 Welcome everyone to modern day debate. We are a neutral platform Welcoming everybody from all walks of life If you're looking for more juicy debates don't forget to Like and subscribe and if you like anything that you hear tonight Both of our guest links are in the description Description below with that. I'm gonna hand it over to T jump for his ten minute Opening statement floor is all yours Hey guys, pleasure as always. Thank you Amy for hosting. Thanks for James for inviting me as always So we know the world is definitely not flat one because we've been to space some insane billionaires have recently been to space so it's really not hard to know that the world is round but For lay people like most flat earthers the easiest way for them to know that the world is in fact round is to build a Radio ham radios or amateur radios anybody can build one in your backyard Really easy to operate. I have to build a pretty expensive one But once you build a ham radio, you can use it to bounce signals off of the moon You can send a radio signal which works exactly like radar does so we know radar works Even blurfs should know that radar works and they can use it to bounce Radio waves off of objects like planes missiles Buildings cars whatever to know their shape size distance What it in all the different ways it is how far away it is from you where it's going and how it's traveling and All kinds of good information you can get from radio waves And we can do this with the moon we can bounce radio signals off of the moon So we know how far away it is what its shape is et cetera et cetera And when you bounce radio waves off of the moon like all night long from the beginning of the night to the end of the night And you can bounce it off during the day, too But you get the same approximate distance every time it takes about 2.4 to 2.7 seconds for the radio waves to bounce off the moon and come back Or just to bounce off the moon It's like five seconds total divided by two 2.5 seconds, which means that the moon is about 250,000 miles away The entire time all night long is 250,000 miles away And if you know basic geometry if an object is the same distance away the entire time while traveling across the sky That means it must be traveling in an arc has to be going in a big circle if it was going in a ellipse or a Like just go hovering over the planet at approximately the same distance the entire time Then the distance to the moon would change as the night progressed. It wouldn't be the same distance Also It wouldn't be the same distance for each different location on earth If you measured the distance to the moon from different places on earth, you'd get different distances But what we see is we get the same distance every single time no matter where you are on earth no matter What time of day it is no matter if multiple people are measured at the same time you always get the same Distance which means though moon must be traveling in a big Circle or arc If that's the case then if the world were flat then the Arc then the moon must be traveling from the surface of the earth and then up into the air and then crashing back down into The surface of the earth is the only way it's possible can't be traveling in an arc from everywhere with the exact same distance unless It was just crashing back into the world somewhere so far away that no one could actually get there Obviously, that's not the case which means Because we know that the moon is always out somewhere on somewhere in the world We can always see the moon that it can't the world cannot be flat. It's not logically impossible unless we're like In the matrix or something it's not possible for the world to be flat That is the easiest way anybody can do it anybody can build a ham radio. We can prove the world is in fact round Very easily and I will conclude there Thank you so very much t-jump and all right We're gonna hand it over to the other side for days ten minute opening statement. The floor is all yours Just a quick question t-jump. You said flur. What does that mean? You're really quiet could you go close closer to the mic, but yeah, I heard you I heard your question Flurf is just a derogatory term for a flat earth or so. Can I call you a balltard after this? You can call me whatever you want. Okay. Oh, okay, so we're doing name-calling That's starting sure All right, you know, that's already a logical fallacy in a debate, right? It's only a logical fallacy if you use the name-calling as an argument I didn't use as an argument so it wouldn't be a fallacy And then why would you even use the word flur from the first place because it's funny? Okay, so it's amazing to me that people like this who probably don't even Really understand the reality that they live in there's only about four different types of People who think that they live on a globe they think it they believe it. They don't know it for a fact I know for a fact that t-jump has never been too alleged outer space I know he's never been higher than a plane which only flies between 34 and 36,000 feet in altitude. So he's never actually seen curvature Nobody has actually It's actually lost in court in the court case in the state of Georgia 2019 Zen Garcia versus Thompson He won in court because the balltard if we're doing the name-calling Had no evidence of curvature in reality. So There are only four types one is confused which usually the balltard Since we're doing the name-calling Is confused and then in the end if they're actually really honest with themselves They're gonna understand the nature in the reality in which they live. The second one is their liars The tune is a liar Who's the other? Fight the flatter is a liar these guys lie to themselves probably as I will catch T-jump lying to himself And then the other ones are hypnotized So there are people that are actually hypnotized by television programming Hearing these words over and over There's a lot of confusion that is caused because there is a Transmission of information that's false He's never seen curvature. He says that we know that the earth is a ball He doesn't know that He lives on a earth where if he looks around no matter what altitude He is it's going to be a flat earth because water is level There's no scientific evidence of water bending into a ball. There's no scientific evidence For any of these claims he's about to make but he will continue and say that this is quote-unquote science and