anomalous behavior of his pendulum and that the fact was named the Elias effect He observed again in 1956 1959 he wrote the antitropia space necessary a vision of certain postulates in 1997 And then this is showing the eclipse of 1959 You can see in the middle here where you can actually find to see the touch the the full totality of the eclipse And you see that there's an anomalous behavior of the pendulum And then he says this is a totally inexplicable in the context of the current theory and here it is again 1955 another Elias effect, you know, and it's so interesting They not only did he did he measure the fact that the totally anomalous behavior during eclipses But also the pendulum procession ray is relative to the sidereal motion of the Sun and Moon aka their annual sky movement So as the Sun and the Moon are moving back and forth on their anilema That's actually affecting the way that the the periodicity of not only interferometry as as Dayton Miller showed but also the procession of the pendulum So that's a clean completely inexplicable within the framework of currently set of theories This is translated for by an AI from French. That's why it looks kind of weird But here we have it is therefore appropriate to consider that the current laws of gravitation are no way perfectly verified definitive and immutable laws On which basis the assertion that my experimental results are contrary to all the experiments acquired our experience were acquired in the field of astronomy These allows like all experimental laws are only verified within a certain approximation Here's showing what this would look like right? So we have the Sun going in the circle here The moon would also be going in like a similar path and this is this is what causes the the motion and the shape of cyclones and And hurricanes it's also what potentially would be causing the procession of the pendulum in 1970 Saxon Allen and in Harvard they'd measured the exact same thing here showing and you know This is a normal day here is a day with the Elias if I were with the solar eclipse Wow You know and they say results this order Magnum has been consistently observed at hard for a period of 17 years And then here in 2006 another just another confirmation of it in bootress, but you know Oh here 2010 they say they found no evidence of the Elias effect Well, what do you know they have an electromagnetic break which keeps the electric trajectory Inacceptable values, but you know So they say the maximum deflection of the procession of the pookal panel and finally these measurements is very far from those obtained by Marisa lies, but guess what they never measure the break So they're breaking out the Elias effect and then they're not talking about on the paper that they're making a conclusion Cool, it's utterly meaningless and then here's another paper where they just try to explain it They're trying to explain the Elias effect But you know they hope with this crazy theory of dark flow acceleration There's like this you know They've got dark matter dark energy now you got dark flow to because you got to explain the procession of the pendulum But so the wires flattered they're so obsessed with relativity wire flattered They're so obsessed with the pendulum because all these things are intertwined with each other when you really really really start digging at all this stuff You find that it's all wrapped around one line you pull at that And so that's why the ether ones really important Because if you look at this graph here, you see the ether ones in the middle and gravity is in the middle So let's get into curvature so 2018 the fe corded laser test. They were taken in Hungary in the Netherlands There's the receiver where they were actually receiving the laser here showing the first laser test this one So yeah geodondylation is the term you describe the distance of the geoid or above or below the mathematical reference ellipsoid geodondylation We have the same level of both positions and the pointer was held 4.9 2 feet above the lake surface and It was one across the lake 7.46 miles and they were able to see it and this is showing it would have had a hidden area of 14.96 feet, but they were able to see it and here's showing this from the side view of measurement 1 showing the horizontal laser Then we have measurement 7 from the same series of measurements. What's that one minute left? Okay? Gotcha, so so yeah, you get the point They met they tried to measure they couldn't see but we we don't see boats go over the horizon Where does the Sun go at night? Well, it turns out we have optics and we have curved visual space And we perceive from a single point in 3D space angular resolution imposes a nonlinear drop-off in our ability resolve items as they move away from us your ability to ascertain objects Disuppates into an unresolvable angle in a nonlinear fashion and sixth grade art class actually taught us this if you really think back to it Train tracks do not actually converge. This is a result of perceiving from a single point in 3D space And so there's a here's a paper about it We said that you know at the bottom we will show binocular visual space may indeed be explained by a hyperbolic model Here's showing kind of how that would look here's again showing how that would kind of look and so you know as you perceive Outwards from here you're as you can see you are taking in more area So as there's more area to take in your resolution necessarily has to shrink because there's more coming in and so here's a direct measurement Curved visual space the curvature changes from elliptic in your space the hyperbolic and far space a very large distance to the plane become Parabolic here's a illustration showing that that's time. We should what's that? That's time. Dang, okay I didn't get to get into geophysics. I wanted to talk about Pangea. I want to talk about magneto geology I want to talk about the geodynamo model and the fact that the rotational axis doesn't even line with the rotational axis of the Convection currents wanted to talk about P and S wave shadow zones and how they S waves work on a flat earth, but yeah, you know a lot to go through there All right. Yeah, it seemed like you had quite a quite a lot of In the presentation there, so we'll ask you to stop the screen share there. Don't mind Now we can always do more later So what we'll do is a big thank you to Alan and Toby for your introductory statements We are going to kick it over to the other side Anthony I'm gonna give you the floor and we're doing eight minute introductions and just remind everybody We do Q&A at the end of the show and super chats are read with priority So get your super chats in and those will be Promptly read. So Tony the floor is all yours Okay, I'm going to start with one basic thing the shape of an object is independent of its motion The geometry of an object doesn't change if it spins doesn't change if it moves backwards and forwards So all of this talk about motion completely irrelevant We should consider the evidence that relates to the shape of the earth Um, let me share my screen ready when you are Okay, so We have two potential models. We should be comparing both I noticed that what my interlock it is failed to do was demonstrate what should happen on a flat earth They only considered what they imagine should happen on a spheroid alert and then get it hopelessly wrong So we should compare the expectations for these two and if one fails to meet predictions It should be discarded You don't win a weight lifting competition by saying yes, we can do that You have to actually with lift weights. Let's look at a real-world example. I have two points on Earth's surface I want to know what the distance between them is and what bearing I should follow to get from point one to the second This should be on the flat earth a very easy geometric calculation We know the angle between the two rays. We know the distance of both points from the North Pole It turns into a standard triangle. We can use a plane triangle formula If that if you believe that this is your flat earth map It turns out to be the same on a spheroidal earth except that we're using a spheroidal triangle for Formulation we get this formula we can now test them and we have been testing them for more than 300 years Here for instance is the lifeboat sail by Captain Bligh More than 7,000 kilometers He had to calculate exactly how much food and water he had In order to get from one point to the other he did it He did it accurately and we know he used spherical trigonometry to do that a similar case was observed in the early 20th century in the Shackleton expedition which got trapped in the ice near Antarctica and in the end they had to sail Shackleton and four other people had to sail a lifeboat 1500 kilometers in order to get to safety. We have Thousands of daily experiments each ship that sails on the ocean calculates its distance using the spherical distance formula Calculates its heading using spherical trigonometry Here is a 17th century sailing manual that considers the problem of how to navigate from the mouth of the Amazon to The island of Lundy and it does it demonstrably using spherical trigonometry Flat earth that cannot solve these problems. There is no flat earth technique for doing this So flat earth loses it and we have compared the two models We have compared their ability to do this the same goes for aircraft Trajectories here for instance, we can calculate the distance for these five flights What I've done is I've averaged the outgoing and ingoing Flight times in that fourth column. I've multiplied that by their average flight speed to give them to get the maximum distance I have allowed nothing for negotiating air traffic or getting to cruising altitude That's that fifth column. The next column is the spherical distance estimate You will notice that the spherical distance estimate is always smaller but comparable to the That maximum distance the flat earth estimate is in the final column and is an error by up to 106 percent I've highlighted them in red We can do the same with submarine cables. We have submarine cables connecting different points on earth's surface We can calculate their lengths. We can calculate the certain compare them that are spherical distances Actually, we don't calculate their length. We can measure their length because we know how much This should be the flat earth distance is longer than the cable. That's impossible And you know, there's a difference here of several thousand kilometers These submarine cables in order to lay them cost three million dollars per kilometer So this is six billion dollars of cable that is somehow missing. Who paid for that? We can look here at another cable going from Australia to Amman and we get the same problem There are lots of these. These are measurable physical objects We can look at train tracks. Here we are in Australia the train track between Calguli and Takula The track separation is 1280 kilometers Um The spherical distance is 1242 flat earth tells us that they should be 3000 kilometers apart This is something we can go and measure. This is something that people travel across This is not some esoteric philosophical prattling about experiments that my interlocutors have completely failed to understand We can do a comparison between this and Jacksonville pencil cola We can work out the spherical distance We can see that we can measure the track separation and we can look at the flat earth distance, which is again too long It's worth pointing out that there's these two these two lengths of track are an equal distance north and south of the equator and it's well worth noting that we that At both times the distance per unit longitude is the same We can test the flat earth model tells us that a fixed band of longitude Should increase in length the further southward you meet you go The spheroidal model says that it shouldn't it should shorten again as you approach the southern pole We can go back here. We've got a northern hemisphere and a southern hemisphere If we just treat the track lengths as though they correspond exactly to Um to longitude which they roughly do we can see that the northern hemisphere Um, longitude step is larger than the southern hemisphere longitude step This should be impossible that this is a physically measurable thing in the real world We can go to Argentina even further south and we can see that the we can see that east west tracks get shorter Um, so again the flat earth has failed to predict what we can measure to be true um, if we take a solid ball in and in and The solid ball of steel for instance and we can We can introduce a vibration We will observe that the surface vibrations travel like this They go from the top pole where the vibration was applied down to the south pole Let's look at an earthquake On the left here is an azimuthal liquid eastern projection above the Epicenter of the macquarie rise earthquake of 2004 on the right. We see the flood earth map for this Let's watch how the energy projects out Those blue those blue dots are the ones where the most recent seismic arrivals You can see on the left that it um that it moves out in a roughly circular fashion You can see on the sorry you can see that on the left on the right It's spreading out in some sort of mess that doesn't make any physical sense whatsoever, but it will do in just a moment We can see that the we can see that the energy spreads out in a circle on the right We can now see that it is converging in a circle on the right hand side It is converging circularly on a point opposite to the epicenter This is exactly what we should expect to see on a um spheroidal earth This is utterly unexplained by any existing flat earth model And um one of my one of my into how much 10 seconds 10 seconds Here is the p wave shadow zone that my interlocutor was so Concerned about you will notice that there are no p wave arrivals And then all then all of a sudden they come in at once. This is observational data. This is real stuff measured by instruments All right. Well, thank you so much for your introductory statement there, Tony We're going to kick the eight minutes over here to daryl So thank you so much for being here daryl and the floor is all yours Awesome. So a moment. I'll get the screen share started Sure thing. I'll just hold the clock And am I good? Not yet There we go. It is up and running and I'll start your timer right now Awesome. So hello everybody. My name is daryl Lee Berry jr Some of you may have known me. I was Debating this topic on this show a few years ago um I actually live in in Austin, Texas I'm an undergraduate student in physics and astronomy. So it's a pleasure to be here partnered with PhD Tony because I want to be a PhD So I'm a big fan of his and the patients he obviously has to even has this discussion with All the stuff he obviously knows the more I learn about physics and astronomy the more I see how Ludacris the flutter for the argument is it's amazing that he has the patients to do this um So I'll go ahead and uh Present my points About some of the ways that we know the earth is a globe Looking at these debates as well as research and I find is so many different ways, but I'll I'll pick mainly two uh, these are the references that Relate to the different things I'll show We might want to look back and check them out And the two things I'll focus on are basically the people and cameras that we have in space and looking to the sky so basically These are ways that we we know in various contexts that the that the earth is a globe So some of the pictures that we'll look at about people and people and cameras in space To give you a brief preview that we'll start with the ISS, which is One of my favorite things. Basically, it's a it's a space craft that's orbiting the earth At about an hour and a half it takes to go all the way around And this picture in particular was taken by The the endeavor crew on this last flight to the ISS This is that crew right there. It's a good picture of it as they were leaving the space station So the fact that we have people out in space that's orbiting the earth. I mean, that's pretty conclusive that The earth is a globe This is another picture taken by an astronaut Basically, it's the area Uh, out around the Caribbean, Puerto Rico, Cuba area. They call it the hispanolia area area An astronaut took this picture and as you can see on the left We don't see like an ice wall in the back or anything else that people are talking about We see, you know, a nice globe that's curving This is from earlier this year the Guatemala fire A wildfire this picture was taken by an astronaut aboard the ISS I thought that it was pretty cool. So We have that going on on a regular basis They constantly going around the earth and you know, we could look up and see the ISS and things like that If you want to have a look at a timeline of the different observations that we have some spaces a collection of the different satellite photos and People who we had on spacecraft that took pictures of the earth or pictures of various parts of the earth So you want to check that out? That's a it is a pretty good thing to check out The next thing I'll point out is looking to the sky and I'll spend a bit more time on this one uh, so basically the idea is that we Look up look up at the sky and because and uh, you know, pht Don't pht 20 is right that, you know, the shape of something is is different from where there's moving And not a basketball sitting on the ground is a is a sphere whether it's on the ground or you're drawing it into the hoop Oh, yeah, we can still uh Determine that there is a globe as well from uh, looking at what's going on in the sky either I don't know if the proper word would be determined or infer whatever you want to call it But one one example would be simply the fact that the Model that we have you can predict where the planets will be So for instance, this is an image of mars, but one of his moons going around this was actually taken by the vote by a satellite Uh, I can't recall which one Uh, that took the picture a zoom in picture of mars and the moon going around it and basically This is one of the planets that you can you know, you can go to time and date dot dot comma various websites and But we have all these these motions plotted Precision with our understanding of the earth being a globe and all the planets being spheres are revolving around the sun This is another one of uh, jupiter This was actually taken by a voyager on on his way to jupiter back in 1979 And you can see the red spot. You can see three of the biggest moons Iio Europa and Callista And that's another planet, of course that you can look on various places online Uh, we have all of these rotations or revolutions plotted precisely with capitalist laws when they're with it where they're going to be and You know, you could just go online and see exactly what they're going to be look up and point your telescope there and you will see it there and Here saturn actually saw this one not only on my own telescope, but Uh, when I'm originally from in New Orleans, there was a guy in In the French corridors a lot of people do various things there to to make some money He had his giant telescope out there and I was able to zoom in really close on saturday and it was pretty cool um, so, you know, the fact that we have models based upon this and Uh, and precisely you can see where they at the models the predictions never fail Uh, uh, shows me that our model is correct. The last thing I'll look into is actually solely eclipses So this is a solely clutch from august 2017 when that I one that I saw myself when I was living in Kentucky at the time and And we have a clear clear understanding of what causes uh solely eclipses. You have the sun You have the moon in between the earth and the sun and the shadow of the moon Comes upon the upon the earth And of course, we have another one coming up soon on April the 8th Which I plan on seeing right now I'm living in texas now and this one is coming right in texas So there's got to be the second one I see so now I have a solar telescope. I'll take pictures of it as well But one thing I want to point out is if you compare these two solely eclipses If you look at august and the northern hemisphere, we're about departing summer So the the angle of the tilt of the planet is a little bit past the sun And if you look at april, we're approaching summer So the tilt of the planet is a little bit to the left of the sun and you can see that in the shape of the path of the totally So solely eclipsed you can look at the shape of the path of the shadow across the earth And compare what that shadow will do on the sphere with a little shadow moving across it And it matches So and that's why you look at all the different paths of the solely eclipsed And you compare it to where the tilt of the planet will be relative to the sun at that time of the year It matches the the the orientation of spheres rolling around spheres Another thing that we noticed with solely eclipses is they match the the uh phases of the moon So that picture at the top is a picture out to one minute That and thanks and you can see the january The picture on that little phase calendar we're hitting towards I'll have uh moon And and it matches that so if we notice a solely solely eclipsed is always when the moon is in a new moon Because the moon is in between the earth and the sun so all of these things lined up Um, so that's pretty much uh what I had to discuss Except for the fact that of course flat earth has none of this They have no predictions of our planets or no predictions of eclipses. No locations. No path size. No duration Of course the globe has all of that The images they have of the planets Either they're unwilling or unable to utilize Uh, you know telescopes and cameras properly, you know, I'm sure you've seen the things when they show like it looks like it's underwater Uh, but you know, anybody whoever takes their own telescope out, you see that it matches with NASA shows That's pretty much my presentation people in the cameras in space and look into the sky And I hope you all enjoyed it Thank you so much for your introductory statement there daryl We are going to kick it into an open discussion and admittedly Sometimes it can get a little tough Back and forth. So we have to move into muted rounds Then we will do that, but we're going to try to keep it as open as we can Once again, hit the like button and if you like what you're hearing from any of our speakers If you're listening on podcast right now, uh, all of these debates are uploaded to podcast form within 24 hours So, uh, definitely check us out on your favorite podcast app And if you're listening on a podcast app, check us out on youtube hit the subscribe subscribe and hit the bell So you don't miss these live events. Uh, so let's put it back to the other side To respond to some of what you just heard toby and alan Sure. Yeah Yeah, so I seen in Tony's presentation, there was a lot of references to different flatter distances that didn't match out to the globe I was wondering where you got your flatter distance project predictions from Because all all maps that we have available are just equidistant projections of the globe, right? So are you taking different globe projections and then saying that the distances don't match up and therefore Like there's a flatter discrepancy We actually don't explain this in my presentation But if you want I can reshare So there are two there are two axioms and there are two axioms that go into this distance calculation One is that if we know the latitude of a point we know how far far it is away from the north pole And the other one is that we if we know the difference in longitude between two points Then we know the angle between two lines As long as I have those two pieces of information I can calculate the distance between them on a planar triangle using the cosine rule This is just the planar cosine rule for a planar triangle. This is simple eighth grade geometry Okay, there's I'm not using anything about the globe So if you if you're going to argue that my estimates are one second Well, one second. Are you using the lounge? What longitude and latitude system are you using sir? There's only one longitude and latitude system, sir That's the globe sir. So you're taking a globe. Yes So if you want to So what you're saying is so what you're saying is that a navigation and location system that works extremely well um, and is utterly reliable Cannot be used with these axioms as though the earth is flat. So which of these is wrong Which of these is wrong are the positions wrong? Are the distances to the north pole wrong or are the uh, or are the difference in latitude longitude wrong? Which is wrong before we get to that. Let's address the flat earth predictions that you're doing. You're using the globe Let it like longitude latitude system. It's going to output Lobbular distances. You're not going to get a flat earth distance out of that, buddy Please provide the correct flat earth model and I will implement it. I can implement it real time So here's the thing. I don't have that. We don't have one the dog ate it No, it's called it's go to adl.place click on sheen's flat earth model Right, and then we're going to go over the 69 miles per degree Right. Yes. This is an important You're this would be but but in order for that to work. Okay So this this form this formulation here is exactly that this is the spherical distance formulation So what this does is it calculates the angular separation? Between the two points and then it says okay at 69 miles per degree of