 that the world would be on crew as it was. Hey everybody, tonight Flat Earth is on trial, and to start us out, we have Flatsoids, so the floor is all yours, and thanks for being here. Hey, hey, I hope you're all doing well. Actually, I was gonna do Jim first, then me second, but it's fine. Yeah. Stand over this, we just went over this. That's on me. All right, Jim, the floor is all yours. We're gonna kick it off. It is all mine. Thank you for everybody. Thank you, James for having me on. I enjoy my little journey since November 2021, and we'll see what happens tonight. So thanks, Amber, and thanks, Mark, and Flatsoid, and Ryan, thanks very much. Hey, I'm gonna start out a little bit more lighthearted, and then hopefully in the last couple minutes, I get a little more serious, but I'm gonna show you what the globe establishment, the globes, you know, believe in. This is the most unscientific thing that I've ever witnessed in my entire life. This is so unscientifically silly. It's really unbelievable. It's scientifically impossible, and you know the fun thing about this thing right here? It's the model, and I don't know if many people know that the science tells us that four and a half billion years ago, with a B, that some large asteroid or small planet called Thea, T-H-E-I-A, hit this just fine when it was straight up and down, and tilted it 23.4 degrees so we could vacation in Florida every year. So thank you, Thea, and it supposedly became part of the moon and maybe absorbed into the earth. So, you know, cool story, bro. Cool story. And so, you know, that's, you know, that is backed up by, quote, science. That is pseudoscience, my friends. And then you get something like this here. And I always enjoy this one. You know, we're supposedly 71% water, right? 71% water. And large bodies of water at rest do not curve. Now, we are told that if I look this way two miles and I look this way two miles when I can no longer see the water, it starts to curve. Cool, cool story. Cool story, man. I, you know, I love cool stories. Now, this is something that I always believed in until recently. Let's say that Mark is on top. Here's the ball. Here's the globe. Here's Mark. You know, Mark is the little scissors. Mark's sitting on top of the ball right here, right? Now, Mark's sitting on top of the ball. That's cool. That's cool. That's cool. But Mark is also staying upright on the side of the ball and Mark is also staying upright on the bottom of the ball. Why? Because gravity pulls everything towards the center of the ball. And you know, I don't know what to say guys. I believed it for a long time, but we were told at age five it was true. We were told through Universal Studios it was true. And we were told until we found out it wasn't true. So real cool, real cool. And the other fun thing is we have something called a space-time curvature. And space-time curvature is real cool, you know, for May 29, 1919, when two expeditions, one led by an intense solar eclipse, then the boys all got together at the Royal Society in November 6th and said two out of 36 plates, pictures are going to change our world forever. And Einstein woke up on November 7, 1919, the guy who saved the ball going around the earth. So going around the sun. So what I did is I went to Walmart and bought a $2 pair of scissors. And right now in front of you on live, I am cutting space-time curvature. You can literally see me cutting through space-time curvature because space-time curvature is a real thing, right? Because obviously it couldn't be a theory. It has to be real because the boys back in 1919 told us. So it's really cool. I love fairy tales. I really do. Somebody needs to tuck me in a bed at night and read me a bedtime story like Outer Space. Anyway, and then we get something. I want to ask, I want Ember and Mark to get real serious with me here for a second. I have a Milky Way candy bar. Now I haven't eaten the Milky Way candy bar. It's still in there. I may or may not eat. It's not good for me. But you know what? I want Mark and Ember to tell me if the Milky Way galaxy or the Milky Way candy bar is real. It can't be both. One has to be real and one has to be fake. So I want to know. And then if you say the Milky Way galaxy is real, I want you to prove it tonight for us. I really would. And then, you know, the second law of thermodynamics. You know, the second law of thermodynamics is real simple, guys. All you got to do is open up Coke can. Coke can, bro. And then I'm not going to drink the whole thing because it's not good for me. But hey, that's good stuff, man. That's good stuff. And then in honor of Mr. Hubbell in 1928 and Lorenz in 1892, I have an ever-expanding flyswatter to go with my ever-expanding universe. And then for Lorenz in 1892, I have a flyswatter that can contract because, you know, obviously we had the Lorenz contraction. Correct? Good. So anyway, three laws that the globe does not care about. The globe orers do not care about. News their law of motion, don't care. Second law of thermodynamics, don't care. Inverse square law of light, don't care. Why? Because we got to have this thing that is scientifically impossible, which is your globe. And I'm telling you guys, you can't show me ages per mile square drop over distance. You can't show me rotation of your globe. You can't show me motion of the Earth around the Sun. And you know what? You guys want your coordinate system so bad to be the Earth going around the Sun, you even came up with the nice little Lorenz transform equation, one to the square root of one minus V squared divided by C squared. Cool story, bro. I'm telling you right now, we're going to have fun with you tonight because your globe is the most scientifically impossible thing ever. And I'm sorry if that breaks it to you. I have 25 seconds left. I yield the floor. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much, Jim, for your introductory statement there. Just remind everybody in the live chat there, we are going to do a Q&A here at Modern Day Debate where we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, politics, you name it. Flatter tonight is on trial. You just heard from Jim and now we're going to kick it over to Flatsoid for his up to six minute intro. So thank you, Flatsoid, for being here. The floor is all yours. Awesome. Thank you guys for coming. Yeah, Jim, that was brilliant. I'm happy you started first because he's practically had the same arguments I have. The only difference is the arguments I'm going to be presenting is trying to get the globe to understand the burden of proof is on them. Okay, so why do we observe the earth to be flat, guys? That's very simple. Since we are talking about the earth, let's try to dwell upon on the earth. So we try and place all the objective truths and evidences on the earth. So what do we observe? We observe no movement of the ground, but we do observe the objects in the sky to move in a very particular cycle path. We observe that our measurements for the earth is based always on using a horizontal flat baseline. This means that if you take elevation angles, you're going to first have to measure flat, then calculate your pre-supposed globe onto those flat earth measurements. We observe how nature behaves with example of the way liquid behaves at rest. The observation shows that liquid will always require some sort of containment to hold it in. It takes the bounds and the shapes of the container. Just like Jim just showed with his water bottle. If he had no bottle, he would have no water in it to contain it. What else do we observe? We observe how nature behaves with example of the way gas, gas behavior. So with the state of gas behavior, it also requires containment to exist in a system. Gas behavior shows us that gas is always moving in all directions. It has elastic collisions. We can also demonstrate gas existence in containment as the definition of pressure needs this antecedent relationship. So in other words, without you showing containment, you wouldn't be able to show gas pressure because the whole definition of gas pressure requires containment. So based on the simple observations we conclude, without a doubt the earth is stationary. It's contained and flat. Note the earth's plane has topography. So please don't try straw man us to say that oh it's as flat as a pancake. You don't have mountains and so forth. No one says that. That's just a straw man. So since we observe no movement, we can conclude that the ground is stationary and thus the burden of proof is on the globe that claim it to be moving. Since we observe all measurements of the earth required to be measured flat and then calculates to a globe show that the burden of proof is also on the globe. Since we observe water always lies level at rest and of the large bodies of water shows flat, the burden again is on the globe that they claim it to be curving. And since we can only demonstrate gas pressure with containment, this shows the burden is once again on the globe because they go against that claim. So this is my question to the gobes. Will the globe defenders back up their positive claims that go against observations in reality or will we simply conclude that without a doubt the globe has no argument that the globe is only based on faith? And I heal the rest of my time. All right. Well, thanks for your introductory statement there, Floidsoid. I just want to remind everybody that you feel like what you're hearing all of our guests are going to be linked in the description of our YouTube video and in our podcast description. With that, we're going to put the floor over to the other side. Who would like to kick us off? Mark Ember? I'm good to go if you want. All right, ready to roll? I'm happy to. So let me get set up here quickly. I do have I don't have to share my screen. Sorry, just give me one sec. Where's the... Sorry, it's actually been a while since I've been on. So I haven't used Zoom in a while. I've got to admit. So that one... Shit. You're good to go. All right. All right. Are we good? We're starting your six minutes right now. Yep. So you're thinking. Just give me one set. Sorry, just one second. I just got to get the right thing up. And all right. Good to go. All right. Good to go. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you so much for joining me. Thank you for your time. Ryan, thank you for moderating into my opponents being here. And of course, thank you to my friend, Ember, for being part of my team. Now, Flat Earth on Trail. Here's this. I only have really have three things that I want to go through and the Flat Earth side will have to provide answers for these three things. The first one is the Polaris and crux. Why that can be seen in the configuration it can be seen in. Polaris could be explained because it could be up here, but the crux not so much of the Southern Cross. Now, these two different models, it's easily explained why crux is only visible from the Southern Hemisphere, but not from Asia. It just makes no sense on a Flat Earth. Why can somebody over here in South America see it, but not somebody in Asia? It makes absolutely zero sense so we'll be expecting an answer to how that actually works. The next part is certain polar star trails. Why do they happen the way they do? So this is from the Northern Hemisphere. Whoops. This is from the Northern. Sorry, I'm having trouble with my slides. This is from the Northern Hemisphere. They actually go in a anti-clockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere. And if my thing would actually work, I could start. So they go in an anti-clockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere. I'm in the Southern Hemisphere. They actually go in the opposite way they go clockwise. Now, this is a massive problem for the Flat Earth and I'll explain why in my next slide. Because at the equator, I want to focus on the equator here. What this you should see is the center of these certain polar star trails at the horizon, basically, with the stars going overhead. Now, this is how it works on a globe model. You can basically see counterclockwise in Northern Hemisphere. And then when it goes to the Southern Hemisphere, we see them traveling clockwise. So this is the problem. If you're in South America and you look south and the trails are going in a clockwise direction, that's fine. You can look north and see them going in a counterclockwise direction here. That's perfectly fine. Problem is that if you then move round with the same configuration to Asia on the equator, that is the wrong direction. That is the wrong direction. That is clockwise looking south and anti-clockwise looking north. So the Flat Earth people will have to explain how that works and the configuration that allows that to work. The third thing I want to talk about is flight times. This is two flights, LAX to Tel Aviv in Israel. And this is Sydney to Johannesburg. They're both about the same time. They're both about the same distance. This is how it works on a globe Earth. Again, both about the same time, about the same distance. Fantastic. This is how it works on a Flat Earth or rather doesn't work. This is twice or probably more than twice the amount of distance traveled from Sydney to Johannesburg and LAX to Israel. And the Flat Earthers will have to explain how the planes can suddenly double their speed over the speed of sound to get from one place to another. That'll be interesting to find out. So those are my three questions. How can the crux constellation be seen at the same time in Africa and South of Australia, both looking south in different directions according to their model? Why are the solar circumpolar stars at the horizon at the equator rotating in the wrong direction if looking south in different places on the Flat Earth? Why does that happen? Why do flights deviate so far from a straight line? But also why is it half the distance according to the Flat Earth map takes the same time? They're going to have to answer that question. And that's the questions I have for them. Thank you. All right, cool beans. Okay, so as most of us know, the modern Flat Earth movement was started by a guy going by the name of Paralax. He was big mad that science was moving beyond the reach of everyday folks requiring specialized degrees and even more specialized tools. He believed, as many Flat Earth advocates do, that every person should be able to do science for themselves and investigate the nature of the world we live on. You know what? I agree with that. Science is for everybody. But we don't always agree on the things that we find. Some of us look at the world and accept what the top-level scientists tell us, that it's a globe. Others look and notice that we can't see the curve of a flat planet from where we stand so it looks flat, so it must be flat. If only there were a way we could remove our personal biases and objectively determine which of these is the case. Some kind of test, perhaps. Good news! We can, and all on our own, just like old Paralax dreamed of. The first way that comes to mind is to do it the way the ancients did. Sticks and shadows. Eritostanese used a well in Aswan where the sun shines down to the bottom only at noon on the summer solstice and a rod in Alexandria some 800 kilometers north. But two rods will work just fine. If you place one stick in a spot where the sun is exactly overhead at solar noon and place another stick some distance directly north or south, the shadow cast by the second stick will give you a non-zero angle from which you can, with the distance between the sticks, calculate the circumference of the globe the same as the ancients did. In fact, you don't even need the first stick to cast no shadow. It just makes the math easier. You can do the same thing with a measurement of the difference between the shadows. The second way is even easier, but it's had more expensive. Travel. If you can afford it, you can physically circumnavigate the globe. You can literally go see for yourself and the fact that whether you go north or south around the poles or east or west around the middle and you'll eventually come back to where you started only makes sense on a globe. You don't even need to take a plane. It'll take a while, but you can walk taking a boat for the watery bits. Or if you just want a quick test with no math involved, you can book a flight from Australia to Buenos Aires. You can take a commercial flight right over Antarctica and see for yourself that there's no ice wall, no edge. Both elements that every flat earth model I've ever heard of requires. Or if travel doesn't suit you, just wait for the next lunar eclipse to be visible from where you live. As Magellan once said, they say the earth is flat, but I know that it is round for I've seen its shadow on the moon and I have more faith in a shadow than in the empty words of the church. That shadow projects a circle every time, no matter what time the eclipse takes place from viewed on earth and that can only be the result of a globe. But what's even more important is that there's any shadow at all. How, by Sagan's beard, could a lunar eclipse even be possible if the sun and the moon were both above the world? The earth, that the earth can even come between the sun and the moon to cast a shadow of any shape is proof every person can see with their own eyes that the flat earth model, which requires both celestial bodies to always be on the same side of the world, is nonsense. There are lots and lots of other tests, of course. Jarenism infamously proved the curvature of the planet with his failed hole in the fence test, for example. But the simple fact is that every aspect of life on this planet from the rising and setting of the sun rather than it getting closer and farther to the reality that time zones exist all constantly reconfirmed for each of us a thousand times a day that our world is the same shape as every other planet we can see with even our largest telescopes, a globe. So those are my tests, with no special tools, training, or reliance on the honesty of anybody else required. Sticks and shadows, observe a lunar eclipse, or just go out and see for yourself the very essence of parallax's philosophy. Now, I'm sure our esteemed opponents also have their observations to present, and we're going to talk about them over the course of the evening. But while I still have the floor, I'd like to pose a question for their consideration. Anybody can dig for data that seems to back up their position. But why hold that particular position at all? What reason do they have to subscribe to Flat Earth in the first place to motivate them to try to find a way to justify the belief they already hold? For example, I subscribe to the globe model because I have no reason to question what science is telling me. As I've just recounted, I can easily verify the facts for myself should I have any doubt, and I have done several of these things. Overcoming both established science and plainly observable reality is a very high burden of proof to bear. And I'm even more interested in why they adopt the contrarier position than I am in how they intend to demonstrate it. Thank you. Alrighty. Well, thank you so much, Amber, for your introductory statement and you, Mark, as well. I forgot to thank you. I just kind of handed it off. So thank you to everybody at this point for their introductory statements. And I just want to remind everybody, if you haven't already, if you like this type of discussion, you want to see more of this happening, hit that like button, share this in that contentious space, send it out to your mother. Who cares, right? Have fun with it. And one other quick little note here. You know, we all sometimes fail to pay attention to details. Like, you know, I forgot to shave my neck beard tonight and it doesn't look so great. But if you see beside me over here, see, I got to follow my mirror on my screen. See you over here. Says this is on the podcast already. James has already gotten a few questions about some of the upcoming debates that are being posted on the channel. Those are all debates that have already happened. So they are just that is an advertisement that they are just going to be on the podcast. I did say, in your defense, actually not in your defense, when he said people are saying this, I was like, really? So yeah, there's no defense for you. It's podcast only time. So we're going to kick it into open floor discussion. We usually kick it to the other side to make a little bit of a quick response to what they've heard. And then just try to let it naturally flow from there. So, Jim, Flatsoy, the floor is yours. Yeah, I'd love to respond. I do want our esteemed Amber and Mark, Amber and Mark to talk about Newton's third law of motion, second law of thermodynamics, and inverse square law of light before we get done tonight. But I will respond to, you know, you talk about Lunar Eclipse, so we had a Selenillion Eclipse November 9, 2022, top down, moon, sun appearing in the sky at the same time, Selenillion Eclipse top down. There's going to be another one in October. I don't need to go any further. I just debunked your Lunar Eclipse right there, proving your ball. Second, second, second thing that gets me is the Santiago chili to Sydney, Australia nonsense. When you look at, when you look at a one-way stop, they stop in LAX and they stop in Dallas, Fort Worth. And if you look at some sort of a a flat earth map that makes perfect sense, straight line, land location to land location, that's what they do. They don't go down around your ball. They don't do it. Just look at, just look at what they do from, from Sydney to Santiago. The stop is in LAX and Dallas. They do that for some reason, land location to land location. Third, third. Jim, sir, can I just, can I just say something on that point though? Don't you think it's odd that they choose the one that just doesn't make sense to them but ignore the 99 that debunks their globe, the flight paths? Yeah, it's just, you know, I find these arguments, you know, Amber and Mark, I've heard these arguments and I kind of chuckled them myself because it's cool, man. You know, you need to dial back bro and come up with some other, you know, new stuff because this gets a little bit boring after a while. My friends, there is no circumnavigation north-south. There is none around your ball and comes up the other side. There is no documentation of that whatsoever. And you can use a great circle route on a stationary plane. You can use that just fine. But when you come on here and tell us that there is north and south circumnavigation that you can go over Antarctica and come up the other side, that is pure bunk. And I'm sorry. All right, Jim, I'd like to just drop in at that point. Because it's a little bit preachy. I kind of want to borrow what Flatsoy just said and point out that you're selecting the routes that work for your model and ignoring the other ones that actually exist. You can go on kayak.com and book a flight for yourself over in Antarctica right now. They not only exist, you can go do it right now. So going over to the rush house is going up to Antarctica. So just to say Flatsoy, let Ember talk for a start and I'd like to address some of the things as well. Okay, so let Ember talk. Don't just jump in over the top of it. He just asked me a question. I'm responding to it, Mark. You were talking over me. Okay, so I want to respond to some of these things that's thrown out because he went through a lot there. The this gish gallop of like multiple things is let me time to respond. Like action and reaction is a second law of movement. I'm not sure what you think is the problem with action and reaction on a globe Earth. You basically, the Santa Helian eclipse is basically refraction through the earth's atmosphere and we understand perfectly well why this happens and it also explains perfectly why in a lunar eclipse the moon turns red, which maybe you can give an explanation of that. I do notice that you address none of our things and basically said the burden of proof is ours. It's not ours, it's yours. It's flat earth on trial. So it's kind of weird that you're sort of burden shifting. The population centers in the southern hemisphere are basically very, very spread out. So the reason why that they're basically diverting flights is purely for logistics. That's all it is. But as Ember said, you're ignoring the ones that completely blow your position out of the water like Perth to Johannesburg, which is actually the one I brought up and you haven't addressed that at all. I did just address it, Mark. I told you that a flight route from Santiago to Sydney flies over LAX, Dallas, Fort Worth, stops there, land location, land location, three degrees nose up. You don't like it. It's okay, bro. It's just fine. Sometime, we'll get. When you say flat earth is on trial, we're not on trial because we can see farther than we're supposed to. It's literally the debate. That's literally the debate. We can see farther than we are supposed to be able to be on a globe. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, Mark, Mark, Mark. Just a little bit more. I didn't talk about, no, no, no. No, no, no. Just one second, Mark. Let me finish up for another 20 seconds. Okay. My position is not on trial. My position is the correct position that you can see by observations, experiments, and just, you know, you experience a stationary topographical plane. You do not experience a spinning space ball in the vacuum of outer space. Never. And your position is Sun Pagan worship by Hermes Trismegestus that Copernicus talked about on the revolution of the heavily spheres and Newton talked about in the Emerald Tablet. They gave time to Hermes Trismegestus and Hermes Trismegestus with Sun Pagan worship and you guys changed it in the 1970s to go to the Great Attractor where everything is going around in the universe, a black hole. All right. One minute for the other side. Yes. Yes. So you haven't actually addressed anything at all because I brought up the ones that be bunk you like direct Earth to Johannesburg which you just went back to the ones that do not direct routes. You're just going back over the same thing you're like a broken record. The whole idea that we brought up these things for you to address and you have addressed none of them. Then I said, well, what's the problem with the Law of Reaction and Reaction? Newton's Third Law and you don't address that either. Like why is it that you're just preaching now and sort of saying na-ah is your entire response? Go, Amber. I'd like to save some time for you, mate. All right. So a couple of things. First of all, Jim, you showed the globe at the beginning. Of course, that's a school model. You're confusing the map for the place. That's understandable, though. Axial tilt, you claim that that's due to some protoplanet slamming into the Earth. Yeah. Yeah, that's one of the models for the possible formation of the moon, but it isn't really involved with the axial tilt because the axial tilt shifts. That's why we get a different North Star every few thousand years. However, the presence of the moon does help moderate that. But there's so many things. Milky Way, you can see it with your own eyes. Go out in the dark. You can see the freaking galaxy. You're going to tell me it doesn't exist and still wondering how a lunar eclipse happens on a Flat Earth model. How do you go ahead, Flatzoid? I'm sorry. Yeah, sorry. I just want to bring this back down to what we asked in the opening. The opening was, can we do bring it down to Earth where we actually live, where we can actually test it and repeatedly show it to be. Now, talking about the galaxies, yes, we see things in space, as you put it. The problem is your space violates the second law of thermodynamics. So that's why we cannot go there because you cannot demonstrate this space vacuum to exist because when you do try and demonstrate, you're always going to have to have containment based on gas behavior. Now, based on the plane routes, like we said, you want to take the 1% and ignore the 99% that doesn't agree with you. That is called cherry picking. So in other words, it's just a fallacy. We do not need to go and explain 1% of the routes that doesn't make sense to you while you ignore the other 99%. So let's go to something more empirical. Have you been able to demonstrate to us any measured curvature or having gas pressure with our containment or the rotation of Earth? Yes, we've been able to... Sorry, Mark. Yeah, just a second. As I said in my opening, I explained to you how you can measure the curvature yourself. You can do it. Let's calculate. Whenever you want. You sit with your own words. Sorry. You sit with your own words. Calculate, not measure. Well, yes. You take a measurement and then you calculate. Based on flat Earth measurements, that angle is flat. That's what in my opening, I also stated. It doesn't work on a flat Earth. I mean, you can... I'm sorry, that angle is flat. How is an angle flat? How do you get a flat... What is a flat angle? All angles are flat. Your adjacent always has to be a straight flat baseline. That shadow you're measuring is based on a 90-degree angle. So, if you've got a protractor, that's a flat angle, is it? Even though the edge of the protractor is curved. That arc curve, that arc curve is only based on a 360-degree based from a 90-degree angle baseline. Yes, but if you put it on the y-axis then... This is crazy. Like, oh, it can't be curved because your angle that you're measuring that curvature with, the arc curve, the original angle that you're measuring with it is flat. That is nonsense. Sorry, what's an angle, Mark? We're going to put this down to the basics. What's an angle? An angle is the difference between two lines, basically. Straight lines? Yes. Meeting at a vertex. So, if you have a curved adjacent baseline, how are you going to have an angle? Curved adjacent baseline. Could you explain what you mean by that? You guys are claiming the baseline to be a curved earth, not flat. So, how are you going to have an angle measurement for that? I see what you mean. So, there's a difference between level and flat. You can make sure that something is level without it having to be flat. For example, you can take two hills and run a beam across them and the beam can be level even though the ground is wavy, just to illustrate. Likewise, you can have a flat surface. Let's take this thing, for example, and have it tilt like this. It's flat, but not level. Right. But you do know they are synonymous, though. Flat and level are synonymous. No. I literally just showed you there now. I can bring it on screen. I could... That reference... You want to show them the box again? Show them the box again. Mark, can I talk? You have that reference that you just put between the two hills. Was that reference flat and level relative to what level? Parallel to your... What? The ground, correct? Because no point higher than the other. So, when you put that horizontal baseline from hill to hill, you literally conceded that that hill has not got a different zenith angle than the other hill. They have exactly the same parallel. They're round. They don't have... Well, I suppose you could have a pointy hill, but they can point in different directions, even on a flat earth or a curved earth. The hills rounded, you realize that, but we can still calculate the angle that the top of that hill is at. Just disproving your point completely. No. Making my point. The hill is still round, but we can calculate the angle, which means that you can... But even if you just look at basic like preschool or kindergarten, a circle, it's got like an angle, and you can calculate the arc. It doesn't make it... The angle doesn't make the surface flat, or it doesn't make the points in between flat or rounded. It's irrelevant to it. It just calculates the angle. Mark, I suspect we may have fallen for red herring on this geometry thing, because we are way off the subject of them showing the flat earth. Flat earth, yeah. Please show you the flat earth. Yeah. Okay, guys. I just want to everybody know that Mark said that the Selenilian eclipse from November 9th and 1st future are because of refraction, even though it's top down. So the light has actually turned itself upside down. Cool story, Mark. It's really, really cool. Hey, Mark. Mark and Amber, how do you... How would you explain... I got so many things. To say, I'm not on trial here. My stationary plane is not on trial here. And so... What's the topic of the debate? It kind of is. I found out about the topic of the debate yesterday. So I am coming in here. I found out about the topic of the debate. Mark, Mark, you're over-talking. Cool story, bro. What's the topic of the debate? Mark, you're over-talking me, Mark. Well, I asked a question. He doesn't want to answer. It's just clarifying the topic of the debate. Hey, Mark, Mark, Mark, Mark, Mark, drink some water. Cool down, bro. How do you explain the watchtower at the Grand Canyon on the east side? The watchtower is six feet observation height, looking across to the west side, 70 miles. At six feet observation height, there should be 3,000 foot a drop on your spinning spaceball in the vacuum of outer space. There is none. You go to the south rim. You look across the north rim. The south rim is 6,800 feet. The north rim is 8,200 feet. There is a force on the north side. It should have a drop of 216 feet at six feet observation height. You should be able to see that drop, but you don't. And you know, guys, and it's very, very simple. You see too far on a stationary plane. You see too far when the optics is just fine. And you see too far in perspective, things will get smaller, and they will start with angular resolution to disappear from the bottom up. That is a stationary plane. That is not a spinning spaceball in the vacuum of outer space. You guys are so wrong. I want to ask Amber and I want to ask Mark. What has the globe ever done for you? Existence. Give us a nice place to live. Okay. Okay, so this whole idea of this drop kind of thing, you obviously haven't used a curve calculator or taken refraction into a curve. Because light does refract. That is, there is a given. We can show you that light refracts in a number of different experiments. Like it's not even questionable that light does reflect. The center heling in eclipse, I'm not sure how you're talking about how it's right above kind of thing. That's a weird thing to say. It's a top-down eclipse, Mark. It's a top-down eclipse. A top-down eclipse. I don't even know what that's supposed to say. I'll just play around, Mark. Okay, obviously you don't want to. Yeah, yeah, it's weird because it's just a lunar eclipse. It's weird you don't know what a top-down eclipse is and don't know what it is. Yeah, I'd like to be able to finish. When you're going to make up terms, of course we don't know what those mean. It's upside down. It's upside down. It's upside down eclipse. I said top-down, not upside down, Amber. Oh, no, he says it's upside down. No, it doesn't say upside down, I do. It is top-down. No, no, no. It's inverted. It's like I said it was upside down. So you guys can't even agree on what that eclipse is. Just hold on a second, guys. We're going to hand it back over to Floatzoid there because he's trying to get in there. I'm saying, yeah, Amber was saying upside down. Now I'm trying to say that's upside down. He's talking about inverted. That's what Jim's talking about. And that's why I'm trying to be inverted. Exactly 180 around. If you say the globe says it should be on the right, it's showing not on the right, it's showing inverted. Like you're holding a mirror in front of you. It's totally on the right. An inverted image. In respect to where? You can't just say right. We have writing. The writing is inverted. That's what he means. So you mean it's mirrored. Okay. Mirrored. I'm not sure how that applies. But Amber, can you say straw man for me three times? I could, but then you might appear behind me. I'm still curious. I appreciate what you're saying. It doesn't even happen. Hey, Amber, beat that straw man up. Beam him up, Scotty. Beat that straw man up. So how do the eclipses happen? A Senahalian eclipse happened on a flat earth? So what are any eclipses? Well, let's stick to the Senahalian first. I can never say that word. Selenelian eclipse. How does that work on a flat earth? If the... So I presume because you're saying it's encompassed that the Sun and the Moon are both within some sort of dome or container, is that correct? First, sorry. We just want to point out, you guys are reversing the burden onto us. He asked you that it's a... This is flat earth. I'm trying to... Look, this is a dodge. This is a dodge. You can respond. Can I ask you a question? Okay. So you... I asked a question. The question was asked to you. Now you're trying to reverse it back onto us. That is not a question. That's just a reversal of burden. Yeah, yeah. So I've answered it right. I've said that the refractive forces from gravity, when the light goes through the atmosphere, it is bent in a downwards direction, allowing you to see the images of both the Sun and the Moon in the sky, very, very low and close to the horizon, but they're there at the same time. And that's how we explain it. What I'm saying is how does that work if the Sun and the Moon are both contained within this dome thing that you've got? But that's not shifting the burden of proof. That's answering the question. And then this debate is flat earth on trial and you've done nothing but burden shift this entire time. So how does that work? Because you're spinning... Tim, let's do the other side there. Because you're spinning space ball in the vacuum of outer space is scientifically impossible. And Mark, we're only 55 minutes discussed and then we have 35 minutes question and answer. I understand that. Mark, Ember, if you don't want me to shift, tell me I shouldn't shift. But what does a rocket propel itself off in outer space? Can you help me? What do you mean? Expanding gases. Expanding gases in a 10 to the negative 17 tour. What does it push off of? It pushes off the force that is exerted by the gas. What gas is there in the vacuum of outer space 10 to the negative 17 tour? No, no, no. The gas being ignited. The rocket, he just wanted to expand the gas. The expansion of the gas being ignited because basically it pushes out. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's the third law of movement. So that action pushes against the rocket like causing it to move. Is there any on earth Newton's third law of motion works awesome. Works everywhere. You're going to the 10 to the negative 17 tour of outer space. The most we can ever test here, terrestrially, is 10 to the negative 6. That's 11 more zeros, bro. What does a rocket push off of? And if you put a candle in a jar and put the top on it, what happens to the candle over time? It goes out. You can have no ignition and you can have no propulsion in your fairy tale outer space. Now you can want to live on the globe and live in your fairy tale outer space, but you guys violate. You guys violate. News, their law of motion, second law of thermodynamics and never a square law of light and you don't care. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to pay attention that they did not answer any of the questions that I put to them. We're trying to engage and answer the questions. What they're doing is deflecting to just these silly kind of, well, gotcha. The third law of movement doesn't work in ours. But of course it does. It's basically that rocket fuel is ignited, causing it to expand that pushes against the rocket. What does it ignite with? Half of the rocket fuel is liquid oxygen. It brings its own oxygen. That's part of the rocket fuel. Yeah, so rocket fuel has a like, so the reason why a candle goes out, but rocket fuel doesn't, is because you're depriving that candle of oxygen, of the thing that it needs to burn. But rocket fuel has that in it. So it does burn and ignites. I mean, this is basically a... No, it is. I understand. You're on Earth, it is. But not in your fairytale outer space. Jim, yeah, sorry. Jim, maybe we should ask them to demonstrate us a rocket igniting and working in a vacuum. Can we have a demonstration for this, or is it just going to be a fairytale belief? I mean, I don't have one in my pocket, but... You don't have a rocket in your pocket? Right. But SpaceX, those live launches, pretty often, and you can watch the launch all the way from the launchpad until the moment the satellites deploy, usually. You guys watched the movie Gravity? You guys watched Gravity before, the movie Gravity? I have not. Was Sandra Bullock? I've seen it. Okay, cool. Did that rocket work in space? Was it real, or was it just a movie? So you're basically mistaking a work of fiction... I'm asking for a demonstration. That was based upon the real world. But that's like saying, hey, because the same argument applies if you say, hey, the Civil War, the US Civil War was in a movie, therefore the real thing couldn't possibly have happened. You're making exactly the same argument. No, that's exactly the same argument. That's a straw man. No, it's not. It's exactly the same argument. The argument is you guys are claiming a rocket to work without having any demonstration in history that it is possible to work. You are claiming something that violates the second law of thermodynamics and violates Newton's third law of motion. Yes, it does. You require friction for it to move. Where's your friction? No, no, no. You just don't understand those laws. That's the problem. You think... You straw man the laws to say, hey, it can't work in space because there's no oxygen. We explained to you, hey, there's oxygen solution in the jet fuel itself. Allowing it to ignite. Well, I mean, I don't have any rocket fuel on me at the moment, flat. So I don't know if you've got some there. Maybe you do. I mean, you seem to be doing whatever over there. Anyway, look, they have it in them. Like, this is the whole point. You have them in them. Oh my God. Yes, they have an oxidization agent. I presume you guys have seen rocket failures, videos of rockets trying to take off and something goes wrong. You're on Earth, you're on Earth. You're on Earth. You know why the fighter belt is so very big? Terrestrially, yes. Yes, you know why the fireball is so big when they go wrong? Because it has oxygen terrestrially ember in the rocket fuel. No, in the rocket. In the air around it. The ember. The majority of the fuel in a rocket is liquid O2. Hey, ember has... That's what explodes is the O2 tanks. Hey, ember has the globe ever taking you out to dinner. I mean, are you in love with the globe? I mean... Is the flutter taking you to dinner? Is the globe... Is this something we didn't know previously? Are you dating the flutter? Oh, we all find out you're dating the flutter. I explained in my opening why I subscribe to the globe model. I'm still wondering why you guys subscribe to the flat model. Because we should have seen it too far. Just a moment, Jim. I hear lots of nitpicks, but it's nothing but incredulity. There's no substance to it. Cool story, bro. Okay, we got... It is a cool story. Like you can say we see too far. Cool story, bro. Can you demonstrate anything? We can't see too far. Yes. Yeah, that's good enough for now. Okay, if you listen to my opening, even Jim's opening, we were talking specifically about observations and demonstrations. Note, your guys' belief violates things like natural law. So it's not on us to demonstrate these things. It's on you guys to demonstrate you can have gas pressure without containment. It's you to demonstrate that you can have curved base angle measurements, which is impossible. It throws an angle away. It's for you guys to demonstrate Earth's rotation. Instead, you're trying to take us to Narnia without trying to first prove Narnia exists. That's why I say it's trying to to Earth. So I just want to address that for one second, Emma. So basically your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of movement, you're basically saying, hey, they violate these laws because you don't understand how they work. You're basically straw manning them and then saying, hey, they violate them. It's not actually a refutation. So your own criteria of they violating this thing is not actually true to begin with. You just need that to be true for your flat Earth to work. So you have to believe they're being violated, which is kind of a bit ridiculous. What I want to point out is that we're answering all of your questions and you're basically giving us the response of not. So when you're saying, why does this thing happen in space? Why does that thing happen in space? We're saying, hey, there's there's an oxidizer in the rocket fuel that ignites and keeps it ignited when it comes off. I mean, I've just looked it up. Basically it's liquid hydrogen. RP1 is burned with liquid oxygen or LOX. Now you're basically saying, no, that's not the answer. Then what is in rocket fuel? How does rocket fuel work? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. How does rocket fuel work? Don't dodge. Don't go to another subject. Mark, did you look it up on Google, Wikipedia, NASA, or GPD? That's not an answer. What is in rocket fuel then? Did you see it? What's in rocket fuel? Did you look it up on Wikipedia or Google? No, don't dodge. Don't dodge. Did you look it up on Google? Yes or no? Did you look it up on Google or Wikipedia? They're not going to answer. Jim, what's in rocket fuel? That is a non sequitur for what we're talking about. Mark, you're really good at non sequitur. Mark, bottom line. Yeah, dodge. Bottom line, Mark. The Newton's Third Law of Motion works perfectly down here on Earth. But because you guys love your globe and love your outer space, you will absolutely neglect everything in science because your ball, your spinning space ball, is so scientifically impossible that you actually come on here and tell us that Newton's Third Law of Motion works in fairy tale Narnia outer space. You tell us that Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't count. And we even got to the inverse square law of light. What's in rocket fuel? I would love it. That's a non sequitur. I don't care. We were just talking about rocket fuel, but that's a non sequitur. Wow. Mark, it can't push off of nothing. It can ignite when there's no oxygen. I thought it was oxygen. Here on Earth. But you guys say it works in the back. What's in rocket fuel? Okay, Mark. It does not matter. What's in rocket fuel, then, Jim? I've said this is what's in rocket fuel. You've said that's false. Then what's in rocket fuel? Mark, is every answer you globers give the correct answer? Yes or no? No. No, not everyone. Or just an answer. Okay, guys. So anyway, Mark. Well, at least we're giving answers. It just oxidizes. Let's start. It just oxidizes, okay? But the thing is the claim is that it works in a 10 to the minus 17 tour vacuum that has no containment. That's the problem. I'm sorry. It does have oxidizers in it. Is that what you said? In on Earth. Does the rocket take off? No, in rocket fuel. Does rocket fuel have oxidizers? Does that rocket take off in an atmosphere playing? I'm sorry. I thought I misheard. Did you or did you not say that rocket fuel had oxidizers in it? Do you get oxidizing of the rocket? Amazing. Yeah. I don't like saying atmosphere because it's actually an experiment. I get it. Yeah. But anyway, anyway, the rocket takes off from the ground on Earth, correct? Where there's air around it, gas pressure. So that means we already got containment for this gas pressure. Now, once it's taken off, it has momentum. That's why when you see it goes high up where there's less pressure, it flares off. Get it? So why is it that you guys are claiming these rockets are able to ignite and move around in a vacuum where they are losing even propulsion at high altitudes because there's no air? They're not losing propulsion at high altitudes. Prove it. What are you talking about? Prove it. Why would they be losing propulsion? Because they're all down. I mean, they lose the propulsion. Well, I don't want to get too sidetracked. You guys are going to get sidetracked. Let's head over to Amber. I haven't heard from Amber in a little bit, guys. Sure. Yeah. I don't want to get too sidetracked on the mechanics of rocketry, because that's not what the topic is tonight. I have heard a lot about how a globe supposedly violates several natural laws, which is an ironic thing to me because how the hell does a flat earth work in conjunction with the laws of physics as we understand it? General relativity tells us that massive bodies on the order of planets crush themselves into spheres, which is why every other massive body we see, the moon, Mars, Mercury, Venus, the sun itself, Jupiter are all spheres. Why would earth be different? And how does that not violate physics? Hey, Amber, is general relativity physical or theoretical? Mathematical. It's a mathematical description. Math proves general relativity, the bending and warp in a space time. Is that what you said, Amber? We can conduct tests based on the predictions of general relativity. And so far, all of them have been confirmed. What test? No, it hasn't. Show me one. Eddington, 1919. The stars bent behind the sun. Guys, two out of 36 plates that they took on May 29, 1919. Eddington, two parties. He led up one. The boys met in the Royal Society on November 6, 1919, used two plates which are now nowhere to be found out of 36 and said, have you seen the plates? Either one of you, Amber and Mark, have you seen the plates? I've seen photos. Okay, great. Those plates are no longer available. Two out of 36 plates told us that Einstein became the boy that saved the earth going around the sun when he woke up on November 7, 1919. Show me, show me anywhere today where the bending and warping of space time is a physical thing. Well, not just satellites. GPS satellites. Oh, I don't think they believe in satellites. Works on cortisian or something. Your satellites work on cortisian coordinate systems. So again. So how does somebody in the center of Australia get the coordinates? It's the time dilation because they're higher up. Time dilation? In the massive center of the earth. Time dilation. How did they prove time dilation? Amber, how did they prove? Give me the experiments to prove time dilation. Give it to me. Atomic clocks. Season decay. Yes. So they used to prove time. We said, Amber, time at clock. Yeah, I'm trying to tell you. Amber, you said time dilation. Give me an experiment that's been done that has proved time dilation. Help me out. Over to you, Amber. Okay. So atomic clocks is one. We kept one stationary on the ground. We put another on a plane and sent it up at high altitude. Just that tiny difference in how far down the gravity well they were yielded a measurable difference. Are you talking about the Keating 1971? I'm not familiar with the reference, but sure we'll go with that. Yeah. But another one, if you don't like atomic clocks, is type 1A supernova in distant galaxies. The light curve follows a predictable path. It always takes x amount of time, but on high redshift galaxies where we see time dilation, they take longer in accord with the amount of time dilation we expect to find. Here's your fairy tale, guys. Here's your fairy tale. We are told that the universe is somewhere between 28 billion light years and 200 billion light years long. But we're also told that it's expanding to four times the speed of light, which is 186,200 miles per second. But that has to be based on something between 28 billion and 200 billion light years. Do you know what that number is? I have no idea. Can you give me? Yeah, so you're kind of confused. You've confused them. No, I'm not. I'm not confused, Mark. Excuse me. I'm not confused. Could I respond, please? Could I respond? Yeah, Jim, just try to control yourself. So what you've described is sort of the galaxy expanding at that rate, and that's not necessarily true. You've switched from the galaxy to. What is the truth, Mark? What is the truth, Mark? Can I state, please? Educate. Can I state, Jim? You've got no self-control, do you? The universe is expanding at that rate, not necessarily the galaxy, which is the Milky Way. So you've misinterpreted what. I didn't say the Milky Way. I said the universe. You said the galaxy, actually. I said the universe. Look, people can wind it back and see what you said. Cool. 28 billion to 200 billion long. Yeah, so the expansion. Yeah, yeah. So I just want to get back on, and it's interesting that Emma brings up sort of the universe and how we know that it's in motion, which is one of the criteria that you said. One is parallax measurements for stars that are nearest, and the other one is type 1 supernova, which are standard candles for how far things are away. So we can actually sort of know that we're in motion and where things are moving from parallax and standard candles. Can I just ask, are those parallax angles based on the assumption from Kepler's third law, planetary motion? I don't think so. Not parallax, no. Okay. I mean, parallax, people have known about parallax for ages. No, your assumption is based with this. We can observe parallax here on Earth. Robert, what are you talking about? Parallax is flat-based. I agree, because the angle taken from parallax is a flat baseline. Correct. So measured flat, then calculated globe to the globe. But that's my whole point. When you take your parallax missions, you guys are on the assumption that Venus and Earth are the same size. Look, I didn't say parallax. That's why you have your distances. Hang on, hang on, hang on. No, I got to address that. I got to address that. I'm not saying the parallax. This was particular to the question what shows us that the motion of the stars and that everything, and that was Jim's concern, and he brought it up. I'm not saying that it proves that, I'm saying it proves our movement around the Sun, which was Jim's concern. That would be globe. We don't move around the Sun. The Sun moves around us. Hey, it could be completely flat and we could still move around the Sun. That's... No, we definitely stationary. We're trying to work out the Earth. So that's not what parallax shows. Yeah. Parallax shows, we are staying still and the luminaries are moving above us. That's what parallax shows. That's what I'm saying. You guys are basing your whole argument on. No, I don't think I know, Mark. The assumption that Venus and Earth are the same size and we both planets... It's not an assumption. We sent probes and measured it. Through a second law thermodynamics violation, you haven't proven that you can violate it yet to say you make that claim. Doesn't violate it. If there's a dome, where the meteorites come from? Oh, but now we're going to run away and obfuscate from the thing I just asked. Can you demonstrate? No, it's just your claiming... Your claiming there's a container. Can you? Yes. All gas... Yeah, so you've been asking us a lot of questions. Hold it, hold it, hold it. You've been asking us a lot of questions and this is Flat Earth on trial. So we're asking you questions but you never answer them. You always dodge to something else. So how do meteorites teleport through this dome of yours? Sorry, obfuscation. First, demonstrate the second law thermodynamics violation before I answer your meteorites. How's that? There's no violation. You can't answer. That's cool. Yeah, you won't answer. Give me... No, so this is the dodge that people do. This is the dodge that people do when they don't want to answer a question. They say, hey, I'm going to pose you something first and it's always... Oh, well, I'm going to pose you another thing first and they never answer the question. Meteorites, explain how it happens just quickly, briefly. How does it happen? Well, again, Mokrid, you are claiming something that violates the second law thermodynamics. Okay? Yeah, no answer. Meteorites, your meteorites come from that violation. Okay? I don't need to answer something that you haven't provided as true yet. So first, prove to me, demonstrate the gas pressure without containment which violates second law thermodynamics. Then I can go on to meteorites for you because it's actually very simple. You need to demonstrate how it does violate it because it's in perfect keeping with the rules as we understand them we can observe for ourselves. And what rules are those? How does a meteorite come from a proposed law violation in the first place? You guys claim it comes from space which violates the second law thermodynamics. That's what your claiming come from. Base violates thermodynamics. That's interesting. Yes, it does. Jim, what are your thoughts on this here? Hey, I love this. I'll thank James again for having me on. Here, I'm not going to go into three things. I'm just going to hit on one. Here's the belief system of the globe. And for everybody listening, I want you to remember this. Get ready for the strawman. We have redshift and we have blueshift, ever expanding universe. And we're told that it's expanding at four times the speed of light, 100, 8,600 miles per second. But it's ever expanding Hubble, 1928, 27. But we're told the Dromida galaxy is blue shifting. It's coming toward us. And in two billion years with a B, it will run into the Milky Way galaxy. It will run in the Milky Way galaxy. But because there's so much space in the Dromida and Milky Way galaxy, don't worry, nothing's going to hit itself. We're probably going to be just fine in two billion years. Cool story, bro. And I've had astronomers tell me that's what's happening. Guys, you cannot support that in any way. If you're an astronomer, PhD, if you're an astrophysicist, PhD, you use imagination. Okay, so I see that you're a bro lever because you keep saying bro over and over and over. Sort of your mantra for when you can't. How about, dude? I'm talking now. I'm talking now. How about dude and dog? I'll call you dude and dog now. I'm talking now. How was that? So nice, a bro lever. I've got a bro lever on my hands. Okay, whatever you say. This whole idea of redshift and blueshift, we can demonstrate that like there is. I don't want to mute you. What an angry boy. So the redshift and blueshift definitely do occur. We can show you these with light, the Doppler effect as you move towards light or away