You'll watch me kind of unpack that real quick All right, thank you guys for your opening statements and with that We are going to move into about 40 minutes and some change of open discussion Guys the floor is yours Okay, so I presented bouncing radio waves off of the moon is any of that Deluding myself or things I haven't done because I've done that and so as fight the flat earth. So what about that is? Where's the man I into myself? Where's the man in the sky up space space a vacuum Yeah, I didn't say anything about a vacuum so I can bounce radio waves off of the moon What about that statement? Hold on, but you're making a claim that the sky is a vacuum. Let's start. No, that's not a part of my claim My claim was like in bounced radio waves off of the moon. We know how far the moon away So I don't care if it's a vacuum or not my argument works brother down to the vacuum So we're not going to do this right now. We're just going to go into bouncing Radar waves off. Okay. So yes When these men these Freemasons claimed to go to the moon My argument was I and you can build a ham radio and we ourselves can bounce radio waves off of the moon I don't care about Freemasons. Okay, cool. So you're saying that the moon is in space now You have to prove no, I said I we can bounce radio waves off of the moon. Yes or no Do you agree does radar work? Do you know what radar is? I would I agree with you? I've never done it I don't care to I'm trying to move the shape of the earth I'm not trying to prove that you can take a radar and do anything with it So I'm the one proving the shape of the earth here. So you have to like address my Yes, so so my argument is I can prove the world is not flat by doing this so if What is this scientific evidence? Yes Okay, go ahead and give me the dependent and the independent very Dependent independent verbs have nothing to do with scientific evidence, but okay Got him. Okay. No, this guy says that dependent very wait. I still get to give my evidence. Don't don't Give the evidence Well, well, let me give the scientific evidence. You don't know anything about science I don't don't tell me about so wait wait wait the scientific evidence is we can observe and make testable predictions That's what science is observation and testable predictions that we can build Go ahead Amy could you mute them because I we gotta we gotta move forward Amy yeah, well guys, let's just Amy if you can continues you gotta mute them I don't want to have to do two or three minutes, but let's just All right, so I don't care what the first definition of science is the first or idiots What matters in science is a way to differentiate imagination from reality You have an idea in your head and you want to know if that idea corresponds to something real outside of your imagination And what we do this is called novel testable predictions through observation. That's what science is so we can observe the fact that we can build a Radio wave a radio transmitter in our backyard called a ham radio. We can bounce the signals off of the moon So we know like we can bounce it off a building how far a building away Amy you gotta mute him. You gotta mute him. Just mute him Stop stop just mute him just mute him right now mute him right now, please Could you mute him and then tell me we're gonna do two or three minute sessions. I gotta So I don't I don't need the two or three next sessions I just need to mute him what I'm talking. I'll let him talk. I don't care So we know for a fact the moon is 250,000 miles away approximately we can literally measure it we can observe it So that is science observation and novel prediction So we know for a fact the moon is always 250,000 miles away And if it's always 250,000 miles away from anywhere on earth That means it has to be traveling in an arc or a circle And it's the same way anywhere you measure it anywhere on earth at all times during the day or the night So there is only one possibility here. Guess what? It's going in an arc around the earth It's the only possibility can't be flat because there's no possible geometry Geometrical shape that the moon could be traveling in to be able to measure it in all places at all times Or on the earth to be the same distance if the world is flat. It's just not physically possible Therefore we know for a fact measurably the world is around All right, you can go ahead Thank you for your interest Okay, so the actual definition of science because this balltark thinks that he's some kind of expert dictionary writer And he's not the actual definition from Oxford dictionaries the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment You need the experiment so he didn't even know that scientific evidence requires a dependent variable and an independent variable So he's scientifically illiterate and here he's trying to say that it's just an average iteration looking at the moon is science There you go. I just did science. No, he's wrong Scientific evidence requires the scientific method. He didn't even know what that is He doesn't even know what science is in general He gave me his definition and when I stopped him he wanted me muted Which is what mccain does which is what fight the flat earth do they mute me when they're getting pummeled So now he's missing his experimentation in order for this to be deemed Science so again, I'll ask what is your dependent and independent variable for this so-called scientific evidence go ahead, sir So, yeah, again, I don't need to meet your definition of science. It's irrelevant my definition. It's oxford No, no, it's it's your definition like dependent independent. I actually know it Did you want me to answer your question? Let me just finish real quick? Hey, can you meet him can you meet him? Let's okay Listen, this is not my definition. You bolt hard This is oxford university the top one of the top two universities in the world I'm not making this up like you did. Oh, oh, we know that science is this and this and you don't know what sciences It needs an observation and you see that word and experiment You don't even have an experiment. You just think that looking at the moon is science. You're a bolt hard That's why the majority of people in this world are dumb and hypnotized like you You don't understand what science is you claim to be talking about science You didn't even know what it you didn't even know what a dependent and independent variable You didn't even know