separation That's this formulation Yes, okay If you if you want me to do that Tell me how to get The um angular separation between points on the surface that isn't From spherical trigonometry Listen, this this is derived from spherical trigonometry So if you're saying 69 69 miles per degree of separation, that's spherical trigonometry All right, I think toby had a thought up there. Did you want to jump in? Well, yeah, I would go back to like a slide or two back He tried to talk about like this whole thing is based on a crazy assumption. He's talking like these angles Uh, these are reliable in all points of reference, but that's not the case You know even for a celestial navigation, uh, that that relationship, please prove that point that that Please don't interrupt me that relationship is not purely linear Uh, please prove your point Don't just tell me don't just tell me something show me your evidence Well, I did show you a couple of papers in my opening talking about curvy little space and the way that we perceive This has got nothing to do with visual space, right? Just one second. They're tone We'll let them wrap up this that so 15 seconds are toby and then we'll let you have your thought they're tone Tony, sorry Toby Tony or toby. Yeah, I know this is gonna get this might get tough. I'll try to say anthony. Sorry, Tony Just to try to stay from confusion. So 15 seconds toby and then over to anthony Yeah, you asked for a model You know, we actually literally did not model it out and it like I said, it's not a linear relationship And it wouldn't be a linear relationship So the fact that you're acting like you should expect the linear relationship shows that you don't actually understand How it should work on a flat earth model and how perception necessarily works Um, this has nothing to do with perception though, does it? But it does because you're always going to be taking an angle out from a single point, correct No, I can get my latitude and longitude from gps, right? There's no You asked for me not to interrupt you Um, there is no human perception involved in radar triangulation Oh Have you are you familiar with the arc of the parallel? I was still in the middle of speaking You're the one you're the one who got you're the one who got chirpy about being interrupted Hey, pardon me for trying to be conversational. Go ahead. Um Uh So there's no human perception involved in gps. He's there All right, he's past the floor guys. So if you let's go into a time if you would like to get into gps for confirming the coordinate system It's actually not going to help you because gps has meridian corrections built into it So it's going to output exactly the globular coordinate system Now the reason we're talking about perception and all this right now in the optics, right? Is because that that live that latitude and longitude system that you're adhering to that you think is a linear relationship due to earth curvature of a 69 miles per degree and all that we're we actually have the the uh Curve visual space math for we can show that there's a logarithmic logarithmic relationship with how we see and how this coordinate system is derived so The also one second. So when you're comparing different distances on on a globe, right all all equal distance projections of the same thing on the same coordinate system It doesn't it doesn't mean anything So why is it that? Anything that travels say for instance weather systems or earthquakes or tsunamis or air pressure waves Why do they all travel in a uniform ring out from their focus? Under the spheroidal under the spheroidal coordinate system. Why? Um is is the physics of wave propagation suddenly different? um In order to in order to accommodate accommodate a flat earth geometry Well, actually I was going to turn it over to you. I was going to say I'm glad you asked Sure. No, I wouldn't mind re-sharing again real quick here. I Let me go ahead and pull up my presentation again. Yeah I'll do that. I'll remind everybody that we will be doing q&a after this and I do want to get daryl in here To respond to what you're about to share This because we haven't heard from you. I think since we started so let's let's get you in here so toby once you got your screen share up there and You want to make an argument and then we'll let daryl respond all right, so Yeah, so just like first of all that your chart that you showed This is not necessarily relevant for the screen share But the chart that you showed is kind of crazy because I would think that you would know better than anyone that there's tons of anomalies within those sorts of Within those data's like there's uh, I can pull up by You had what was it uh, valdevia earthquake in 1960 uh, 2004 indian ocean tsunami, uh, the the valdevia earthquake had I the look the detected locations as far away as you know, european africa Basically the things were detected out of order right the phenomena was attributed to unique propagation of seismic waves through earth mantle and then in 2011 there was that uh, tahoku earthquake and tsunami and that was a nine, uh, you know A magnitude of nine that triggered power a powerful tsunami and the seismic waves from that were detected at locations as far away to the west coast of united states and south america before they reached some of the closest japanese islands So there's all there's all sorts of anomalies within it and to try and straw man the flat earth on that is crazy Because I don't even you're not even like going into detail about what flat earth model you would use There's like a million different possibly possible ways you can compute that and on the topic of computing that so You know, this is what they actually do right? I The the 2d 3d multiplied transmitted converted and reflected arrivals in complex layer media with the modified shortest path method And so this is showing they use a multi scheme a multi stage scheme And they treat each layer that the wave front enters as independent as an independent computational domain One obtains a transmitted. What's that? I was just telling the other fellows. They are free to jump in at this point We've got you so uh, but it obtains a transmitted and or converted branch of layer arrivals by Re-initializing in the adjacent layer and a reflected and or converted branch of later arrivals by Re-initializing in the incident layer. So they do this for comp. They they uh, they do things for computational efficiency This is all based on computations. This is not measurements. And this is showing here This is doing benchmarks. They use the ones one stage m m s p m And it delivers delivers the same solution accuracy under less cpu time than the regular spm Then what do you know? That's actually going 2d versus 3d And the code of multi stage f m m is in Cartesian coordinates for 2d models and spherical coordinates for 3d models So this is all based on computations if we had the same type of supercomputer We could easily do it with a flat earth model really Really because I happen to be an expert in 2d in flat earth um seismic models And I can tell you that I I'm still speaking and I can tell you that we've done research papers on how far you can treat the Earth as flat and and the answer is less than 200 kilometers on length scales more than 200 kilometers Your tomography falls apart and your arrival times um shatter. So you trying to lecture me on this subject I look at those papers actually is particularly engaging. Um, but I'd like to share a post now Um, so what about the fact that in those papers? They literally said if you just to cut if you just did a time differential You could make it work on a flat earth um They're talking about they're talking about sites that are less than 200 kilometers away from the Yeah, but then you just have to do it just to change your time. Don't ever talk me I don't yell man. This is just a debate. Okay. Don't over talk me and I We were conversating with me and I'm conversating with you that's No, you're interrupting me trying to trying to cut me off Just just interrupt you. I'm sorry gentlemen But yeah, when you do raise your voice like that anthony it is clipping the mic. So it it does Break the threshold of what okay, so this is so I just established I just established that I've published in this um that I've published in this discipline that I've read heavily in this discipline And this and while I'm trying to explain results in this discipline Um, this guy wants to interrupt me and it's I don't think it's reasonable Let's um, let's forget the matter. Let's give you a minute. So let's let's look at this This is a this is a plot of observations Versus predictions the earthquake The waveform arrivals are shown as dots and the model predictions are shown as solid lines Now you will Yes How is this extrapolated out to a map? Um, you will notice that the angular separation is given down the bottom in degrees Okay, so are you using computations? The dots are observations Based on what more in relation to what? So the initiating event is at the origin times zero down the bottom That's the bottom left hand corner of the figure The time at which the wave front is detected at the For a seismometer at a given angular distance away is recorded as a dot Okay, so you have some computations gotcha Um, there are computations. Yes, but you seem to have missed the part where there are observations I mean, I already kind of clarified right that we could we can compute this on 101 million ways Especially if we throw more computational Okay, no you can't No, you can't and I'm about to demonstrate why Um, the um because on because on a flat earth The distance that the the distance that the wave has to so in this case the red dot is the Is the epicenter the black star is the focal event Um, you can look at the surface distance between the epicenter and the receiver Which is the white circle is the same in both formulations in the flat earth formulation and the um and the And the spheroidal Formulation, but you will see that in the spheroidal formulation it has to travel a significantly shorter distance Okay And when you look back at the observations What do you know the average velocity that the that the um that the seismic waves takes Decreases as you go with um as you Go with greater angular separation. They seem to be arriving faster than they should It's not just a linear extrapolation of distance, which it should be if the earth is flat So this this set of this set of data is completely inconsistent with a with a um flat earth formulation And I put it to you sir that you have no training in seismology That you have no training in geophysics and that you are opining on a subject that you are simply unqualified to opine on Ah, so you're not going to be able to explain it to me because you actually can't explain it to me. Can you? um, I Just did explain it to you I just did explain it to you. He's gonna gaslight me without any sense. I just did explain it to you, sir All right, well, we'll give you a uh Yeah, we'll give you a couple seconds there, uh, tovia if anybody else has any other thoughts Or if you don't want to do this screen, but sorry, I cut off daryl again Oh, sorry as well And I'd love to bring up the papers that you brought up in your debate with witsit because I actually went through those And I actually like I already did you understand the point that I made about changing the time differential to make it work On a flat earth model and they even said that in the paper that you brought up Um, yes, they did for local wavelengths. They were they were talking about where the Literally in the papers literally the part where they're talking about the discrepancy between the far distance and the short distance So it's actually talking about that specifically Yes, and what's the conclusion of the paper, sir The conclusion of the paper is that flat earth models are not about should not be used for distances over 180 kilometers Isn't it change the time differential? um Yes, so time has to magically change does it sir Is that physics speed could change right and what is what is speed is a measure of time over distance, right? So actually no speed is not time over distance, sir Oh, you got me. Earth must be a glove. No, so if the speed so if the distance is relevant in that equation, right Then the there must just mean that maybe there's a difference when you start going below the earth's surface Maybe you don't actually know maybe you don't actually know what the earth is made up of Please don't interrupt me. Maybe you Please don't interrupt me. Please don't interrupt me. Tony. Tony. I don't want to put you under. We gotta let him finish his thought Maybe you don't actually know what's beneath the surface of the earth Maybe you're wrong about it Maybe the speed would be a little bit different because your assumptions are all based on assertions of a of a bunch of uh, geo Geo, uh, a magneto geology geology sedimentary Rocks that don't add up things that a bunch of things that don't may add up It's all confounded on each other That doesn't even work with newton's shelf theorem. It's like a violates the first law of gravity. It's insane All right, we're gonna let daryl and alan in here. I'm sorry, tony. Just because I want to respond to that Tony is an expert on this stuff So I'm I'm actually one of I would like to jump in on a different topic when they finish with this topic but Far be it from you to try to talk about seismology and earthquakes when tony's here So I'm fine with him handling this and and and I want to talk more about Because in in telemetry is the flag that that time adjustment that time adjustment that you're suggesting is applied to the seismic stations It's not applied to true to travel within the earth You are you are basically adjusting the seismic stations. That's what you're doing when you do that time adjustment um, so So in you're you're saying that for some reason time doesn't doesn't flow linearly at earth surface And again, sir, um It's amazing to me that you're here arguing for flat earth rather than the authors of the paper You suggest supports flat earth Why do you think that is? Wait, so you want me to you want me now to go into the mind of the person that published the paper and talk about What their motives are in their life? No, I want you to see that supposed to addify the listeners of this debate I want you to concede that the authors of the paper do not agree with your interpretation of Oh, so do I have to do I also have to absorb their favorite color their favorite food their favorite ice cream too? Or if I disagree with that does that mean that I must that that you know They must be I must be wrong about everything that they say well Let's let's take a particular example. You quote the ally effect how that works. Obviously, I mean sarcastic, right? Um, do you quote the ally you quote the alliance effect? um The alliance effect is a deflection from the standard procession of a fucco pendulum Which is compared against predictions Based on a rotating earth So if you accept that the alliance effect is real then you are accepting earth rotation is real So, um the the idea that you know this pattern of you Introducing a introducing a scientific result and ignoring the observations that underlie this scientific result is more general than seismology um And and to me it's a deeply concerning thing to be brutally honest. It seems deceptive It seems awfully deceptive. He's calling me deceptive. Can I maybe respond james? Yeah. Yeah, my name's ryan I'd like to have like a good minute without interruption if possible. Yeah, you get a minute on the floor Okay, great. So I love that you brought this up, right because I this to me is is everything this is I can go I can go into the etherway now because that's what this is all about the Uh interferometry measures a correlation with the sun and the moon That's the motion of the sun and the moon and it varies by like 30 percent So the rotation of the earth is not getting faster and slower by 30 percent as the year changes That's crazy. Uh, and it you know, and the earth isn't rotating faster when you go higher at altitude That's crazy and what do you know Interferometers the core the measurements that interferometers make correlate with the same measurements that the pendulum makes And you're going to try and invoke the fact that the pendulum rotates precisely in line With the rotation of the earth But if you actually go and look at specific experiments, you'll find that quite frequently It does not actually align with the perfectly with the rotation of the earth and they have to make adjustments And a lot of these museums that have buco pendulums actually have Electromagnetic systems in place to keep the motor in place to keep things processing at the proper rate Because they don't want people someone to come into the museum and suddenly oh, why the earth's not rotating today? That's crazy because they add they literally don't work as expected Okay, so what you're claiming is that alias Faked his results because he was he was he noted deflections From the procession from the rotation predicted procession. That's his entire result So if you're claiming that that's faked then you're saying that alias faked his results And then noticed a deflection away from his faked results You're you're shooting yourself in the foot and the Also, also this this claim about the saniac effect. You understand that the saniac effect is not restricted to lasers, right? The saniac effect can be detected in matter waves So they can get a cloud of they can get a cloud of um A super cool Um cesium in a boson stone condensate It around propagated both ways around a circuit and look at the and look at the interference So you're aware of that research. Are you it's a neutrinos too? Yes, we are. Yeah, Rihang-Wing did experiment with it in 2006 Our adult that was a better way of interferoners was 26 2012 I think but yeah Rihang-Wing did experiment with it and found that it was the exact Yeah, the exact same thing and electrons Okay, so Just one second there, Tony. We are doing time. So he's got 45 seconds left Unless he wants to see How does aether affect the um, how does aether affect trodinger's equation? So that would really a random question No, because because matter wave interferometers Matter wave interferometers rely rely on the propagation of trodinger's wave for a boson boson stone condensate That's how the interferometry is measured So if you're saying that this is that this is due to aether wind Rather than for instance earth rotation and motion Then you're saying that the aether is having an effect on trodinger's equations. What is that effect? How did you demonstrate that and how is it quantified? So the fringe displacement that's measured in the matter interferometry Neutrino interferometry electron interferometry regular electromagnetic interferometry, right is all In regards to the aether wind relative to the latitude. So how they're describing quote unquote earth rotation, right? It's it's the aether wind relative to the latitude um That's awesome. My question. My question is how does aether wave affect trodinger's equation It's a wave equation my dude Um, yeah, yes, so what we're showing me where in trodinger's equation But the the aether is included equations are based off of max was electromagnetic theory, which is based off of the aether anyway So you're not so here 100% It's 100% true and by invoking it now it isn't doing anything Okay I want to actually this is one thing I wanted to talk about because uh I noticed that both I told me in this debate here, you mentioned Mikkelsen more than interferometry and I I saw a little bit of your last debate Maybe not your last debate, but one of your previous debates out and then you mentioned it too So it sounds like you both are saying that uh, the Mikkelsen more the experiment was to show that the earth is not moving. Is that correct? So they were trying to measure the motion of the earth, right? So if they were The title I want to actually just discuss this one with them a bit. But what was that? Absolutely, brother. So the title of the paper is Let's see. It's on the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous aether, right? That's right now, but if I actually find out to us in the page like where we're in it Is it saying that they were measuring the motion of the earth? Okay, scroll. Okay. Are you able to see it? Let me screen here. I have it. I can bring it up for you immediately. Okay Oh, sorry, I'm going to screen share in about two seconds. Okay One two All right, I'll also pull up while he's doing that. I can pull up elbert einstein saying that that's why he revised stuff special relativity All right, is it on my Fuck is it on my second monitor? Can you guys see it? We're seeing everything on there. There we go. Uh, the american journal science All right, here we go Here we go. So Right here, they're giving their derivation for how they're going to measure the velocity of earth So we have v little v d t and t, right? So we got v for the velocity of light v for the velocity of earth The two time differentials here when they reduce the equations down They have 2d over v squared over v squared, right? So the velocity of earth over the velocity of light That's how they're deriving the proportional relationship with the fringes Now when they get down here to what they actually measured oops One second And they get down here to what they actually measured They had a prediction of five fringes which was going to correspond to 30 kilometers a second They measured a little over one fringe which corresponds to about four to six kilometers a second Now depending on who do you ask to get some fluctuations within that But it's about four to six kilometers a second is the accepted value. So what we have here on this Ending page here page five. They say that so one moment because I want to I want you to specifically so Could my freshers look at that part right there yet you're having green It says in what proceeds only the orbital motion of the earth is considered And this is combined with the with the motion of the solar system concerning which for little is known with certainty The result would have been modified So this is clearly saying that from their perspective the earth is moving a solar system is moving And they're measuring that relation to something else. What you're saying is not matching what the paper is saying It's right there. You could also go to let's say the the last page Go go away to the end all the way to the end It says finally on that finally on lorenzo's notes Yeah, finally there remains a determination of the velocity of light by observations of the eclipses of Jupiter satellites If they improve photometric methods practice at the Harvard observatory makes it possible to observe these with It's an accuracy the difference in the results found for the velocity of light when Jupiter is nearest to And farther from the mind of motion will give not merely the motion of the solar system That's when reference to the star who are reference to the luminous human if we're as either itself So clearly their their premise is that the earth is moving and the solar system is moving And they're measuring it in respect to an ether. So what you're saying is not matching I want I want to look at something else because one thing one thing I'm noticing is for you to speak It seems to me the how you're talking as if you understand this stuff. So let me let me ask you Would you go to page three thirty six? You were talking about the equations are right there A little bit farther so on the line where it says neglecting terms of the fourth order Would you tell me what that means? What do they mean by that? exacting terms of the fourth order where you where you see that your mouse is right there a little bit higher It says 2d view over v A little bit higher a little bit higher a little bit higher right there. Oh, okay, neglecting terms of the fourth order What do they mean by that? neglecting terms of the fourth order So not sure You don't know so you have no idea what the hell you're talking about you're talking about If you know what you're talking about, but you don't you can answer Let me let me ask you this One second one second To uh, Tony you can go ahead and answer real quick. What is I asked Tony, let me let me go ahead and have this. I don't want him to run away from this Yeah, Tony Yeah, because I let him have the whole seismic thing because I wanted to get this You were sitting here earlier saying this is this is T. This is the this is what they're measuring You don't even know that is a simple mathematical understanding That's the foundation of understanding these formulas if you don't know that clearly you have no idea what they're talking about Let me ask you this this experiment what order experiment was it what order experiment is Experiment they say that it's a second order experiment It is actually a first-order experiment because in 2004 the sagnic effect was linearized so the fact that this I don't want you to run away one moment. It's a first-order experiment All right, let's let Daryl clarify this question. So tell me what that means. What that means is you could find a direct proportional relationship to what's being measured. And I can tell you right now, I don't care about the order. You can find a direct portion of what does that mean as far as the equation? What is it that's happening in the equation? That. So right here, the velocity component, right? This is what they're trying to measure, right? So that's what they're measuring, bro. You have no idea what you're talking about. What this is