from light. And tons of experiments have been done and I don't know what your problem with that is. Terrestrally, yes. The whole idea, excuse me, Jim, you've got no self-control. Have some discipline in your life. The whole idea that because the universe expanding every galaxy must be, again, you're confused between the universe and galaxies. Just because the entire universe is expanding doesn't mean that individual galaxies have to necessarily be moving away from us. They can be moving towards us. What they're describing with the expansion is the expansion of the whole universe. You're looking locally and saying, oh, because that's not expanding towards away from us, then it's got to be a violation. It's not. It's just not. You basically have galaxies moving in all directions throughout the universe. And that one happens to be moving towards us. And I don't think anyone's saying, hey, if that hits the Milky Way, it's going to be fine. I think it's probably going to be a catastrophic event. That's what everybody says. So I don't know where you get your information from. Sure. Okay, first of all, can I just say, have you guys seen an explosion before? Which way does the shrapnel go? Which way does the shrapnel go? What vector? Yeah, thank you. There you go. Yes, but can two pieces of shrapnel collide? They still go outwards, not back to the source. Can two pieces of shrapnel collide? Can two pieces of shrapnel collide? Can two pieces of shrapnel collide? It's an easy question. It's a yes or no. Control yourself, mate. Please. Listen, as soon as they collide, they still go away from the explosion, not going back to that. But they still collide. But they still collide, don't they? So from the perspective of one piece of shrapnel, that other piece of shrapnel goes towards it, and then they hit, and then they go in different directions. You have brought up the perfect example of how you can be wrong. Congratulations. Hold on, everybody. So we're going to let Amber speak for just a moment because we haven't heard from him for a bit. And then we'll hand it over to you, and we'll give you focus time. So Amber, if you have a quick point. Sorry, can I first just finish my point, then move on to Amber, because every time I'm trying to get somewhere, you guys are trying to take it away from me to someone else. All right, fair enough. I'm hardly talking. I agree, I agree. All right, so yeah, if anybody talks in the next minute, I'll put you on mute. So fly it over to you. Okay, thanks. The point is, they're all going out. The vector is away from the explosion, okay? So even that collision, that a collision of the two are going in the same vector, still colliding away from the explosion mark. That's a simple vector. And that's all I have to say. All right, well, we'll take the one minute off so you can, I was going to say, all of a sudden you speak. How'd you run mute? You failed. All right, we've still got another 20 minutes about the open discussion. So get your Q and A's in there and over you, Amber. All right, so I think I see the misunderstanding here. Flatsoid's position is that the things have to be moving away from the explosion under the, and correct me if I'm wrong, under the presumption that the Earth is the origin point of the explosion, that everything has to be going away from Earth because it came from the Earth in the first place. Is that why there's a problem with things coming towards us? No, the expanding universe is not flat Earth. That's globe-based. Just say. Okay, well, I mean, if the Earth isn't the center, the origin point of the explosion, so to speak. What explosion? On flat Earth, there's no explosion. This is simply in your program that he's debunking. You brought it up. So in general, sorry, I should say, general it up in your hypothetical belief system saying this is why it contradicts itself. So I'm trying to explain how it contradicts itself using an example of an explosion. Didn't you use an example? Is there something wrong with your memory? You just brought up an explosion of why galaxies couldn't be moving towards one another. In your globe, yes. Based on physics. Yeah, in the expanding universe model, in the expanding universe model, the Earth is not the center of the expansion of the Big Bang didn't start here. I didn't say it did. Well, then why would where the center is matter? Because that's where the energy disperses from. That's how it works with physics. Right, if the Milky Way is a piece of shrapnel in this example, and Andromeda is another piece of shrapnel, there's no reason they can't collide while they're flying through space. You know the difference between redshift and blueshift? Yeah. It means the one is going in an opposite vector, going back to the source. Relative to one another. Relative to one another. When we observe a blueshift, it means it's coming towards us. We can't measure red and blueshift from whatever source you think there might be. We can only measure it from where we are. Also, we keep getting red herring, Mark. I'd like to go back to the topic, and I'm still wondering how exactly and any eclipse happens at all, any kind of lunar eclipse happens when the Earth can't come between the Sun and the Moon? First, you're all begging the question that they're physical objects, and then you are actually strawmaning us by trying to tell us because we have this belief of our globe that they're physical and going between each other. So therefore, something has to be physical and going between each other on a flat Earth. So it's a non-secret and a strawman. And again, you still haven't shown us gas pressure without containment. Like we've been asking from the beginning. Okay, so that's just a dodge from the question that Ember asked because this is flat Earth on trial and we asked a direct question. Ember didn't say that the objects were physical. He just asked how it worked. So how do you explain the phenomenon of a lunar eclipse where the Moon has a shadow that's all waves curved and pass over it? I mean, if that's some kind of holographic projector, I'm not trying to strawman you. I just literally don't know what you think that is. So to go away and run away back to another topic and sort of you've been dodging or not, we've asked you direct questions and you've answered none of them. So at the moment, your sort of, your trial is going really badly because you're sort of refusing to answer the questions. Hey, Mark, does the sky prove the ground? Does the sky prove the ground? Yes. What are you talking about? It's a direct question. Does the sky prove what we walk on here on the ground as far as being stationary and level or being a spinning space ball? Does the sky prove the ground yes or no? So from the sky, we can derive movements of the ground because the sky will reflect, the phenomenon in the sky will reflect how the ground is moving if we observe it. Just as if you do observe something else out there, you can you can say, hey, I am moving in a certain direction because of how that is moving. How do you know that? Sorry. How do you know that? Can you can you give me something that? Oh, simple, simple physics. Oh, I love that. Go ahead. Go ahead. But then we can take in history where people observe the sun to come up. They had to believe that it's God pushing the sun up for them to light the day. That's what they observed. So they believe that. Does that now make that God really did that? What's that got to do with the floor we stand on? Well, the problem is that we've, you know, sort of been investigated and haven't found the God pushing the sun up. Is that what you think? Exactly. So we have investigated that you can't know. So that's the same. We can investigate that you don't have gas pressure without containment. So. Yes, all of this is a dodge away from how lunar eclipses actually work, which was a question posed. Because it's a red herring. I'm going to go back to the original question. And you're obfuscating. How do lunar eclipses? It's a direct question on the specificity of your model. How the hell is that a red herring? No, no, again, we were talking about even from our openings, from our openings, keep it to Earth. Because what you've seen in the sky has not proved what we see on Earth. First of all, you making assumptions. No. What it is. Just one second. You're saying it's shadows. You saying it's shadows. You saying it's physical. Because that's how you think on your globe. You think it's physical objects moving in front of each other. OK. Now you're putting that same belief onto flat Earth. It's got nothing to do with it. No one's claiming to know anything about the sun or moon being physical objects or if it's even a shadow, that you having circling the reasoning. It looks like a shadow. So therefore it is. OK. So stop trying to put it onto us and show us with demonstration that you can have gas pressure without containment or at least to show us measurements of Earth curve. Anything. OK. So just this is a dodge because we are specific questions. This is absolutely a dodge. So when somebody claims something like they claim the flat Earth or they claim there's a dragon in their backyard, you should be able to say, hey, how does that work? How do you fit that dragon in your backyard? And then they would provide to you how they're doing it. If that makes no sense, basically it means that their model of reality isn't actually reality. So we're asking direct questions to try and understand how they know this to be true. And instead of saying, hey, we just believe it and we don't know how it works, they're basically saying, no, back to you. You have to show that our model isn't correct. This is flat Earth on trial. So what we're doing is asking questions about their model to see if it holds any water. And instead of just saying, hey, we don't know, they're saying, oh, no, we're not going to answer that. We're going to shift to something else. We're going to tap dance away. We're not going to answer anything. And it's kind of, it's really telling that only one side is giving answers here. And one side is just Mark. It's kind of a concession. He has me. Yeah, Mark, I'll give you an answer. When we go outside, we don't see curvature. We see a stationary topographical plane. We see too far. You, I tell you, I tell you what guys, Ember and Mark football season is coming up in the United States called soccer over in Europe. Go find a flat surface on a soccer field or a football field, a flat surface 60, 70, 80, 120 yards. Get some sort of a camera. Get a P900, P1000. Put it at about four, five, six inch observation height and walk away on your flat plane. You walk away on your flat plane, guys. You will get smaller due to perspective and angular resolution. You will disappear bottom up. It explains exactly why we can see Chicago from St. Joseph, Michigan, or Michigan City, or Warren Dunes, Michigan, and it explains exactly how the sun works on a stationary plane. You guys don't want it because you are expecting your globe to take you out to dinner and to court you because you, for some reason, think that this scientifically impossible thing that is spinning tilted, going through the motions of an ever-expanding universe at insane speeds is scientifically possible. It is not. Thank you for that honest rant. I get it that you're incredulous, but your incredulity proves true. Cool story, dude. Hey, dude, I'll leave, bro. I'll go to dude. How's that sound? Bro, I love it. I love how they add home. Hey, if it makes you happy. It was an argument from incredulity. Calling houses. Someone else's fallacy is not itself a fallacy. It's a fairy. You guys have a fairy tale. It's not a fairy tale. Now, to answer your question, your gerenism, fella, on your guy's side, conducted a test based on that very principle in his documentary. He set up a fence with a hole in it and had a dude hold up a light several miles away and couldn't see the light until the light was held up higher as predicted by the curvature of the earth. And then he went, hmm, interesting. Are you talking about the net? Are you talking about the Netflix hit piece behind the curve 2018? Is that what you're talking about? It's that. And they don't understand why it's that way. We've explained why it's that way. Why gerenism proved there is a curve using the test that Jim just asked us to do. Your dude proved curvature using the test he asked for. Why do you have a problem with this? Your guy's Netflix who stuff is so extreme they can't get on TV did it. And it was behind the curve 2018 hit piece Netflix. And you guys love that about geren and about Bob and stuff like that. You know what? You guys should be ashamed of yourself because Netflix is so extreme it can't even make it on NBC and CBS and ABC. It's so extreme. They've got their own platform. Why would they want to do that? That doesn't matter, Jim. Let me respond to that. Let me respond to that. Let me respond to that, please. Let me respond to that. They've got their own platform. Now I'm not trying to get on to TV. That's no reason why they would. Like this doesn't make sense. Now the lunar eclipse you said I will give you a look. I just want to point this out. I asked about the lunar eclipse and Jim said, let me give you an answer. And then didn't answer the lunar eclipse question. What he did was deflect to some what he did was deflect to something else and go on this sort of unhinged rant about all these things. But he gave an answer, but not to the question I asked. So again, how does a lunar eclipse work on a flat earth? Was the question you didn't answer? I want to point that out and, you know, instead of the tap dance, just say you don't know. You don't know either. You did answer and you can predict them. And you predict and you just obviously get from embers point about the behind the curve. So can I give my statement on that? I can demonstrate this on a flat surface too. You just don't have to have the holes lining up to one another. And the light he was using was diffracting away. It was dispersing thanks to the inverse square law of light. And because he has refraction standing in the by the water, there's so many variables that he did not contend with. And not to note that he's so called experiment that wasn't an experiment was so shoddy and it looked like a dog ate his breakfast. It wouldn't work. Because those holes have to be so precise to work and you have to hold the light source at a perfect horizontal angle to go through those holes. So even if you hold it literally a half a degree or anything a little bit down or up or left or up, it will not align up to go through. So that's why when he put it over the boards, he could see it because there was no obstruction from the boards because he was if he was really precise, he could build up a rig that actually has the angles pointing perfectly. I don't know if you've ever tried to take a laser light and try to point it on a bullseye or something. Let's say he's distance away. Do you know how difficult that is? Yeah. So that sounds all like a excuses to me. There's nothing wrong with the experiment. Excuse me. It's not an experiment. There's nothing wrong with the experiment. Nothing wrong with the way it was set up. It was perfectly they made their predictions. They all agreed that were the predictions. And then what happens is after they get the result that they don't want, people like Flatsoid, like Jim, like Jarenism will look for excuses of why this happened. They will try and excuse it any way they can. Same with the 15 degrees per hour drift that they found on the ring laser gyroscope. So that's why it's looked for these excuses. Back to Jaren's so-called experiment. Can you please give me the hypothesis? The hypothesis? You said it's experiments. So that means it has to have a hypothesis, a scientific hypothesis. Okay. Yeah. If the Earth is not curved, that light should be able to be seen lower down. And if it is curved, then we should have to elevate it to see that light. Okay. So you do know that's called circular reasoning. That's not scientific. What are the control variables that are used? What do you think circular reasoning means? I put it up. I see it. Therefore it's a globe. That's circular reasoning. It's affirming the consequent fallacy. So again, what are the control variables in the so-called experiment, Mock? What are you talking about? You guys are claiming science. You're saying experiments. So control variables, please. Yeah. The control variables are the distance from the origin point to where the light is shining. Because that doesn't change, right? Okay. The distance doesn't change, great. What else? Yes. There's not only one control variable. You have to confine your cause to work out the DV. So if it's only one control, how do you know there wasn't another cause for what we see? And therefore not being Earth curve. How do you know there was? Easy, because you could see him cutting it out with a bread knife. That doesn't make it. What are you talking about? If you guys know anything... Yeah. No, you're just basically deflecting away from the fact that he did the experiment, set up his parameters, did the experiment. It came out not the way he wanted. And then you guys have to scramble to try and invent excuses for why he got the result that the globe Earth predicts. Yeah. I mean, if you don't like his methodology, feel free to repeat the experiment yourself. It's easy enough to do. Again, we are going. You guys are claiming it's an experiment. So show me that it's an experiment. Show me science. You're not showing science. All you're showing is ignorance. That's practically what you're showing. You don't understand science. Well, if you're such an expert, set up your own experiment. Why don't you set up your own? Now you're trying to push the burden on to me when you're trying to show us that it's an experiment. So can you show me the IV, DV, and CVs for this so-called experiment? Yeah. We've done tons of experiments to show that the Earth has been round. It's just you don't accept any of them. But again, you're not willing to go out and do your own experiments, because I think you're afraid that you're going to find exactly what Jarenism did, that your predictions of the flat Earth are failing. Mark, Mark, you said tons of experiments. Which ones? Yeah. So when you say tons, you're saying in the thousands of experiments. Is that hyperbole, or do you really mean it? No, I really mean that. Yeah. Oh, cool. Cool story, bro. Cool story, dude. Cool story, man. Hey, I tell you what. Show me one. What, you mean the Earth has been an experiment? Did he live? Is there any primary physical evidence that the Greek guy lived 2,300 years ago? Yes or no? Doesn't have to. Oh, he doesn't have to. Oh, cool. Yeah. Cool. So no documentation. You guys bring them back. Well, let me answer. You guys bring them up. Let me answer. Hey, this, Mark, you guys bring them up. You guys bring them up as if he's your bro. He never lived. Oh, no, I'm not a bro lever. I'm not a bro lever. OK, dude. So Eratosthenes, it doesn't matter who he was, or even if he even lived. It doesn't really matter. What matters is the experiment and what it shows. It's like if we have an experiment, we can do it today. I mean, I could be completely ignorant of who came up with the experiment. As long as the methodology is sound, then the experiment will work. And I've got news for you. That experiment is done by literally thousands of people every year in the Eratosthenes experiment where they give it to school age children of all ages to do that experiment, collate it over thousands of different locations on the earth. And they find out that the angle of those shadows proves definitively that the grove is curved. The angle. Can that be done on a plane as well? Hey, Mark, can that be done on a plane as well with the Greek guy who probably didn't live, that you guys invoke all the time? Could that be done on a plane surface as well? Yeah, yeah, that's interesting. So it can be done on a flat plane with a local sun if there is two of the sticks like Eratosthenes did. When we expand that to the thousands of people doing it, the angle of the shadows isn't linear. It's exponential, meaning that if it was linear, that would be a flat plane. If it's exponential, i.e. they get longer and longer exponentially as they get further away, then it is a globe. And that's been proven definitively. Oh, I love it. So we have thousands of experiments according to Mark to prove the ball. We have, excuse me, we have tons. I forgot, it's tons of experiments that prove the ball. Well, it is thousands, and how many experiments do we have showing a flat earth? All of them. All you have to do is go outside. What's your control variable for flat earth? Your so-called experiment that you just said is not an experiment, it's a measurement. And that measurement is done with an angle with a flat baseline. In other words, you're utilizing a flat plane to make those measurements. That's what we spoke about earlier. And again, you claiming experiment means the onus is on you to prove it's an experiment. So IV, DV and control from your side. Not from us. No, no, but you've said that there's been tons of experiments for flat earth. What's what's been the control? You said tons of experiments. No, no, no, hang on a second. Hang on, hang on, let me finish. What's been the control and independent variables for your experiments on flat earth? What experiment did I bring up? Mark Reed, we're busy. You said all of them. All of them. You said all of them were experiments. No, you guys are saying all of them are experiments. I asked what experiments have shown a flat earth. A flat earth, okay. And you said all of them. All of them. No, please tell us about some of them. Okay, like experiments when we try and show guess pressure requires containment. We always require containment. What's the control variable for that? Containment. It's a control variable. Yes. What's been varied? The control is the box. You've got the set volume. Without the volume, you have no gas. It's an antecedent. So in other words, the cause. That's not the control variable. Okay, I take the box away. Is there still gas pressure? Is there still gas pressure? It depends. Probably a little slightly. No, there's not. Okay. Well, there's gas pressure in our weather systems and there's no container there. It depends how you word your hypothesis. If you're going to say the cause for the gas pressure is containment, or the cause for gas pressure behavior is the movement of gases, the antecedent will always be containment. So you would need- So you'd beg the question. No, it's not beg the question. It's demonstratable. It's demonstratable, not begging the question. Can you demonstrate? No, it's begging the question. Okay, please demonstrate to me gas pressure without containment, please. Yeah, weather systems, because they have different pressure. Same system. What it shows, excuse me, what weather system shows is that with other phenomenon enforcers in play, there can be areas of low pressure and high pressure next to one another. Like that completely debunks. In the same system. It's the same system. It's the weather system. Do you have gas pressure already present for a weather system? What container is in between these high and low pressures? What? Who said container between? What container is in between these high and low pressures? No one said there has to be a container between. It's the same system, Mark. But they're not the same pressure without a container. They should equalize, yes? Uh-oh. False. False. Remember, Mark, last time when you said gas has no behavior? This is your issue here. Well, what happens with temperature? Does gas have weight? Does gas have weight? It has density. Does it have weight? How do you weigh something, Mark? Well, you can get, say, an air tank, for instance. And if you... No, how do you weigh something? Yeah, I'm telling you, I'm currently telling you, you weigh the container with just air in it, then you compress air into it, increasing the amount of air in it, and then you weigh it again. It weighs more. So that's not weighing gas. That's calculating the gas's mass. How do you think you measure things? Okay, can I make one point? How do you weigh things? How do you think you measure things? Listen, listen. How do you weigh things? I don't understand. Like, I've just told you how you measure. Let's let Flatsoy speak for a minute here there, Mark. Okay. How do you weigh a thing on a scale? Does that object have to be static? That means it sits there static on the scale. A gas molecule does not sit static. It moves constantly. It's all moving in all directions. So therefore, it cannot be a measured weight, because it literally bounces off instantaneously. It has a collision and a way it goes. So you can't have a weight measurement for gas. You cannot have a calculated weight based on, yes, based on a measurement by needing a container, which is making my point. So again, that weather system is in the same system. Your onus is to prove that you can have gas pressure without container. Gas pressure is there for the weather system. Can I respond to this point without going on like 10 points? Look, yes, air molecules are in motion, but they're in motion inside of a scuba tank as well, even if you compress that scuba tank. They're still in motion, but the scuba tank, the more air that you put into it, and scuba divers know this, right? The more air that you put into it, the more it weighs. So with your whole density, right? With your whole density, what is the density of a vacuum? What? Density of a vacuum. That's a really, first of all, non-secret. Well, how do you calculate density? How do you calculate density? Mass per cube volume. Mass per cube volume. So what is the mass per cube volume of a vacuum? Not coherent. How do you work at a mass per volume? By the way, your volume you're having would be a container making my vacuum. There's no masses there. There's no masses there to a vacuum. Show me one vacuum that has no mass or any molecules in. Please. Even your space, 10 to the minus 17 tour, it's not a negative number. Correct. But mass per volume. So there is a small, small, small, small, small amount of mass per volume, right? In a container, correct? No, no, not in a container. Just, just, we're just talking about the two things. So if the most dense thing is the one that'll be at the bottom, correct? No, gas is not, it's not bound, bonded. It moves in all directions, homogeneous. It has elastic collisions. It moves around in all directions. So it's a mixture of different density of gases. We don't just have the densest gas at the bottom. We'd all be dead right now if that was the case. Yeah, because it moves in into mingles, correct? Great. Any thoughts over there, Jim? Yes, but things of weight will always go towards the bottom, correct? Gas moves in all directions. It goes up too. Yeah, so apparently. You were trying to, you tried. Yeah, you don't have a clue about what weight it is. Hold on a second there, Mark. We'll let Flutter into position. And then we, I want to head it over to Ember and Jim before we end our open discussions. Flatzoid, I'll let you respond to Mark and then over to Ember. Awesome. Yeah, so you're false equivocating things like different phases with like a solid and a gas. I'm not the same thing. Gases move in all directions. They have elastic collisions. They never sit still. They're never static where a solid is static. So when you do have what you call with pressure gradients, the gas is still moving around in those gradients. But to have this gradient, you still require a containment to hold all this pressure gradients in. All right, over to you. The antecedent, sorry. I'm almost finished. So the antecedent would be the container, then the gas, and then the pressure gradients. Those pressure gradients, like you like claiming weather systems are already in a containment system. That's my point. They're not in the same system. They're not. Prove it. All right, I want to hear from Ember here. You prove it. You're on trial. Open discussion here. Unless you guys want to keep going, that's your discussion once again. You saw how long the last one went. We almost went for five hours. OK. So you guys be careful if you don't want to get down that rabbit hole again. So Ember, we're talking about containment here. So you want to respond to Flatsoyde's claim there and we'll hand it over to Jim. Well, I'm not super interested in containment. I'd rather get back on topic. You know, as we've mentioned before, we've seen a whole lot of incredulity, not a whole lot actually defending the Flat Earth. I still have a couple of questions like in the openings. We heard about how water seeks its level. You don't see a curve on water. Cool. We don't see the curve of the tidal bulge either, but we know the tides go in and out. I don't think either of our opponents would dispute that fact. So that kind of shows that there can be a curve that we can't perceive with our eyes. It's a non sequitur, Ember. Yeah, huh? No, sure it is. And a bulge of water. And everything that I'd like. Non sequitur, sure. Yep, absolutely. And I'm still waiting on an explanation