they were necessary for an experiment. So you're literally scientific illiterate. This is a waste of time for me Okay, so I did an experiment literally in the what I said you build a ham radio No, I don't need to it's an experiment. No, that's the necessary. That's what you need for an experiment ball turned No, no retard. I don't need to know anything about That's an experiment Hold up. Hold up. So I literally did an experiment where I built a tool Tested the tool against an object. That's an experiment like whatever you want to call the dependent variable. It doesn't matter Of course it matters you dumbass you you can call whichever you want you could you can find out yourself Go go figure it out yourself. There's the experiment. I gave you the experiment. We did the observation Experiment you ball heard listen to what an experiment is. Gosh, I can't believe I'm wasting my time here Here this is an experiment. You ready? Sure go for it any day Okay, here we go any day jump the ball tart said he didn't need any Any independent or independent variables in order for him? scientific evidence So if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong in that simple statement is the key to science What's the dependent independent variable Hold on t-jump stop talking over me like all the ball tarts. Do you just let me get my point out is the key to science That's it. If you don't have the experiment. It's wrong. So you don't have scientific evidence Why are you making a claim? I literally did an experiment show show that is an experiment show my radio waves is not an experiment Yes, it is a scientific Give me the dependent you tell me you tell me what a dependent independent variable are You tell me what a dependent independent variable what I have to wait wait wait wait you claim to have science You want me to tell you what a dependent independent variable? I don't I that's your definition not mine So I don't give a shit what my definition You tell me you tell me what you want I can prove it's an experiment So tell me what you want what your silly definition is I'll tell you Am I like talking to it? I Already asked you give me the two variables. Go ahead. What are the two variables? What is an independent variable? What is a dependent variable? What do those what is the definition of those terms? What is the I'm sorry you lost you don't know what science is here's the definition I am not gonna teach you what science and scientific experiments are you already made a clown of yourself when you said I don't need dependent independent variables for scientific evidence Ball cards Liz next argument So I'm at the philosophy the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy on experimental philosophy zero mentions of dependent or Not so Don't wait wait wait any Amy Amy. You can't walk away. You gotta have to move them away So definition of science Stanford encyclopedia Amy Amy you gotta mute him Amy I don't want to do two or three minutes, but they can't listen if you're both talking at the same time I mean, we don't know the two minutes You just need to mute him when I'm talking because I stopped talking when he's Playing so I'm gonna give it to Tom and Tom's gonna make his point Tom All right, so definition of science and philosophy doesn't include dependent variable at all. So you're wrong in there. How about let's try Oxford Oxford definition of science Oxford definition Nope not an Oxford either. So your definition is made up in garbage No, I don't care I don't care. I don't care. I mean you guys he's a liar He so I presented the proof Amy. You gotta meet him. You have to mute him You have to listen to what I'm saying. Please. They mute him mute him. Stop. Stop asking. He's not gonna happen Just mute him Dave, please. I don't want to meet you. You asked him five times He's not going to listen. Just mute him when I say so, please Continue your point if you could you please mute him? I can't I don't want to have to go through this every single time. Thank you. All right, so Definition of science does not include either of those things. They're irrelevant to my point I've proven my point literally that is an experiment definition of experiments doing a experiment definition experiment definition The scientific procedure undertaken discovery take hypothesis or demonstrate known fact such as Building a radio tower. That's an experiment Okay, done So that is an experiment whether it fits your definition or not doesn't matter I don't care what your definition is This is not observable testable prediction that we can make to build a ham radio Measure the distance of the moon if that is correct your worldview is debunked You mess you play in silly word games is irrelevant here Your worldview is debunked no matter what you want to define science as so unless you can prove my experiment wrong You've lost you can go ahead. No He's you don't know Okay Variable is the variable that is stable unaffected by the variables You were trying to measure it refers to the condition of an experiment That is systematically manipulated by the investigator. It's the presumed cause University of Southern California One observed natural phenomenon to hypothesis three independent variable cause for dependent variable effect I just gave you a lesson on what scientific experimentation is. You didn't even know what it meant. You're clown This is a waste of time Okay, so then the cause would be the existence of the moon and the effect would be the readings on the ham radio That would be the cause and effect and that would be your radio with science Yes, if we use it to do a measurement and an experiment. Yes by your own definition No, not my definition balltard. I just gave you USC a University so if your definition professor telling you That that experiments required independent and dependent variables. You just made a fool of yourself teach on So the dependent variable is the moon and the independent variable is the measurements that we get from the ham radio So I just provided you with a definition. Okay. Okay. Listen to his hypothesis people He says that the moon is the dependent variable. That's the effect is the moon in effect Okay, fine. Get it backwards the moon into the independent variable and the deep So, okay, so can you move on now? So my argument just proves your world schooled by a flat earth in science you're out Okay, okay, so I gave you an independent variable and a