talking about is it's actually a Taylor expansion. And when you're at Taylor expansion, every single order of the expansion has a different power on the exponent of the expansion. So they're then collecting everything above the third exponent of the third expansion of the Taylor expansion. You have no idea what you're talking about. Therefore, you don't understand what this experiment is. So everything both told me, did you understand that? Do you even know what that is, Toby? You mentioned it as well. Do you know how to do a Taylor expansion? No, I don't need to understand a direct proportional relationship of a sanny. You don't understand what you're talking about. No, Daryl. No, it's not the Daryl. Just one second, Daryl. You did ask him a question, Daryl. You've been talking for a minute, bro, about how we don't understand what we're talking about. So before Toby loses his thought, over to you, Toby. And I just asked to give the floor to Toby. Gotcha. Yeah, no, I mean, it's just I don't need to understand the fourth order stuff at all. I don't care about the fourth order stuff. I'm more concerned with first, second order, right? And especially in the case of understanding the motion, they're just trying to they're going to try and derive things out to fit it into an orbital motion. But that's not like, you're trying to say that because these guys have a desire to make this fit within their heliocentric model, that that means that I have to have that same desire in order to look at their first order and second order measurements. That's crazy. That doesn't make any sense. No. Please don't interrupt me. And then also, just in general, right? You can look at Ruy-Yong Wang's math from 2004. Right now, we're looking at a paper from 1887. So if you want to pull up Ruy-Yong Wang's 2004 generalized Saniac effect, he does a really good job of going through the math in that paper. And he actually shows that it's directly proportional to the ratio of v plus or minus, c plus or minus v is directly proportional relationship. And what do you know? It's not just a rotational vector. It's a linear vector, which you guys still have not responded to. And I have a feeling that you're not going to have to provide a substantive response to that. We'll do it to give them a chance to get in here because that would be the time there. But yeah, just the point being, I don't need to know what they're talking about with fourth order there in order to understand the first order Saniac effect, c plus or minus v, and how that directly violates page one of special relativity. All right, over to you, Tony. OK, there are two things here. There are actually three things that I want to go on. Special relativity cannot have been violated because it has been observationally validated. The decay rates and energy rates of particles in particle accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider, agree exactly with special relativity. Special relativity has been observationally validated millions of times. So to claim that you based on your understanding of the Saniac effect have discredited or undermined it is, frankly, nonsense. Observations of the Kings, we've observationally validated special relativity. Give it up. No, I mean, I substantively brought forth papers, multiple papers. I cited the exact math that I was referencing. And then, you know, it's funny, you act like this is like such a simple straightforward thing. But when Einstein put forward special relativity, a whole board of scientists came, it was like a whole a whole fissure in the scientific community because everyone knew it was utterly pseudoscience, but it was forced upon the world. All right, I can show you a paper. I can show you a signed paper of 100 prestigious scientists that were coming out against relativity. I don't care. What I care about are the observations of special relativity. The orbital motion of the Earth didn't get any. You asked me not to interrupt you, and now you're just being a prick about it. Please don't do that or put yourself on mute. I'm going to go back. Special relativity has been observationally validated millions of times. Do you concede that to be the case? Yes or no? Are you just not in reality? I'll just end the screen share. I wasn't looking for it, and I couldn't find it, so no. OK, well, because we're going to come back to it here in a second, as soon as they're done wrapping up. OK, I want to ask another question. I really do want to ask another question. Can I share my screen for a moment? I think that would be fair. Yeah, you're good. We'll do that. That's fine. I got you. All right, go ahead there, Tony. I'm quick with that. OK, I've had to be. Why are we talking about this? Here we have two lengths of railway track that are measurable. They are physical things. They completely destroy the possibility that longitude bands get longer as you approach the South Pole. So this is direct, measurable, observational evidence that the Sainte Art Geometry is impossible. How do you just gloss over this and say that my understanding of the Saniac Effect is such that this doesn't matter? It's just not important. We'll go on and we'll disagree with all the scientists and their interpretation of the Saniac Effect. We'll disagree with all of the observational validation of special relativity based on our limited understanding of these papers. But here's a test. Here is a measurable physical test. Why is this not important? All right, because nobody cares about the geodesic arc links that are derived from the celestial sphere in the sky. So can we get back to. This is measurable. Great. Can we get back to Nicholson Morley and Daryl? I want to say with much respect, bro. I love that you brought the heat on Nicholson Morley. Let me know when you're done, Tony, so me and you can get back to Nicholson Morley. OK, well, let me ask Daryl, don't you think that this is sort of what I disagree with about Nicholson Morley is that it is completely unrelated to shape, right? It doesn't tell you anything about the shape of the Earth, even if we accept what these people say about it. It doesn't. It is based on an esoteric discussion about the contents of scientific papers. And with all due respect, these scientific papers are not written so that you guys can understand them. They are written for the benefit of other experts in the field. And the gas, the cherry picking that you do. Yeah, can you wrap this up? Are you done gaslighting us yet or what? Do you have some more stuff you want to get in? All right, just one second. There is. That's why I'm still talking, mate. You can tell I want to keep talking by the fact I'm keeping talking. Tony, we'll be there. If you want to just gaslight me and make me talk, I'm just going to gaslight. All right, we're going to give Tony 15 seconds to wrap up and then we'll let you guys respond to some of the things. OK, thank you. Mainstream scientific papers are not written for the benefit of the layperson. They are written for the benefit of experts and your interpretation of their contents is basically disconnected from observational reality. Yeah, so just real quick, I can try and respond to that. I you guys heard him just trying to essentially tell us that we're not allowed to have an opinion on this because we don't have a PhD like him. But, you know, I looked at the papers. I read the paper. You guys looked at the paper with your own eyes. So for the edification of the audience, hopefully you're not being gaslit because that's all he just did was gaslit literally the entire audience there. But to talk about why the why relativity is important, it's because like I showed earlier with the Venn diagram, the ether winds at the center of everything. And if you actually show that there's an ether an ether wind that has a higher velocity at altitude and changes with it, it correlates with the with the motion of the sun and the moon in the sky. If you can show that substantially, substantively, then you have a really, really, really hard time making that work on a globe, especially improved that an ether exists, especially within the framework of special relativity. And I internalize special relativity growing up. I actually believed in the twin paradox. I actually thought that, you know, if I went out in space and I left my twin, that if I actually was able to achieve space travel at some point in my life, that my reality would age faster than me behind me and then I'd come home to a ruined world. So the idea of exploration is just nonsense within the science paradigm. It's crazy how it just makes you nihilistic, isn't it? But yeah. So in any case, the ether winds at the center of all this. And then as far as your thing about Australia and about the distances there, I would just like to say, you know, like maybe you don't understand, but all maps, all of the globe is based on the King's Decree. The idea of, you know, we have to follow this specific longitude latitude system. Everything is mapped to the sky. Everything is based on angles to the sky. And so the fact that your globe bottle, which is based on angles to the sky, aligns with itself is not impressive. And if I were to go out and take angles to the sky and map it to a flat Earth map, I would be able to produce the same result. And I would hope that you wouldn't deny that you haven't. And sense. Except you haven't. Except you can't. Oh, so that means that it's not flat because I didn't go and flopped it myself. OK, you talked for a long time and you overran your time and I didn't interrupt you for a long time. So now we get to talk. You can't calculate distances. You can't calculate bearings. You can't do celestial navigation properly. You can't make GPS work. There's lots of things flat Earth can't do, except apparently Prattle about the Mickelson-Morley experiment, which you're very good at. Off you go. Tony, and I'll jump in here. And Tony, you actually make a good point. And obviously as a scientist, you know how to get straight to the heart of a matter, calculating distances, which they can do. One reason why I find this topic interesting is because like looking at Alan's debate, I was looking at him talking about this stuff and clearly he didn't understand what he was talking about, like I just pointed out. And yet there were people in the chat saying, oh, he's, they're how to discriminate them because they didn't understand either. So that's why I want to go ahead and point out the fact that these people don't really understand the math that they're glossing over as if they understand it, which totally undermines, I don't know if they're argument about satanic, but they hold argument together. This same understanding, or you should say, lack of understanding by which they present themselves as if they understand this more than the experts in it. It's the same understanding that they use on everything else. So that's why I want to focus on this. So what did you want to say about it, Alan? I think about 50% of their argument has been gaslighting. Isn't that insane? Cool. So we're back to the, what was it? The fourth order thing that you were describing here. So this was a, what did you call it? A, what was the name again? Please. It's a Taylor expansion. Taylor expansion. Right. So when they get back down here though, to this part where they're just showing 2DV over V squared over the velocity, right? What's that doing? What is that? Is that a first order or second order relationship that they're deriving with the velocity of earth versus over the velocity of light? I hope you all behaved. I didn't do that, Matt. You should have done the math because you're the one that brought it up. Well, it's a simple question. You don't have to do any math. It's just the relationship that they're measuring right here, right? So when you say that this part is about the Taylor transfermate or, sorry, what was it again? Taylor thing? I don't even understand the basic, this is where I'm coming from. Let's back up. Listen, you talked for a minute and gas lit the fuck out of me. So I'm gonna, about how I don't know this shit. Actually, you all talked almost the whole time. I didn't really get anything in. So if you will, let me actually get a little bit in. I mean, to be honest, y'all had the floor almost all the time. Yeah, I want to give the floor to you, Daryl. I haven't heard much from you. Go ahead, Daryl. Go ahead. Okay, exactly. So why don't we do this? Okay, both you and Tobin brought up Mikkelsen Moly. In your first debate, your last debate, I would say you brought up the paper Alan by Wayne and Tobin brought it up this time. So both y'all apparently pushed that in to support this. And you both also say that this is a first order experiment. Is that right? Well, he derived the first order math in 2006 using a phase conjugate mirror actually. Okay, why does he bring up the Wayne paper? The rug, the math using a phase conjugate mirror? Okay. We can look at that. If you don't use phase conjugate mirrors in mathematics, what would you like me to bring it up? Oh, you can't use them to measure a wave pattern the same way that it was reflected. Measuring a wave pattern isn't mathematical. It's actually a part of jazz. Oh, you don't use mathematics to extrapolate the ratio of the friendship. You said he used a corn-cooked phase mirror. Wait, so you did not use mathematics to calculate that? You said he used a phase conjugate mirror to derive the mathematics. No, he derived the mathematics to show the first order measurement of the speed of light. He derived the mathematics. You can try and talk over me to cover up another pre-gis error. I mean, it's not gonna make the Earth more popular, dude. Yes, but this, you are constantly discrediting yourself with regard to- That's an assertion that you haven't substantiated. Yes, but that's all you make. You make assertions that Michelson-Morley experiment did this, the Ally experiment did this, blah, blah, blah, did that, blah, blah, did that, blah, blah, blah, did that. And then I try to tell you how we've actually derived first order measurements. I am still talking. I'm still in the middle of talking and I don't seem to stop just because you started. But both of you have kind of pulled away from what we were just talking between Daryl and Alan. We've gotten back into the meta-debates. Yeah, let me take it for a moment, Tony, and I don't think y'all have this article, so let me share it real fast. Give me a moment. I'll show you my screen more maturely. I've got to position it in a good spot. Yeah, everybody got a minute on the floor and they shared their screen, so we'll give you the floor here, Daryl. So you all, so let me know, are y'all able to see it? We're ready. Is it showing? Nope. I think I got the wrong screen. We could see it. It was just your desktop screen. Yeah, I was to say there was nothing there yet. That's right. It was sharing on my, I did what I was supposed to do. All right, what about now? Test of the one-way speed of light. You're up and running. Awesome. So both of y'all say this is the first order experiment. If you look at this, this is about the same three who wrote the paper, the other one that y'all wrote, Wang, Jing, and Yau. Yeah, he derives the first order. Yeah, he derives the math. All right, this is his minute. I'm talking at the moment. It says, let me scroll down a bit. I'm high at what I'm looking at to fully verify the principle of relativity required to be conducted in the Mikkelsen world experiment. At least the famous reference moving relative to the Earth with the principle of constancy of the speed of light will also be examined. The Mikkelsen experiment is a second order experiment. The possible effect is proportional to V-O-R-C square where V is the speed of the system. And this paper also tells you why it's a second order experiment. Let me scroll it down a bit farther to page two and I'll highlight this for you. Yeah, and actually if you want to know this is what he wrote. He says, oh my God, he's 37. I'll wait till he's done. I'm sorry, I really like this paper. One moment please. One moment please. As a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, I'm reading right here. The first, we have sine, sine, two, the first order term. But one is positive and another is negative so they cancel each other out. Therefore the Mikkelsen mold experiment with the conventional mirror is a second order experiment. So the experiment what happens is when the phase is altered by the reflection, the first, the first reflection cancels out. That's why it's not a first order experiment. Y'all call it the first order experiment and the data is not even there. The first order cancels out. I'll tell you why I can't say something real quick, Alan. So when you all say, you don't have to understand first order, second order, third order. When you all say you don't have to understand the tail expansion but you understand the experiment, I bless you're wrong. Because you're talking about first order when first order isn't even there, it's been canceled out. But it's your fact that the phase is being all set at an angle to each other. So when you're saying it's wrong, I show that you have no idea what you're talking about. I show that you don't need to understand the fundamental math to understand the equations that you're planning about. So everything you said about this is gone, I'm done. So if you want to jump in, Tony, we're good. Yeah, so that paper was published before Wang did the experiments where he linearized the Sagnic effect. No, it's after. Is it? He calls it a second order experiment but I'm calling it first order because if you take the reflections and stretch it out, it's the same as the fiber optic gyro. It's the exact same. So even though he's calling it second order, it's not. He linearized the Sagnic effect. And that's what he shows me. What experiments have you done? What experiments have you confirmed at the first order stage? Please. I got this, Tony. What experiments have you done, Alden, to confirm that the first order stage and Wang is wrong? Ruyang Wang did them in 2004 and in 2003. So how are you right and he's wrong when you're basing it off his work? All right, he's ready. Can I, can I please not actually respond? Because he's just not letting me respond to the first order. The first order is a theory. How do you know he's wrong when he did the experiment? I'm going to respond instead of Alan. Okay, Daryl, you got that? It's cool, Dave, Toby, if you want to jump in here. Daryl said, first of all, just in case, like FYI, we've read Wang's papers live on there, like we have a, we have multi-hour sessions reading these on the air. And actually, I just did a presentation on all 12 of Wang's papers about a week and a half ago and I explicitly went through this paper. And the whole point of this paper is for him to corroborate what he did in 2004 and showed that his assumptions about the first order measurement of the one-way speed of light were actually correct. And he used the phase conjugate mirror to reflect the wave beam back the same, the front of the wave beam remains the same when you use a phase conjugate mirror. So you use a classic interferometer mirror and then you compare that against the split wave beam going up against the phase conjugate mirror. And then when those come back and recombine, your phase difference then allows you to extrapolate out what the one-way direction of that one-way, of that one beam was. And what do you know? It actually corroborated his 2004 experiments. 10 seconds. So regardless of first or second order, the speed of light's still not constant and Einstein's still utterly wrong and you're living in a fantasy land if you think that the speed of light is constant. That's time. You're probably making something more to use the phase conjugator to get the first order? No, you're lost. We're talking about Ruyang going 2004, 2006. Did they use the phase conjugate mirror, Mickelson and Morley? So you're trying to get us on a gotcha versus second, first versus second order measurements. That's not gonna make the earth a globe, dude. I'm asking you a question. I'm asking you a question. Did Mickelson and Morley use a phase conjugate mirror to get the first order result? No, and no one said that. It is not a first order experiment. You're wrong. So you're contradicting what Wang said. You're wrong. We just read it. So it doesn't matter how long you read the papers or how long you opine about it. You're still wrong. Daryl, I got you, Brody. Go ahead. I might be wrong about my interpretation of that with the Mickelson-Morley. And I'll ask a question. If it's a second order, does that change the velocity that was measured, though? Right? Because your whole thing that you kind of linch pinned or that you kind of hung your hat on was that they were measuring the relative velocity of the entire solar system and the motion of the Earth, right? They still didn't get a proportional velocity in their second order measurement, right? Because the ether is not real. That's why. That's your assertion. That's why there's no result and it lets relativity. All right, so you had a question, guys, before. One second, one second, one second, Brody. All right, last 30 seconds. If the ether is stationary in their proposition, right? Then what they're measuring is the velocity component of the, you can answer if you want, of the Earth. Did you understand he's asking a question? I'm sorry, I thought I was just talking to Tony for some reason, what did you say? It was just for anyone. So if the ether is stationary in their proposition, right? They're saying this is a stationary ether and the Earth is moving, right? So if they take a measurement, if there's a friendship pattern displacement, if there's a proportional velocity measured, is that the ether moving or the Earth, what is it? I'm gonna defer to the experts. They found that that was appeared in ether. Do you have any, can either of you produce any observational evidence telling me that I'm showing me that ether exists? Any scientific observation that tells me it peer reviewed, published that there is such a thing as ether? 2004, Ruyang Wang, sure, there you go. 1913, for now, measuring the translational speed of ether drag. So you're claiming that the existence of the ether is an established scientific fact? 100%. No, I mean, it's not accepted within the mainstream because the mainstream paradigm of relativity, I don't, oh cool, you got us. Do you think we don't know that the relativity is the mainstream theory that has to throw out the idea of a substantive medium necessary for electromagnetic waves propagation? But you have no observational evidence that this is true. Oh, it's a ferometry ever. So you're just discounting everything we said, all the evidence that we actually brought. No, all interferometry ever does not. Then can you, you know, all interferometry ever does not cut it. We have- What's the velocity relative to it? Let's let Tony finish his thought. Let's look at this. We have gravitational time dilation observed at Earth's surface, right? No. You're a pound replica, is that what you're gonna say? How would you like to substantiate that? What experiment would you like to cite, sir? Yes. There's a pound replica. No. Please. Pound Snyder? No. No. At time of the clock? Yes. Oh, here we go. Please. Well, so this is a published result of gravitational time dilation. What do you, why do you refute it? Why do you reject it? Well, let's hear it. Let's hear the details. Yeah, give us the deets, brother. So this is Bothwell et al. I can bring out, allow me to share my screen. Sure thing. Thanks for letting me know. What's the name of the source? So I can also pull it up on my end. It's Bothwell et al. nature. 