for how a solar eclipse happens. And for that matter, why you or yeah, lunar eclipse. Well, I'll take a solar eclipse, too. Why not show? Yeah, why not? Yeah. But I mean, the main question that I really want to do address is why reject the mainstream model? Why do you to believe in Flat Earth in the first place besides, you know, that not the justifications, not the oh, we see farther than we should, or there should be gas pressure or what have you? What's what convinced you in the first place? What's at the bottom of it? Are those things are those things not important, Ember? When we say we can't see too far and gas pressure without a container, aren't those legitimate concerns? No, they absolutely are. But when I have a question, I look at the world and I say this thing that I perceive doesn't make sense. I don't decide the entirety of science is wrong and start making shit up. I say, why don't I learn about this and see if I can figure out why that is? This makes sense to you. I mean, as a model, do you live on a model, Ember? Well, as I said in the beginning, don't confuse the map for the place. I mean, I'm serious. You know, the only model that any of us guys should be concerned about is possibly Daniel and Marion one. Do you disagree? I appreciate the sentiment that some things in life are considerably more important. But I would like an answer to the question as to why you're invested in Flat Earth in the first place. I want to know that can you concede this? Can you concede that if not after birth, age five, you went into kindergarten and the teacher who would never lie to you had a spinning ball till the 23.4 degrees by the teacher's desk and you were taught that all the way through education and then entertainment took over and here you are tonight. Will you concede to that? To an extent, not the characterization I get that you're leaning towards indoctrination. But I will say, I will say that there have been globes in classrooms. However, I was one of those kids who asked too many questions and I frequently got sent to the principal's office. I had a second grade teacher who told me you couldn't subtract five from three and I said that's absolutely not true and I got sent to the principal's office and here we know you can do that. That's just not the way she wanted to teach things. So to your point, features are not infallible. I get that which is why we ask questions. We look at the world, we learn more and we do experiments for ourselves. Did you ask questions at age six, seven and eight in grade school? But the problem is, I would like to have a word here because I've been very patient. The problem is that when we ask the questions, you guys don't want to answer any of them and you don't seem interested in what the answers are. You've dodged meteorites, you've dodged circumpolar stars, you've dodged lunar eclipses, you've dodged light planets. I haven't dodged lunar eclipses. You've dodged southern, excuse me, I'm talking. You've dodged southern cross, you've dodged everything that we've brought up with some kind of, well, let's go talk about this instead. Instead of actually looking into these things and coming up with some sort of explanation that we can say, hey, does this hold any water? Can we actually put this into practice and will it give us the results from the phenomenon that you've described and the explanation you've described? And I think the reason why and most people that I meet that are flat earthers are deeply religious. So there's definitely a correlation there. It's because in order for your thing to work, you can't look into these things and create a model because then it's shown to be wrong. I think you're scared to do this. So you're scared to believe there's a creator? We get it. Got it. Cool. All right. Oh, I'm not scared. I just don't think there is. That doesn't scare me in the slightest. Guys, we actually told you about 7 million eclipses top down. Yes. You didn't want to hear it. We told you about LAX and Dallas-Fort Worth and land location, land location, straight line. You guys didn't want it. We told you- I asked you to explain what that means. We told you that there is no, I don't have to prove something that doesn't exist. Okay? And I told you something as far as circumnavigation- So lunar eclipses don't exist? Is that what you're saying? I told you something, circumnavigation north to south, you cannot prove going down to your ball and coming up the other side. You cannot prove- Now, you can say it, but you can't prove it. Now, you should be in the business of proving you're spinning space ball in the vacuum of outer space and, you know, tilted, wobbling, brought to you by Jesuit priest in 1540 that Copernicus had talked about with Hermes Trisman Justice, that Newton, your boy, talked about in the Emerald Tablet. You should be able to know that it's Sun Pagan worship and now it's worship of the great attractor, this black hole that the universe goes around now. You guys, you're Narnia. Not the universe. You're a fairy tale. That's a hell of a storm and gish gal up there, but I'm still wondering about lunar eclipses. It does not exist. All right. I do want to jump in here because I do think we're right about a good time to probably jump into Q&A, but it's up to you, fellas. I know- Sure, yeah. I think Flatsoys has said that you were on a time- We can only get non-answers for so long, so I'm happy to go to Q&A. If they want to concede, that's right. All right. Sorry, I still got an hour and 20 minutes before the power goes off. Okay. I was going to say, I just, yeah, like I said, I don't want to put anybody on mute, so just do your best not to interrupt me because I've got the power. Anyways, if anybody has a moment, they want to go use the washroom. Now would be a great time to step on out. No, I think we're okay to go to Q&A. I think that we've sort of gotten no answers to the questions that we've asked. I mean, I'm still waiting on lunar eclipses and how they work. I mean, even if they're not real real, like we've said, there are a phenomenon that needs to be described because we know that the shadow passes or what appears to be a shadow in fairness, what appears to be a shadow, if that's not true, then what is it? How does it work? I want everybody to leave here tonight knowing that Mark believes this guy proves the ground. Thank you. All right, well, can we- We'll have time for closing statements, of course. So let's get through the Superchats just because that's going to alter the perspective of what our closing statements are going to look like. So if anybody in the live chat hasn't already, hit the like button, share this out in that lovely contentious space that you like to do while you're arguing in your Reddit forums. And as I said to Rob, guitar earlier there, yes, my beer is not flat. So you want to talk about gas in a chamber? You're all just lucky I have a mute button. That's right. All right, let's go into the Superchats. Big bad mama, five dollars. Flat earthers, please describe in detail the origin of the global cabal of anti-flat earth scientists. Where and when did it originate? All right, here we go. The history is simply some person woke up and decided, I love balls. It's a perfect shape. So therefore the gods had to create it as a ball. And therefore they started pushing it into a belief system, which is actually satanistic. That's why all your ratios are based with triple six. The doctors, the doctors of divinity in the Catholic church, the Jesuits became the doctors of science. It started with a Liola Ignatius Liola 1539. It ended at the treaty of the Council of Trent in 1563. If you believe those dates, and the Jesuits took over the Catholic church, we got the Gregorian calendar because of that. And so I'm telling you guys, you are literally worshiping the sun, now the great attractor. It all started with Copernicus when he looked into the sky and theorized using his eyes what's going on. Everybody can do that too. And then, like I said, Ignatius Liola took it over, took over, he became the first black pope as far as in the Catholic church. And they have controlled everything, including education, basically. And that's what you're talking about. And you can make an argument that Copernicus, Descarre, Newton, Galileo, and Kepler never lived because it was the Catholic church that basically said, you go to the Catholic encyclopedia, Copernicus was an employee of the Catholic church his entire life. In May of 1543, he dedicated on the revolution of the heavily spheres to the pope, then died the same month. He was on his deathbed when he published it and gave it to the pope. Cool story, guys. If you want to believe that fairy tale, you go ahead. We question and reject basically everything in your world, except when my teacher told me how to parallel park when I was 16, I still do that today. But the rest of it is garbage. And I keep going on and more about the Cabal. Yeah, I'm really curious how, why, why the church imprisoned Galileo, the Catholic church who's behind all this when Galileo brought forth evidence that refuted the geocentric model? Like, why were they mad at their boy who is spreading their cabal? If you believe their narrative, Ember, I can't help you. All right, we're going to be careful what topics we get into here just so we don't get in trouble on the YouTube. You don't want to hear more about the Black Pope? WQ, calm, no, that, I was going to say. No, I had no idea what you were actually going to say. I was just going to keep going. Okay, okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right, Mr. Monster. I didn't bring it up. I didn't bring it up. It wasn't good news time. No more like that. All right, so Mr. Monster, $10. Yeah, don't get us kicked off YouTube here. I swear. I believe that the government is making up Flat Earth so that we don't see the reptilian aliens on the moon. Do you agree? I'm not joking. No. Mr. Monster says they're not joking. They believe there's reptilian. I have to tell him he might have to check his medication. That's a little spicy. Gemini thoughts on this idea? I wouldn't sort of comment on anybody's health. I think that I'm not a doctor. But yeah, I don't think that there's a lot of evidence for any reptilians at all. There's no evidence for the Flat Earth at all. All of these things are just conspiracy theories and people. The prediction was from me that it would be religion is the reason why they believe that the Earth is flat. Generally, that's what we see. It's sort of this thing that people can fall into where their free held beliefs influence how they see the world. Science is supposed to eliminate bias and that's how it works. So essentially, when you go in there, you are simply observing phenomenon, trying to come up with experiments that are neutral, agnostic towards all previous sort of influences. And that's essentially what they do. And Emma brought up a good case. Jaren isn't in come up with a fine experiment. It's just proved what he didn't want it to prove. I like Mark in the same sentence. Said reptilian and Flat Earth is really cool, man. It's just the greatest thing to listen. Do you believe in the reptilians on the moon? Absolutely not. My God. You never know. I'm sorry, Super Chateau. You should always don't share your identity. I tell you what, it's fun. Guys, you guys are cool. I talked about news, their log motion, and Flat Soy took over second law of thermodynamics. And I would love to talk inverse square law of light before we leave. But if we can't, maybe James will have us back. We can do it another day. Well, I don't mind going down a semi-rabbit hole for maybe like a couple of minutes if these fellows are open to it. So what's the topic, Jim? Inverse square law of light. Did you guys want to maybe take like five minutes and talk about that? Or did you want to make me save that for another time? I don't have a problem with the inverse square law. It's a law. Cool. I think that settles it. All right. Well, we'll continue on from there. And maybe, Jim, if you want to poke around in our Discord after this, maybe we can link up and figure out what we can do to have another conversation here. Yeah, cool. And just want to remind everybody, there are 600 people watching right now. 147 likes on my side. So hit the like button. Super Smash Brothers, that like button. Yeah, that's right. Let's continue on. I'm trying to find the super chats. I got a pad, you know, as these things load. You were wondering why I left earlier. It's because I had to grab a fan because my computer is heckin' hot right now. So Mr. Monster, $10. That was the one I just read. Sorry. Romney, Romy, John Dorf? John Dorf, I'm sorry. Romy John Dorf. For two euros. What does the underneath of the earth look like? Good question. Well, it depends on what cosmology. Well, if you have a globe, you don't have an underneath of the earth with a flat earth. It's just simply down, which would be waters above, waters below. That's about it. All right, any other thoughts? I just moved over there. All right, excellent. I never just put in the live chat that Mark's having an after-party on his channel. Yeah, Mark, if you're in our live chat right now, if you want to post your link for that, and anybody here, I know that our links might not necessarily be up right now. They will be in our post-production if they aren't already. I'll make sure I mention that to James afterwards. So let's continue on from there. So, Romy John Dorf, again, for two euro. How big is space? Do you believe in huge distances? Is that two? That would be for the flat earth side, I would say. Oh, huge distances. First of all, we don't believe in Narnia. We don't believe in a fairy tale. So if you want to talk about huge distances here on our stationary topographical plane, great. But if you're talking about light years, that's Narnia. That's a fairy tale. Yeah, it's, again, once again, trying to place the globe belief on to us. So, yeah, we don't have to believe in light years and light years away as people like to put it. All right, any thoughts on the other side? Oh, sorry, go ahead, Jim. Yeah, you're great for putting up with me. Thank you. I just want to emphasize one thing. I've asked everybody who believes in the globe this question. I want to ask Amber and Mark if they believe this as well. We're told that a photon, which is massless, M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, photon, which is light, can travel 13.7 billion years with a B in the vacuum of outer space, which is 86,600 quintillion miles with 18 zeros behind it to reach our eye here on Earth. Amber, Mark, do you believe that? Sure, I mean, if black travels at 300,000 kilometers per second, so it's not exactly... Cool. I mean, it's very, very fast. It's the fastest thing in the universe, but I don't see the problem with it traveling that far. Okay, cool. I appreciate your honesty. Thank you. Can I maybe ask something and show you guys a question? If you have a cigarette and it's nighttime, it's pitch-black dark and it doesn't matter what elevation you have, it can be above even your belief of Earth curve. Why is it you can't see a cigarette light that's over a kilometer away? Because light diffuses. All right, let's continue on with the super chats. I think that's a good place to leave off there and just a reminder to the live chat, take a moment and hit the like button or if you're not in the live chat, hit the like button anyways. Sorry, Amber, do you want to address that one? I'm sorry, I just sort of jumped in there. I think everything's going to come full circle as we go through these super chats. So just sit tight and I'm sure if you do have something that you thought about, it's going to, like I said, it'll come full circle, not to make a pun. LJ, a 499. Even my dog knows the moon landing was faked and Earth is level slash flat. Question to the brainwashed sheep. Amber and Mark, do you believe in Santa Claus 2? Have you been good boys this year? Oh, I'm never good. I go for coal every year. I mean, obviously that's a silly question. But it's worth noting that according to historical documents, St. Nicholas did exist. He was a real person at one point. So, you know, if we believe history, then there was one. Whether he still exists now, that's more of a question. If we believe history, then there was one. Whether he still exists now, that's more of a matter of faith, which I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I'm an atheist. I don't really do faith. Yes, I don't do faith either. And I think that I'm sort of equating the moon landing with sort of Santa Claus where we know one has been a fictionalized changing of events. And, you know, we can do tests today to bounce lasers and bounce ham radio off the moon. Like, you know, they left reflectors up there for a reason. If you have the precise coordinates, you can bounce a laser off that box reflector that they left up there. Really cool stuff. I've done it myself. Awesome. Yeah, we've also got, well, just to say, let me finish. We've also got sort of rovers that have been up there. The Chinese have sent rovers, other countries have sent rovers up to the moon and sort of you can even see the flybys and other things of the moon landing site kind of thing. So yeah, I just don't believe this big conspiracy theory. That's all. Mark, they've sent trillions upon trillions of photons to the moon. And sometime about 10, 12 years ago, one photon came back and they say it came back and that's what proved to bounce off the moon. If you want to look that up, that's just great. You guys say you're both atheists and you have, you know, you don't base your, you know, off faith. Do you have faith in the spinning space ball in the back of outer space? Yes or no? No, I have confidence based on evidence. And so you have faith that you're living on a spinning space ball? As I said, I have confidence based on evidence. You have faith in that. So if you could not straw man my answer, I said I had confidence based on evidence. As I've mentioned, I've done several of these tests myself. I confirmed with my own eyes and the results lead me to believe that what I've been told is probably correct or more precisely, I don't have a reason to doubt it. What experiments have you done to prove your eight inch per mile squared drop over distance? I've traveled. I've seen lunar eclipses. I've repeated the sticks and shadows thing. I've bounced the laser off the moon. Oh, you bounced the laser off the moon. Did you record that so we can all see it, please? Well, I've heard they've bounced signals off the moon before they even had the moon landings. So that's a bit weird. No, no, no, they bounced ham radio off the moon before they had the moon landings. That's the last word here. Well, that's all I wanted to say. I didn't know if you would respond to what you just said there, but that's okay before we get down another rabbit hole there because we got quite a few super chats. Keep them coming to everybody. Because I think, like I said, anything you're thinking about right now, we're going to get back to it one way or another. Sunflower $5 question for either side. If someone created a basic beam level with a fluid vial that was a mile long. How would the fluid in the level appear flat? A mile long. It would have full idea curvature because that's what level means. No, it doesn't level means flat. Level means mark. Did you just say that level means earth curvature? Did you just say that level? Level means perpendicular with the center of mass of whatever it is that it's on. I have level even though it's not level to the Earth's surface. You can still work. I mean, that's basically what it means. Do you ever get tired of mental gymnastics, Mark? Do you? Do you ever get tired of tap dancing? I go out. This is getting into my slinging. Yeah, but can I just ask that? I didn't start it. Can I just ask them, Mark? You do know horizontal doesn't curve, right? Do I know horizontal doesn't curve? I'm not even sure what to say. The mathematical ideal of horizontal doesn't. But in the real world, yeah, it sure does. And you can't build a skyscraper without taking the curvature of the earth into account because the parallel uprights of the building aren't perpendicular, aren't parallel. The building is wider at the top than it is at the bottom. Where's the blue? Because the earth is bigger. What? Where's the blue? Where's the blueprint? Where's the blueprints for that, Ember? Again, you can speak something, but you can't prove it. Where's the blueprints for that, the architecture for that? Where's it at? I was going to ask a skyscraper. You said it's wide at the top than the bottom. Ever so slightly, yes. No, skyscrapers go thinner, closer together as they go up because they need less weight. You're deliberately misunderstanding me. Take the Empire State Building, the square part at the very top. If you trace that directly down, forget about how the building flares out just the square part at the top. The blueprint on the ground is smaller than the space it takes up up above because the upright beams move slightly further apart because up and down are not parallel. Tension. It's called mechanics. Ah, excuses. Awesome. Excuses, yeah. No, it's mechanics. It's for tension. Things need to be able to withstand the environment. So first you're incredulous and now you're throwing out whatever pops into your head that you can explain it away with. Exactly. I get exactly the same argument with the Arizona Bridge. Why do you think it's leaning? Because it's a tension bridge. Yeah, I'll just add something that there's no such thing as a exactly straight line. It sort of is one thing that we can't actually practically put into the real world. Everything has a curve. The only straight line is one that's conceptual. Like because even the slightest misalignment of atoms when you get down to the very nitty gritty will make it not a straight like a perfectly straight line. So essentially when you're talking about perfectly horizontal, it is just conceptual and not something that we can actually put into place in the real world. So Mark does again, Mark says again that there is no such thing as a straight line. I tell you that the mental gymnastics that you two and the globe community go through amazes me every single day. That's not a refutation. You just, I tell you what, I'm telling you right now, I'm calling the globe up tomorrow. And which one of you two want to go on a date with it first? Okay, Jim, can you present to me then a perfectly straight line? Can you present? No, no, no, no, no. No, Mark, you made the claim. You made the claim and then you went to atoms. You went to atoms with elect, you know, with a nucleus, with electrons that go around it, that a massless photon can go into and bump into a different orbit or bump back into the nucleus, which is the photoelectric effect that Einstein stole and published in 1905, one Nobel Prize for 1921. You invoked it. I did not. I questioned it. You made the claim. So it's on you, Mark, to prove what you just said about the atom and all that stuff and a line not being straight. It's conceptual. Those are your words. Okay, so can you present to me a straight line that when I don't know, excuse me, can I please speak? This one up and then we're going to move on. So if your claim is that a line can be perfectly straight, you should be able to present to me a perfectly straight line that when I zoom into it and get closer and closer and closer, it will still remain straight and not deviating any way whatsoever. You can present that to me at any time. That is not how the game is played, Mark. You made the claim and I called you out on it and then you even had the audacity to bring up atoms as if you've ever seen one and as if Einstein ever saw one. Are we denying atoms exist now? You can see electrons under electron microscope. Is that what you're saying? That's exactly what he's saying. Okay, cool. Cool. I want you to give me an electron microscope and I want you to send me a photo of an electron under an electron. I didn't say an electron. That's what I want. Don't you understand the difference between the electrons? I understand. Just fine. You want to spin a baseball in the vacuum of outer space and you say you don't have faith. You have faith in something that doesn't exist and is basically sun pegging worship. That's what it started. Mark, the doctors of divinity became the doctors of science. That is basically what has happened. Guys, you believe in something that does lie. Can we get back on the topic? If you could demonstrate that, that would be great. We should go back to that. So you have to dance away. Can't demonstrate the straight line. That's your claim, Mark. Let's get back into the super chats, everybody. Just because we do have a lot more pouring in and flatsoids on limited time. So I do want to get through as many of them as we can. Well, flatsoids still here. But flatsoids, we super appreciate you being here. Kyle G, 10 euros for the Globes. Could you kindly please provide a practical demonstration in order to be able to determine that a selenolian eclipse is only possible due to refraction? That's our first super chat from Kyle G. So thank you. So he's asking and I'm sorry, sometimes with the headphones on, it's hard to speak. For the Globes, could you kindly please provide a practical demonstration in order to be able to determine that a selenolian eclipse is only possible due to refraction? So yeah, we can do multiple experiments of how light curves in the atmosphere and how the atmosphere affects it. The only reason why the refraction is so pronounced in a selenolian eclipse is because it's coming in sideways through the atmosphere. Then it has to pass through a lot more atmosphere as if it was top down kind of thing. So we can actually measure the amount of deflection that occurs because the more atmosphere it has to pass through, the more that that light is refracted. So we can actually do experiments on that. Did you get that from Google, Wikipedia or NASA? So he asked for a practical demonstration. I don't have the moon in my back pocket, but I do have a camera lens handy. It is just a regular 7800 camera lens. What we're seeing with a selenolian eclipse is more like a fisheye lens because the atmosphere being curved behaves like a fisheye. And like a fisheye lens, you can see things further to the side that appear more towards the middle than they actually are. It's a distortion effect because the atmosphere is a curved lens type effect. So I mean, that's the best I've got for practical demonstration. I'll give you your camera and I'll take my P1000 any time over your camera. I'm telling you guys... Yeah, I've got one of those, too. I'm telling you guys, you can see further than you're supposed to on your 8 inches per mile squared drop over distance. And when you walk away on a flat surface, you get smaller due to perspective and things disappear bottom up. You can do that experiment yourself. You don't have to rely on anybody else a scientist to tell you. You can do it yourself. You can do it tomorrow if the weather's fine. Do it and find out that we live on a stationary plane and not your spinning spaceball, which 8 inches per mile squared drop over distance has never, ever been proved. Yeah, I see the thing is... Except always. We can demonstrate these effects on flat surfaces like we have many times. And I mean, I've even done it on MTD where we showed a person takes a flat floor, brings in the cold air for a fraction, and then it looked curved, doing opposite of what your globe claims. Yeah, so that video was like done in shaky cam with someone without even the cam fixed. We've got no idea whether it was holding steady or straight or up and down. Yeah, but it just like when he was moving it around like it was just on the ground. It was the most... Yeah, flat soiled. Seriously, man. I know your experiment sucks, but you know, no need to talk over the top of me. Like it basically, when you said you could see this, he was actually having it in his hands and moving around as I pointed out. Like, if flat soiled has a problem with the amateurness of Geronism's experiment, then he should absolutely throw this experiment out the window because nothing was fixed. There was no controls. There was just a guy saying, hey, this is what it looks like through my camera when he's moving it around. We don't have any idea what angle it was on. Nothing was documented at all in any way, shape or form. Just here, trust me. 15 seconds to you, flat soiled, and then we'll hand it over to Ember to close this question for the globe side. So, flat soiled. Okay, yeah. Again, it's not an experiment. Learn what science is, please, Mark. Thank you. Over to you, Ember, for the closing of this question here. Yeah, we're still on the Cillinellian eclipse. You got it. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's pretty much what's going on. The fact that we can is itself a demonstration of a curved atmosphere. I mean, I'm not sure. Yeah. Although it is interesting that by a similar mechanism, we can see the sunrise, the moon rise, et cetera. And the fact that they rise rather than start out small in the distance and get closer without ever crossing the horizon as one might expect on a flat plane also kind of demonstrates that it's not a flat plane. And also, also on the topic of the P1000, the fact that we can see farther than some people think we should be able to and yet we do. That demonstrates that we can see that far, not whether the should or shouldn't. We can't see from New York to L.A. The fact we can't is a problem for a flat work. No, it is not. The fraction limits. Give me up. Oh. Ember, excuse me. Ember, excuse me. All right, we open it. Hold on, guys, before we go on. I'd like to just add one thing because the question was fast. I just want to add one thing. They keep saying this number for the drop. 15 seconds. And then I do want to hand it over to the other side because we've opened up a big old can of worms from the sounds of things and Jim had some thoughts. So, Mark, go ahead for 15 seconds. Usually the people ask the questions of the one to end. I don't know if that's what you're doing, Ryan. I have no idea. I don't think it should be too much. I think you're just right. It's not the formula for calculating. 1.22. Tom's there, sir. There's not feeds. All right. Jim, you had some thoughts. Ember thinks that we can see forever and things don't disappear bottom up, so we should be able to see, you know, No, I agree. Things should disappear bottom up. You know, it's really, it's really interesting. Ember, you're still disingenuous. Hey, here's a guy who sent me something and he said, my team and I did a video using zoom to tracked object. This is why the sun never changes size with filter in their videos. The tracker is constantly adjusting zoom. Anything will always look the same size. And then he goes you can use a filter and a P1000 with no tracker and it will not adjust zoom therefore the object will become smaller as it goes away. Guys I don't put it past any of you globers who believe in faith of your globe that you would put a tracker and claim that the sun doesn't you know you know you know changes angular size as it moves away. I wouldn't put it past any of you. It does change. It does change size as it moves away. I've seen it with my P1000. I've seen it with my phone. I'm sorry guys if you want to believe in your fairy tale and you want to think that the globe has done something for you so you come online and defend it you know because it is faith that you believe in a spinning space ball. Cool man. What is the flatter done for you? Hey Ember asked me something. It gave me the truth. That's what it gave me. All right we're going to let Ember close out this question here. Yes. I just have an in reply to that. I just have a quote from Don Quixote. Don't ever let the fact get in the way of a good truth. Yeah and you have no facts on your spinning space ball period. All right Mark close this out on this one. Yeah so this is the thing. I think the question was the globe ever done for us. Well it's just that's just where we live. We get to understand the world a little bit better and I just want to point out that Blood Earth has done nothing to improve the lives of anybody at all. At least sort of you know we've got sort of all of these inventions as a result of the space industry. Flat Earth they did have a space thing and it ended tragically when the guy crashed his rocket. So yeah we've never gotten anything from Flat Earth that's been worth a damn really. All right. Except that the fact you live on a stationary plane Mark. Well let's try to continue on from there. We'll have lots of time and yeah I am going to try to keep it traditional in the sense of letting one side that's been asked the question to end the question but we're Flatsoids on limited time. Thank you. I do want to let Flatsoids sink his teeth into the things that really gets his goat. So let's continue on everybody. Everything? Well no the things the things. That idol for one euro that was your first super chat. No question attached there. Thanks buddy. Let's keep having fun here. So Tim Pryor five dollars yeah every yeah every field of science and every scientist agrees with the globe but sure it's scientifically impossible that's why we laugh okay. This is for the little probably for the Globes. I think it sounds for the Globes almost like they're saying you're claiming science but it's not actually science it's sugar science. Yeah I think it's it's yeah so the whole idea that it's impossible isn't true it's not impossible it's just people like Flatsoid and Jim think it's impossible and they don't think they could possibly be wrong so really you have to sort of weigh up which is the most parsimonious which was the most likely thing that the great thinkers of our minds are ones that understand physics and astronomy and all of these different fields like a ton of the geology all of these fields they're all wrong or and they're the most educated in their fields they're all wrong or or alternatively people who have never been educated in these fields at all and have done their own online research are wrong the problem which is more likely the problem with astronomy and astrophysics is you got it just a little bit worse than everybody else you got dumber by degrees the longer you were in it the worse it got yeah it's it's it's that simple and you know you know and ember and mark um we've been cordial thank you I'm gonna say this the the reason people people don't want to rock the boat why because they depend on the boat to stay afloat to get paid mm-hmm yeah and also and we also got to say the reason it's uh seen as pseudoscience is because it is pseudoscience you guys hold so-called science is based on a belief and an opinion of a globe so you already have your bias uh adjustments for well here so there's no actual science for it and there's no experiment you could say you guys just take uh calling things experiment like if you take astrophysics and astro astronomy and stuff can you go in projection can you go in can you go and uh manipulate the ivy to get your course no so you use circular reasoning you make a mathematical basis up and you prove it mathematically that's not scientific that pseudoscience so here's the thing when when we have the possibility of two conflicting ideas we can devise a test to tell which one is which globe model heliocentric model big bang model whatever model you care to use they make predictions and then we test things and every single time the make the standard model is verified letter so doesn't make predictions you can speak it but you can't prove it i'm calling you out right now you can speak it but you can't prove it okay let's take this into uh how many times is the sun's like uh distance changed through heliocentricism the sun's distance changes daily we're in an elliptical orbit talking about no the distance from earth to the sun how many times this has changed in history since its conception it's now 93 million miles away right correct it changes the other way it used to be closer no the standard distance okay okay well let me answer flat so i don't just keep running on um we have an average distance to the sun because as we go round the sun during the year as ember pointed out it's ecliptical so it changes um yearly like i don't understand so so when they say how how often has it changed it changes all the time because we're we're not in an exact orbit to the sun it's it's not a perfect circle who proved who proved motion of the earth around the sun mark ember who proved motion of the earth around the sun hello who did prove wow got loaded every a few different people have hey over the guys guys guys every interferometer in the answer every every interferometer experience experiment since michaelson mortley 1887 all the all the way through date miller and every interferometer experiment since then uh no matter you know they get more and more precise has shown three five six or eight kilometers per second around the sun and not 30 kilometers per second or six six thousand six hundred miles six six six around the sun so every scientist who believes in the spinning ball has shown three five six or eight kilometers per second around the sun and not 30 kilometers which google tells you every single one tell me how that's possible you can you can assure the orbit tell me how that's possible you can't measure that with an interferometer michaelson mortley enter a test of the luminiferous aether it proved no wasn't one that's all it does i know i got i got the paper right here i got it right here and it says on the relative motion of the earth and the ether but it talks about the relative motion of the earth and and michaelson mortley showed one sixth of the 30 kilometers per second every interferometry experiment debunks your motion of the earth which destroys your heliocentrism it debunks the answer no it just no that's the aether that is your interpretation of it because you can accept that heliocentrism that interferometry destroys your heliocentrism your sun pagan worship and you know the reason you have an elliptical orbit instead of a circular because in the math a circular orbit doesn't work so they had to make it elliptical in the math not in the evidence but in the math and then i still have problems with three bodies of motion no i think you should prove yourself right to be honest with you um but yeah this is just you know nonsense um i'll wrap up so i think i'll build off well i think i'll build off what ember said to wrap up that that when we have competing models we usually make some predictions or present those models to say hey this is how it works and see which one actually comports with reality and which one doesn't what we've seen here tonight is this tap dance and this this desperate running away from any kind of explanation of how their things work at all they didn't explain meteorites they didn't explain um um lunar eclipses they didn't explain anything we asked them to sell a helian saline alien eclipse they didn't explain how that actually works because they don't want to present you don't know how because if they if they put up a model next to the the globe earth they would have to try to show you that that comports with reality better and it's just not going to why don't you just go why don't you just go data model and marry one instead of believing in a fairy tale model of your globe why don't you just go data all right let's i'm married i think my wife would probably yeah that's a good point and hopefully i would imagine her let's carry on and consider a model we have all i'm gathering that you're not married i'm gathering you're not married at all cool cool story mark let's get married no let's not get into each other's let's move along because that's not well i mean my personal life is being brought up so you know i don't know but we'll set a better tone going forward so dr dino five dollars mark so they're they're parroting uh mark says here's how rockets work jim says yeah according to your fairy tale flat earthers please google and read the definition of an oxidizer so google thank you hey whoever wrote that thank you for playing google wikipedia chat gpt and nasa i will refuse so if somebody tells me to go google something i am gonna laugh because when you google speed of the the motion of the earth around the sun you get 30 kilometers per second or 66600 miles per hour but every interferometer experiment ever is shown three five six or eight so i am going to google nothing well i heard of the conspiracy folks that yeah yeah but i just just to add just to add quickly quickly don't use chat gpt it doesn't give accurate results at all it's not designed to fact check what it what it looks up so don't use that okay wikipedia and google well i use google scholar a bit yeah sure but it's the papers that i'm looking up journals that i'm looking up not google itself google google's a web crawler you know they don't actually put anything up themselves all they do is find things in other sites when that's how it works when is your science ever shown uh motion of the earth at 30 kilometers per second around the sun uh yeah i think we already went over this you sort of went on the other side when when when when is your science just a red herring when this is just a red can you show me 30 kilometers per second around the sun sure i want to see it i want i want to see it i want to see 30 kilometers per second around the sun please sure yeah this comes back to you guys have claims without demonstrations so it's just faith-based we told you how to conduct the experiments yourself to make observations yourself these are demonstrations you can do at home observation is not a demonstration you actually have to do the demonstration instead of hiding behind i see something so i affirm the consequence that what i see is what i say it is that's just circular reasoning which is why we create hypotheses if this then this will happen if not then this will happen and then we see which it is that's that's how you sort of what's true that's circular reasoning that's why it's not science that's the opposite what's wrong with you our science our science works is you first observe the national phenomena then you want to figure out the cause for that natural phenomena therefore you create the hypothesis this is the cause for the natural phenomena therefore if it's validated with experiment then it's validated or it's disproven see that's what we're trying to do is prove that that's not just a reason no no no wait wait wait because you don't understand science flat so you have no idea you try to disprove the hypothesis right it's called falsification i don't know that's the one that's the opposite of your alternative hypothesis so you validate the one and disprove that disagrees with you yes if you can't prove the alternative hypothesis you fall back on the null so which did we first do observe the natural phenomena you guys do not observe the natural phenomena first you make your hypothesis then you observe the natural phenomena that's not science that's you are so oblivious to science really incredible okay when you had the so-called eddington experiment as you put it was that first observed or was it predicted before what what's your science is that we verify things so it's not science then it's circular reasoning i see the sun come up so therefore the sun comes up because god pushes it up so so a hypothesis you basically make the hypothesis so just say you're trying to find out what is causing something you say hey i observed this i think it might be say the earth is round right okay that becomes the alternative hypothesis right no what yes yes that is how it works tell me the course for round that is how it works then give me the course around if the earth is not round i should see this and go out to falsify that hypothesis you don't understand science circular reasoning you have to you have to manipulate the independent variable to get your outcome how do you manipulate around please tell me how you manipulate yes you are projection no you're completely clueless so you don't manipulate about science you are the best contender for the dunning kruger awards i have ever seen in my life have you it's incredible do you manipulate the iv or not mark do i manipulate the iv i don't even know what you're talking about so you're speaking ignorance projection i do you manipulate the iv do you manipulate the iv how do you manipulate the iv i don't even know what context you're referring to independent variable that's the cause of the effect aka your iv the course which causes the dv the the okay so that's what you're talking about okay and you're telling me i'm the ignorant to science projection no i just iv can stand for a lot of things you you did give me even say the action iv stands for one thing all right let's continue on with our super chats what intravenous we've got all kinds of uh questions here god you're so slow it's it's incredible so we've almost cracked 200 likes i i'm not i was gonna say i speak pretty fast sometimes i gotta be careful uh i won't take that projection on to me or else live chats gonna just tear me to shreds uh abner 999 floris do you believe the moon is made of plasma thanks abner for that super chat your first one you want that flat white you want that possible yeah it could be possible uh we do not know what it is so we're not making claims but it's a possibility what is all what we all like in this sense like i'm yeah i'm sorry all all i guess okay all i know all i know with this the moon is this when it reaches about a quarter or the last quarter or the gibbous uh you know either way after full moon or before four full moon it is looking up at 3 34 it's looking up about 1 32 o'clock 2 33 o'clock and the sun is down at five o'clock 5 30 if it was on the moon if you wait to after the full moon and you get you get a quarter or you get you know you know waning gibbous that that's what it's called that the moon is looking up at 10 10 3 11 o'clock and the sun is down at eight if you go by line of site in your fairy tale outer space you should always have the sun illuminating directly on the moon i have videos showing that it does not and we're coming up to a first quarter here real soon in a few days and i you know i'll i'm gonna do it again but i'm telling you guys the the moon is self-illuminating because line of sight will tell you that if the sun if in your fairy tale the sun will be illuminating the moon directly on that side and not looking up or looking up and the sun lower in the sky but i i appreciate your fairy tale but you know what's we're right before you guys jump in here just to clarify for our super chatter so that is a yes you do believe the moon is made of plasma or you think that's a possibility it's just a possibility the question was the sun made of plasma i think no is the moon is the moon made of plasma the moon's made of plasma no it's a possibility no one's claiming this but again don't you think it's an interesting fact that when you have a new moon you're not able to see it that's what the new moon no no matter how much exposure you put you do not able to bring the moon into view we know that well it's a physical object actually not true um during the last solar eclipse what was it 2017 i took my kids i took photos i had a ton of cameras with me and i did get the face of the moon off of the earth shine reflected directly back at the moon in front of the sun so yeah you can see the moon when it is literally brand new if you do it exactly right do you maybe have a channel i'd love to check this out if you got the video i do not have the video on my channel but i do have a channel awesome so so again ember is speaking something but he can't prove something thank you so again um i just like to point out that they're making all of these statements on sort of how the their model works what what what the model entails but they don't actually even know so what this shows is that the moon can be anything to justify their presuppositions about the world if something doesn't work they can just say hey the moon's not plasma it's this other thing oh well that's not you know this other thing it's then made of cheese is why that they chose what it shows this is the deception that flat earth always does they always will never get pinned down to one description because then they can change it to suit whatever proves them wrong you self-project really well excuse me excuse me this is the path to ignorance um it absolutely is why do you think it's called relativity because you can change it anytime you want to it's not called it's not called special objectivity or general objectivity it's called relativity because you can change it anytime mark you've you self-project at least two or three times tonight and this is the first time i've called you out but i'm telling you right self-project if you believe if you believe that the moon can look up at 10 10 30 and the sun can be down at eight and vice versa before it becomes a new moon and you say well it's refraction or the billion of warp into spacetime or whatever line of sight should tell you that the moon is self-illuminating you go look at it in three or four days look at it after the full moon and you come back with me because i have video that the moon is self-illuminating i'm sorry guys i know you're atheist your faith is in the globe some of us have faith in a creator who created us i mean that's cool how do you get a shadow on a self-illuminating surface okay can i finish off this so i'll give it to the next one jay uh ryan yeah um we'll i'd like the answer to that how do you get a shadow on a self-illuminating surface first of all you're making a assertion that it's a shadow secondly um like we're saying what is it we don't know just like just because your globe tells you it's something doesn't make it so it just means you are gullible and enough to have faith to believe it's what's to be told what's the definition of a shadow again we're closing off here nobody's saying it's a shadow what's not a shadow oh i'm saying it's a shadow so you claiming it to be a shadow that's you that's not me all right let's move on here guys uh ten prior five dollars apparently this is not the one that the flat earthers are going to give evidence for flat earth they are really obsessed with globe earth aren't they uh they're coming at you too so jim and flat so maybe they want to date the globe us model have you ever thought about that maybe they want them maybe they're jealous okay flat so it flat so you go then i have a response okay okay what do you think we presented bodies of water always stay level flat at rest no measured curve unique containment to have gas pressure no rotation of earth aka all flat so i don't know what he's talking about since nine experiments that showed us blood earth since 19 since 1958 65 years ago nasa has gotten 700 billion dollars space force i don't know that they started december 2019 you have other space agency spread throughout the world you have education you have entertainment it is a very good possibility if you adjust for inflation between 1958 and today 65 years that the globe through taxpayer money printing money borrow money ngo's foundations has gotten somewhere between eight and ten trillion dollars with a t and our side from foundations uh ngo's taxpayer money printing money borrow money has gotten zero your science has been bought all right well uh i didn't want to keep this going but you're kind of coming at the other side there so let's not address the question i'm just giving you i'm just giving you facts as far as money that you that your side has gotten that our side hasn't it weird how you fund actual science huh all right let's continue on dr dino two dollars thanks for your super chat thanks to everybody else for their super chat i think i've been forgetting to say thanks for your super chat you know so a big thank you to everybody who has already put in the super chat uh and to those of you who haven't uh no thank yous shame on you dr dino two dollars serious thank you for watching anyway yeah thanks for watching don't don't let my my canadian stark has him jar you right i do i do know uh that i've been i should say i i've been known to say uh that the canadian sorry is usually uh sorry you're so stupid eh um that's why a is usually followed up with that you know we're not actually looking at canadians in a whole new light now yeah exactly that apologies really just like a little tiny uh backhand anyways i'm kidding i'm kidding sorry to the canadians in the live chat let's continue on dr dino two dollars i'll say it again serious hoven flashbacks here having fun e and m are you having fun ember and mark yeah absolutely um i i think i think and and it's funny because you hear the the same arguments that like and hoven kind of goes off flat earth as a stupid and stuff like that easy really is is this really denigrates them completely which i probably wouldn't do um but you know it's odd because you hear the same arguments from these people um about a young earth about flat earth about about all these conspiracies stopping us from learning the fun kind of thing but they yeah but they can't agree on the truth that's the thing like you hear all these conspiracy theories but they can never get on the same page yeah and um you know your thoughts and then i you know jim uh flat so you guys having a good time you have to uh you know oh yeah it's always chill i love our modern day debate how you'd have i love i i i i enjoy ryan he's very very fair and mark and ember first time i've met you you guys are great and i i know flat so it a little bit yeah and jim's awesome it's good to actually have jim on here i mean that's your first debate correct jim yes on modern day debate yes and i want and if i don't get a chance to thank if i don't get a chance to thank james i want to thank james right now oh yes uh oh well it's it's well worth it to wake up at when i am for these things i was going to say yes always a big thank you to uh the modern day debate uh overlord james our lord and savior here uh at modern day debate for uh just creating such an amazing channel where we can have a neutral platform for everybody to share their views uh we're going to continue with the q and a uh once again i want to remind our fellas if you have want an opportunity to use the washroom get yourself a drink uh we can have a little moment for that yay or nay no these guys are professionals i'm good for right now they don't want to go anywhere oh my wife just got home hello wife anyways uh let's continue on hi ryan waifu hello ryan waifu hi oh hi always throwing her jacket on the back of my chair i tell her not to do there you go and there she goes dying superiority clear dominance display yeah dominance to get called out in the live chat now see what have you done to me wife what have you done all right lj 199 mark is a sad oh sorry mark mark is a sad example of what humanity has become um okay well yeah that's a little ad hominy i didn't mean to get i already had it that far so i figured i may as well finish off yeah yeah go for it go for it matthew wilson yeah hello canadian for two dollars no no no i could don't i get to respond to that i mean you want to respond okay you go for it yeah yeah i mean calling someone names isn't a reputation of any of their arguments i could be like a puddle on the floor making an argument you know an absolute genetic nightmare making an argument doesn't mean that i'm wrong like it's not a refutation of what i've said so if all you can do is throw insults then good on you i i don't know what to that i want to do with or to do with your network yeah yeah so like you know based on the arguments not on not on how people look or you know stuff like that it's pointless all right just hold on one second here let's get back into the q and a i'm just keeping an eye on the live chat there because i knew everybody was going to get all their all their panties in a knot all right so matthew wilson two dollars a fellow canadian if there is a dome where do meteorites come from maybe they break off the dome who knows so it's a nickel iron dome never know interesting we don't very curious concept our side our side doesn't doesn't decide things based on assumptions and things that we cannot measure we cannot observe and that we really and that we cannot test if we can you know what our side does ember and mark is we test the earth the ground we walk on you guys look to the sky to tell us what the ground is we walk on we actually test the ground and that's a huge difference that's a great point uh yeah we do testing but if you're sort of your own experiences all you'll ever test um you'll never understand anything this is what i mean by it's a road to ignorance because you'll never even look up into the sky or you won't cross the mountains and go somewhere else to test you're locked in your own ignorance of hey i'm only going to see what's around me while taking advantage of things that have been built based upon science like the only reason why we're talking on the internet right now is because somebody used scientific principles to come up with with computers the internet um airline travel uh everything that all of our technology is based upon scientific principles and we can well we're not gonna do anything but look at the ground we would never have come up with those those things we can do that on a stationary plane as well rick it's not shape dependent um but only if you're if you're just looking at the ground you're never going to we're all looking at the sky the only difference is you guys already have your belief that the sky you're looking at is a vacuum that violates the second law of thermodynamics it doesn't well it it doesn't and also we don't start from a place of belief we start from a place of skepticism say we don't have a reason to believe this can we demonstrate it and then it gets demonstrated and we go okay we've come this far now let's try to demonstrate something else and where stuff fails like a flat earth then we stop believing in that great so you can demonstrate gas pressure that containment for us go ahead yeah we already did yeah that's that's been that's been asked and answered