dependent variable. I gave you an experiment that proves you're wrong You didn't you said that the moon so then you said the moon is the independent variable now. You just switch them I don't care what I'm trying to fit your definitions here. So my friend approve my Debating you I should be debating somebody like my tune who actually knows what an experiment is or fight the flat earth Those guys have already studied Material you're like you're like a 2016 balltard So, so I proved you wrong you haven't Let me ask you this T jump you said that the moon is an independent variable, right? I'm waiting for you to refute my evidence. So how are you gonna manipulate the moon? I don't care about your definition That's correct Imagination My argument you've done nothing but give bullshit semantics, which is irrelevant. So it doesn't matter what words you use your words are irrelevant here You need to disprove The moon is an independent semantics silly semantics Science is very narrow it only deals with Semantics semantics are not relevant here. We want observation experience. I gave you an observation and an experiment so Wrong have you on video saying you don't need a dependent variable and an independent care about your semantics Disprove You're clown any can you mute them for minutes cuz I want to For a second, please So I provided an observation and experiment he has not refuted it He's just plain silly semantic game. So I will continue to wait for him to refute my God, do I have to let him make is that I will mute if you don't let me I heart you both Okay, I see where this is supposedly this is unbiased, but we can see where this is Go ahead teach I am neutral to both of you guys. I just want both of you guys to get your points out So yeah, yeah, I made my point like I presented evidence in talking fast about this thing You talk about all the time you don't have an experiment you bald hard You said that the moon was the dependent variable and when I when I totally made fun of you that You didn't know what you're talking about then you said the moon was the independent variable And you said I don't care. It doesn't even matter. So you don't have science. This is not a scientific experiment Hence, this is not scientific evidence. You're a clown to jump. I've seen your debates You don't even know what science is. How many Star Wars movies have you seen in your life? God? Okay, so I presented my experimental evidence we commute mute him Please cuz I mute him so I can continue so I presented the absolute proof The world is in fact round and he's done nothing to play semantic games because he wants some very specific definition of science Which is completely irrelevant to any point I made so he's done nothing to refute anything I've said because he can't he's just ignorant of the topic Wait, could you could you mute him Amy? Just keep him muted until I I'll tell you when you can unmute him so Because I proved for a fact the world is in fact round by showing that we can Demonstrate the distance to the moon at the entire time and there's no change in it He's just playing semantic games because he wants some hyper specific definition of science, which I don't care about So until he disproves my argument, he's lost so you can go ahead Okay, mister the moon is the dependent. Oh, no, it's actually the independent variable You don't know what you're talking about T jump. You're living in la la land. I'll ask you again How many Star Wars films have you seen in your life? Okay, I'm still waiting for you to like actually refute my proof Don't have an experiment you baltard. You said that the moon was an dependent variable and then it's the independent variable You don't even have science to begin with that's how delusional you are T jump Look at your eyes you lost you're doing this dumb blinking thing because you know you're out You don't have science stop telling people you have scientific evidence You don't even know what science is you think that looking at something is science Am I doing science by looking at you on this computer monitor? No, that's not what science is science is a method that is used to determine cause and effect Relationships in nature. That's it You don't know what you're talking about. This is the day where you've been shut down This argument is over. You do not have science. You said that the moon was an independent variable. Go ahead Let's continue. How are you gonna manipulate the moon? Go ahead. So I'm used to waiting you need to refute my proof I gave you a scientific proof. Wait, Amy, could you mute for that? And so guys actually I think Let's finish up this point because I feel like we've been circling it and then let's either one of you if you want to move on to the next one We don't have an independent dependent variable. He's confused. Cause you mute him for a second but Tom, you know I had to say something so the floor is yours. All right So as I said I presented a proof with a scientific observation and experiment which demonstrates factually and Controvertibly the world is round He's done nothing to play semantic games because he wants some hyperspecific definition of science with his own ridiculous nonsense Which is just irrelevant So he's done nothing to actually disprove the fact that I just gave an experiment anybody can do to demonstrate that the world is in fact round No, you did not give an experiment because you don't even know what a sign That was Excuse me. Give me one second It's saying ask. There you go So what happened? Are we okay? Can I talk? Yeah? Yeah, you're good. Yeah cool T-shirt you don't know what science is let's move on because I'm not going to keep like beating a dead horse You said that the moon was an independent variable in your experiment. How are you gonna manipulate the moon fool? Tell me Nope, so I'm just gonna stick on this one point. I'm beating you so badly Amy Amy so I can finish my point all right So I've destroyed you so badly on this like I don't need to move forward like I'm done Like this is the one point. I win you've been completely crushed like I just proved the world is round I'd like to actually finish a point Amy so could you mute him while I'm talking please finish your point So again as I said I've demonstrated proven with incontrovertible proof with an experiment observation anybody can do That the world is round like anybody can do this. It's very simple. It's been you can find lots of