2022, resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimeter scale atomic sample. All right, okay. Can you get that up? So yeah, we have been going for an hour and a half. What would you guys say? How long, how much longer would you like to have your open discussion before we move into interacting with the audience? I'm fine with this exchange. I did what I wanted to do, sir. So here we have a, so here we have super-cooled optical clocks that are separated by less than a meter and less than a millimeter and show a difference in their interference patterns. between electron transitions. So here we have peer-reviewed observational evidence of a difference in time characteristics for atoms at different gravitational potentials. Do you accept that that is what this paper describes? Do you assert that you are better able to review this result and critique it than the people who were asked to do it for the Journal of Nature? Is that relevant to this debate? Yes, it is. One second. Because you're about to assert, you're about to assert that this is nonsense and you've got nothing other than your say-so and you, I repeat, have no qualifications to bring- Jay, is he allowed to just sit there and say what we're about to do before we've even like had a chance to say anything? That's just like, it's really edifying. Well, go ahead and don't refute it and concede the gravitational time. I don't want to interrupt you. You will get- I'm trying to respond. Yeah, no, if you ask for time to respond, I'll always give you time. So if you want a minute, I'll give it to you. Yeah, so what do we got going on here? Again, we got an atomic clock, you said? Yes, we've got atoms of super-cooled strontium. We're looking at transitions between their electron shells and the populations involved and we're using that as a measure of time. And we can show that if we start out with them at the same gravitational potential and then move one up, we get a difference in the transition between the electron populations. So it retards a little differently? Yes. Okay, so my explanation for this, because I came across this in GPS with atomic clocks and whatnot, so they have what they call the general relativity correction and they file that under the equal gravitational potential at altitude, so they say that the satellites are orbiting at, forget the altitude, but it's like a fixed altitude. So they say that the gravitational potential there is equal so they haven't synchronized to the same amount of retardation. Now, what I think the retardation is, because you guys think that it's a gravitational time dilation in relation, right? I think that as you increase in altitude, the electric gradient gets stronger and that causes more retardation within the clock. Now, this is important because these measurements are so minuscule and small, like this is where this is gonna affect that. So that's my interpretation of what they're calling gravitational time dilation, right? It's just- Well, that's exactly what I thought. That's exactly what I predicted you would do, which is that you would make up something. You have an actual- Your own qualifications and zero observational evidence and just throw the paper out. That's exactly what I said was going to happen and you gave me a hard time and your mate there gave me a hard time for you saying we're going to do all these things. And then you went and did exactly what I said. Wow, what an assertion. I did not, I'm not throwing out the paper, right? I'm giving you my mechanical explanation for the retardation, right? You are giving me a word salad with no observational validation. And this is the point that you keep on missing. You need observational validation. If you're going to assert that this is the case, my guess is that actually this experiment would have taken place inside a Faraday cage, which is to say that the mechanical apparatus would have been made of metal that was designed to shield it from electromagnetic effects. So you're going to have to tell me, you're going to have to tell me how this minuscule change in potential is going to have a perceptible effect. And you're going to have to demonstrate it. You're going to have to do it in different gravitational potential gradients and show me the same things. Last minute before you went out. And you haven't done that. Did you say that this was done in a Faraday cage or you think it was? I think it was done in a Faraday cage. If you look here at the cavity, oh, it's made of silicon. Maybe that is in a Faraday cage. Well, in any case, fuck I forgot what I was going to say now. Well, we got 30 seconds. So Daryl, Toby, do you have any other thoughts before we go into the Q&A? I'll just throw in real quick, like honestly, Tony, every time I go looking for evidence of special or general relativity, I got led to GPS. Then I found out that that was actually proof of the Saniac effect and classical mechanics as opposed to special, is I got literally a debunk of special relativity. I got led to Pound Rebka, which doesn't align with special relativity or with general relativity. I got led to, like every time I get led to anything, it ends up, or I got led to Thomas Percession, which invokes double Lorentz, Booster Lorentz. Or you don't understand scientific papers. You're just interrupting me. Then one of these things is true. Don't interrupt me. One of these things is true. One second there, Tony. I want, I want for the sake of our discussion there. Can I finish my thought? I'm like literally trying to explain my response here. All right. If you can do it with 10 seconds, because I want to give the last word to do it. I can. I'm almost done. So the Thomas Percession, the last thing that the place I was told to go look for special for evidence of relativity, it invokes a Lorentz transform, which can't even be substantiated unless you can somehow magically pop out of the lab frame, which is reality, to substantiate it in the non-reality word where it actually did the Lorentz rotation or the double Lorentz boost. So every time that I actually go and investigate it, it ends up being a disproof. So I will look into this, but just looking at it from what I see so far, you know, I'm not super convinced, but I'll see you when I look into it. All right, Daryl, anything you want to say before we jump Q&A? Yes. It was a pleasure to be here. Great being on the board with Tony. And I just wanted to reiterate the point that I wanted to show, which is what Tony showed again. Time and time again, I see these globe deniers, whether they call themselves flat earthers or concave earthers, or global spectroscopic or whatever, apparently there's this fad where they present scientific papers where they clearly have no idea what they're talking about. They have no idea of even the basic mathematical understanding necessary to even realize that they're making conclusions that's contrary to what the paper itself is saying. You know, if you understand Taylor expansion, you can look at the two papers and see why Lucasin goes up to such a higher Taylor expansion. We are at time. Oh, and I'm muted. No, no, you're not muted, but we are at time. That's okay. I try not to be too right in the mics because I want everybody to be able to hear you. So if you didn't hear me say that, that's all fine. I'm going to close out our poll, everybody. So I had a poll that I opened up right at the beginning of the old debate and we have our results in. So it was bouncing back and forth, hardcore for a long time and a thousand of you guys voted in the live chat. So thanks for all the engagement in the poll. Why don't you hit the like button, all 1000 of you that voted in that poll since your thumbs are so active and you can do that. So 46% voted a globe. 40% said flat and undecided, I will say, but I said a bag of bread. Old joke, a bag of bread was 12%. So we'll just say they're undecided and we're going to keep figuring it out. 12% as we go through our super chat. So once again, a big thank you to the moderators in the live chat. Thank you guys for keeping it civil and making sure that everybody in the live chat knows that we want to attack the ideas, not the person. LJ, coming in for $1.99 says, so NASA is the only government that doesn't lie. One minute there, Anthony and Daryl. We'll try to move that. Yes, Flat Earthers lie. So we should stop listening to Flat Earthers. Everybody lies about something. The existence of liars does not make everything false. And if you can show me when NASA actually were deceptive in what they did, fine. But that doesn't change the rest of the mountains and centuries of evidence we have relating to the shape of the earth. Did you want to say anything to LJ? I'll tell you all of that as well. Yeah, sure. So going back to the discussion we had just now, I brought up that paper and Alan said, oh, that came before what we just did. And in total it was like, no, it did come after. So where did Alan even get that from? What? So both of them say something different. It is one. What did you say? I brought them all apart from each other. I thought that that paper was before weighing because actually when you were pulling it up or like I was anxiously awaiting because I thought that it was beforehand because I've already read that. That means that we shouldn't listen to it. No, I was already aware of how it's a second order. But I had my own interpretation of it and that might have been wrong and I'm glad that you pointed that out, bro. It's all good. It's not a big deal. I can't get it. It is a big deal. Because I only found that I was debating y'all yesterday. I looked over the course of that paper in a matter of like, because I still have to do homework for my classes and stuff, probably spent a total of two hours and I understand it enough to point out how wrong you all were. When y'all talk about all these hours, y'all can't talk about it. That's a big deal. I think that's a very big deal. Can I interject? And it goes back to what Alan was saying. We're putting it over to Darryl. He's not answering the question. He's just like attacking Alan. Can I interject something about this? Because I have something really relevant. Go ahead, Tyler. Alan actually did a presentation. Alan did a three-hour or a two-hour presentation called On the Orders of Measurement, where he went very into detail about first versus second-order measurements and his opinion about this. So to try and talk like he doesn't know what he's talking about is absurd. All right, so this is their question. I'd like to ask, I'd like to probe that. So you're saying that he talked about it for a long time. Therefore, he must know what he's talking about. That's what he's talking about. He got it with a gotcha. But he literally did a presentation called On the Orders of Measurement. So to try and pretend like he can't have his own opinion about what a first versus why that's a first-order measurement or not, it's a weird gotcha anyways, right? Like it doesn't make the earth any more globular for you. It doesn't make the ground beneath your feet moving any faster for you. But what it does show is that you don't have a grasp of logic. You keep on making these claims. He talked for three hours. Different papers. One 2004, one 2006. They know two different things. Who cares if he has the... Just one second there, Toby. This is their question. So we're going to let Tony close it out here and then we'll move on. All right, I'm going to close it out. I showed, see, you know, a Mariners textbook from 1679 that shows that they were using spheroidal geometry to successfully navigate back then. What the hell has NASA got to do with the earth being spheroidal? Nothing. Who said that? Let's move on to the next question there, guys. And we'll try to, like I said, keep it to... Like I said, if it's asked for a specific side, then naturally the floor is more in their direction. So if questions are coming in for Toby or Alan, the floor is going to be more yours. It's just the way that this goes. So I am sorry, but I think I've been pretty fair. I think everybody has been muted at least once except for Daryl because, you know, Daryl's just... Love you, brother. You're just great. Whitsitt gets it says, Tony, does your model not claim motion? You're ducking. No, what I'm suggesting is that the evidence related to the shape of an object is different from the evidence related to the motion of a subject. We could go into geostrophic flow and how that is absolutely impossible on a flat earth. We could go into Western boundary current intensification. We could go into Doppler shifts of the wavelengths of incoming stars at different times of the year. We could go into the abundant mountains of evidence we have for the motion of the earth. But the reality is that the geometry of an object that we can measure, you know, you want to talk about Michelson and Morley, but we can measure distances on earth. We can measure the changes in longitude. And if you're going to ignore the fact that a given band of longitude does not increase as you go further south, then all of a sudden you're going to require thousands of degrees of longitude rather than the 360 that are known to exist. Any thoughts, Daryl, before we move on for Whitsitt? Got it. Okay, thank you so much for your question there, Whitsitt. And we always appreciate having you on here. Thanks for being a geocentrism, cool. Oh my, these guys have been a pretty active bunch, right? So yeah, once again, if you haven't hit the like button, what are you doing? And just sitting there with your thumbs up here. Whitsitt Gitsit asks, hosting debate after show on Whitsitt Gitsit. So for anybody who wants to head over there, Whitsitt's putting that and making it known in our live chat. And once again, we appreciate everything you do, brother. So, you know, hanging out a modern day debate, doing all the debates, it's a lot of fun. So, cheers. November says, how ships navigate hundreds of years prior to the globe? Well, they did it by, they had a variety of techniques. There was a lot of coast hugging. The Vikings, for instance, used basically angles to the sun to navigate most of that. But the Vikings have been overestimated. A lot of their discoveries, for instance, the discovery of Greenland was by accident. They were blown off course. They discovered Greenland. Traveling to Greenland, they got blown off course. They discovered Canada. So, you know, they didn't have spherical geometry but they weren't traveling far enough. They weren't making trans-oceanic voyages at that point. Any other thoughts there, Daryl, before we move on? Yep. All right. Let's see. We've had a lot of questions from you, Whitsitt here. So, let's get to another one here for the other side. Mark, everyone type motion so globers can address it. What did he say? Said everyone type motion so the globers can address it. Everyone type motion so the globers can address it. I guess he wants us to talk about how we know there's motion. Trying to do a call-out on a live chat, yeah. So, if you guys want to take a minute, I was trying to find one for everybody or at least Toby and Alan, but we'll give you guys a minute here and then I'll find one for you guys. Well, I think that directly relates to the things I showed. Like, I showed images of the planets but how people get those images is that we've plotted where these planets are. So, for instance, you could use couplers laws and we know how long these planets take to revolve. So, looking at the planets, seeing where they are, seeing them going around us, mowed it off a globe that lets me know that we're moving. Any thoughts, Tony, for the last 40 seconds? Yeah, essentially, if you've got a high pressure air system or water system and a low pressure of water system, the air should flow directly from one to the other but that's not what you see. What you see instead is that you get wind going, flowing roughly parallel to the isobars rather than across them. This is caused by what's called geostrophic flow. Earth's rotating. The flat earthers will claim some magical ethereal effect that causes this on gross matter. They've got no justification for claiming that, no observational experiments but it accords exactly with the predictions of Coriolis. Oh, race. It also brings up neutrinos, talking about the earth because they have neutrino detectors that can detect neutrinos from the sun as we rotate around different sides of the earth. So, I mean, there's many ways that we know that the earth is moving, so. Let's let Toby interact here because we don't have as many questions for Toby and Alan, so go ahead, Toby. Yeah, how do you know the neutrino came from the sun when they say that cosmic rays come from literally every possible source in the sky? I'm gonna investigate in detail. I did ask my professor that she basically told me was basically the process that the calculator understand is going on in the middle of the sun. I don't know the detail. Yeah, you know, they use neutrino detection for random number generation. So, the... They use neutrino generation for random number generation. They've never been able to properly model it. So, if I pointed neutrino detector at the sun while the sun is above the horizon and I get a certain signal from it and then I continue pointing it at the track that the sun should be following as it passes below the horizon and then I continue to get neutrino detections from it. Why are you asserting that the sun is not being tracked by the neutrino detector? At what point does the neutrino source pass underground while the sun doesn't? In your thought experiment, if we were to do that together... It's not a thought experiment. It's an observation, sir. Okay, which one? It's not a neutrino detection of the sun. Which observation? Are you... Could you give me a reference, please? I have to clarify for him, Tony. This is what Tony is saying. He's saying if you point a detector at the sun. Yeah, I understood. And I was trying to actually entertain that thought but he interrupted me when I tried to. And I'm sorry that I interrupted you, Toby, but we're in three interruptions here. So, sorry, Darryl, finish your thought there, if you don't mind. What he's trying to say is when you point the detector at the sun and keep it pointed at the sun, you can follow it. So, I thought you was asking me, like, how do you know neutrinos are coming from the sun? What's the process? But that's what you're talking about. You just keep it pointed at the sun and you follow the sun. Like, there's not a point where there's a disconnect where suddenly it breaks off and then it could be from something else. That's what he's saying. Your assertion that the neutrinos are definitely coming from the sun is where I'm saying there's a problem, right? Like, maybe if you point it at the sun, maybe you get more neutrinos, sure. But based on the randomness of neutrino detection, I'm telling you, you have no way to differentiate between whether or not it's coming from the sun or not, based on what I understand about neutrinos. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but... You are feisty, you are making a feisty decision. Let me show the calculations, Tony. There's a whiteboard here. Show us those calculations of the randomness that where you can't forget about. I can pull it off. Oh, yeah, if I can share my screen, I've got a bunch of papers on that. No, no, show us the calculator, because I already showed you that. It's not a simple calculation. They actually use super- Show me the calculations themselves. Don't bring enough paper. I would have to get into the source code of their neural networks, right? No, no, so you don't understand the calculations. No, I can show you the papers and all my highlights right now. You don't understand papers. I showed that earlier. Let's do three minutes. You don't have to understand these papers, if you're putting them up. More gaslighting. That's literally all you've brought to this conversation is a bunch of gaslighting. All right, without getting into the meta, because we don't want to go into meta debate. If you've got something you want to share, we'll give you guys three minutes to wrap up thoughts on this one. You lucky super chatter. You're getting so much more out of your question than the first couple here. But yeah, just because we had only a few here so far for Toby and Alan. So if you want to do a screen share, we'll give you three minutes to have some fun with this one, guys. Oh wait, I'm in the wrong folder. My bad. I shared early. Oh no. Here we go. You ever want to share early? So let's see, we've got, where would you do the rest of it? Sure, good, shoot. I must have them in their own folder somewhere. Okay, if you want to take a minute to find that. Sure, yeah, let me find it and then I'll pull the paper up, my bad. Yeah, we'll return to that. Let's get, let's ask the next question here and then we'll let you pull us back here in just a second. So thanks once again for everybody who has asked a question. We'll continue on with the super chats. Well, Toby, it gets it up. And once we're finished with the next super chat, Toby, just pull us back full circle, if you don't mind, buddy. So LJ coming in says, why doesn't the earth spin under a hovering helicopter? Well, it doesn't spin relative to the atmosphere under a hovering helicopter. So the atmosphere is rotating roughly in phase with Earth's surface. So you don't expect any motion between the helicopter and Earth's surface because the atmosphere is rotating at approximately the same rate. All right, are you ready over there, Toby, with your screen? Sure, yeah. We will go back to what we were just discussing and thank you so much, Tony, for answering the question. So here's one paper, oh sorry. So ionization of the Earth's atmosphere by solar and galactic cosmic rays and they're talking about how they use new methodology, calibrated direct observations, but they use a numerical models and then ionization of the atmosphere in comparison between measurements and simulations. Simulations, some discrepancies are found between actual measurements. What do you know? What's this got to do with solar neutrinos? Showing that they compute the whole thing and it's every time that they try to- These are cosmic ray calculations. What's that? That was thinking as well. These are cosmic ray calculations. Yeah, that's what I'm showing. They're not new solar neutrino observations. Cosm, you're trying to tell me neutrinos are not related to a cosmic ray? Yes, the vast majority of cosmic rays are extremely energetic particles, not neutrinos. As for instance- I'm pretty sure we're wrong about that. Well, then you're an idiot. So the sphalation, the carbon-14, for instance. My real point was that they used them for random number generation. Carbon-14 is created by sphalation of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere by incoming cosmic rays. Neutrinos don't do that. In fact, there's an array of cosmogenic isotopes that are produced by cosmic ray impacts where neutrinos pass through matter. Can you see the distinction between the two? Well, hello. And as it goes back to what I was saying, I wasn't even trying to guess. I was pointing out the fact that y'all don't understand these papers that you're reading. I mean, there's no good to bring them up anymore. And that goes with every single flattery that I've seen so far, none of them understand the papers they bring up or the map behind them. What did I not understand? You're saying that I had a misunderstanding in the papers, which I still don't think you're necessarily right about. So like, is that the only thing that you're ranting on about right now is my potential misunderstanding of neutrinos? That's the only thing that matters. Neutrinos are not cosmic rays, right? You're trying to talk about neutrinos and you're showing us stuff about cosmic rays and they're not the same thing. Yeah, so I wasn't gaslighting you. I was just stating a fact. So, you know, you just basically just proved my point for me, but you know, we could keep doing it. All right, this might be a good time to move on. If you don't mind, I'm gonna end this screen share and let's ask the next question and keep interacting with the audience to keep the conversation rolling. And once again, thank you to everybody who has contributed. Neutrinos are expected at some level in association with cosmic rays. What do you know? Yes, some cosmic rays are neutrinos. The vast majority, however, are not. That's like saying that all people are male. It's just not true, or all people are children because the subset, this is another logical fallacy. You are trying to relate solar neutrinos, the observations of solar neutrinos to cosmic rays and you're looking at properties of cosmic rays which include stuff other than neutrinos. They can't properly simulate any of them. They're all random. They're all literally, like you could literally use any of them for a random number generator. So what? Okay, let's carry on there guys because we're a little over time on that question. And yeah, when I'm doing housekeeping, don't interrupt me, my goodness. You'll throw off my groove. You don't want to throw off the emperor's groove. I'm just making a reference for all the 90s children. All right, unconditional truth says, can Toby and or Alan explain how GPS falsifies relativity and therefore heliocentrism in general doesn't the current globe model require relativity? We'll give you guys a minute and 30 there, each. Or not each, sorry, a minute and 30. Atomic clock synchronization, the way that it actually works falsifies special relativity because the way that the atomic clocks are situated in free fall around the earth, they shouldn't be retarding proportional to their own velocity. So not even counting, keeping the clock in sync with other clocks, just maintaining the oscillation rate of the atomic clock itself. It has to account for its own velocity, which they say it's in a free fall orbit. Therefore it's a local inertial frame. So the speed of light should be the same. Especially the one-way speed, it shouldn't change. So its own velocity should not cause any retardation in the oscillation rate so that it can keep time. Now, what's interesting about that is that, okay, so it's free falling around earth, it's got a proportional velocity correction that it has to make for its own velocity, right? But as it's free falling around the earth, it would be parallel and perpendicular to the planes of motion. Like so the orbit of the earth around the sun, the sun with respect to the center of the galaxy, moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background, all these velocity components are never show up at any of the clock corrections. So if the atomic clocks and GPS are proof of anything, it's that the earth is geocentric. Okay, you got 30 seconds left there, Toby. Can you provide, can he provide a single scientific reference for what he just said? Yeah, Paul Marmay and all atomic clock synchronization standards. This is their question, Tony. Bring it up. So the last 38 seconds. Okay, we'll go down there, but last 38 seconds to you, Toby, before we bring that up, apparently we're coming full circle, so go ahead. Yeah, so the whole thing goes back to, you know, measuring the motion of the earth, right? We tried to measure the motion of the earth using interferometry, which is the quote unquote speed of light or electromagnetic propagation. And then when we didn't measure any motion, they said, oh, well that's because of relativity. The apparatus shrunk in relation to the