also altitude as you go up an altitude pressure goes down if there were a container it should be a homogenous pressure also we can see lots and lots of planets including gas giants who don't seem to have domes to hold their gases in sorry again pressure gradients come after gas pressure which comes after the containment your pressure gradient is already in a contained system it's a dynamic system in a her inhomogeneous gas there we go what gas inhomogeneous it's moving around in all directions constantly it's dynamic we got a few variables to contain with which gives the pressure gradients you guys saying we have pressure gradients doesn't negate that they're ready the gas was there with the containment already number step one container it would be the same pressure throughout like whenever we measure it in any container ever hey would you guys disagree mark and ember would you disagree with this comment that that you guys know it's a globe because it's a globe which is begging the question i mean do you go in assuming it's a globe because it's a globe which is the ultimate in begging a question do you guys do that no okay all right let's continue on with the super chats everybody just a reminder to keep your super chats friendly and also keep your live chats friendly because we will remove them unfortunately and if you're spamming in the live chat we'll put you on time out or kick you out of the stream we don't want to do that so let's continue on uh so lisa richardson 999 if i were one inch tall standing on a or sorry one foot tall standing on a ball i wouldn't see a curve on its horizon if i stood on a round plate unless i was in the center i would see a curve why don't we see this on earth if it's flat right you would see it's based on angles so you can't resolve how far so if you're saying you can only see it on a curve which is really nonsensical because we show these demonstrations on flat surfaces constantly because it's just angles you practically see with angles when you rise up you're pushing your field of view out further your angles widely when you're lower you diminishing that angle that's why it gets diffracted and you can't resolve further than what you can see it's not shape dependent it's just how optics work well actually on a flat earth if you rise up because the hypotenuse of a right right angle triangle is longer than a straight line the further you rise up the further you're looking to see kind of thing that's cool so you should be able to see less the further you rise up because the distance actually becomes longer well you said it was due to the distance sorry so the distance makes you see less why would that be that's not what happens that's my point why you making that claim why would that be just one second there fellas i think jim's trying to say something there jim no no i was interrupting it forgive me oh okay sorry now i've interrupted how dare you so you would agree that on a flat plane if you're higher up the hypotenuse of that so it's a right angle no matter how high you are right the right angle 90 degree angle on a flat plane right and you've got something to say 10 meters over here right the further you rise up the longer the hypotenuse the longer the distance to see becomes correct mm-hmm so why does it get clearer and more you can see better the further you rise up when it's long you're seeing a further distance because your baseline is pushing out further it's pushing past that 10 meter object your baseline is pushing past that 10 meter object yes that's why you're not going towards it you're getting further away from it you are widening the whole triangle the whole 90 degree triangle so that object is staying exactly where it is you can now just imagine where the point is the vertex between the the baseline and hypotenuse is moving past that that object and therefore you can see further the object is still in your field of view you're just seeing further than the object that's why when you take for instance like Ozzy in the other day Ozzyon or whatever his name is when he used his drone footage to rise up that's why you saw more of the horizon behind it because he was pushing out his field of view further its perspective well and rising up should make that object smaller as the distance to that object becomes larger through the hypotenuse but that's not what we see in effect we don't see the the effect of them you don't see things get smaller when you rise in altitude you're serious have you ever used your eyes before no not not enough to like not not the way we would expect on a flat plane no the whole idea that things should emerge from the the top up on a on a on a sort of so so when we rise up we see the thing emerge from beyond the horizon correct yeah because the angle was smaller that's what we're saying so as soon as you're rising you're pushing that angle out further at the distance to that object yeah but the distance of the whole triangle is pushing out further than the object the object itself is not changing the object is just getting smaller angrily because your distance from it is getting from it is getting further away but you're seeing more past that object you limiting yourself just to the object by ignoring what's beyond the object all right well so why bottom why bottom up why what's sorry why why why why does it vanish bottom up when you go further down let's try to wrap up because that angle sorry because that angle that triangle you could say it's becoming smaller those that vertex is getting smaller and smaller until it doesn't work yes it's called the fraction limit no it doesn't work because basically there's no if it was to become smaller it would become smaller in total it would become all of it would become smaller it wouldn't it wouldn't half of it get smaller in van no it wouldn't explain how that works okay so explain how that works let's finish up this point though okay yeah we'll finish it quickly it's simple it's just the fraction limit it's like when you take a brick and you stick it let's say 100 meters and you can't see that brick 100 meters away stick another brick on top of that brick you can sort of see a sheer shape add another brick until you pull the wall you can agree you can see the wall but you can't see the bottom brick or any bricks for that matter you can just see a brown structure that's the fraction limit that's exactly how it works on a flat plane of course you can see the bricks under it you could sorry guys I can't I've tried to explain in very simple terms my time's running out I don't get it if you stack up bricks on a flat plane what's what's interrupting your view you can't see each singular brick but you can see the whole wall all right well talking about the fraction limit so if you see individual bricks right and you don't change you change your elevation you won't see the individual bricks if you raise up a little bit when you raise up with individual bricks those ones in the bottom will compress into the next one correct because you were looking at it from a sharper angle yes so and the opposite happens in reality when you raise up you can see more of the bricks I don't what are you talking about so a brick doesn't appear to be compressed when you rise with reality when you're on the earth and something is no let me finish let me finish when you're on the earth and something is beyond the horizon when you rise up you can see more of it exactly the opposite of what you're talking about you can see more of it is my point we're gonna close this out on you yeah all right flatzoid what was it that you said there I think I might have over talked wow I got you to finish 11 I got like 10 minutes left in the past engulf okay let's continue on with the superchats lj 499 uh this is also kind of ad hominy a little bit there mark but I know your uh tough skin so I'll read it anyway yeah this is globe on trial it's almost 2024 and we've never measured earth curvature or earth spinning mark is a lonely loser welcome to flat earth yeah I don't feel lonely I actually you know there's there's awesome people around me but they're sure you know you throw those ad homes that I think it might be opposite day mark well I think it's just sort of you know when somebody can't handle your arguments they throw insults kind of thing well let's it's it's really weird let's not give them any more mental real estate yeah absolutely super chat but as I said we want to keep them friendly so uh and we do want to keep moving because we still have like a good 20 plus superchats there just what was the first part of it I want to say something about first part now it's in my mind all right so yeah I guess there is a little bit of meat there beyond the uh blood slinging we've never measured earth curvature or earth spinning was I think the yeah sure yeah real crux of what they were saying I mean you know rest in peace Bob and Adele he he measured it with a ring laser gyroscope it's being measured by flat earthers and um you know we we can see the effect of the chrome sure a ring laser gyroscope measures a sidera rotation of the sky above us it's a mechanical gyroscope that determines the axial rotation or the ground rotation which doesn't exist Netflix I tell you for all you all you people who believe we live on a spinning space ball whenever you bring up 2018 behind the curve guys I'm sorry I tune out go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe that was a hit piece it's cool it's cool man take it run with it enjoy it all right um yep all the effects of conspiracies it's all good just um yeah I was going to say just because our next question is for you Jim and uh you're on the ball there as far as uh your thoughts and your concerns Dr. Dino two dollars Jim what does topographic mean I'm not sure you know do you know topographic means uh for Dr. Dino my hat says stationary because it's it's uh uh science you know you know shows that we're stationary and and also the bible talks about being immovable I know these two gentlemen don't believe in that but that's okay and then and we are planer planer so topographical basically you know we have hills and mountains we go you know we're told Mount Everest is 29,200 feet we're told the basins of the Pacific Ocean are 36,000 feet that's approximately 13 miles difference top to bottom so so so we we do have topography and and and that's just fine now what does this person who um who gave you the super chat believe it is well I was gonna say Dr. Dino if you want to fire another one in the old super chats there I'll read it out yeah let's continue on I believe they have a geology degree so I wouldn't I wouldn't take that on if I were you well but you see that that might let's make it another debate yeah different debate for a different day let's continue on with the super chats uh could be got more relevant super chats that are for everybody uh but you know thanks Jim for answering that question and thanks uh everybody for your super chats Tim Pryor five dollars no field of science or any scientist agrees with flat earthers they should not be allowed to talk about science thoughts for Tim uh we'll hit it over to you flat so aid since we just ended off on Jim ever heard of the word bigotry science doesn't care what a person's beliefs are that's so it doesn't care if they do not agree with us however science does disagree with their pseudoscience so all right thoughts Jim on their borderline assault on yeah there I I had mentioned a few minutes ago that since 1958 the globe side has gotten approximately eight to ten trillion dollars with 12 zeros behind it uh you know in in uh entertainment education uh space agencies and and seriously you know there's this little there's this little saying out there that 97 percent of scientists agree with those who pay them and I even asked somebody who was a who graduated from uh an ivy league just a few months ago in january and I asked him that question I said hey 97 percent of scientists agree with those who pay him I said what do you feel about that and he thought about it for a second he said it's probably 75 cool man all right well um that question is for the globe side so nick for 10 dollars I'm not a flat earther but it's clear they didn't account for controls in behind the curve it's not reasonable to say that test proved flat earth wrong do you really think it did we'll hand it over to you ember first we haven't heard from you in a little bit sure um well I mean it was geronisms test I'm not responsible for his methodology if you disagree with it feel free to construct your own experiment with better controls but I will say that uh certain critics of the flat earth model elsewhere here on youtube did do the math to figure out where geronism went wrong feel free to go searching for those if you really want me personally I'd suggest if you don't like the test do a better one yourself the globe side obsession with maps and models is always astonishing to me to this day and I haven't been doing this a long time but when you guys invoke maps and models I just have to smile okay so um yeah I'll just add something to that so don't you think we should model the human body to understand how it works don't you think we should model neurology don't you think we should model how cars crash to see if they're safe do you think we should just throw all of that see this is the thing this is the thing they don't actually believe in science and that's the projection they're okay so yeah I appreciate your your question mark uh we can actually observe experience see test the human body we can actually do that with cars and vehicles we can look at that and go we can touch it we can test it and we can do those things you can't do that with your spinning space ball in the vacuum of outer space so I appreciate your question but again maps and models just make me laugh I experience I observe and I test a stationary plane I do not see a spinning space ball in the vacuum of outer space perfect well so we this is a great time we can actually see cell development or anything like that we have to model it with instruments which is exactly the same thing it's just special cleaning basically all right well thanks for wrapping that up there quickly uh dead isle for another uh one-year-old no question attached there dead isle if you or idle sorry if you had a question why don't you fire fired into the live chat I'm gonna poke my head in there in a second I'm gonna read this question out and the reason I said perfect is because this is for you flatzoid uh so Esteban uh you back sorry I'm not going to say that correctly I can't hope that pressure is plus even in space the whole universe is the container for that an isolated system within it pressure exists as gradients do gravity or in pressurized systems simple right the difference is earth would be a open system inside that isolated system you call the universe it's like taking a balloon and sticking it in a vacuum chamber what happens when you pop that balloon there's no longer air in a balloon it's now surrounding the surrounding system that's what the same is if you take a box inside a vacuum chamber and you open that box the gas that was inside that in that box disperses into the surrounding system this is why we said violates the second or third dynamics and no gravity does not hold gas down indefinitely this has never been demonstrated and it will never be demonstrated while you show containment all right well let's try to continue on there that's right fellas uh dr dino strikes again for two dollars all right so we'll try to contain these questions for the sides that they're asked for for the remainder of the chat so sorry to everybody uh but you will get your questions answered by the side that you want but we'll try to cap the open discussion a little bit because we're getting into the three hour point and i'm going to stop dilly dallying dr dino strikes again are humans apes and how old is the earth that's for uh jim and flatsoid so you first jim are humans apes yes or no i would i would i was about right i was thinking about some questions i was going to ask you know mark and emmer tonight one is are we descendants of apes or descendants from amoebas or descendants from big bang and i wasn't going to ask them that we never got around to it so now flatso and i are being asked that i'm finding pretty interesting hey and no we aren't descendants of apes that there are those of us who believe in a young earth uh and and we believe in the creation story uh you know both sides have a creation story your creation story is big bang 13.7 or 14.5 billion years ago and that a massive photon can travel on the blue shift and red shift and all that stuff and you deny the inverse square law of light second law of thermodynamics and just to inject your jim i'm sorry to cut you off and how old do you think the earth is just for a super chatter here that was the in a in a personal opinion only okay i go with what the bible says what which which if you take it back generationally in the bible this is my personal opinion only um somewhere around 6000 years all right over to you flatsoid our humans apes definitely not do i look like an ape and how old is the earth uh wow how is the earth i'm the same i'm a biblical flat earth so i'm also going to rather stick to god's word obviously we can't uh validate how old it is but based on my personal preference i'd say around about 6000 yeah all right um well i i i mean for for entertainment's sake we can keep it quick uh ember our humans apes absolutely and how old is the earth ember and uh as far as your concern during your opinion um uh not geology is not my specialty but i believe the estimate is somewhere around four and a half billion all right and over to you mark our humans apes yes and how we have made all the criteria for apes and how there is no criteria that i just don't have to believe how old is the earth uh for yeah i think it's 4.2 4.3 i might be right might be four and a half billion but yes that is that is the correct answer hey i just want to tell my friend flatsoid it may be a bridge too far flatsoid well just for entertainment's sake i figured i would ask the question to continue the conversation here uh so uh beamsy for ten dollars for the flat side as a geologist uh using p and s waves we can draw an exact image of the earth and it comes back as a spheroid we get this same results from sonar and radar not a planar surface why is this well when they use p and s waves to try and go to see what's below the earth's surface 78 of the time they were wrong so i don't know what the hell he's talking about no one's been deeper than eight miles before no p waves and s waves they're seismic waves that i know what p's and s waves are but i'm telling you they were wrong on their predictions almost 80 percent of the time that doesn't matter it's gonna come back as a flatter it does matter on that it no it shows that a circular reasoning again begging the question and affirming the consequence doesn't answer the question and ignoring the data all right well let's continue if if if something's wrong like if we are wrong on medicine at one point does that mean all medicine is wrong false equivalence less no it's exactly the same analogy you're saying that because i got one thing wrong no no you're saying because they got something wrong then all their prediction all of their data that they find is wrong but you won't have the same intellectual standard for other things like just because medicine gets things wrong which we certainly have done in the past doesn't mean everything they have done is wrong this is a this is a all-sequivalence again p and s waves it's called a direct analogy no it's a full equivalence a they're using p and s waves to specifically make prediction of what's below in the ground correct they use the seismic waves and then find it to be medicine to predict what causes disease correct again a false equivalence you don't use medicine just you're saying that doesn't make it so how is it a false you don't use medicine to predict what causes the disease by the way you take the disease and you try and backtrack it to try and uh wow sort out the disease that's how it works let's try to let's try to continue on with our conversation here uh yeah keep the super chats coming in and uh i just want to say this is probably my favorite debate for completely external reasons one i got a kiss and two my wife made me this awesome grilled cheese which i won't eat here on stream oh wow what damn it ryan now i'm now now i'm hungry yeah i know you wouldn't like me when i'm hungry come on like me when i'm hungry instantly mark turns into a big green mean green rage monster hunger monster absolutely flat earth uh fridays uh this is a hashtag from sacred for five dollars so hashtag flat earth fridays at 100 crypto keys globe demonstrate standing at 18 feet and lifting a hole to 23 feet your arms as claimed by netflix behind the curve uh he just elevated himself so he was if i understand the question correctly the the person in the experiment was standing on a an 18 foot elevation above sea level and then raised his arms to 23 feet that's that's a five foot reach if my math isn't if i can do 23 minus 18 yeah so yeah arms move he could have he could have stood on a box as well so that's not really yeah yeah all right you guys want to continue on there i think that's all right just have to say i'm sorry go ahead just have to say my power might go off any minute like i said i'm surprised it's the long i'm sorry i was i was responding to somebody who said my sandwich looked burnt and i was just let them know that i i i've been with this lady for what 12 years now she knows how i like my sandwiches all right yellow banana five euros jim faith is believing something without evidence when you do science all right sorry faith is believing something without evidence when you do scientific tests and get objective evidence it's not faith anymore just for your information for you it's a it's a it's a it's an awesome question obviously you get down to what you observe about the human body unfortunately we can't talk about virology and that's cool and but but you you come back to biblical i know i know ember and mark are going to disagree with this but you come back to biblical cosmology it talks about foundations pillars ends of the earth um four corners um uh footstools uh Jesus said in jen in matthew 535 that the earth is god's footstool says that nasa is 66 one so so you know so i look at that and i look at what i observe what i test what i what i see and it agrees so again that's my personal belief i know ember and mark won't go with that but that's you want to say that the earth is footstool shaped uh when when when when the bible talks about a footstool a footstool is not a ball mark a footstool if you look at it it's got legs does the earth have legs it has it has foundations and pillars now what it actually is comprised of i leave that up to god that's why one of my hats that i that i wear says under the heavens because therefore i don't have to worry about what's you know what's underneath me i leave it up to god i know you guys are atheists fine and i leave i leave it up to god to determine what's underneath me yeah good one uh yeah faith is believing in things that i've not seen that's faith so when you do have evidence even science it doesn't make it not faith after you've got the evidence because even based on the evidence it can still change later on that's why they like to say science is progressive so so in a uh theological uh sense even with a scientific uh validation even though it's validated you still have faith that that's actually true so it's still uh on a theological it's still faith based because it's evidence not seen let's try to continue on from there uh so thank you so much for your super chat there yellow banana tim prier strikes again five dollars eight inches per mile square came from a flat earth third ding dong we don't claim that that's straw man oh so 1.22 times the square root of the about observer's height in feet doesn't come up to eight inches per square mile congratulations so no globe uh no it's actually a function of cause it's like a radius times um the distance uh height times one minus cos a i think it is they being the angle yeah 1.22 times the height square root of the height observer's height in feet no no no no no yes so you're claiming you don't have drop them no constant I never said that I said the obscured point of course it has dropped that's what just what I've said I said you're doing the calculation wrong that's your math not mine I'm just reading your math to you uh no you're not that came from a flat earth as the chat said that that's a question that you're talking about came from a flat earth yes 1.22 times the square root of the because you're not even from Samuel robot them yes because because where does the height come into that equation that you just gave where's the height because the height determines your tangents but you just said over a distance it drops but the height will will stop that drop right so so where is height in your equation times the height do you know what times height means observers height in feet you literally throwing your globe math away yeah mates so you're claiming there's no curve then yeah no it's just that drop thing did no chat's right chat's a hundred percent right I don't know why they're just not prepared to you know sort of look up the real equation yeah and Walter business not a flat earth there all the business uh earth calculator uses this all right well let's continue on uh from there uh yeah Hannah there's no debate going on tomorrow every message to Christian anarchist sorry about that uh if I didn't get back to you in the discord there uh thanks Hannah for being here by the way and moderating in the chat uh and you as well uh and the theme uh or surgeon general uh so yeah join us on our discord for modern day debate uh you know we got all kinds of ways that you could exercise your chops and maybe we'll see you here uh you know every once in a while like the other day we had somebody message and say hey I can't make it for the debate tonight and I pulled somebody out of the discord who was ready to go and I think we had a great time uh that was uh last week uh on the flat earth with witsit so uh you know join us on modern day debate discord and uh let's continue on here cool Lambo ten dollars pack it up boys the flat earthers believe in talking snakes uh I think they're and donkeys I think they're saying the actually it's false it was a it wasn't a snake he his snake comes from the serpent it was a serpent or a snake to be what's the difference what's the difference the serpent had legs the snake has no legs oh it was cursed to walk after Roman its belly that's why it became a snake yeah can we can we agree to this that we all both have creation stories we both have beliefs we flat so flat so tonight you know you know toast about our belief system your belief system is that you you came from apes which means you came from amoeba which means you came from a big bang you know 13.7 to 14.5 billion years ago and so you know I you know we all have a belief system I tend to not ridicule yours but I'm sorry I probably have but you know so I I kind of appreciate you know we can have a little bit of fun back and forth but you guys have a creation story we do you guys have a belief system and so do we as I so as I told you flat so it is probably a bridge too far but we'll go from there okay so here's the thing um and I want to I want to really point 15 seconds if you can yeah yeah sure okay so there's no creation story because the big bang only explains rapid expansion of the universe it doesn't actually explain where it comes from and that's a mistake that bees make all the time and I just want to point out that you have an equal like you're you're not using intellectual consistency because all of this stuff that you've just said on the creation story you can't look at the earth and find that out that is a belief system based upon nothing which we said you didn't do you just look at the earth so we see too far mark mark we see too far to live on a spinning space ball of 3959 miles times two diameter times pi 24901 miles and if you do the math you do geometry it's 80 it's 80 per mile squared take it or leave it just to confirm I'm I'll just ask it as a yes or no just because I think that's what cool Lambo is asking is if you guys believe in the story of Adam and Eve uh so Jim do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve flat flat so I do already do yes uh Jim do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve I think is what is the real crux of their conversation here or they're a super chat yes I do okay all right well let's continue on mr monster uh five dollars the Antarctic as a circular current the largest ocean current on the planet proves the earth as a globe it can't exist on a flat model discuss I don't know about this current so I can't just a question again so they're saying the Antarctic circular current the largest ocean current on the planet proves the earth as a globe it can't exist on a model why