YouTube videos of this doing it Yes, it is an experiment. Yes, it is because you can actually like the experiment is testing What the signal you get back is on the signal on the radio wave transmitter? So that is an experiment and it is caused by the distance of the moon so we can prove that All right, so you can go ahead and if you're not gonna feed this point, I'm just gonna stop right there That's the only point was an independent very variable in your scientific experiment and then I asked you How are you gonna manipulate the moon and you said? Yeah, yeah, as we have seen the same spew that you always give you baltard Yeah, go ahead and you on you need that really bad right now because you just got pummeled by a flat earth here I educated you in science You are clown 100% clown How the hell are you gonna manipulate the moon so you can't Yeah, you're trying to you're trying to deflect from this so you can't you can't repeat anything I said That's how that's how dumb you are you can do nothing to anything I said You don't even know what science is you said in the very beginning I don't need any variables for a scientific experiment then I pointed you to a scientific I'd like to make a point now Amy could you hold on hold on let me talk and then I Showed you university of something there's so many more I can show you that said that you need a hypothesis a dependent independent variable to have science You don't have science so you do not have an argument. Sorry. You're out It's over. You're not gonna manipulate the moon and you don't even know the difference between an independent Independent variable you wanted me to teach you this argument is done. Let's move to the next one. Well, see you got gravity So as I said, I just completely crashed crush this kid So this kid just got any could you mute him so I could finish my point, please? Thank you, so I just crushed this kid so bad He couldn't do anything but make semantic arguments about definitions about words like oh You don't know the definition of this word which has literally nothing to do with the evidence I presented I could present the presented in Japanese and not know a word of English and I'm still gonna crush him because it makes no difference to my argument So the fact that all you can do is bring up semantic games is just irrelevant like I prove the world is round You're done until you can disprove my proof and it's as simple as that and I'm not gonna move on from this argument This is the only argument. I'm talking about because you obviously can't respond to it Yeah, I'm responding debunking your claim that you have scientific evidence You don't even know what science is you wanted me to teach you So you don't even know what you're talking about The moon is gonna repeat myself. I've already crushed you so badly. It's just the moon is an independent variable You're literally retarded, dude. You don't even know what you're talking about. I'm sorry Like I thought I was actually gonna have a challenge today like you're so like five years ago bald-hard like it's not even funny It's this is not even fun for me. You're gonna keep doing the same circle jerk You're gonna go up and yet he hasn't proven Dude, you don't even know what science is. This is this is so boring for me I'm here to debate somebody who actually knows what science is you do not you are not that person go back to doing Whatever you're good at playing video games. I don't know but science and logic, especially science are not your thing All right, so I'm ready to go to Q and a because I've crushed this kid enough Yeah, the moon is an independent variable everybody remember that and so I Just want to give you a chance Dave. Did you have anything else to say? Yeah, he can't he can't formulate their hypothesis which is Which experiment is a hypothesis test. He doesn't have that I've proven to you with Oxford dictionary that you need the experiment patient at first He just kept saying observations and then I pointed him to a scientific citation Something he hasn't brought yet and I showed him that you need a dependent and an independent variable to have science to conduct a Scientific experiment and then when I asked him how are you gonna manipulate the moon since first he didn't even know first He said that the moon was the effect and then he said it's the cause he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about This is boring. Yes, so the hypothesis is the moon is 250,000 miles away at all times forever There you go You're gonna give me a definition of what those are I can you can try to figure them out the shelves I'm supposed to prove your argument for you if you want semantic games and you want It's a semantic science is very narrow. This is not semantics. Oh, it's mean things For a second guys and idiot Amy Thank you. All right, so I gave you the hypothesis is that the moon is always 250,000 miles away We can test this by using a measuring device that measures the distance of an object Which is a ham radio and radio waves We can do an experiment by building the ham radio and balancing off the moon and it come back And so yeah, all of that stuff fits if you want to know a specific definition of like what the independent independent variables are You can figure that out yourself. I guess none of this is really You gotta keep emuted you gotta mute it Amy So if you if you want specific definitions of the things you have to actually tell me what those are I can tell you what they are because it's obviously an experiment every single scientist agrees This is an experiment. It's an experiment that's been done by scientists So you thinking it's not an experiment because of your semantic games just means you're stupid like every scientist agrees This is an experiment if you have a specific definition You're looking for what a Independent independent variable are you definitely tell me what those are because every scientist agrees with me that you're wrong This is an experiment. All right, I'm ready to go in Q&A because he's done Okay, so you can respond Thank you very much for that. I Will say if you guys want to tag me or Bob Sadler So tag me and Amy Newman We are accepting questions for t-jump and Davey as we move into our Q&A section Which I'm sure we'll get even more spicy and I'll start with Oreo Zeeviton does Davey have a channel Have a what? Why I can answer for him. I'll let him answer But why yes, he does because I