sun, you couldn't actually measure it. Well, and they say that the speed of light is constant. So that's why you could never even measure a proportional velocity using the speed of light. But it turns out when you look under the hood of GPS and range measurement equations, that whole equation accounts for proportional velocity in it. So the equation itself violates and, you know, basically debunks special relativity. This is, we've known about this since the nineties with Ron Hatch. Yeah. All right, let's go down the rabbit hole, fellas. All right. So we'll start off here with- Is this a paper? Are you showing me a scientific- Yes, these are clips of papers that I put into a presentation. These are clips that show me the paper. You want the- Oh, Jesus Christ, dude. You want the exact ones? Each one- Yes, I want the exact paper. Listen, okay, dude. Here's what we're going to do. I'm going to show you- And also I want you to show you where in that paper it says this disproves special relativity. Because what you're doing is you're cherry picking stuff out of papers and you're saying this means that special relativity isn't there. That's not how science works. All right, we will let you respond there, Alan. And let's try to keep the discourse up here, not down here. So this is how we're going to do this so we can move through this quickly. Now, I'll give you all the citations so you can look them up on your own time. But for the audience's sake, what we're going to do is we're going to look through clips of these. If you want to call it cherry picking and all that, that's cool, totally fine with it. You can go back and read it on your own time. So this is a paper from 2005, the interpretation of special relativity applied to the local central inertial frame, blah, blah, blah, right? So what we have here is he's talking about how there's these different planes of motions that would show up in the atomic clock corrections if they existed, right? So what we have here are some diagrams that he puts forward. So as the satellites are orbiting around the Earth, they're going to be parallel and perpendicular to these planes of motion. So that that would require, if you follow Galilean velocity addition, this is what this guy is saying, like, oh, you're just making shit up. This is what he's saying, that these velocity corrections would have to be applied to the atomic clock for it to keep time, but they don't, they don't exist. They've never been measured. Hold on, he's got 10 seconds left. He's got 10 seconds left. Please, before you shit the bed, bro, just give me one second. You got 10 seconds. All right. So here we have more GPS references. This is other people noticing in their careers that, hey, how come none of these atomic clocks have to account for this 30 kilometer velocity or anything like that? Okay, now if you want all these references, I will gladly give them to you. Okay. You aren't screen sharing. We're trying to move on. For sure, but you're not screen sharing right now, Alan, if you have meant to be. Okay. Fuck's sake. No. I thought I was screen sharing the whole time, my bad. Oh, sorry. Just to respond to that, just to respond to that, those velocities should only show up in the clock correction if Earth is not sharing them or they're not sharing those motions with one another. If the entire system is moving with that velocity, there's no way that they can detect that velocity that would be a violation of the very fundamentals of relativity. You can't detect your velocity just by looking inside the system. And as for Galilean addition of reference frames, that's not how relativity works either. So you're claiming to falsify relativity by completely ignoring what relativity is. You know, again, this gets back to you need to be qualified to read and understand a scientific paper. If you aren't, you're going to take stuff that's mentioned in a paper and you're going to be wrong about it. And it baffles me that you don't accept that this is the case. Next time I do a debate, I'm gonna put a little gaslight encounter like right here. I'm just gonna ding it every time we get gaslight. All right, let's move on to the next one. This again assumes this is all based on a assertion. The assertion is not only are these guys qualified to comment on scientific papers, they're qualified to comment on whether or not somebody else citing papers is gaslighting. They have asserted themselves as arbiters of science. It's unfounded. Okay, the question was for you guys. So you wanna close this out there, Alan will carry on. I don't even remember what the question was. Is it about GPS, right? We're still on GPS. Yes, we were talking about both Alan and Tony for a few reasons. Yeah, go ahead. Can I say one more thing on GPS? Like Albert Einstein's clock synchronization, he invoked it in the 1905 on electrodynamics and moving bodies and that he invokes clock synchronization as his only way to get away from absolute time. And then when they actually want to go start setting up GPS crafts later on down the road, all the clocks started going out of sync with each other. And it's like, holy cow, Einstein, what are we gonna do? You told us all these reference frames were equal. Then they had to go back and sync all those clocks. They have to sync them all back to sidereal time and they do that through the range measurement equations which rely on proportional velocity and the speed of light. And if you take out that proportional velocity, you actually end up not being able to detect where people are. And if you take out the one-way velocity, the isotropic or anisotropic effect of light with the one-way preferred directionality, you're off by 30, 40 meters. So both of those things utterly violate Albert Einstein, 1905 special relativity and everything after that, it's just a bunch of ad hoc nonsense. Have you written any GPS code? No, I've looked at the 1980 and 1990 documents for the IEEE and I looked at the Paul Marme paper where he actually goes through the math from the IEEE and shows the references from the IEEE. And also- We've already established that you reading papers is irrelevant because you don't understand the problem. Interrupting me to gaslight me again. I hate to get met up. I work with people who have written their own GPS code. You're gonna interrupt me, have something substantive to say, don't just gaslight me. It looks really bad. Well, let's move on. Guys, guys, guys, we can keep going down- That's a question before we leave this topic? Okay, all right. As long as you can pull us back in because we're spiraling right now. All right, quick. It would be a short one. He told you at Alden, when you're talking about these GPS and the satellites that do it, which one of these reference frames will be proper time? I don't know. All right. That means you have no idea of special relativity. You don't know what you're talking about. We could keep going. They have to do it on the back end at the reception time. They do it on the back end when they do the range measurement equation. And everything goes through the global coordinate system. And there's actually- No, it doesn't. They actually even tried to do really quick, really relevant. They tried to do an analysis of global coordinate system result of GPS. And when the people that did the analysis, the datum that they got, the data set that they got, had already been run through these corrections. And they were able to tell, just looking at the data set, that, hey, this is already corrected. We don't actually have raw GPS data. So every time that GPS gets invoked or used, it goes through that transform to the GC. We have to move on. I need to respond to that because actually if you do your own GPS, he's talking about commercial GPS systems that rely on the positions of the satellites that are transmitted by the satellites. This is not how the high precision GPS solutions actually treat the satellite positions as unknown. And they solve for the satellite positions and the orbit perturbations that are going to fit. So they don't assume a terrestrial reference frame. And I don't know what he's talking about because I've worked with the people who do this and they may have, there may be an individual study with a flaw that they have detected but that's not how GPS is going off. So you don't have a citation and it's definitely not going to be for the engineering standards. We've got to move on before we start dishing out the old mute CPUs because I don't like doing that. And we do have so many questions and I want to be able to engage with these, well, the people that have been listening to you guys have this discussion. They've got a lot of thoughts. So keep them coming in guys. If you've got more thoughts as these guys keep discussing but we are going to try to move it along because if not, we'll be here all night. So Free Free Palestine says, the Greek knew earth is flat and non-rotating. The Antikythera mechanism, AKA the flat earth model, it's a zodiac system, a glow model can't predict. All right. And one minute for you guys. That's nonsense from beginning to end. I, the Greeks developed spherical trigonometry. Menelaus's theorem was developed and written down. This was how they solved the number of problems. In particular, it was one of the ways they were, they were able to calculate from the maximum length of day, what latitude you were at. This is the calculation that flat earthers simply can't do. The Antikythera mechanism is not a flat earth mechanism. It's a simple cyclic machine. Actually the flat earthers often claim sorrow cycles can be used to predict eclipses. That's not entirely true. Every sorrow series begins and then it carries on at sorrow intervals, but then it stops. So you can only use the sorrow cycles for a sorrow series that has already started. You can't use it to predict when a new series will begin or when that series will end. Okay. Any thoughts over there Daryl for the last 15 seconds before we move on? May I hear that question one more time please? The question was the Greeks knew, I'll give you 30. The Greeks knew earth is flat and non-rotating the Antikythera mechanism, aka the flat earth model is a zodiac system globe model can't predict. Give you 30. I guess up to that I would just say, I spoke to a flat earther that talked about the Antikythera mechanism and I asked him to demonstrate and he knew one of the things flat earthers do was just change the subject and run from it. So why don't they demonstrate it like Tony is saying, show some evidence for this stuff. Sorry if I'm making a face. I was just trying to verify if I hear children laughing in the background or if that's crying. I'm like, is my kid crying right now? No, he's fine. They're laughing even though they're not supposed to be up because it's 11 o'clock in Nova Scotia. So I think we're gonna have to kick their butts after this, after we close out. They're supposed to be sleeping. What's it gets, it says, why do you think you just get to scream over them? Well, what's it? I don't think I've been that loud. I haven't been screaming over anybody but if you wanna hear me scream, you know what, I'm going to, I did a demo earlier today and I got the file. I'm gonna put it into my OBS right quick. You wanna hear me scream? Here you go. We wrote a song about hubris and it's called Greed. So I'm just gonna pop into my OBS and you can hear the demo that I recorded today. You wanna hear somebody screaming. All right, Earth is Life asks Toby, so when flat earthers make videos claiming they see too far like Kanagu, laser tests, et cetera, what do they use to measure the distance? These are optics and they zoom in and that's, you know, it's, I don't know, maybe, I think maybe what he's trying to get at is what I was talking about with angular resolution. So the thing is, right, I'm talking about optics in relation to my point in space and that would be relative to my lenses, my eyes. But if I was then to pull out a telescope, I am now changing my resolution and that's why when you use a telescope and when you zoom in on something, you actually lose area around it. So this is actually a perfect explanation for how it works with things converging into the distance and things appearing to drop off over, you know, drop off. They don't actually curve away. You never could see a curve because it would be going away from you. What you actually see is the convergence of the sky and the ground and basically the limit imposed by the Rayleigh criterion of those two objects merging into each other. And so, but there's, you know, that you have an intense angular limit there. Thoughts there, Alan, before we move on. Yeah, I agree with what Toby said. Okay. We're gonna clarify the question on behalf of the questioner, please, Ryan. Because it sounds like the questioner was asking, like if they have the, like they brought up a black swan, whatever you're doing with the experiment, they're asking how do you measure the distance to the other side of the water? How do you measure the distance to the oil rig? They're asking how do you get the distance between where you shoot the laser and the other side? Well, so if the convergence of things in the distance was caused by earth curvature, right? Then you wouldn't be able to bring them back into view by zooming in on them with a more higher, with a higher zoom optic, would you? No, no, no, in other words, like you said the oil rig is 10 miles away or whatever. How are you getting that distance is what they're asking. Last word, Toby. How am I getting what distance? You would never use optics to measure, you would never get a distance 10 miles away using optics that's literally violates the way you're supposed to use a theatolite. I don't know, maybe you don't understand the question. So you set up the experiment, the laser is here and the other side of the lake is a mile away or whatever. How are you getting the distance to the other side when you put it, when you do the calculations? It is literally asking just how are you measuring the distance on earth between the two locations? I have no idea the cartographer, the cartographer, how the cartographer measured that lake. All right, next one, unconditional truth. Can Toby and Alan each list their favorite experiments involving a laser in an interferometry, I can't say. Interferometer, interferometry. Interferometer, interferometry, thank you. Interference,ometer. Thank you. I like to for improve. And say what the implications tell us about current globe dogma. Gee, word I can't say, how about that? So the implication with that is that the speed of light is not the same in an inertial frame, right? Because we're told that the sag neck effect is due to the rotation of the device. Therefore there's a time displacement, with an observer being stationary at the center of the device or whatever. Right, but what the foreign prune did is they had the device configured such that it would reflect back on the lab wall, right? So, and that's where the source was too. So they took the friendship readings from that from a rotating platform that was just essentially like free rotating. And the, so where the recorder is determines, if it's an inertial frame or non-inertial, right? So if it's attached to the device, they would say it's a non-inertial frame. Therefore, special relativity doesn't apply, blah, blah, blah, right? Or the inertial frame doesn't apply, right? But they had it fixed to the lab wall. So from that, it's an inertial frame, right? So it shows a friendship and it's proportional to the rotation of the device. Do you not know what an inertial frame is? No, I have no idea. Okay, would you care to explain to me what an inertial frame is? Because you seem to think that Earth fixed. Why does that play games with them? The inertial frame is the same thing. Okay, dude. So an inertial frame would be stationary, non-rotating, right? Or unifying over it. No. Okay, next question. Yeah, that one was for you. I don't know what an inertial frame is. I'm not gonna get interrupted mid fucking sentence, bro. So you can shit the back. Just one second, Alan. Well, like I said, we're gonna try to keep it up here if we can. I know it can get tough sometimes when we're getting heated, but let's talk about it. Would the other guy like to tell me what an inertial reference frame is? No, I wanted to answer the question that was posed by the super-chatter that they paid money to hear an answer to. Yeah, do you want me to repeat the question there, Toby? No, so Dufour and Prunier. So with Michelson-Gail Pearson, they say that they're able to measure the rotation of the Earth because they're using a closed loop. And then the only way that they can get away from, remember when I brought up 2004 Ruyang Wang with the linear motion being measured in the friendship, the only way they can even try and they can try to invoke a Lorentz transform with that or one of the ways that they do it is to try and say that it's because it's a closed loop, you can't, that somehow is a special rule for relativity of closed loops. You can have the speed of light not be constant in the closed loop. But what they did with Dufour and Prunier is they actually, they reflected the light out of the interferometer to, like Alan was saying, it was actually mounted to the wall and they measured the friendship on the wall. So it's outside of the rotating reference frame. It's got nothing to do with the closed loop and the speed of light is still not constant even when you come outside of that closed loop. All right, next one. Sorry, now we're having a shift here, Tony and Daryl, a lot of questions for Toby and Alan. How can you claim what the shape of the Earth is when you don't have an understanding of basic grade eight math or science? Oh, that one kind of got nasty at the end there. But yeah, we do try to read them because people get upset with me when I don't and I apologize to those people that I don't read your chance. Yeah, so let's see, what was the question? How can we claim what the Earth is if we're retarded? Well, I guess we can't, good question. Any other? I can actually ask some of that if there's ever such a short answer. And that's part of the point I was making. I watch almost every fight or debate that you all have on NBD. And every single one that comes on is just the surface level talking as if you understand when even just the basic level of math and under science shows that they don't. And that's why the people who go into the fight are usually have no education. They haven't. That's one voice for them, I'm sorry, Daryl. The people who don't understand that they're talking to the people who don't as well, then they all think it makes sense. Did you have anything you wanted to say? Did this sound like surface level to the audience? Dude, I'm so glad you were able to come gaslight us on our question. That's super cool of you, Daryl. Much appreciated, bro. Well, let's carry on. Unconditional Truth says, in case anyone missed it, can Alan and Toby please re-explain how long two latitude lines were determined on the globe model and why they do not prove sphericity? That's just all based on celestial observations. Everything's using angles and celestial observations. And yeah, I mean, it was a king's decree back in on like 1760 something. 1776? So yeah, I think I've heard a different number too. But the idea being that essentially, they just mapped a globe from the sky. And unless we could actually go out and verify distances using something like wing speedometer, which would measure absolute motion, then we really can't say what the map should actually look like because what we have, the AE projection is flawed because you're taking, what they did was they mapped the world to a globe using centuries of data. And then they now, what the AE model is, so you've taken a flat surface and you've mapped it to a globe. So now when you pull it back out and you do that, just that automated transform, you actually have a skewed model. It's not necessarily going to line up with what, if you were to actually make the map using the sky on a flat earth, you'd have a different, you'd have something that will look quite a bit different. But of course it's not so easy to go map the whole world, especially the southern seas. Okay. Well, we did it. Why can't you? Because I don't have centuries and a king's decree to do it. All right, let's carry on. Well, apparently, people believe this flat surface, we're gonna try to... Thousands of years. We're gonna try to carry on and keep it to the side that has the question because we have a lot of questions. And if we keep the back before us, so we're gonna try to address the people who are asking the questions and try not to pull the other speakers in because I know it's easy to make reference. So medical mass media says the Kraken strikes again. Demonstride says to join the Discord for the aftershow at discord.gg slash demonstride. So there's another aftershow going on in the Discord. So check that out if you haven't. And unconditional truth says, can both Alan and Toby give a few reasons why they do not trust NASA? Do they think government institutions have as a record of being honest? And we'll give you guys a minute on the floor, Alan and Toby. Go ahead, Alan. I don't give a shit about NASA questions, bro. I'll go, I'm kind of on the same page as Alan honestly, because for me, it's like I look at the Apollo 17 launch. That's all I really needed. Like even way before I was a flat earther, I was quite skeptical of moon landing because of how... Basically, when you start to see how many times they've deceived you about things in outer space, you really have to start questioning outer space. The fact that they don't put clear CGI watermarks on all of their CGI footage, I find insanely unscientific and insanely alarming. That's just a really minor thing. But if you go and look, you can see them messing with harnesses, you can see bubbles, you can see flies, a bunch of stuff that shows that they're staging all of this and the hair doesn't make sense. But so regarding the government, yeah, I mean, you look at, I'm not gonna get specific, but the last however many years, it's been kind of crazy, right? So yeah, I have a lot of skepticism of all of the major governments of the world. And then it's weird, like we're in this war with Russia, but we'll go up to the ISS and we're not gonna fight up there. We're gonna go to Antarctica and we're not gonna fight down there. All right, LJ coming in, this one for you, Tony and Daryl. He says rest in peace to the spinning space ball with curved sea water fantasy. How do we detect airport moving sidewalks but not 1,000 miles per hour spinning earth below us? You wanna start us out there, Daryl? I could get that one, Tony. Go ahead, one minute. So the way it works is we're sitting on the earth right now or standing on the earth right now, spinning with the earth. So if you jump up in the air, it's not gonna suddenly run away from you. Similar to you on a public transportation bus and the bus is moving and you like take a step or something, the bus doesn't just suddenly leave you. So I think this has been covered so many times. It's amazing that this is still being act. Yeah, because people wanna know like how could I actually measure the motion, right? Like we can't feel it. We can't see it. Helicopters don't account for it. Planes don't account for it. Missiles don't account for it. Literally nothing accounts for it. So we're wondering like how can we measure it? If you're gonna tell me it's moving at, you know 66,000 kilometers a second or what is it? 30 kilometers a second. It's like, come on, man. Like I would like to know how I could substantiate that. And I haven't been given that. So how have you determined that all of these things don't account for it? You're trying to get me to like, you have to be specific, man. Which things? How do you, how do you determine that these things don't account for it? What things? You gave a list of things. Repeating yourself. The things you listed. The things you listed. The things that I listed regarding I- Okay, we can move on. If you don't understand, if you can't remember what you said just 10 seconds ago, it seems like you just run it from the question. As far as there's no need to do. We could have moved on. Or gas lighting. Man, I needed to do it. I thought that this was our question, mate. Why the hell are you talking? All right. You waited for James to come back to complain. So the whole, the whole- Come in and everybody's talking. So let's let that go. The human vestibular system has a limited observational accuracy. The accelerations that humans experience as a result of Earth's rotation, Earth rotating around Earth, orbiting the sun or sun's motion through the galaxy are vastly below the threshold to be detected by a vestibular system. As I mentioned earlier, one of the central premises of relativity is that you can't tell that you're in motion internal to the system. You can only tell that you're in motion relative to something else by looking at the something else. Ah, so then we would have a kinematic equivalence. Why are you talking? Your centrism would be just as correct as- This is our question, right? Pause. And I was trying to respond to you in a conversational- You can't. You can't. We do have to move on. We do have to move on. At this point, we do have to move on, you know. Like, yeah, I'm trying to make sure, because like I know everybody's gonna just be like, oh yeah, we're fine to stay because everybody else is fine to stay, but really, you know, you're gonna be thankful, like I said, we can wrap this up in fair time. We do wanna, like I said, get some meat on the question. So let me just scroll back up here and we're gonna get a question for the other side. So make sure if you haven't already hit the like button. Once again, we really appreciate it. Boost us up in the algorithm. Next one coming in. Unconditional truth says, oh, we already read that one. Mr. E-Man says, Can Toby please explain how a model that does not exist that has never been presented and has absolutely no observational evidence to support it be straw manned? This one's just for you, one minute. I guess I would have to know like what that specific particularly in reference to. I'm assuming he's talking about some time earlier in the debate when I was accusing someone of doing a straw man. So I don't know, I'd have to kind of know what specifically that was about. But, you know, I may not be making, I may not have a full model to be bringing forward. What I am bringing forward is just clear evidence that one, there's no curvature. Two, there's no motion. And three, all of our understanding of geophysics is utterly flawed and based on a bunch of ad hoc understandings of things that are, you know, based on assertions about things that happened billions of years ago that we could never possibly substantiate and actually have been shown to be utterly false in numerous ways over the years, but we just ignore them and sweep them under the rug. You know, like carbon dating, radiological dating, yeah. All right. I need a striping on the ocean floor. Let's carry on from there. And thank you so much for your super chat and Toby for answering. So let's carry on. Somebody asked, can you, they said, can you lower Tony's mic level too much rage? Well, you know what? We get excited sometimes during the debates. I do want to read all the super chats, but try to keep them friendly and actually relevant. Unconditional truth says, Toby and Alan, how do appeals to authority appeal to credentials and appeal to a majority fallacies play in to the acceptance of the current globe religion? I'm gonna put more cadence on there. There's no punctuation much. Yeah. So if you're not allowed to question anything or figure things out for yourself and you could just be gas lit into, you don't have the credentials to look at it or whatever, then that's what maintains the glob essentially, right? Cause as we went through earlier, we went through interferometry. We talked about the fourth order, the fourth order order interpretation is something when there's literally, it's measuring a first order effect of motion, right? That doesn't exist in their model. And they're just like, no, I don't care. Totally still believe in that it's moving. So, you know, you can just gas light your way into anything really. All right. Any thoughts? I'm sorry, Darryl. We gotta try to move on, but the next one we get for you guys, yeah, we'll give the floor. Real quick, can I respond to it or? This one's for you guys. So go ahead, Toby. Oh, okay. Wait, should I go now? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So I would just say, you know, it's a perfect system that they've got set up. You've got high priests that have the math that you're not allowed to understand. And then they're gonna tell you that you're too dumb to know it. And that's a perfect control mechanism. It's literally like these, they have their own documents that they say that they're too complicated for us to look at. So yeah. All right. Whitsett gets it. I don't know what your interactions have been with Whitsett gets it, Tony, but he has accused you of interrupting the entire debate. And he's asking you why. Did you wanna say anything to Whitsett who's on here often debating the subject? Did you wanna carry on? Well, Whitsett actually makes it a point to interrupt every other sentence that somebody says with some sort of fallacy that he doesn't understand. But also I just object to being lied to. And if somebody presents, if somebody starts with a premise that I know to be false, they cannot have a valid argument. So if they say something that I know for a fact is false, I want to stop them there because the rest of what they're going to say is invalid because they've started with a falsehood. And in particular, the central falsehood here is that Toby and Alan assert with no evidence whatsoever that they have the credentials to properly understand the scientific literature. This is what exams are all about. And they can talk about it as though it's gatekeeping. They can talk about it as though it's some sort of oppressive measure. What it is is some attempt to keep science grounded in observational reality. And this is the thing that they've missed. They keep on talking about stuff for which there is absolutely no observational validation such as the ether. They mention it over and over again. Absolutely no evidence it exists. All right, thank you so much, Tony. Next one coming in from Mark says after show on which it gets it another notification there for that. And it sounds like he says, Tony take your, I think I'm colorblind, I think he's saying red pill, I'm not sure. But either way, I think you're invited over there to have a chat, but you're always welcome here to have that chat with Whitsitt on modern day debate. That's always fun. So LJ coming in 499. And I forgot to mention, LJ is our honorary Flat Earth questionnaire. He always, even when we're not having a debate about Flat Earth versus Globe, comes in to ask about the heliocentric model. So LJ we appreciate you. Why is Flat Earth the number one censored topic? As a moderator of many Flat Earth debates, I kind of take contention with that LJ. I mean, Well, to me, this is, well, I'm glad you asked. To me, this is one of the most dangerous and pernicious things. If you accept, if you reject the objective evidence we have regarding the shape of the earth, you can reject anything. You can, you know, to criticize the government, to criticize the government for lying to us, fine. Yes, the government does lie to us and we should hold them to account. There are misdeeds by politicians and by government officials. But if you're prattling nonsense about the Flat Earth, you're not actually holding the government accountable. You're distracting energy and effort that could be going into making the world a better place, a better, more constructive place. And you're directing it into a deranged fantasy. And that's the bottom line here. You have, if you remove yourself from observational reality, I brought in observations about the propagation of earthquakes. I brought in observations about rail track links. I brought in observations about navigation. I brought in all of this observational data and they just ignored it. They'd rather, No, we brought a bunch of substantive, specific reasons to remind everybody that we're using shipments or something. Rather they believe, This is their question. Rather they asserted with zero evidence again that they properly understand and have interpreted scientific literature that they manifestly have not. Any thoughts, Daryl, before we move on? I could just second that with Tony. I mean, there's this discussion as if, I believe I heard Toby say, Oh, they're saying we're not allowed to understand math. This, this, you can understand it or you don't. Nobody, there's, so. The rules are you're not supposed to invoke your opponent. Then no, I don't have to let them respond. I just thought it was, That's not true. There's more gaslight. The audience knows that's all he does as gaslight. It's all good. At the end of his statement, Toby, go ahead, Daryl, sorry. Yeah, so, I mean, so it seems really, really relevant. So there's nobody saying that. Like, for instance with NASA, you know, I had a brief experience of a, and when I was at community college of being in a learning experience with NASA and to be able to see a little bit of what they're doing and what they're working on and the ingenuity and the effort and the higher level that goes into what they're doing. It's amazing that people just say, don't believe NASA, but the fact is anybody can do their own science and math and understand what's going on. So. All right. Let us carry on. And thank you so much for your superchats and thank you for wrapping that up. For us, Daryl, let's see what's it gets. It says, Daryl actually said that MMX had nothing to do with motion. Ha ha, okay then. What did they use specifically to get their predicted fringe shift value? Tried to do justice there, brother. MMX? Yeah, that's what we have to say. That's what we have to say. Oh, no, no, I didn't say that. So it sounds like there was a misunderstanding. So I didn't say it had nothing to do with motion. What I said was, which is what the people said and which is what the understanding is that they were measuring relative motion between the motion of the earth and the ether. I didn't say it didn't have anything to do with motion. What I'm understanding from various factors, they try to say is measuring the motion of the earth in a period when the paper itself, as we show, looking at it, that's not what it's saying. So it definitely has to do with motion. It has to do with relative motion. No, that's the problem. Not just the motion of the planet which was already understood to be going on. They were measuring it. And they also mentioned ways to measure it relative to the solar system using Jupiter's, the orbit of Jupiter's moon. So all throughout the paper is clear that you recognize that there is a globe orbiting, orbiting the sun and so on and so forth. The contention was whether there was ether. Thank you so much, Darrell. Whitsa Gitzit, and I'll let you pick up on this one, Darrell, says, and why are you guys ducking the linearized satinic effect? That just didn't come up. So, I mean, looking at that and that's another one by Whitsa who reads these papers and doesn't understand what he's talking about or doesn't have the necessary understanding to see what's going on. If you look at the paper and read the Wang paper, the first one, the generalized satinic effect, they were simply pointing out the fact that they could do it in a linear fashion as well. So he actually talked about the fact that for navigation, some of these, they could utilize the circular and the linear one at the same time to increase accuracy. So I didn't see anywhere in the paper where it spoke anything to the effect that satinic is linearized now when there's no motion or like that. He was simply saying that it could also be done in a linear fashion into the first order fashion as far as the Wang second paper to get different results. That would have been 1999, 30 seconds over to Tony. Okay, the central issue here is that they don't understand the term linearized. So a first order effect is basically algebraically a linear effect. So it is linear in terms of the variable, but the variable here is the velocity of the planet divided by the velocity of light. Can you shut up, mate? So it's just a first order effect in that. It's not saying anything about the linearity of the velocity. Please reply. Please, I gotta beg you to reply because he just totally misspoke as nothing to do with the linearity of the variable. It's literally linear motion through the waveguide loop. All right, we let that one go and let's just carry on, fellas, and I'll let you have the last word there, Toby. How do you say your name? Your name is more complicated than some of the terms that have been coming up in here. What is this? Fistrilinous? Ah, man. Toby, if you disagree with the experimenter, you should do your own 100% flat earth experiments instead of this cherry picking and misunderstandings. More of a declaration and a statement, but I'll give you a minute to respond to honey's. I mean, the audience heard the debate tonight. They can make their own judgment about who's misunderstanding things. I mean, that was kind of just like a gaslighting question anyways, like I almost don't even really want to entertain it. What was the substantive question again? Can you please remind me? You asked you to do 100% flat earth experiments instead of cherry picking. Oh yeah, experiment. Literally every experiment that gets done just gets explained away anyways. Like it's been done over and over and over and over again and just gets explained away over and over and over again you either invoke a refraction that magically curves around the earth, perfectly relational to the way that it would make it appear that the earth's actually flat with relativity. They just invoke Lorentz transforms that you literally can't on substantial. The thing is like what I like to say about this when people bring this up is I have nothing to actually go to go dispute, right? I do not dispute the fact that in a theoretical universe that there's a theoretical reference frame in which light is constant. I do not dispute that. It's a theoretical reference frame that can never be falsified, never be substantiated. It's philosophically just totally bunk but I can't dispute something that's philosophically totally bunk because you can't even use real logic to dispute it. All right, let's carry on. I am for 4.99 says Daryl claims MMX has nothing to do with earth's orbital motion, but not to mention the title. You've been through that one. Oh, did I? Oh no, that the other woman's from which, sorry. Yeah, no. This is a different question, but the same. Yeah, yeah, I was gonna say this is a different one about a similar topic. So he says Daryl claims MMX had nothing to do with earth's orbital motion, but not to mention the title. It's mentioned in the first half of the first paragraph and that's their 10th super chat. Thank you so much for that. So are you wanting me to respond to that once this is similar? Yes, sir. So we're saying things before when you look at the paper, it clearly talks about the relative motion. So it talks about the earth, the Jupiter's moons. It talks about the motion of the solar system. It clearly shows that it understands that the earth is moving. It was talking about the relative motion of the earth to eat there and testing that. The no result was the fact that it didn't find ether. So I don't know how this, I don't know where, people I guess sometimes miss here, but I never recall saying, Tony, did I ever say that it was not about motion at all? I don't think so. I don't know where they're getting this from. So yeah, I don't know where they're getting this from, but maybe rewatch it and listen a little bit more closely of whoever is the people that keep asking that. I mean, Tony said the motion literally didn't matter. This one's for them. Tony conceded. Sorry, Toby. Please, please, please. I'm sorry, Toby. I don't want to mute you, but you can't talk over me. We're gonna carry on. I'm gonna just take you off the mute there. I am had a follow-up question. This says the effect was attributed to a simple composition of the velocity of light with the velocity of the earth and its orbit. First paragraph, MMX. We'll give you one minute there and then we'll carry on. Yeah, so, I mean, same thing. It talks about the motion of the earth, motion of Jupiter and its moons, relative motion of the solar system. So it's talking about motion and those things are moving relative to the ether. So I mean, I don't know how many times we could beat that dead horse. I'd like to say something. Yeah, I do. The claim made multiple times that I have considered geocentrism is a bare-faced lie. What I have said is the evidence relating to the geometry of earth is unrelated to the evidence, is independent of the evidence relating to its motion. And the fact that Toby can't seem to understand that does rather illustrate his inability to correctly interpret scientific literature. You've been invoked, Toby. So if you can come off mute, you can dig into this. The fact that I don't understand what was it? You weren't listening? Oh, what a surprise. Nah, yeah, I was looking at something on my computer. I missed what you said. Yeah, well, maybe pay attention to what you're doing. Okay, now will you repeat yourself for me, please? Nope. Okay, we can move on, James. Let's move on. All right. And just a reminder, I am Ryan. I know it says James on the Zoom chat, and yeah. You know, and I knew that, sorry. It messes everybody up all the time, so don't worry about it. It's a really minor thing. And everybody in the live chat, you behave yourselves. I know that I might look like James. I might be as buff as James, but I'm not. I'm kidding, obviously not. All right, so let's see. We got other questions. Woodside, oh wait, we got other ones from Woodside. Let's keep scrolling up here. Don't mind me, everybody. Lazy thumbs who haven't hit the like button. I'm calling you out. All right, so LJ says, why don't we have non-CGI footage of space in 2023? We do. I could get that one. Go ahead and show us. So I showed some photos in my country. Show us how they're CGI. Let's start there. Always get these. To me, it seems like a very dishonest question. How do we don't have any just as not CGI? When I've never seen any of them, I'm sure we're any picture of CGI. It's just a baseless claim. Why don't you show me a CGI? Why don't you get your evidence that they CGI, contact NDD and I'll come on and talk with you about it. How about that? You wanna talk about it, Tony? If anyone else wants to do the best of keeping it. Can I share my screen for a moment? Well, we are trying to keep it brief for the secret guys. Yeah, it's just one slide. But go ahead. We'll give you 30 seconds, go ahead. Once you get your screen share up, we'll start the timer. Okay, so these photos were taken in 1965. You provide the evidence to me that these were CGI'd. Further provide the evidence to me that it was even possible for them to CGI these images in 1965. You can't do either of those things because it wasn't. All right, well, thank you for the quick screen share there. I appreciate that. And you guys are gonna appreciate it too, because like I said, I've almost gotten to that point where the scroll bar has hit the halfway point. That's where you guys are at. So... Let's speed it up, brother, I'm out of here, I'm real. I'm doing what I can, I'm sorry, Alan. I don't mean to be keeping you guys, but... Super quick, brother, read real fast. Get in there. I can do it, I can do it. I won't waffle anymore. Even though last time I was on McTune, called me out for waffling while I scrolled and I messaged him after and asked him if he'd like some maple syrup with all my waffling that I do. Well, bro, you're not reading, you're fucking talking. Yeah, I know, right? I had to scroll, hold on a second here. Issa Kabir asks, first question. All panelists, please explain the different level order measurements with experiments. All right, we'll start there, Issa. So 15 seconds, Toby. So is it a direct measurement or is it not? Are you abstracting from it or are you not? It's essentially that's when you get into the fourth order, you've gone through four layers of abstractions, right? The reason that they try to say that the Mickelson-Morley interferometer is not a first-order measurement. 15 seconds. It's because you actually have to, it's relying on the two-way speed of light and so they have to make an assumption about what the one-way speed of light was. All right. It's a closed loop, right? 15 seconds over to you, Tony. Okay, no, a first-order experiment means that the effect that you're trying to isolate in your experiment is a first-order magnitude in the algebra. That's the distance, whereas a second-order experiment means that it's a second-order term in the algebra. Third-order term, it's got nothing to do with what was just suggested. That's a completely... So you wouldn't have to do algebra to deduce the one-way speed of light from two-ways? This is for all panelists. So 15 seconds on the floor, Daryl. All panelists, please explain the difference. Second to second, what Tony said, that's exactly what I was talking about, the Taylor expansion. The Taylor expansion, the first expansion, the first-order second is the second-order, which would be a slope, because that's the first derivative, and so on and so forth. So it has nothing to do with what you're talking about, which is why they don't understand what's going on with these papers and why some papers disregard higher orders of some papers, except lower orders, like with Wayne's second one. Thanks. Thank you so much, Daryl. Last word, Alan, 15 seconds on the floor. Please explain the different level order measurements with experiments. Oh, yeah. So I agree with most of what Daryl said, and I also agree with what Toby said. That's my contribution. All right. Thank you so much. Let's see, Med Urquhart says, Flat Earth, is it possible for Haverstein formulae to accurately describe all shortest path distances on a flat surface in Euclidean space? Dude, that's a great question. So we do have a linearized Haverstein formulae, but I can't present that right now. But the answer to the question though, the Haverstein formulae and the use of it would derive, that's how you derive distances on the globe, right? So this is what they're looking for with it. But yeah, we actually have that now. It's forthcoming, but yeah. Any thoughts over there, Toby, before we move on? Nope. All right. Let us carry on. So I'm just checking in on you guys in the live chat, making sure you're behaving yourself, seeing who all is still hanging out. What's it gets at asks, Daryl. You just got exposed after claiming you understood it way more. Answer the question. What is the proportional velocity being measured in MMX? Well, let's do 45 seconds going forward. Certainly, they were measuring their relative motion. I was trying to measure the relative motion of Earth to the ether. My purpose of reading the paper was not to understand it completely because it was my first time reading it. It was just to look at it and show that you don't understand it. And just like I've seen you present papers that you don't understand as well with it. So it's a common theme in Flatter Earth. As me and Tony pointed out, and they demonstrated for us over and over again. So. All right. Well, let's go back to Ease's second question. And he says, what is the place for credentials in Flatter Earth versus globe to all panelists? So 15 seconds over to you, Toby. What is the place for credentials in Flatter Earth versus globe? It's really complicated. I think in some cases we have to invoke people credentials because that's what people are used to. And that's the system that we, in a lot of ways live in. But at the same time, we saw Tony not even understand the computations of the 2D versus 3D waves. And that's apparently his profession. So you can't always just rely on people's credentials. That's a fallacy anyways. It's not a way to live your life. You need to go investigate things for yourself and trust your own instincts, trust your own intellect. And if you don't understand something, that's okay. But it doesn't mean that just because, I don't know. I'm okay with not understanding things. I'm not out here lying about understanding all this. That's still. Yes, you are. Okay. So to me, yeah. Well, you just made an assertion about me not understanding stuff. So the option that this was going to be polite interaction has long past. You've got, so let's apply this guy's methodology to flying a plane. So you don't need to listen to instructors. You don't need to read manuals. You can just get into a plane and just fucking crash it. You can go and do brain surgery because apparently you don't need qualifications to do brain surgery. You can just wander into a hospital, do it yourself. You don't need to study. You don't need qualifications. You can do it all yourself. That's not how anything works. All right. Over to you, Daryl. Another thing that comes to mind is martial arts. Sometimes you'll hook people say, oh, a black belt is just a belt. And that's usually coming from people who didn't train in martial arts. So about the same thing, people don't get a qualification normally just because it's granted. It's a demonstration of the learning and experimentation that was done to develop the understanding. That's what it's best with us about. Hell yeah. I'm going from a black belt right now. So I've got to just keep working out so I don't keep hurting myself. Alan, last question. So is it just a belt, Ryan? You let us know. Is it just a color? Is it the same as a white belt or does it actually matter? Oh, no. Does that potential stand for something? I was gonna say most people could probably kick my butt. So yeah. Alan, 15 seconds on the floor. Yeah. So I 100% agree with what Toby said and I 100% agree with what Daryl said. And I didn't agree much with what the other guys, Tony said. Okay, awesome. Yeah. I just want to point out- Next question please. No. We should move on to the next question. We are, like I said, just a little over halfway. And yeah, just because I can teach kids how to kick does not mean I'm a great fighter. So Space Miner says, Ryan, you're awesome. Hey, that's a great comment. Thank you, Ryan, you're awesome. Don't forget your power to press the issue as well. Moderator has to say where the debate goes to. I mean, I have thoughts about that. So maybe I'll respond. Right quick, Space Miner. We try to let things be as open as we can on modern day debate. We want to make sure that we keep things on subject. We want to make sure that we're keeping things cogent, polite, and somewhat juicy and fiery at the same time. We don't want to completely choke off our speakers and say you can't be your personality on screen. So, you know, I try to interact when the speakers