we have gyres that all works with the thermohelion uh currents that's how the waters move and have their streams just because they're claiming it that it only goes that way it doesn't make it a globe it's just circular reasoning again well in a lot of ways it's begging the question you know I want to be a globe therefore it's a globe so say circular reasoning yeah all right well let's continue on there and I see uh good show modern day debate from secret asian man uh yes thank you and uh just one reminder to everybody hit the like button uh no need to be secret about that let us know if you like this let's continue on uh to do scrolling up through the old super chat Ivan Chaykovsky five dollars jim please explain why gravity isn't real provide citations and show your work oh uh you can uh gravity has never been shown um 9.81 meters per second squared is agreed upon average of white things go I like to use the word boom boom to the ground follow the ground you can easily explain it using electrostatics you can measure electrostatics there's a field meter for it and whether whether Feynman's idea of 100 volts per meter as you and have two Gaussian surfaces is actually the real you know the real thing I'm still up in the air on that but you can easily explain why things follow the ground using electrostatics and and also using density and buoyancy to fill in the the gaps the problem with with problem with gravity is it's never been shown to exist uh Newton had had this you know this apple fall on his head in 1666 Newton never wrote about that experience and so uh you know gravity is a very see gravity holds the globe together and if you give up gravity you give up the globe so so you know we have the alternative everything is electrostatics why does millions and billions of of uh uh water molecules called clouds stay up in the sky don't come down uh there's got you know there's there's questions that we don't have answers for I'm fine with that but gravity has never been proven to exist the effect things do follow the ground 9.81 meters per second squared but the cause is not gravity has never been proved that way all right let's continue on there since that was for you Tim Pryor five dollars seriously until science agrees with you stop talking about it a reason 50 50 why we laugh who's this fool I'm not sure Tim Pryor I don't think it says well yeah he's got another one right after that so Tim Pryor five dollars fine don't google it just learn it off youtube it makes you very very smart or just one very sorry I might have made him sassier than I meant to oh I think I'd have plenty of sass to begin with well I'm sorry Tim Pryor yeah we'll continue on I think he's sort of saying um I think he's sort of saying stop sort of saying speaking for science when you're not agreeing with what the science is actually like the scientists say and and the the institution scientific institutions are saying I would I would certainly agree with them well Tim Tim Pryor yeah he has got another one after here so I mean a total of twenty dollars here uh for your super chats all here in a little sector so we really appreciate it Tim Pryor it helps out a lot uh ten dollars so hypocritical you say observations aren't good enough but you believe in flat earth only of observations without scrutinizing it as much as you do to the globe any thoughts on that we'll hand it over to you flatzoid that's false we say observational and then you demonstrate what you observe that's the difference they don't have any demonstrations for the globe they just claim it to be science and then when asked okay show me the science there is none in fact there's no scientific hypothesis and experiment for gravity Newton never wrote the scientific hypothesis he's gravity thing came out after he died actually so no it's definitely not scientific that's why we are very scrutinized very much even in our flat earth communities we scrutinize each other based on things I mean like Jim he he ascribes to the uh electrostatics I don't I'm a relative density disequilibrium kind of guy okay we have difference in opinions on how things work we have different mechanisms our books the only difference is we actually go out and do demonstrations on this with a globe no scale it's too big how are we going to demonstrate this we just have faith science says so we'll give you a chance to respond to that ember because we get this next question for you from nominal for five dollars ember please upload your footage of the face of the moon during the eclipse I would love to check it out me too yeah I'll see if I can find it all right and did you have any thoughts on what flat so I had just said or do you want to continue on we may as well just continue on I mean the fact that the the the two models don't agree that kind of that says enough right there there you go with the models again man all right well we got more super chats coming in you know we're cool with that we want to keep the conversation going then keep asking questions and we'll keep trying to flush out the the ideas here this is coming in from his minister of fire 499 oh I just lost it there 499 that fish eye argument from the globe supporters was indestructible thoughts on that we'll hand it over to you Jim they add again to me are we saying that the curve is is absolutely a matter of fact is that what I'm picking up it says that fish eye argument from the globe supporters was indestructible so they're in support of what ember and mark were saying about the fish eye oh well yeah I don't know what to say to that I mean you know bum garter in 2012 went up with a fish eye and and and came down and you know over planet new Mexico and came down and said you know hey you know you know it was the curve was beautiful blah blah blah blah and then mr mr astrophysics himself you know came out and said it 24 at 127,854 feet which would bum garter jumped at that that stuff was flat up there you know so that's all I can really say thanks Ryan yeah there's no problem and flat so I don't any thoughts on that the fish eye argument tell me how fish eye works if you're looking in two different directions sure um well um since they're kind of giving a huzz off for the other side um was that something you brought up mark what's that so no the fish eye um it was actually ember brought that up sorry about that ember if you want to reiterate for flat so it and then we'll let flat I already know yeah it's about the selenium that's why saying it's because of the wide angle that we're able to see it because of refraction I'm saying you're looking two different two different directions so that's yes really yeah it's because it's because the way that the atmosphere works as a fish eye lens is what ember said so basically if you imagine the lens as being the entire way over the earth as far as your optical um site can allow then yeah you're looking at one edge and then the other edge there's no problem with that whatsoever are you looking inside the lens or on top of the lens you're looking from one side of the lens to the other side of the lens on an angle and that's what fish eye does when you look at it um on that angle um that's exactly what okay have you been to any I just want to say have you if you've been on an aquarium before and that's that don't shape the aquarium what happens when you go to the other side of that so-called don't question and you look well you're not you're not moving in this case can you see why would you no no no no no hold on let me finish let me let me all right all right over the mark for 15 um yeah yeah so so you're basically saying well if you move around then you change where the fish eye is in relation to you because the atmosphere goes all around the earth so in that example that we gave you about the cell and ellen eclipse you're not moving I don't know why you would apply something moving to the the subject when it's not moving I'm trying to show you it's a false I'm trying to show you it's a false no no it's a straw man it's just a straw man no all right you don't have a flat toy do you have any thoughts on this for the next 15 seconds or do you want to continue uh quickly yeah uh like I was trying to point out if you're looking left in a large lens and looking right in a large lens you're not going to see the the relationships you're claiming we don't live inside a lens as you put it all right let's continue on electric monk back to you Jim two euros how do you test for a creator Jim I think I think I already I think I already said the the you know the fact that the bible talks about you know those those things that I said immovable immovable pillars foundations and things like that and I could actually go out and test the earth I think the biggest thing that I've learned is that we can test the earth we can test it we can we can observe it and we can experience it we can't test the sky so somebody who says this guy proves the ground you know you know go ahead and go with that but I can test the ground that way I can test what the bible says and then I and they come to an agreement just ontological primitives that's all uh we have uh yeah you got we have a complement oh sorry if you want to yeah if you want to expand on that if you want like 10 to 15 seconds yeah it's just it's just based on the ontological primitives when you walk past let's say a beach and you see a beautiful both perfect sandcastle did nature create it or did someone create it that's ontological primitives based on observation everything's created yeah so this is this is sort of again they project they just you know have a presupposition that they're putting into effect yeah yeah it's just watchmaker we can just move along yeah as you do and as you do mark so the creation proves the creator show me a sandcastle that creates itself out of nature please go ahead um it's not a sandcastle that's our ontological primitives are the creator or not pre-sup it's just pre-supposition fault the induction and then hopefully hopefully hopefully hold on now before we get too off track we have a complement and then hopefully we can get back into the subject just uh bear with me here run boston bear for 999 says jim and fladsoy great job tonight guys you brought a lot of good points and i enjoyed your overall approach to sharing the truth of our stationary topographical plane people are getting it uh so thanks for the compliment there uh you know for our speakers tonight you know they're here on their own time and uh you know like i said we don't want to read too many uh mud slinging arguments uh we want nice cities while we're trying to work through these uh what can sometimes be contentious issues over here at modern day debate you never know nostalgist nostalgic aberoth 499 i didn't come from no monkey i came from biblical incest and 6 000 years of incest oh boy well i read that up loud that's on the internet forever now it's you really should read these before reading about it's it's too late it's too late it's already happened you know what we're three hours in i'm sure no one's gonna care samuel can i just can i just say something quickly maybe flex or do you want to have a debate on who do you want to really we can sometimes it would be great yeah yeah we'll have a debate on the existence of god i'd love to do it yeah and and ryan i just want to say thank i just want to say thank you to to run boston bear to jt he's a he's a he's an awesome human being well you hear that you're you know what you're a fan of our speakers tonight run boston bear they're a fan of you so uh everybody's having a good time we're a big barrel of love let's continue on from there and don't make me say anything else that's too wild on the air everybody all right five dollars canadian from samuel sum 103 12 as i don't know if i'm doing that right far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us yeah so i think that's just a bible verse there's a scripture yeah from there if there's not really any commentary on that well if you want to take it on if you want to take it on globe you could say how do you have as far as east is from the west on a globe this is no bounds all right it's just a just a mythological story like there's no reason to think that that this is actually true unless of course you are presupposing that it's true up front and assuming that it's true to begin with which is why we see all of this you know in a venn diagram the crossover between flat earth and young earth creation it's it's almost one to one because um um you know you have to start with these kind of biblical presuppositions in order to get you through the flat earth and that's exactly what these guys are doing as as you do mark with your atheism and your and your ball i'll say all right nostalgic aberroth 499 says in capital letters i didn't come from no monkey i came from biblical you said it again we're already feeling this time what i thought but exactly in capital letters like i'm not i'm not reading your little oh no okay well we appreciate you nostalgic aberroth you're trying you're trying to get us demonetized and well this comment this comment alone has a whole debate on itself but yeah not something made for the yes uh you know what you seem very very passionate about this subject for like i don't know if you grew up on a mountain or something but you know come over to modern day debate maybe you should talk about it um anyways uh samuel ten dollars canadian uh i think we got more scripture here globe jude one nine about michael the archangel when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of moses did not dare pronounce should i do this with like a super preacher voice michael the archangel when he disputed with the devil argued about the body of moses did not pronounce against him the railing judgment but said the lord rebuke you you did a good job yeah that was pretty cool yeah thank you i thought so um um yeah but but what what i want to ask is where was the control variable in there yeah i would help if they said anything about size by the one side really let's continue really never thought it i i i i was thinking there wouldn't be too much commentary on just a scriptural quote so i thought we just have fun with it since every once in a while i just get money from people do impressions all right i've been chikosky five dollars gem i said show your work gish galloping isn't showing your work i can't i other than the fact that that the bible talks about a immovable foundations pillars four corners ends of the earth footstool and then i actually go out and i observe it and i test it that's what i do now you know do i show my work i do have uh two weeks ago i was on a practice football field in chester in indiana with my p1000 when i walked approximately 60 70 yards and and i got smaller uh and even though i'm kind of overweight i did get smaller and and i disappeared bottom up and when the football fields open up here for practice in about two weeks i'll do it not on 70 yards but on 120 uh and i'll do that as well so yeah i i've gone out and tested it already um so i don't know what else to tell you on your work all right well thank you so much everybody for your super chats we're gonna continue on we've only got a few more to go so if you got any questions get them in now otherwise we're gonna close out in the next few minutes here cool lambo for 9 11 oh buggers all right flatsoy and jim what caused the two towers to fall oh sorry what caused the two towers to fall that i don't think we're allowed to say on yeah but we'll just say i think i think that's probably a danger just avoid this in general cool lambo you know what that that was tricky all right let's uh samuel for five dollars canadian no more super chats like that because i yeah that's silly uh it takes the most a magnificent carpenter to make a flat plane any dung beetle can roll up a ball witsett gets it chat years ago this is a quote i think from witsett is it okay it takes the most significant carpenter to make a flat plane any dung beetle can roll up a ball i think this is to us i'm i'm pretty sure that yes a little add it seems like an ad hominy type quote uh you know basically saying maybe but you know like i think that that jesus learnt his carpentry after the earth was around even in the bible so i'm not sure how carpentry plays into that one um weird though well done strange um yeah those are our words all right yeah in a certain order they have the abc's in them excellent all right uh i was gonna say i i just see in the the live chat somebody said that i am super amateur i'm sorry uh idea of this um some of that might be a little bit on purpose i i might be reading these preemptively but i just i just think there's enough of a funny flair uh in in some of these super chats um that they're worth reading out if we can just spin them the right way we might not get demonetized tim prior five dollars multi a billion dollar industries depends on gravity existing try again i think that's for you fellows on on a flatsoy myself ember oh okay no sorry mark and ember sorry i was i was looking down but i mean i don't know where you see me yeah multi billion dollar industries some of them do depend on gravity existing so if gravity didn't exist they'd be out of business mm no cavendish experiment was done to prove gravity like it's no no um the where was the down on mark mark where was the down and cavendish it was no down it was two masses like you're misunderstanding how it works and cavendish sorry cavendish was not an experiment first of all at second or i'm just finished if i can just finish like we sort of gave you the time to respond to your questions you're just jumping it over the top of me so basically it shows like incredibly heavy weights next to one another and showed them move towards one another and the torsion away got less and less and less as time went on until they basically um attracted to one another and the cavendish experiment absolutely proves that it's just anybody that says it doesn't doesn't know how the cavendish experiment works because if you're looking for down it's not trying to show that it all everything goes down it shows that masses attract to one another and that's all okay okay quick history lesson it wasn't to measure gravity yeah so i don't know why i don't know why we're sort of going on from from your questions without us responding but you guys are just jumping it at the end i just had to correct you because you get people that don't know this it's not there to measure gravity so it didn't prove gravity it was there to calculate the density of the earth based on torque mechanics so we see torsion twist which is based on torque because of the density of the balls how do you calculate density what's the formula for it we've been through this already yeah what's the formula for it we've been through this already mass what's the form yeah what's mass and what's mass more greed what's mass yeah mass is the so so so to the weight of something is definitely related to mass and not density right what is mass the weight of something is definitely related to you ask me a question i gave you the answer i'm asking you a question yeah well you've been dodging questions all masses the you don't know what masses no it's the combined total particles within something that makes up something they combine neutrons electrons so substance that makes up a physical thing so saying yeah so how do you how do you calculate the weight of something is a density yes it's the pressure applied a pressure applied by the density does the weight change with density or does it change with mass amount the mass the mass yes so the more density changes with mass weight it has excuse me i'm talking so the more more mass it has the more weight it has correct resistance to inertia resistance to inertia how do you calculate that that's what masses according to the definition resistance to inertia you don't know this you have two different definitions for the same word so how do you calculate weight then what's your calculation for weight we're supposed to be measuring weight not calculating it that's how we put it on a scale and it's the pressure which is forced on the load cell because the density of the weight the density of the weight is what causes the density is what causes weight is it show me something without density show me something without density yeah it's called a called a vacuum a vacuum i don't see how density could work without gravity to make things different i know it's called low and low pressure that's what creates a vacuum you know when you use your oh pressure causes the vacuum now when you use your vacuum it creates a low pressure system inside that do you give me the equation which makes which makes the air force itself from the surrounding system into that low pressure system could you give me the equation could you give me your equation for weight please no don't need why not no you do give me the equation for weight give me the weight because the reason i don't give the equation for weight the reason i don't give the equation for weight is because you guys love to uh straw man it and say oh you need gravity which is false you just said that the vacuum can't do without gravity that's why you don't give it out a vacuum of gravity in it is density is density in the equation for weight yes okay so what is the equation for weight then don't need to give it no what is it then i'm not going to get strong and you guys have literally just said no you said density was in it what's the equation with density in it what's the equation with density in it so we so what we do is we get these equations and we see if we can actually put them in experiments to see if they hold any weight or not to see if they hold any water or whether somebody is just talking nonsense and so you won't give it because you're trying to put density in an equation that doesn't inherently have density in it that's why because you basically know that and so you won't answer the question of what is the calculation what is the equation because you don't want to be shown to be wrong you're just basically prevaricating hat dancing away saying i'm not going to give it because i don't want to be tested like it's it's ludicrous no it gets triggered when i'm giving you the equation no you can't you haven't given us any answers at all the reason ignorant the reason i don't give an equation is because i keep getting straw man of this i've been getting this for years now again your own definition remember can i talk can i talk earlier earlier you literally told us what mass is it was the density of the substance in a given volume correct that's what you told us how much substance isn't crammed inside that volume okay no mess doesn't have anything to do with volume that's not what i said that is where you that's what you said did you know i said that density is the mass spread out across volume so what's missing because i asked what's mess and you said it's it is the total amount it is the total amount so if you have a lot of substance in a large area the density can be low but the mass is still i i don't even know why i have to explain this that the mass is still high do you understand what we say you know so without mass you go on a density so what's the equation for weight what's the equation for weight i'm not giving i'm not giving gravity i'll change g to pressure then for you we're going to move on to pressure hold on there flat so if you vary pressure we're going to move on all right if you guys can focus and that cut each other off we can continue i've got no problem with that um but like i said i don't want to have to put you guys on view we've already we've gone for three hours and you guys behaved yourselves actually more than that so uh if you want to expound on that point let's do for two minutes there um between the two of you so mark and flat so aid let's flush it out okay so let's change this change the pressure yeah what's the equation with pressure let's just change g to pressure then pressure pressure of the object forcing itself the object has impulse so therefore object is this another stool does stool have pressure you know what impulse is uh mock no i i don't i want to get back to how solid objects have pressure how is that how is that on a scale you think i object an object doesn't apply pressure on a scale is that what you're telling me no well that's weight that's what you're calculating yeah because of pressure so i'm changing your g to pressure but but that means the amount of g forces i'm just changing hold it hold it okay that's fine that's fine let me let me address that then let me address that then don't just continue on but so if you're changing g to pressure and weight to pressure that means the pressure which is weight equals the mass times the pressure which is what you're calculating no i'm saying your g is based on the force attributed on the scale correct so i'm simply saying but that's what we're calculating weight is the force on the scale this weight you measuring is the pressure from the object forcing itself on the scale because it's denser than the medium around it let's say we're calculating weight correct no you measure weight you don't calculate weight you measured you calculate density okay when measuring weight but the calculation to get weight from the mass right because we agree on the mass right we agree on the mass okay we agree on that part but you're saying to get weight we have to use the weight to get the weight no you have the density no that's exactly what you said again you couldn't even close this one then what's the pressure you couldn't define what mass was and when you did you defined it as the density i'm simply telling you when you measure a weight it's the object's density that is causing a pressure on the scale that's all the pressure on the scale or weight you have to put the pressure on the scale or the weight into that equation do you are lost weight is a unit talk about this equation weight is just a unit mate it's just a unit and it's the pressure on the scale right all right we're gonna we're we're gonna move on with our super chats here guys um yeah i was gonna give me the equation send it over to me give me the equation send the equation over uh so not so so nominal for five dollars i can't find a single video of the face of the moon seen during a solar eclipse using the google's ember you could be famous boy if i had a nickel for every time somebody said i could be famous for something so you're you're not gonna find it doing a video search because video is limited um i don't know how much you may know about exposure but you've got your um your iso your aperture and your um the duration the word for it eludes me at the moment on video you can't have a longer exposure than your frame rate so unless you're doing very very slow video it's just not gonna happen you need a long exposure still photo that's it all righty let's try to continue on there because we do have quite a few more super chats coming in and you know what our live chat is just refusing to let us go because they keep popping little super chats in there to try to prop more discussion i see what you guys are doing and we appreciate it so much uh so um samuel for two dollars says thank you all keep researching the flat earth uh so samuel we're not sure what side you're on but thanks for your super chat nominal for five dollars oh i just read that one duncan right for five dollars if we live in a simulation or a holographic universe i can see earth being flat you don't fall over the edge you just repeat the simulation oh like a pacman model that'd actually be kind of cool well i mean simulation it could be absolutely anything i mean there's yeah simulation theory sort of makes it yeah sure i don't have too much to dig into their i'm in sure yeah i guess um and you know it's kind of in the yeah i'd like a power up hill that would be cool yeah yeah that's right uh bear's worth i think they have that it's called it's called viagra anyways no i'm sorry uh bear's worth they make a bow over that that's right mark why is the full moon a uniform light and does not have a brighter spot like all experiments with light on balls and your head thanks yeah it's because of the the diffusion of the light and the the the um earth surface is actually a sort of force dust it's the way that that it has but we do see shadows on it like on the actual moon if you zoom in with a telescope you can see all of the the shadows on the moon like where the the dips and craters are kind of thing you can see that with a telescope it's not not that hard or a p1 reason why yeah the reason why it's full moon is because when the light shines on it it actually like light doesn't just shine on one small section of it actually shines on quite a large area and the light diffuses around an object it's why you still have light after the sun has set because if you notice the sun sets and you've still got light around it it's that light basically hitting the atmosphere and the the particles in the air and and still being reflected kind of thing so you will still be able to see from light so it actually I did a video on that that the other day 99% of the