think his link is in the description below But do you have a channel? No, I don't I just have a website, but I'm gonna start doing a channel Pretty soon. I don't know Right and five dollar super chat from Nugget man And that's right send in your super chats and they get priority read Davey are you an atheist? What do you? believe in except flat earth I Am not an atheist. I Don't have any beliefs. I know that we have a creator You can go to waters level calm you can click on the creator page and you will see scientific evidence Something that t-jump doesn't know anything about scientific evidence for a creator So I'm a creationist and Christa logical Think that super chat still coming in so Question from Zeth Wilson anyone ever been to the edge. I Think that's for you Davey Anyone ever been to the edge of what space? Oh, you're talking about the earth. I've just been I've never been that far. No He's as anyone ever been there Has anybody ever been there? Yeah, I don't know. I'll do what you did to me prove my prove my argument for me Go ahead Question from Nikola, bbq t-jump the dependent variable is distance from measuring I'm gonna assume from a measuring device and the independent variable is the radio waves utilized by the device No question mark Sure, you did two independent variables. What's did he say dependent or independent? The independent from the measuring device and the independent variable What's the deep end the didn't the Dependent variable is distance from Measuring device and the independent variable is the radio waves utilized by the device. No question mark The the dependent variable is something that you'll see in nature. That's an effect An event something that's happening for instance You're walking through Alaska and you see some water boiling How is that happening when it's snow outside and this water is hot that you need to figure out the cause of that effect Something that t-jump has no idea about and then you have science So a distance between one thing to another is not by any means a dependent variable because it's not a natural phenomenon $5 from silent zero. I thought science don't prove things. Why does t-jump keep saying that he proved things? Depends on your definition of proof science doesn't prove anything with certainty, but it does with a high degree of certainty So like in my last debate with a platter if they're he defined proof as things we can Measure and observe and so science does measure to observe things so they do prove things by most first definition of proof Question from some guy t-jump dependent equal distance to moon And then he also says right after that independent equal location on earth So locations cause distance to moon. No, that's not science. That would be pseudoscience aka cham or fake science Question Unlike t-jump for a t-jump doing doing your best to steal man Davies performance tonight. Did he contribute anything of value to challenge your presented argument? No, I didn't present anything. He was just being overly pedantic about useless Terminologies like anyone who's actually intelligent doesn't do that they just kind of grant the definitions The opponent is using to try and actually understand the point. He's doing none of that because he's a crazy flirt because he all he wants to do is Disagree about definitions. Oh, you didn't know a definition. Therefore. My entire position is right It's not how it works I debunked his argument completely in holy and he just had nothing to say on the topic So he had to make a pointless conversation about semantics, which is just irrelevant to my point So we know he contributed absolutely nothing $5 super chat from F3 stop motion You guys blow especially the guy with glasses Though I love both of you. All right and moving forward To Davy, do you have any positive proof or experiments that support the flat earth $5 from Steve? Okay, so An experiment and t-jump didn't know this because he doesn't know what science is. He's like a star like a science fiction fan A scientific experiment proves cause and effect. So the earth The aspect of it was not by any means an effect or anything That is a dependent variable that we have to find the cause of it because water is level Waters level calm go ahead and visit my website. You can read all the resources I have I don't have to prove that the earth is flat He has to prove that the earth is a ball but he can't because he doesn't know what science is and as Amy Just asked him nor does he care he doesn't care to know what science is He wants to live in this imaginary fiction fairy tale spinning low Question from Ross Thatcher asked t-jump how they've arrived the value for our The radius of the earth there's lots of different ways to do it, but none of that was in my argument $5 super chat from Frank's 92 Davey doesn't understand that there are different forms of experiments. Have you ever heard of correlation research? I'm not interested in anything other than science logic And with that is truth. I'm not interested in any type of pseudoscience I'm interested in cause and effect relationships. That is natural science things happening in the physical and natural world I don't care about anything else. It doesn't have nothing to do with my argument Yahweh is king asked how did he get his measurements? I made them like you can make a ham radio and read them off a computer like as you bounce the signals off the moon It reads the time from when you start sending the signal to when you receive it you made the measurements Yes, you can build a ham radio in your backyard Wait, wait, wait, you build the measurements you built feet and inches you built those He asked how I got the measurements idiots how I got them is through a computer From a computer The computer is not the earth the computer is not the reality. That is a model That's a reification fallacy in a debate computers aren't models. You're dumb Computers create the models which is why thompson lost State of georgia. He lost because he brought curvature evidence inside of a computer Not reality tj how many star wars films have you seen in your life? You've had to have seen them all You've had to see more. You're super super hypnotized super brainwashed. It's hilarious to watch Super chat for five dollars from great sky Davey, please accept my donation for your future psych evaluation fund But we love both people here send in love. Okay, doki and question from thought