ask. Like when Toby asked for a minute, I'll give you a minute. You know, you just got to ask just how she goes and I'm not shy about it. So. Ryan, you have the patience of a saint. Don't be shy about it. Oh, thank you. I was going to say, yeah, ultimately, I am in total control. I can kick people out. I can mute people when I need to. I'm just very chill. So Whitsa gets it asks, why does GPS have an account for C plus V for both? C plus or minus? Well, Tony and Daryl, I think they're sorry. That's okay. Well, that features into the distance calculations. I don't understand why that, you know, this is, I'm not an expert. I work with people who are experts in GPS who have written their own inversion software. They use GPS to track the motion of continental plates. I've been on a GPS survey, but I'm not into the weeds on the formulation, but it doesn't matter. The reality is GPS works. You want to demonstrate that flat earth, you want to demonstrate flat earth, use GPS to demonstrate a flat earth. Show me that if we put a GPS on a ship that the ocean doesn't curve because it does. Show me that you've got some other way of doing things. And I know I like this. We've got a distance formula that's going to work. Trust me, it's over there in the cupboard. Don't ask to see it because God alone knows we never do anything in the real world. But yeah, it works. I don't know the details of it. So there. All right, let's carry on. And James said, Ryan is so big. Tony, I'm sending you an Excel sheet on Discord real quick. It has the haversine formula. You can take a look at it. And somebody else asked me to say it with my chest. If I say it with my chest, then it's going to be a real nightmare around here. Like I said, I'm going to play that tune at the end. Are you on medicinal mass media, Tony? I could put it in the general chat there. Oh, okay. Oh, he's in our Zoom chat if you want to post anything in there. That's cool. Can you send Excel files? I guess you can, right? PDFs, let me try. With Tony's consent, I can connect you guys via email if you want to send links back and forth. Sure. Yeah, if you want to actually have it, but I can't share it unless, yeah, it won't let me drop it in. Okay. I'll get the email it to you. I'll connect you guys via email once we're done. Howard Moore asks, with the actual documents being read, a reflecting intent method and conclusions will Toby, Alan and Whitsit continue to misrepresent them? Bring Whitsit in, my goodness. Go ahead, guys. Yeah, I mean, jeez. I don't really agree with that and I think that I'm going to defer to what Toby says for my opinion. Yeah, I mean, that's your opinion. I would bet that if we were to have a debate about this topic, that you haven't even done any surface level investigation into it. If you have a substantive contention with something that we've read into, you can go meet us up on ethercosmology.com, ethercosmology YouTube. We literally read the papers live on the air, so you can leave your comment down there. We may or may not comment. We try to when you're actually acting in good faith and asking a question in good faith. But yeah, we definitely don't misrepresent any of these papers. And the fact that you didn't like, if you actually saw something there that you knew substantively we misrepresented, then you would have your super chat would have been a very excited super chat to tell us why in with substance, what we did was misrepresent the paper, right? But you didn't do that. Instead, you just had to make yourself feel better by saying that we must be misrepresenting these papers because that's the only way that the ground beneath your feet can be moving and you can be on a spinning space ball, tilting wobbling in the corner of the universe. I'm glad I deferred my opinion to Toby. Well said. All right, thank you, Toby. And next question coming in says, what's it gets at Tony? You said word salad 10 times. Can you define it? Well, there are two technical, there are two, there's a technical definition where word salad is the babbling of a mentally ill person. And there is a colloquial use of the expression in which it's just a sequence of meaningless jargon. For instance, the last time I got to talk to Witsit, he introduced the phrase centrifugal divergence, centrifugal divergence as though this is physically meaningful, as though it has some sort of scientific value. It's utterly meaningless. The only person who uses this is Ken Wheeler. It's not in any scientific literature whatsoever. It's not in any textbooks. It's without, it is devoid of meaning. It is word salad. And the fact that Witsit and the other Ken Wheeler fans swallow it whole. Yeah, that's why they shouldn't be, that's why their scientific opinion shouldn't be trusted. I better turn my preamp back on. See, this is a mic that needs a fan of power. I got a little button there. Gotta be careful. It's just a description of pure potential from a magnet, essentially, of a magnetic field. Well, no it isn't. Thanks for pulling us full circle. Matt Hightower says one, all right, so he's got two questions here. One is a SpaceX also in this conspiracy to fake space. So Alan, first thoughts. Yes. And then also going to go ahead and defer to Toby for any additional information regarding the faking of space. Yeah, I don't know man, like I'll just say like from my own personal perspective, I, you know, once I realized that I could even invoke the idea that the ground beneath my feet's not moving and let go of all these Einsteinian paradoxes. It was, you know, it was really good for my cognition. But yeah, I don't trust Elon Musk. I don't trust SpaceX. You know, I think that he's done some cool things with free speech, kind of it seems like, but he's clearly in the club. He's clearly been propped up. He used Tesla as his piggy bank for, you know, for like a decade there. Yeah, and he was held up with all that. I think he's tied to Bitcoin too. You know, he was part of the original PayPal crew. The fact that the Bitcoin, that the person that created Bitcoin is a mystery is not a coincidence. That's CIA by design. All right, and the second part of this question is, what the F, am I seeing when I look up and see a string of starling satellites orbiting the Earth if they are not in fact orbiting the globe planet? They're just flying by in a line. And that we, you know, like we didn't really get to get into perspective very much in the way that we perceive the sky and the way that things converge into the distance as they, so that's why things appear to go up and over you and down because it's actually as they come out, they emerge from your angular resolution point, right? They emerge from that and then they come over you and they go over top and it looks like an arch and then they converge again back in the distance. And that's actually why with the sun, it's kind of like what you see with herpuscular rays, right? They come out from one side and then they go over you and they go back to the other side. And those are actually straight lines, but they look to be curving because of the way that you're looking from a single point in space out through a 3D world. All right, any thoughts there, Alan, before we move on with the 20 seconds? Yeah, yeah, we can go ahead and get the next one. All right, thanks buddy. Oh, let's see what we got. We got unconditional truth says, can Alan explain the implication of Newton's bucket? Well, you got your spinning bucket. You got your laws of physics which are all derived on a stationary non-rotating, you know, inertial frame when Newton put the, when Newton was spinning the bucket, he said, well, there must be an absolute space somewhere. It's definitely not on earth because I'm a Copernican lad and I believe in all this motion that's never been measured or anything like that. So, you know, absolute space must be somewhere. So that's a quick TLDR on the bucket. Okay, they also ask you, what is the importance of the lab frame? Well, the lab frames were the, all the laws of physics were derived. So super important. All right. And Alan and Toby, what does Newton's bucket tell us about physics? Hmm, it tells us that there is an absolute rest frame. Where is it? Where can we find it? Is it in the stars? Is it on earth? We may never know. It's on earth. And just, just extrapolate a little bit on Newton's bucket, right? The idea is that you have a bucket with water. I know Alan to want to really fast earlier but you have a bucket with water in it. And as you spin the bucket, the water will start to go up the sides of the bucket, right? And so say you put someone inside the bucket, you have to say it's a giant bucket and you put someone on the edge of the bucket. Well, to the person on the edge of the bucket, they're not gonna be able to tell whether they're spinning or whether the water inside and the person inside is spinning and the person on the inside, they're not gonna be able to tell whether it's, you know, the other way around. But the thing that is different is that the water ran up the sides because that's the dynamic effect of the actual motion. So there's a difference between, you know, these reference frames cannot be purely transformed from one to the other. That's, you know, they need a Einstein to do that. All right. Whits gets it says, Daryl, can you explain why there is constantly, in caps, a fringe shift measured in MMX? Start there. I'm gonna have to look at the paper again to see if that's even true. I've found that Whitsett doesn't always tell the truth. So I won't take his word on, that's what it says. Yeah. The authors of the paper attributed the signal that they detected to experimental error. And I don't see, Whitsett is adducing no evidence that their opinion should be second-guessed. He's just asserting that experimental noise should be accepted as though it's real. And that's not how science works. Sorry to cut you off there, Tony. But he did follow up on that question. He says, doesn't a consistent detection directly refute heliocentricism slash relativity? No, the fact that you consistently get non-zero noise doesn't mean that there's a signal. You can, let's take an example of rolling 3D6 or 3 six-sided dice. My prediction, the most accurate prediction possible is that the average is going to be 11. But the error, that's the best estimate that you can have. But the error is just going to be some random number, somewhere between seven and a half and a half. So, even though our theory is absolutely correct, our experiment produces error. That's just how experimental noise works. All right, we gotta move on. No, you don't get to talk. We gotta move on. I'm so sorry there, Toby. Yeah, I saw you put your hand up, but yeah. Eric Walters says, sorry, Walter says, flat earth says the sun sets over the horizon because it's far away. If it was simply far away, couldn't I still see it with a telescope or something? Toby, first thoughts. I'm trying to think of how I can tie in Dayton Miller with this question. So, maybe if you were to take it into the front. The middle of the sun? Huh? No, okay, I won't do that. I really wanted to reply to the last question, but in any case, so with this, it's simple. It's convergence into the distance. I explained it pretty explicitly in the beginning. I'm sorry, maybe it's not simple. Sorry, but essentially, as things get further and further away, the relationship of the way that they disappear into the horizon, that point where they start to turn, they start to compress into the point where you can't perceive them anymore, that relationship is actually not linear. It's like a parabolic drop-off. When you hit that point where you're losing resolution, you hit a point where things can no longer be seen. Alan, any thoughts for the last 10 seconds? Yeah, what Toby said, next question. Okay, I am moving in to 30 seconds to move out some of these super chats. So, RM, to globe and flat is math science. We'll just keep it yes or no. Is math science? Toby, yes or no? No, it's a different field. It's a different thing. Math describes things. Science explains things. We'll keep it short for this one. Is math science? What Toby said? Thank you, Alan. Tony, is math science? No, mathematics is the language of science. We'll put it another way. Mathematics is deductive, whereas science is inductive. And Daryl is math science, yes or no? No, it's a tool that science utilizes. Okay, thank you. Mike Jones, I guess I shouldn't say yes or no. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Before we move on, I also agree with what Daryl said. Cool. All right, yeah. Agreement is always a great thing on the stream. And you know what? I've hosted Alan before, and I gotta appreciate you for being an amicable dude. Sorry, I have to say that properly. Well, thank you, sir. Yes, I appreciate your attitude. So, Mike Jones, I think it was done in a fair day cage and you're going to have to prove it wasn't Tony. That's in quotes. Oh, maybe it was done in a fair day cage. Also, Tony, one minute later. So, Tony, this person's coming right at you. They're in quotes. I mean, so, but this completely misses the point that I was making, which is that Alan was asserting that an experimental effect that he was completely unaware of, given 20 seconds to actually look at it, he decided that this was due to changing electrical potential. Now, he could demonstrate that by doing the same experiment at a variety of electrical potential gradients, but he's done absolutely none of that. Instead, he's just a submate in assertion and completely overlooked the rest of the observational database. All right, thank you so much. Which it gets it. Tony, can you explain GPS meridian corrections? 30 seconds. Meridian. Meridian, thanks. Meridian corrections. No. There you go. Okay, JD. Another one for you, Tony. Hold on, I'll come back to you. Leo Crowe, never once in human history has nuclear fusion on the sun been proven. The axial rotation of the sun disproves it completely. This is another one, I think for you, Tony. Why is the heliocentric model nothing but paradoxes? 30 seconds, Tony. Well, we can prove that the spectral lines in the light emitted by the sun do correspond to fusion effects. We can confirm that there are effects. There are subatomic particles being produced and emitted by the sun consistent with a fusion effect. We can also notice mass being ejected from the sun, and that mass takes three days to reach Earth. So the idea of a local sun is completely disproven by that alone. Thank you so much for that. Daryl, did you have any thoughts before we move on? Pretty much touched on it. I mean, we could examine the sun. I find that the flat Earth, they make these claims but do no astronomy whatsoever. So, I mean, Tony covered it. Okay, well, thank you so much. I do want to return to Witzit's question. Which question? I just, the question about meridian correction, I can find no publications on this subject. I don't know what he's talking about. Witzit has asked a lot of questions, to be fair. JD asks, my goodness, yeah, that's another one for you, Tony. I want to get one that's maybe for somebody else and then we'll come back. Flat Earth, do you agree one degree equals 69 miles? Yep. I don't know, I never verified it. Okay, let's see. Having a degree only proves you can memorize books is a statement by LJ, coming at Daryl and Tony. Any thoughts about having a degree only proves that you can memorize books? It's absolutely untrue. The critical, having a degree has two things. One, you are educated with facts that you can recall but two, your ability to apply these facts to solve real world problems is critical. So, it's the second element that is the critical part, being able to think critically and apply scientific facts to real world problems. And this is where Flat Earth completely falls over. There is not a single real world problem that Flat Earth has solved. They can't navigate, they can't calculate distances, they can't do anything. So, of what scientific value is Flat Earth? Okay, next one coming in. Actually, yeah, that one was for both of you. Did you have any thoughts, Daryl, about having a degree only proves you can memorize books? L.G. is always coming at you. I guess I do have a thought. Right now, I currently have two associate degrees, summa cum laude. I'm a senior, working on my double in physics and astronomy. I can tell you it's not only about memorizing things. Going back to my anatomy, that's somebody who obviously never did martial arts in other words. So, I mean, we have to not only learn and we do have to memorize stuff, we also have to apply like Tony said, consistently in physics we have to do labs. I myself tested Newton's equations and tested by measuring things forward and how to calculate things. I myself used a spectrograph and had to measure, calculate the lines of helium and nitrogen to show that these lines come from gases that electrified, which Tony meant refer to when we know things are in the sun. So, these things we have to learn how to do ourselves to even understand and to understand enough to get our degree. So, this is something not true. All right, JD coming in and says, PhD Tony Less. In quotation, he says, um, still so, so, still sober? I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. He says, brilliant job showing how wrong flatter those are. JD, I can only assume that you're just making haza for Tony. So, thank you so much for the fan super chat. We'll carry on. What's it gets that says, Tony, can you explain GPS? Oh, yeah, we just did that one. Again, that's what I looked up. No publications on this. So, I don't know what you're referring to. Paul Marmont, the constant velocity of light. The constant, yeah. GPS, the constant velocity of light. Well, show me a publication. That's the publication. So, Geocentric Truth asks for, they accuse you of being angry Tony. They call you angry Tony. Well, explain why we see less stars when you fly at night in an airplane. Anything to say to Geocentric Truth? Yes, you mean fewer stars, but the reason would be glare off the inside of your window. That it's as simple as that. All right, there you go. He's not taking the bait Geocentric. You're gonna have to try again. Mike Jones says, the Vikings who got blown off course to Canada were doing transatlantic voyages. Dash Tony, they're quoting you again. Yes, well, they were trying to get from Iceland to Greenland, right? That's not a transatlantic voyage. They got blown off course. So, that's not a deliberate voyage. They got blown off course to Canada and then they sailed back to Greenland. Sailing from Greenland to Canada is not a transatlantic voyage. You're not going across the entire ocean. So, it's not a transoceanic voyage. You're island hopping. You're going from Iceland to Greenland to Canada. All right, that's perfect time right there. Oh, Canada, yes. I'm here and I'm loving it, honestly. Like, it's not a bad place. Boo, boo. Yeah, you can boo me all you like. All right, so Unconditional Truth says Adarel. Actually, before we ask this one from Unconditional Truth, let's try to pass it over. Eric Walters says, for the Flatside, who is masterminding the global conspiracy and what's their motivation? Who all is officially in on the conspiracy? We'll give you guys 45 seconds between the two of you. You said a list of the labs that are in on the conspiracy? Is that the question? Well, here, I'll stop the timer. So, who is masterminding the global conspiracy and what's their motive? Who all is officially in on the conspiracy? Oh, yeah, nah, I'm good on that. I defer to Toby or anyone else who wants to answer it. Daryl, you want to take a crack at it? I could speculate, like, all night about it, but what good does that do anybody? All right, you got it. Let's see, Unconditional Truth then. Daryl, if lasers, you guys said this earlier, oh my God. Laser interferometry? Were to show a correlation between the emotions of the celestial bodies and fringe shifts, would that falsify relativity? Well, I can't say I understand the correlation between matter and relativity to say, it would have any effect of it. This is one of the things that I hear flattered to get wrong, probably intentionally. So, you know, relativity is basically the an over-encompassing system that encompasses Newton laws that basically could calculate motion at relativistic speeds and things like that. So, I don't see how anything like interferometry would nullify it anyway. And in a sense, it reinforces it by the fact that the time is different in different directions, according to whether the device is moving. And we have to calculate things like that in my modern physics class, when I actually learned relativity and about proper time and reference frames and the allylane transformation and so on and so forth that these guys currently haven't learned. So, I don't see the correlation. Sorry to cut you off there. What's it gets it says, so, Atoni, why did you duck that it would work on a flat earth if you account for a time differential? Your model requires time differentials and speed assumptions, 30 seconds. No, it doesn't. So, our model doesn't require time corrections. It's the flat earth model that requires the time adjustments that are applied arbitrarily. And there's a distance out to which that will work. It won't work indefinitely. So, and as for the assumptions of velocity, we actually have observational data. We have rocks from volcanoes. We can take them into laboratories, subject them to pressure and temperature and examine the passage of seismic waves through them so we can determine their seismic properties and their seismic velocities observationally. Thank you. For strong relinique, whatever your name is, I'll say it weirdly every time. Toby, why not do your own 100%? I think you asked this one. You've done that one. Yeah, I must have scrolled up just a little tiny bit. You see, I got lazy fingers sometimes. Bruh, you got one job. How's it going on over here? One job. And Marinov tried to do it. He tried to publish his own paper and he got thrown out of a library window, so. Alan, why are you trying to flame me, buddy? I'll give you a call. Trying to keep you on task, brother. No, you can't do that. I was gonna say, it's an ADHD man. You're gonna just throw me right off, you do that. No, flat out fudge says, PhD Tony says, so the earth wouldn't move under the helicopter even with it being suspended in the air. And we did read that one. My finger, my finger, I swear. Tony, why do you lie about having a PhD? Awesome town, Matt, just makes an accusation. Thanks for that. Let's not entertain. Mike Jones says. No, I'll take that. Any flat earther who wants to know if I have a PhD. I bet you, I bet you 10 grand, I do. Everybody trying to make money on this channel. I'm gonna pony up the money, put it in an escrow and we can sort this out. I can confirm that he has a PhD. I just downloaded his thesis like 10 minutes ago. Yeah, I was gonna say everybody's been making bets on this channel lately. I mean, some people are gonna be losing money or making money, I don't know. Mike Jones, neutrinos are claimed to have three natural sources, cosmic rays, the sun and supernova. Tony is a fraud and Daryl has, ah, he's just being rude. Anyways, let's just try to ask his question. Sorry, Mike. Neutrinos are claimed to have three natural sources, cosmic rays, the sun and supernova. Yes, saying that some cosmic rays are neutrinos is not the same as saying that cosmic rays are neutrinos or neutrinos are cosmic rays. It's a logical fallacy to say that a property of the subset therefore replaced the whole. He was looking at studies of cosmic rays and then trying to say, well, this must be what neutrinos are like. And in particular, he was trying to say that this is what solar neutrinos must be like. Solar neutrinos and cosmic rays, the vast majority of cosmic rays, for instance, the ones that produce spallation. Five seconds. The produce cosmogenic radionuclides. They are not neutrinos. They interact with matter demonstrably. Okay, any thoughts, Daryl, before we move on? Oh, I'm just getting into that. So I'm just aware that there's experiments that detect them, but somebody got it. All right, let's reset that timer. And a flat list says, can an airplane flying a north-south land on the equator if the earth is spinning 1,000 miles per hour east-west underneath it? I'll let you start, Daryl. Certainly, it goes back to the point earlier, like if you're on a bus and the bus is moving and you jump, the bus doesn't just suddenly speed away from you. So about the same token relative to the airplane, they're the earth is stationary until it takes off. So it only picks up the speed that it takes off relative to the planet. So I'm not sure why that's still such a big issue. Okay. Again, the atmosphere is rotating at the same speed and is roughly the same speed as the planet underneath it. So the motion of the plane coincides with the motion of the ground as it goes in and the pilot will, any small residual due to winds the pilot will correct for. All right, that is time. So Witze gets it, says, Tony, can you define a credentials fallacy? 