world's population got some form of light during one day which is just incredible at the same time on the one day yeah at the same time yeah it was it was a really interesting thing but yes it did occur just because of the angle of the sun the angle of the earth where it hit the earth and where population centers are on the it was really interesting but it's also because light doesn't just go to one small bit on a sphere it actually goes round it kind of thing and illuminates the edges as well so yeah that that's essentially why hey if I if I can add to that a little bit go ahead go ahead all right another factor is the extreme distance from the light source because the moon being in orbit of earth is also roughly 93 million miles away if you try something even low scale like a basketball and one of those really powerful flashlights and you put the basketball 100 yards away and then shine the flashlight on it and go look at the basketball because of the distance the side closest to the light is not going to be significantly brighter than the sides it's even more extreme with the moon because the distance is just the difference between the edges and and the closest part it's virtually nothing on that scale hey and you probably do it I just I just heard some dad you can probably do it with it with a basketball or a round object like if you're on a moon do a white round object and use a flashlight you can probably light up where the person on the other sphere would probably see all of it you could you could certainly replicate it hey Ryan can I chime in for a sec do we have 30 seconds there okay I'll make it quick inverse square law of light if you if you have the distance you get four times the brightness so if we're 240,000 miles away from the moon in the fairy tale you go to 120 you go to 60 you go to 30 you go to 15 you go to 7,500 3750 1875 1000 when you get to 1000 miles away from the moon in the inverse square law of light the moon will be 65,000 times brighter than what we see terrestrially on the earth and then you could take Saturn the other way NASA tells us that that the Sun is a little pinprick on Saturn but we can see it real well up in the sky inverse square law of light in 30 seconds thank you all right so let's continue everybody got a lot of luminosity if we don't if we don't watch it there mark we'll we'll be back in the same campus last time we'll be right right here so because I was gonna say our live chat keeps pouring in the questions here and the conversation is flowing so run Boston bear for 499 we have another compliment so they say market ember uh so many compliments here tonight like it's almost like oh I almost lost it there there we go market ember thanks for sharing what you believe to be true ball earth and no creator cool story bro let's continue on I need that I think the creation story is that what's another bro lever for a start but I think the creation story is a cool story bro it is literally a story um there's no way you can test it there's no way you can see it it's just you know if the people do as they claim and they just see what's beneath their feet then why believe in a creator there's no evidence for it there's no you know why should evidence that we came from nothing let's save that yeah I don't believe that so congratulations for the next time everybody because it's more super chat to pour an in my goodness Justin five dollars flat so you mentioned a load cell how does a load cell work and how does a load cell measure weight that's for you flat so simple we appreciate the super chat there Justin the weight of the pressure being forced on the load cell which gives a unit to the motor the accelerometer what's a load cell all right it's like a little in very uh rudimentary terms it's like I almost like a little bad kind of thing almost like uh almost an accelerator pad you could say and it picks up the balance of pressure applied to it all right let's try to continue on uh Tim Pryor uh strikes again I think that's what your fifth strike this time five dollars I'll just make flat earth disappear by logging off social media that should tell them everything I don't know if that's what we can respond to let's continue do do do I read cognitive dissonance there's a lot of pain for him all right Sydney Raptor for two dollars flats on a scale of one to seventeen never mind Sydney how dense are you they ask Sydney you know you just threw away two dollars how dense are you I'm a density I'm a density of 75 kilograms how's that Samuel five dollars Canadian not sure you did that calculation right chief asteroids Sydney we do appreciate your super chat I hope that made you laugh uh Samuel for five dollars flat please explain uh asteroids and meteorites they move across the sky wow they do come from a place that they claim to exist that violates a second or thermodynamics that we still haven't got demonstration for but uh that's about all we know we we get to the fact that asteroids are a creation of imagination astrophysics astronomy it's a creation and again I will say again is we don't look to this guy to prove the the ground we walk on if you want to look to the celestial to prove the terrestrial have at it good so like like the truth like celestial Bible and stuff you know yeah kind of like looking to heaven to prove the earth there yeah um so do you think that um that the meteorites are like people that see them in Siberia and things like that people have seen meteorites coming down and then you know you have the the metallic what do you think they're all lying to you is that what you're saying are you saying meteorites actually hit the ground yes I mean you can visit the Behringer crater meteor crater Arizona you can go see that are you talking about the one outside of phoenix outside of Tucson meteor crater no I'm talking about the one ones that came down in my state as a specific example yes the Behringer crater yeah the the one the one off the interstate oh you're talking to amber okay yeah the one off the interstate 10 by Tucson I guess it's interstate 10 I might be around there somewhere I might be wrong there's no evidence that that's a meteor down there uh none whatsoever that is more volcanic than meteor and so I went there I've been there a couple times you know what my friend ember um I believe it was a meteor too because I went into the you know to the you know the you know the guest uh you know area and they told me it was a meteor but yeah they got a nice museum yeah and they do and they do and the petrified forest is real nice there too and and so um um but there's no evidence that's a meteor whatsoever they called it meteor crater because we want to have our little fairy tale called outer space exactly all yours yeah it doesn't explain why these rocks have such a high level of urethane all right let's try to move on from there guys um but yeah sorry I don't want to cut off the chat here just so we got more super chats pouring in and uh there's a risk like I said that this could go on for a long time if we don't try to rain it in a little bit estaban albaca 5000 clp flatzoid pressure is forced over area weight is just a force dependent on mass not its volume therefore unrelated to density once you learn the difference your cause goes a you know you kept it there but I mean if you know no no I won't keep it going I won't keep it going sorry yeah yeah that's not even a fine mess uh you know I'm sure one of these god like seriously I I be generous and not keep it going and then you just stick your foot in it yeah um for me so I had the closing statement mark that's how it works but my closing statement is you guys can't even you're fine mess come on let's let's move on with shall we well yeah yeah well we've almost launched into a whole mother thing everybody and a couple times right I think these fellas might want to talk about uh christianity sometime and uh maybe just religion so that could be a lot of fun uh you know I don't know how ember's feeling about that sort of topic but you know we've had fun tonight uh thanks uh flatzoid jim ember and mark we are almost to the end of our super chats so after flirts uh so sorry flat earthers if you found absolute proof and accepted that the earth is a sphere would you still be christian by the way the bible does not support flat earth so we'll try to answer this in short format if we can fellas uh first you jim uh if you found proof that the earth was a sphere would you still be a christian if is the big word uh if is the big word if if I was 35 and lifted weights I'd be Arnold Schwarzenegger uh 2.0 and so so if is the big word and and the bible does definitely talk about stationary and movable the the bible is very specific that we don't live on a spinning space ball so it's it's an if question I don't like if questions I'm going to give it to flatzoid yeah no I'm 100 percent of them because uh we already know based on god's word it's not a sphere so if if like he said it goes to okay it's not shown to be a sphere I would have to say no I can't because then that means god's word would be would be contradictory because the bible does teach a flat earth uh but yeah that's a huge if well you've been doing if questions all night if the earth was round this would happen if there's you only like if questions when they do apply to something you don't like these questions actually intellectually disingenuous because when you say gifts about things you want to believe you don't like them okay then where's your where's your demonstrations where's your demonstrations for anything we've asked for tonight I haven't seen one demonstration for all these claims you've made we've brought them up again and again and again like actually entire debate right now is that a demonstration yeah wait you know what maybe you don't understand what the word demonstrate means okay so yeah so flatzoid's just basically saying hey go through the entire debate again no I'm saying you just bring a demonstration that's all I'm saying just bring a demonstration yeah yeah yeah I've said multiple demonstrations like I brought up where the flight flight routes well what do you think I did is that is that gas pressure that yeah hey can I finish can I finish or you just want to walk over the top of me still like seriously just just wait on I brought up the circumpolar stars you had no answer for that whatsoever I brought up the crux the southern cross and how that that can work on and don't forget this is flat earth on trial was the debate don't forget that so you had you had an opportunity to give an answer that you didn't so I've been demonstrating how we know the earth is is round for quite some time it's just you haven't been paying attention okay then Mark this has we haven't got to that topic because you haven't been able to demonstrate gas pressure that containment you haven't been able to demonstrate that topic I'm not allowed to talk but you are wow so you haven't got you flatzoid 15 seconds flatzoid there will continue on okay first of all we didn't get to those subjects because we were busy trying to get you to demonstrate your claims you have not demonstrated it and yes so dishonest while I'm talking while I'm talking just hold on there please yeah so can you demonstrate for me just one of the things we brought up water cool curve you've measured any curve or that having gas pressure containment just one of them yeah okay so there we go okay so so this is the dishonesty of flatzoid like we basically have flat earth on trial I give a number of demonstrations he has every opportunity to address doesn't do so and then say hey because you didn't give me exactly what I was looking for in this this way that you can't provide because I've tweaked it so you can't provide it then I'm not going to answer any of your questions need I remind you it is flat earth on trial and these people haven't even mounted a defense which is ridiculous what a fail so no demonstration no let's go on that's the last word well done well done better let's continue on because we still got more super chats coming than everybody and I do feel like we've hopefully everybody feels like we've gotten a fair representation of both sides of this address here so yellow banana for five euros ignore if already addressed question for the flat earthers how do you explain gps and satellites in general we have onto this yeah it's just based on iss stay in orbit first of all you're making the question for orbit yes and yeah uh second or thirdly again it's all based on cortesian data systems which comes from a flat baseline again measuring and moving off of a data that comes from flats satellites satellites and space satellites and space ryan 99 of all communication is land-based towers cables and underground wires and you know underground wires in the in the water on the land so 99 percent is that way the satellites propagate the spinning space ball in the vacuum voucher space violates newton's third law of motion violates second law of thermodynamics and and you know I we went briefly over the inverse square law of light so if somebody wants to go iss is up there things are in the sky they just aren't what they say they are agreed all right thank you so much for that flatsoid and jim valerie st mary 499 it's truly adorable how all of a sudden mark is asserting fallacious reasoning guess wits it taught you something um we can kind of go on from there but valerie st mary you had your haza and uh mark did you have anything to say to them yeah so fallacious reasoning is just that it always it's irregardless sort of saying hey you brought up fallacious reasoning isn't isn't a refutation or you got it from wits no austin wits it usually uses it wrong like the reification fallacy constantly gets wrong and um things like that so no i didn't get it from wits that i got it from philosophy um but don't forget there's also the fallacy fallacy which means that just because you're making a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong however it means that your argument doesn't have a sound foundation um or a logical foundation depending on whether it is a formal or informal fallacy that you're referencing so no i didn't get it from wits which it wits it isn't the origins of fallacies i'm sorry you know i i know that i know that his followers like to think he's you know invented physics and stuff no no he hasn't thought anything of the source no seriously all right well thank you so much for and which it won't debate me anyway because he's he's really really scared so you know that that is so untrue mark but you but but you go ahead and live in your little really what's that is one of the lost people on a jacar away from a debate by the way yeah and even what i'm asking but i don't give it to i to i hey hey mark if mark if i do it right now we'll do it mark mark if i didn't know you were delusional i do now thank you well why would i say we'll do it we'll do it right now we'll do it right now wits it mark is challenging you to a debate on flat earth uh so you know we need some gunslinger music uh yeah come on yeah that's right i mean i would dual wits said uh mark is challenging gonna be no problem if he's such the amazing you know uh uh fearless person that you say is right there shouldn't be a problem right what would be the problem let's continue on with the superchats we don't want to drag other people in here too much but uh i know wits it is usually uh he's a good sport for that sort of stuff so uh estiband says jim i'm not saying anything about him i'm just saying the challenges there absolutely i'll let him know for sure um that you want to do that jim there's a meteorite museum in the chilean desert there's trackers that go find them after the uh the they are seen falling down how about that oh that's not worded very well i'm trying the best here fellas there's trackers that go find them after they are seen falling down how about that that's the mainstream narrative uh he can't prove it he read it off of google uh nasa um wikipedia and so you know if you know i got rid of my tv in february after having it for you know decades and so it's the best thing i ever did and i got rid of the mainstream narrative and i actually started thinking for myself and this is the reason why i'll be real brief uh the eyes are useless when the mind is blind we are all born into it into a prison system and participate in a prison system we cannot see that's the problem most times when we're in prison we know we're in prison but we're actually in a prison system that we cannot see but once we see once the veil is lifted there is no turning back the greatest gift we can give ourselves is the ability to think for ourselves and people like flatsoid and myself and those that know we don't live on a state of a spinning space ball in the back room of outer space have decided to throw off the chains and think for ourselves yeah i haven't been able to continue on since i was 18 so i don't know what your point is yeah well let's try not to expound too much um but yeah i i agree not not too much tv going on in my life i just used my computer and youtube and i enjoy that duncan right for ten dollars how do we really know the age of the universe if light bends around planet stars etc how do we know creation time isn't real haha just food for thought love you guys excuse me and i just love debate like you guys well duncan we love a lot of debate here so um you know i don't really have an answer for that um you know that's kind of an interesting hypothetical maybe we'll talk about that idea so uh the next time we have a conversation about creationism in the age of the universe but let's continue on here and thank you duncan uh for that uh but we do need to try to close this out joe brandon for five dollars how close is the sun to the earth if there is no outer space well that's all you want take that one um first of all we we don't know exactly if it's even physical but uh based on the belief of the bible it's in inside the dome do we know how high this dome is or whatever no we don't so i'm not really going to make claims on the height but um that's why we just say what we can we try to keep to the ground we can validate on the ground on the earth what we can but can we validate the height of the sun no we can't put it be outside the dome no inside how do you know if you don't know based on our belief based on our belief how do you know the dome won't just be further than the sun how do you check that that's what we're saying you can't an interesting question what if what uh our our noble opponents think of as the dome is what we think of as the edge of the universe what if they're the same thing and they're just really far away it's an interesting question ember but it's all speculation oh for sure and off topic yeah and i'd rather stay away from speculation i all i can say is i think we know the sun gives us heat and light and i think we can agree that it moves approximately 15 degrees across across the sky other than that i don't touch it yeah all right well let's try to continue on adjust in five dollars a small meteorite literally crashed through someone's house in suburban new jersey in may of this year like two months ago and it's well documented lots on the gym and flotzoid something fell from the sky and it wasn't a meteor and it's fine yeah just like we see satellites fall from the sky that have balloons attached to them and not attached all right last super chat last super chat and then everybody um let's go to bed right you know except for you mark because you're in osi and you probably don't want to go to bed right now do you but apparently i can't yeah that's the band i'll probably be going to bed off yeah off the body of my place going good to bed uh but i'd love to join you for an after party and uh chit chat and all that but uh no i better uh i better join my wife and the uh not there for uh for some good old good old cuddles and stuff like that so so so mark justin we're sweet like that you know you know we got i was gonna say i got to keep up on my uh keep up on my dad's status there and my husband's status so uh let's continue on we got two from estaban 2500 clp jim i've worked out on the desert and seen meteorites falling people go find the meteorite trackers trackers there's a museum for them denial at its finest cool cool story bro uh you know or cool story dude or cool story man or you know you know whatever uh you're not your buddy guy i'm not your guy man if you if you want to you know go ahead and believe that that's fine uh let's let's see some proof of it actually falling down from outer space things do fall from the sky and so it's all cool you know it's fine you know if you want to do a if you want to come on modern day debate youtube in the chat section and say something happening cool all right uh that was for you and jim last one's for you from estaban again estaban's got lots of questions for you jim so uh maybe you guys want to have your own conversation estaban join us on modern day debate discord maybe jim's going to join us there and uh you guys can uh you know hang out over there and see what you disagree about and you know maybe we'll uh link back up here in a couple uh couple weeks 2500 clp from estaban jim it is not speculation the universe is the isolated system that's the container for all pressure and matter in a volume everywhere and he probably believes he's the descendant of apes as well so that's cool well that's not exactly true we're still apes in in the evolutionary model if you want to be in the bush i can tell you that's false because then my cousin didn't evolve with me but we're still mammals it's apes still around yeah it's imagine it's weird how it's very selective we're still vertebrates we're still prokaryotes your career it's very selective don't you think what's tell me tell tell me when uh dolphin started coming from when the cows stopped uh do you want an evolution debate as well i'm more than happy to have an evolution debate it's ended with all kinds of things today it's ended with how long does it take for a cow to uh stop breathing and able to have gills under water and become a dolphin stop breathing do i have a bullet yeah no i don't friends don't have gills throw it throw a cow throw a cow in the oceans yeah no no no dolphins don't breathe under water they breathe air i don't yeah does a cow swim uh if you put it in water it can swim it might how long until it drowns we're away the hell off topic i'm so sorry i'm sorry this this was a little more a bit we're at evolution to another subject i'm so sorry i i don't want to say for some odd reason flat so i'm sure there was a reason for the conversation there but we should move into our closing statements here uh we're gonna we got two minutes per side uh i i want to go back and forth here to close it out uh a little unorthodox jim uh one minute uh your thoughts on the discussion we just had tonight oh it's all great mark ember it's great to meet both of you uh flat so it's my pleasure and um ryan you were great i want to thank you i want to thank james again and everybody who listened um it's been it's been fun and so i wish everybody a great stationary topographical plane weekend all right jim thanks for being here we appreciate you so much uh let's kick it over to emmer for your closing statements up to one minute all right uh also appreciate everybody coming by uh jim flat so i'd uh good to meet you both and uh yeah it's it's been a it's been a fun debate it's been it's been interesting and um you know that's the thing with science is we we actually keep hoping to have our our views since we don't like the word models our views challenged because when we can be shown to be wrong about something that means we learn more we like that that's the best thing in the world and so we we keep coming around hoping something like that will happen unfortunately i can't say it did tonight we didn't really get answers to any of our questions but it was still a fun time talking with you folks it did oh all right uh over to you flat so i'd you got one minute to close uh your thoughts there uh also i just have to say thank you it was well worth waking up so early um it was awesome meeting you ember and jim yeah it's also good to have you on mate and as always the for more of a mock read thanks for having on i know we get very triggered along with each other mock because we definitely don't see eye to eye we're like a negative and a positive pole so we definitely have their things but i have to point out note that not one thing was demonstrated only faith and pushing on insults that was about it all right well thank you ember for your closing statement and also thank you flatsoid for your closing statement there we appreciate both of our speakers for being here mark uh you got one minute to close us out the floor is yours okay so thank you all for being here and engaging with me and thanks ryan fantastic job thanks for modern day debate james and of course the audience for joining us thanks for your time and hearing us out um so the whole point of this thing was flat earth on trial so we're putting the questions to the flat earth of how it works how they know it works how how everything is described and we don't get answers for it all we get is a well you've got to describe this thing about your model before we even answer any questions now keep in mind that this is flat earth on trial and you're sort of asking the prosecutor did you commit the crime kind of thing it's not really doesn't make a lot of sense um all it is is sort of a dodger deflection that they don't have answers for any of those things that's why flatsoid won't give equations for for any of his stuff it's because he doesn't have something that will meet up with reality so instead they say well you've got to explain this and we really promise we'll explain our thing afterwards me explaining the model of the globe earth shouldn't depend on them explaining anything i should be able to give that information without asking them anything whatsoever but unfortunately they can't do the same and you've got to ask why is that why is their answers dependent on me explaining something first doesn't make any sense and they didn't really give answers to anything thank you all right well thank you mark for your closing statements there uh once again uh big shout out to jim flatsoid ember and mark we got one last question coming in from craw daddy of five dollars flat earth reminds me of herald camping cultists the difference is when they were presented with reality they stopped rejecting it um you know cry daddy that's that's a little bit on the ad hominy side uh you know and maybe not relevant to the conversation so we appreciate your five dollar super chat to close this out i thought maybe it might be something there where it started with flat earth but uh we're gonna close out our debate thank you everybody this was flat earth on trial uh we hope you keep on sifting the unreasonable from the reasonable or maybe the opposite however james says it you know uh let's uh let's hope to see you again next time for more modern day debate and i think uh i think i'm gonna put on some of that live performance that i had on before uh because i don't feel like playing guitar where my wife is right there so uh you can listen to my live that i played from months ago uh enjoy everybody and we'll see you next time cheers bye thank you turnies mixed with self-oppression what am i to do but tear away when i'm boiling at the top try to find a way to fight the fires smother the rap from the minds of liars with all the shots to your bare heads the marchin' never stops cut the strings before your life starts to decay from tears of blood regret subtle laughter turn around and i'll be faster your hollow shape as the faith begins to drop everybody that was our debate tonight on flat earth on trial so uh i see a couple of you in the super chats there i just want to remind all of you that uh you know earlier we were i was talking to james and uh we were having a conversation about the uh the people that were messaging about the upcoming debates uh it's not a lie those debates aren't like super postponed or like you know in the future or anything like that it's just that we're trying to remind everybody that we are on the podcast apps so uh if you have time to check us out on podcasts or share it from your favorite podcast forum we'd appreciate that so i actually have i think another song from that same night so i'll close you guys out with that but i do appreciate you all being here i care about the music well thanks jeff sol i you know i appreciate you being here but we appreciate the people that are here for the debate as well of course but the the music that i wrote of course is free to be used so on modern day debate so i do what i want um thanks everybody for being here and cheers we'll see hopefully in a few days here we're trying to set up some juicy debates so stay tuned and cheers i'm fractured was it all too far never mount the rest while i'll be off it all like a spill you're forever feeling over filled tired of sitting here all broken mind broken bone it's a symbol Just an occasion, but it's one