criminal What's the flat earth explanation for time zones? time Zones on a flat earth Well, we live on an earth. That's flat It's observable. It's easily Like nobody has to prove it. That's what we see. We live in a flat earth and we have time zones so I don't know what you want me to do time is an abstract measurement of the progression of time of life so time zones I can say it's whatever time and just tell the whole world that it's a certain time doesn't mean anything the sun and the moon circuit the earth and Every time it goes around that would be a 24-hour circuit And the sun happens to be in certain areas of the world when it does make it circuits And um, that's it. I mean, I don't know how to prove a time zone or anything. It's like when people say prove Whatever on a flat earth, it's like we're already living on a flat earth Like I don't know what it is that you want me to prove you're living in it right now from top dog shattuck AB Newman and t-jump. Have you used celestia yet? It is one of the best free space programs Nope can Davey provide any counter argument besides the independent dependent variable for what t-jump presented No, I get if it's not science. I'm not concerned with it. He's not proving cause and effect relationships He's claiming that he has a distance to an object in the sky that he claims to be a vacuum We haven't even gotten into the pressure or treatment yet. Otherwise, this will be his second obliteration of the day But he doesn't have science. He doesn't know what science is at first. He says you don't need dependent and independent variables To have scientific evidence. That's somebody who's scientifically illiterate then he said the moon That's that's when he knows he's losing and then he said that the moon was a dependent variable And then when I debunked them on that he says, you know what switch it up the moon is the independent variable This guy's a great a baltard clown bringing arguments from 2015 over into the future. So Um, good luck t-jump I'd love to see how your brain works on the inside because from what you're showing me here You're not very intelligent in science and logic Question so easy $5 super chat from cupcake Davey What is your opinion on aldon's number as an evidence for flat earth? I am surprised you didn't use it. It's an easy winning argument I don't know what he's talking about. It's not part of my argument. Thank you for the advice Do you even know what it is Not part of my argument. Do you know what it is? That was do you know what it is? I don't want to hear this guy No, you don't know what it is He jumped that in his experiment the dependent variable is the distance to the moon And the independent variable is the location on earth that he is measuring from Location from earth does not cause distance to the moon science has to do with Cause and effect. These are not experiments. These are just like he said observations without the experiments hence It is not science Me looking at he jumped right now and he yawns when he loses That's not science. I'm just watching him lose There's no science behind that This is why you don't actually engage with them when they start making up their own semantic games You just say don't need that you tell me what I need It's much better because they're never going to accept it. Anyway, so don't don't engage with the flare So they say that kind of stuff If you present something that's obviously an experiment and they deny it they lose you just debunked I don't even know what you said that the that the moon was an independent variable you clown You're a grade a ball tart pretender clown You're pretending to come in here and you think you know what science is you don't you my friend are a fool I'm sorry, but you're not smart in science. Go back to do whatever you do Science is not your thing. Trust me. I debated phd astrophysicists people who have phd's in gps Those guys are actually smart. They know what experiments are they answer my questions You didn't even know your audience had to help you and then you wanted me to define it for you You can't manipulate the moon flight the flatter said that that the that he was going to manipulate the sun You guys are delusional But it's it's dying down when we have these types of discussions people start understanding the truth like Dude, is this guy deranged? Yeah, he is deranged. He doesn't know what science is and when Amy called him out on it He says I don't care. I don't care what science is. He doesn't know and he doesn't care He's a grade a clown this debate is done. He's over. It's done See what I mean? He just makes a fool of himself because he can't admit that that's obviously an experiment So you win you don't need to address an experiment to jump you're a clown You said that you're going to manipulate the moon. How are you going to do that? See what I mean See what I mean Uh Question for Davey. What about other planets that we know from observation to be round? Bull shape from observation even the sun from observation too Uh, let me let me touch on that in one second. So the institute of physics This isn't me making something up like t-jump does because he doesn't know what sciences says when planning an investigation The researcher the scientist you don't have to be a scientist to perform a scientific experiment But it says that they are looking for cause and effect if possible any other outcomes Any other variables that will affect the outcome of the experiment needs to be constant during this investigation One independent variable The cause two dependent variable the effect three controlled variables institute of physics dot com You didn't even know You don't even know what you're talking about t-jump. That's how sad this is and you were actually instead of being Open and honest and saying, you know what dude? I was wrong. I didn't know what I was talking about Things would be cool But when you start lying when you have to pretend to keep this facade this i'm a globe guy like Dude, you totally don't even know what science is. This is embarrassing People would watch this We're gonna use this in in all kinds of videos because you don't even know what science is See he just keeps embarrassing himself trying to deny the fact that balancing radar off the moon isn't an experiment He's just embarrassing me. Yeah Tell yourself that t-jump whatever makes you happy Go ahead. You get a devastating loss five dollars from