30 seconds. A credentials fallacy would be somebody saying that they are right just because they have credentials, which is not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is I am saying that I have the scientific literature backing my position. That's not a credentials fallacy. So if I have scientific observations and scientific studies that validate my position, that is not the same as an assertion from authority. And the, but the fallacy that these guys have is that they are searching that they are properly qualified to read, interpret and represent the contents of scientific papers when they are manifestly not able to. We gotta move on. Can I make a clarification real quick, please? I actually never claim that. I'm just a guy that reads PDFs on the internet. So that's explicitly what I don't claim. I encourage people to do it. So you're willing to admit, I just need two seconds bro and I'm done. So anyway, I encourage people to do their own research and not just read, but I read. But if you're, you know, so you accept that you are not qualified to correctly interpret and represent the contents of scientific papers, yet here you are doing it. What do you mean by, I don't wanna engage with you. Yeah, you're right, 100%. His argument is that you should hand over the authority of all your thoughts to the institutions. No, my argument is that you should restrict your authoritative utterances to subjects that you demonstrably well understand. And if science is not one of those subjects, don't opine on it. I'm sure you have a profession that you are good at. I'm sure you are an expert in your profession. I don't turn up at your work and say, you don't know what you're doing. We're moving down a different path Tony. Yeah, we wanna have a chit chat afterwards, we can. Mind Mastery TV, the globe Earth proponents are actually pushing me away from the globe. Why would you guys need to scream, interrupt and guess like the Flat Earthers? So Mind Mastery is making a commentary on the Meta. We've tried to avoid that. I'm so sorry, Mind Mastery, we've gotta move on and I'm sorry, we've done a lot of Meta discussion back forth. So IM says, thanks a lot, Ryan. You skipped over both of my super chats. Well, try to keep them on subject. I'm doing what I can guys, but we've got so many super chats and if they're not relevant, if they're just like calling out speakers, we've gotta move on. We can't just sit here insulting speakers and just making little gotchas. Let's keep it relevant. Richie Constitution says, thank you, Darrell. You proved that Toby and Alan don't know nothing about Sighan's globe with the wind. So much for relevant, but you know what? I did say we like the fan super chats as well because we can just move through. Matt Urquhart says, by what mechanism does a coordinate system enable a spherical geometry to work on a flat plane without transforming the object itself? Thoughts, Alan or Toby? I mean, I don't know. Like I tried to explain, right? It's not, like the question's kind of malformed. They're acting like I, like they took a flat earth map and morphed it to a globe or something. Like I explained earlier, right? That it's all based on centuries of observations being fit to a globe model. I don't have centuries of observations to fit to a flat earth model to try and extrapolate out distances across oceans. There's really no good way to do that. The only way that they can do it is using the sky and the magnetic field, which it turns out is not necessarily so straightforward to do. And they have to make insane magnetic declination corrections in the cell, like insane rates. Like it gets to a point in certain parts of the southern oceans where they have to go like 70, 80% corrections. So it's not so straightforward. All right, we got to carry on there. So Witzigitz, it says Daryl keeps talking about understanding math and he doesn't understand the basic equation of MMX. What is the equation 2Dx of v squared slash of v squared mean? It's not necessary to understand that, to understand that data, knew what they were talking about. It was simply to understand, necessarily to understand the Taylor expansion. So that's, you know, so, in other words, as Tony is talking about, these papers are being done at the PhD level by PhDs. Taylor expansion is undergraduate math, maybe even high school math. So if you don't understand that, you can't possibly understand what these people are talking about, which we demonstrated, and which Tony demonstrated with the Thomas Braves paper. It's not a gaslight. It's simply a fact that there's not an understanding here. We're moving to, you're fine. As I say, we're going to move into 15 seconds here just to get everybody moved out because we're reaching past, far past the three-hour mark. LJ, Daryl, why is your background fake CGI and not real 15 seconds? Say that one more time, please. He's asking you why your background is fake CGI and not real. Oh, well, I don't really pay attention to whether that was real or not. I just thought it looked cool and it represented that I was on the globe side. So, but if you actually have proof that photos that are presumably that's low pictures that are CGI, please bring them in when we can talk about it. All right. Nominal used their Super Chat, or sort of their membership chat to say, all the space cameras and Daryl use CGI globe pic. Bring the evidence. Shazam says, Toby, why do you think Tony is such an, well, Shazam, that's your first Super Chat. Well, you asked why do you think Tony is such an angry elf? That's just not being polite. We've got better things we can say to all of our students. Hey, Ryan, how many more Super Chats we got out there, brother, like probably 10? Yeah, we're getting down to the bottom of the list here. So don't you worry, buddy, I'll get you out of here in just two seconds, don't worry. Yeah, you're good, you're good. Yeah, yeah. I just wanted to get an ETA because it's like, you know, as long as I've got how much time we got, I can make it through the rest of this. Oh yeah, what time is it for you, bud? Let's keep going. Okay, no worries. Cool. Flat Earthers, how high is the sun and why when you use common Flat Earth claim of 3,000 miles into a right angle, you find the sun would never go below 13 degrees in the sky at the furthest point, making sunsets impossible. You only got 15 seconds, so make the best of it. Well, that's a really good question. I'm gonna have to reconsider my Flat Earth position I hadn't looked into sunsets. All right, any thoughts over there, Toki? Yeah, the sun appears to be in a parent position. If it's being invoked through a dome, then it's gonna make it even more complicated and there's insane levels of refraction. We don't, if we don't even know the distance, we don't have observations of things at 3,000 miles than any other context on the Earth. So you have no idea what's gonna happen with refraction rates at those sorts of, yeah, there you go. Thanks so much, Toby. Eric Burns says, Toby and Alan, if a boat on the horizon goes out of view, why can't we see stars on the horizon, which are further away? Perspective isn't an answer. I'll give you 15 seconds each, Toby first. I made it pretty clear earlier, but it's all about angular resolution. So if the distance of the star is further, then it's gonna have even less angular resolution. Any thoughts there, Alan? Yeah, so you missed the question. Tony, it's there. Why can we see the star with smaller angular resolution than the boat? If they missed the question, I'm so sorry, but yeah, Alan, did you have any question? But any thoughts on that for 15 seconds? No, we're gonna continue. All right, Rodney Borden asks, why do globers always invoke a closed system with a solid barrier? Then they try to explain why the Earth never rotates underneath airborne objects. Thoughts there, Daryl? Evoke a closed system. I don't remember ever saying there was a closed system. Stop laying on opposition. That's what I think about this. All right, so a question. Any thoughts? Yes, that would be gravitational acceleration that cleaves the atmosphere to Earth just like it does for Venus, just like it does for the Sun, just like it does for Saturn. The idea that there needs to be some sort of container is gibberish. All right, thank you. Dan Hoffman. Tony, he's asking why you scream and all the while. Daryl, he's accusing you of, why are you guys gasoline through the entire debate is what Dan is accusing you guys of? I mean, I pulled up the article and showed. I asked them what this fourth order mean. They didn't know. That's what a teller expansion means. They didn't know. They pulled up the cosmic ray article, didn't relate to neutrinos. They didn't know. I didn't gaslight. I simply pointed out a fact. Okay, any thoughts there, Tony, before we move on? Yes, I do. Pointing out that they don't have a sound scientific understanding is not gaslighting. What we should have spent this entire debate doing is talking about observations. Observational evidence. We should have been talking about train tracks. We should have been talking about shipping lines. We should have been talking about navigation. But instead, they want to imagine that they understand scientific cases. I can't let him sit here just insult us like this. This is insane, Brian. That's why I'm trying to bring it forward. They both just literally sat there and insult us. Now we don't get a chance to respond. That's crazy. I don't even want a chance, dude. I just want to get through this, dude. If you could do your answer without gaslighting us or insulting us, that would be much appreciated, bro. We've got shit to do after this. Let's wrap it up. Playing that you don't understand scientific papers is not an insult. All right, let's roll it out, guys. We only got what? Just a few more to go here, a few more to go. What are you guys doing? Let's see if we can really go through something because there's a few. Can go 44. I have a question for the Flats. If I'm standing in Auckland and my mate is standing in a bluff that's 1600 kilometers apart, experience sunrise at the same time, why does my other mate in Sydney that's only an extra 680 kilometers have to wait three hours for sunrise? Any thoughts there, Flats? This is a non-exclusive question. This would be the same on both models. I mean, our model's really easy to explain. We literally just look at the sky and say that's the model, right? It's just like, if you're going to invoke, like we already went over earlier, there's literally a kinematic equivalence in your model because you have to invoke this like crazy pseudo, you have to call everything pseudo forces. You have to essentially, you have to assert the idea that all reference frames are equal. I moved it down to 10 seconds. We are in speed round mode, guys. What's it gets at? Daryl keeps talking about understanding math and he does not even understand the basic equation of MMX. What's the equation of, he's asking the same question. You got 10 seconds. I think you re-read the same one, bro. I think what's it might be asking it again. It's okay. I yield his question. He doesn't have to answer that. You're good, Daryl. It's the formula for the fringe. It's the formula for the fringe offset. Respect, Tony. All right. Well, let's see. Kango 44 question for Witsit. Witsit's not even here, Kango. Is the money for you to spend on super jets coming from your audit NASA fund? Oh, you're so silly. FE Nation says, for the globes we can experiment, come to Tennessee. We will go eight miles away from the phone towers. GPS and phones don't work. Explain why. 10 seconds. Well, that's interesting because I've been into the highlands of New Guinea where there's no radio contact and no cell towers and I was able to make GPS observations perfectly. So I don't know what you're prattling about. Witsit gets an audit NASA fraud fund. It didn't even raise enough to pay for the website. I paid for almost all of it over my own pocket. But by all means, keep slandering me. He responded to, I can't go. Joshua Jamie says, there are stars seen in Egypt and Cyprus which are not seen in northerly regions. You're astutile. 10 seconds, pal. Yeah, that's because we're on a spherical body and as you move south, you can see stars that are further south. It's fairly easy. Counten Dyscalcula says, talking about credentials and professions to all, what is your highest level of education? What is your specialist topic? What is your profession? Sorry, Counten Dyscalcula, but that's very personal. If you want to learn more about our speakers, they will be tagged in our description at the bottom. If we don't have their links there, now we will post credits here. So just stay tuned for that and anybody who doesn't have their link there, send it to me and I'll try to get it in there before the end of the night. Mr. Eman says, for Alan, can you explain the Shilin Benisk and Tagunska events? Shilin Benisk and Tagunska. Thank you. Have extensive scientific studies. There are people who have purchased parts of their meteorites regarding these events. So we can move on if that's so. Yeah, I'm not sure. All right. What's it gets it says? It says their meteorite impacts in Russia. One of which was filmed. All right. Sorry, I will connect you guys via email, but yeah, we'll try to hurry up just cause like I said, Alan's got some other stuff. He's got 10 too and we're over time. What's it gets it? Since you claim we have two default to credentials in the field, is PhD Robert Bennett thesis and relativity correct when he says Earth is stationary? 10 seconds. No. He has to, in order to be accepted as valid science, it has to be published, peer reviewed and then validated by subsequent studies. What's it gets it asks from divergence to convergence, centrifugal and as centripetal forces in history, Cambridge University. Tony is Cambridge University using word salad. 10 seconds. Can you repeat the question? Oh yeah, I'll pause that. From divergence to convergence centrifugal, centrifugal force and centripetal forces in history, Cambridge University. Without context, his question is meaningless. Okay. Whitsitt also asks, so Tony you cannot explain GPS meridian corollage corrections but you claimed Alan was wrong about it. I looked that up. There's no such thing Whitsitt. He says, Al-El-El. You pulled up the paper I told you to grab? He says, since you were in, since I was speaking at the time and you haven't shared it in chat. I didn't use the question. Perhaps don't interrupt me while I'm talking, mate. I told you the title. All right. The question was- While I was talking. He said- So hold on. The question's not over. So he said, this is weird. Maybe Alan can help you understand. I doubt it very much. Yeah. So it's in the paper that Toby referenced. What Paul Marmay referenced. Yeah. What Paul Marmay references in that paper are the international clock standards for synchronization for two different organizations. So if you're familiar with like the IEEE, the two that he references, like the equivalence of that, it's the IRU or something like that. IRUC or something like that. Best time. So anyway, it's in there. Thank you so much. So you're sending me, you're sending me a reference from Biological and Health Sciences. That's the journal you're citing in relation to GPS. Biological and Health Sciences. That's the journal. Okay. And you think it's relevant. That is not valid science, mate. That's just somebody's opinion. All right. We gotta be ready to look at it and have an attention to the methodologies. Give it away. That's literally references engineering documents like I told you earlier. No scientific validity or scientific weight whatsoever. Let's move on guys. Zone television media asks, why do Flat Earthers use conjecture and deconstruct, deconstruct trucksinism? What with all these terms this evening? Toby, 10 seconds. Sorry, I missed the question. Why do Flat Earthers use conjecture and deconstruct tinism? Deconstruct. Deconstructionism. They missed it. Yeah, I was gonna say, that's why it's not... The question's malformed. I'm not gonna answer it. It's typo. That's why I can't pronounce it. Well, I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming your misreading of it. Like literally the question's malformed. It's a gotcha question. They're baking their assertion into the question. So if I even answer the question, it's kind of like, you know, like they're winning. No worries. Let's carry on. Kengo says, what's it spending? Someone's trying to jerk you off online, Toby. Is that what's happening there? Jesus. My, my. What's just happened? All right. Kengo for you says, wow, what's it spending all this griff money tonight? Kengo's coming right at you, what's it? Maybe you should hang out together and get your grievances out. Matt, your card says, Flat Earth is it logically valid to accept a person's expertise as a good reason to believe their expert advice is true? Alan, 10 seconds. Yeah. So I didn't listen to any of that and I don't want you to reread it. I just want to move on to the next question, please. Thank you. Did you have any thoughts there, Toby? I missed the first half of it. I heard special relativity isn't true. Don't make them reread it, bro. Just, let's roll. You, if we got to try to give them Matt paid five bucks for this, man. Flat Earth is it logically valid to accept a person's expertise as a good reason to believe their expert advice is true? 10 seconds. Not really. I mean, it depends on the context. I would want to, you know, it totally depends on the context. Am I talking about the ground beneath my feet and about, you know, am I taking my information from, you know, people like a, it really depends on how, so you have to dig into things yourself. It's about nuance. All right. Taking back, Eden says, Darryl, do you think you evolved from apes on the Earth? 10 seconds. Well, I didn't really look into evolution too much. My understanding is that the current understanding is that there was evolution over millions of years or whatever. Can you speak to that, Tony? Yes, I can. Not only did we evolve from apes, we are apes. All right. Thank you so much. The science of science. Globe believers, what is your best evidence of the Earth as a globe convinced me? I have never seen any compelling evidence. 10 seconds. Okay. Well, the recursion of seismic surface waves, they propagate out from the source, go around to the other side, come back through multiple circuits and they do this multiple times. So the same wave goes down and then the other wave comes up and so you can tell from the direction what's happened. That's only possible on a sphere. All right. Alexander L says Darryl is low-key killing it. There you go. You got a fan super chat coming in for you as well. All right. I have to second that. I think everybody's gotten at least one. That's kind of nice. Whitsick Gibson says, Tony, your model objectively requires velocity assumptions. How do you verify the layer compositions? You cannot and they have actually been proven wrong. Proven wrong is a complete misstatement. That's Whitsick lying again about the contents of scientific journals. And we know the material composition on large scale. We can construct minerals. We can subject them to high pressure and high temperature and therefore we can work it out. And we work out that that's a pretty good estimate for the baseline and the anomalies from that are small. He's coming back with another one. Whitsick asks Volcanic Rocks, don't tell you what is 200 miles below. LOL. 10 seconds. That's not true. That's absolutely not true. Mid-ocean ridge basalts come from hundreds of kilometers deep. So that's just another bare-faced lie. All right, Mott Mott asks, Whitsick, is it your model of flat earth requires funny physics? How do you back any of it? Well, Mott Mott, you better come back here when we have Whitsit on and ask that question because he's not on tonight. So we're going to carry on. Whitsick asks it. Actually, credentials fallacies is dismissing someone's argument because they do not have the proper credentials. So would you like to admit you were wrong? No, I wouldn't. So I'm not rejecting their arguments because they lack credentials. I am objecting to what they say because they demonstrably don't understand what they've read. That's why I'm objecting. And they can't produce any objective evidence supporting their interpretation of these articles. They're just saying that they understand them and that this is what the article says. Because we're just almost to the end here. So two more questions and we'll be able to get to our closing thoughts and let everybody know where we can find you. Matt Hightower says, What is making the Starlink satellites visible in the night sky and why do they dim and disappear at a higher point sooner than the sun does at the horizon? 10 seconds. He's asking about the sun converging into the horizon. No. What was he asking then? Can you enlighten me? He's asking about Starlink satellites. What illuminates them and why do they go into eclipse? 10 seconds. I don't know what illuminates them. Is he asking us or you guys? He's asking you guys. What what what illuminates the Starlink satellites? Yes. I don't know. Any thoughts Alan over there or do you want to carry on? Carry on, sir. One more to go. One more to go. Ronnie Borden says a closed system, Ellie inside a train, a car, a bus, et cetera. So they're making a declaration as closed system. So. No, we're not. All right. Let us do our closing statements here, guys. I'm so sorry if we sped through some of you the questions a little quicker than we usually do. There were so many. So, you know, if you don't feel like we expounded on it enough, hopefully we'll see you next time and we can get some questions in the regular chat. Let's do one minute closings here, guys. I usually start on the other side. So, Tony, first minute on the floor, your closing thoughts. Okay. I want to say I do get heated. I do get shoddy and I do get interrupty. And I apologize. I think that Alan and Toby have been remarkably civil interlocutors and have tolerated me quite well. I do not intend the statement that you don't understand the scientific papers to be an insult. It's just a statement of fact. I don't think you guys are stupid. I don't think you guys are just making shit up. You're doing the best you can with very difficult topics. But these, you're going to need a lot more. I think if you dedicated yourself to getting an education, I think you could un-properly understand and represent the contents of these papers. But you don't have the technical skills necessary. That's just a statement of fact. And I don't mean it as an insult because I think you're both quite bright, quite articulate and very well-intentioned individual sentiments. Oh, all right. Wrapped up there. Well, thank you so much, Tony. We'll actually bounce at this time and we'll hand it over to Toby one minute. Yeah, so I don't know, just real quick. Like I said earlier, the problem with the mindset of this whole thing of needing to have credentials is that you're literally handing all of your authority of your thoughts over to the institutions. And Tony says I need to get an education. Like that's literally him saying you need to be reeducated, right? That's what reeducation is. But I dive into these things earnestly from my own point of view. We go through, every Thursday night at Ether Cosmology YouTube, we read papers live and we're not like, like I said, this whole thing. Like if I didn't understand something, I wouldn't be afraid to say that. I'm not like when he brought the paper up earlier with a proof of relativity, I told him, I'm gonna look into it. I'm not gonna know what's in the paper before I even read it. But the ground beneath your feet's not moving. The speed of light is definitely not constant. The twin paradox is nonsense. The whole thing of a cat being dead and alive, having poison in a box in a superposition, it's all nonsense, man. The classical mechanics makes everything so much more simple. The ground beneath your feet is flat and stationary. Thank you so much, Toby. And thank you, Tony and Toby for being here. And I'm gonna hand it over to Daryl on one minute on the floor. Yes. Thank you for having me. I was a pleasure to be here and be on the same side as PhD Tony. I'm a fan and I wanna be a PhD. So I really appreciate it. And I enjoyed it and I thought it was fun. I think you guys are cool guys as well. So it was nice talking to you. So the audience, I'll just say, if you ever see one of these flat earth, there's some of them are too dishonest to even admit that anymore. And they say they're globe deniers or they're a concave or whatever. And then if any of them are saying that science or math or a scientific paper or anything like that supports their position, look a little deeper and you'll find that either they're aligned to themselves or they're aligned to you. It's pretty simple. And it always, when I see people saying, oh, they're killing them and all they're doing is just glossing over math that they clearly don't understand. It's so easy to debunk of you. Just go below the surface level words, search type of arguments that they make and actually learn science and math and actually look into it. So thank y'all. All right. Well, thank you so much Daryl and Ellen, last word to you. One minute on the floor. Yeah, shout out to the opponents, man. That was a really good, you know, let's get out of here, man. Let's wrap this shit up. All right, buddy. That's what I was handing over to you. Let's wrap this up as, oh, as he drops right out. What a class A act. All right. Well, thank you everybody for coming out to modern day debate. Thank you to Toby, to Anthony and also to Daryl. And oh my goodness, now you dropped out. I just forgot your name, Alan. I could never forget that name, honestly. That's just a joke. So thanks again. And I'm going to close it out once again with some original music that I just recorded today because why not? You all asked who was screaming. You want to hear who's screaming? It is me now. So I'm going to let our speakers go and you all just sook and suffer to my first demo. Cheers, everybody.