frank are trying to say Davey is that you need dependent and independent to do science. You can do a different type of experiment Which isn't science again. I'm only I'm only focusing on scientific evidence the physical natural world Including observation. You got the first part right t-jump, but you also need the experiment But when you say I don't care what the deep I don't care Then you don't care you're into science fiction This is not the type of debate that I want james if you watch this bring me somebody who's interested in science Not science fiction. Thank you. This is james. I just conditioned really well this week Thank you for your answer davie next debate be calmer But I remember to keep on sending those super chats in Or tag bob saddler or amy newman And we will get the our interlocutors to answer five dollars from cupcake Davey, what is your opinion? Oh, I think we answered all of them Number Davey, can you give an example of what you do accept as a valid experiment? $10 from p barns most would have Understood what t-jump said and would have appreciated you engaging honestly Sure. Um, let me just give you one more definition. I'm gonna cite A scientific a scientist Or a science professor Her name is and mary helmstein and she says when you design an experiment Something that t-jump doesn't know anything about You are controlling and measuring variables. There are three types of variables controlled independent dependent and mary helmstein phd biomedical sciences physics and mathematics This is from thought co.com forward slash steps of the scientific method page two So I just proved to you through multiple scientific sources Something that t-jump doesn't have to back up his arguments that you need It dependent and independent variables. He wanted my help when he was wrong Then he wanted his audience and his audience actually helped them. They were like, dude, you need the help But they actually didn't give any science either. What they gave was distance to the moon if location Does location cause distance to the moon? No, because distance to the moon is not something that needs science It doesn't it's not an event. It's not an effect And t-jump, this is a lot for you. I know it's a lot for you to handle because you've never actually heard Also about earth or who understands what science is and that's the problem with you science fiction lovers You have yet to answer my question. How many star wars films have you seen t-jump? Will you answer it now? Yes or no, uh, still have never seen any fighter through that understand science You definitely know you don't understand anything. You're so dumb. It's ridiculous. Like wow Like you can't even understand that radio bounced off the moon is an experiment. That's how dumb you are like, wow Hey, so what's your independent and dependent variables now that you heard it from a scientist? You can look them up yourself and figure out what they are Why do I have to prove your claim for you you bald heart? That's your claim not my claim I don't need I don't need to address your claim With your own evidence if you want a specific definition you can look it up It's definitely an experiment if you don't realize that you're just dumb bob talking over me bald heart You ask the question eating loss. I know it hurts. I know it. You got crushed. You got crushed You presented nothing from a pee pee in science What an experience of being not you continue to act like a difference with me every scientist every scientist agrees with me I'm talking to you t-jump. You don't know what a scientific experiment is because you're every single scientist agrees that mine is an experiment Anybody believes I don't care what anybody agrees on. I'm asking you for scientific evidence No, no, no, no you presented people All of the people you quoted agree with me every single one of them I don't care what agreement that doesn't mean anything You have to show me scientific I don't know The people you presented the definitions you presented agree with me not with you all of the scientists agree What I presented was an experiment Scientists can agree that unicorns exist. Does that mean that unicorns exist t-jump? How dumb are you like you? Yeah I do this you presented these people for a definition of experiment. They all agree what I what I presented was an experiment So all of the sources that you presented Agree that that is an experiment. So you lose Done you're crushed five dollar super chat from ozen oxford dictionary Earth is a globe. So are they correct about the scientific method and not on the globe Sorry, was that for me? Uh, I believe so. What's the earth is a so oxford dictionary Five dollars from ozen earth is a globe. So are they correct about the scientific method and not on the globe Go ahead baltard. This is for you No, no, it's not. Wow. You're so dumb. So if you Wait, wait, wait, wait, let me let me explain it to you. Let me they want me to prove that the earth is a globe I think what they're saying is that let me let me explain So what they're asking is is that if you accept the definition of science from the oxford dictionary Then you should also accept the definition of the earth from the oxford dictionary They both say This like if you're accepting it as a source the source says the world is round and the source says here's the definition of science So if you're accepting them, the earth is a ball you haven't done that yet because you don't have scientific experimentation So the question is why do you accept? Some definitions like group chat is saying that you keep repeating yourself and you're not proving anything So we need to move on. Do you have another argument? The question the question was is why do you accept one definition from the oxford dictionary But not the other definition because we don't live on a ball. Why should I accept that the dictionary says we live on a ball When we don't it's been disproven lost in court Thompson versus Garcia 2019. There's no such thing as curvature. It only exists in math models models and in your imagination There's no there's no even There's nothing there's no curve at all. There's no ball You're lying to yourself t-jump. So you're a hypocrite because you accept some definitions Not about hypocrisy It's telling you what science is and then telling you to use Science to prove that the earth is a ball and you can't do it. Therefore. Why does the definition of that? Globe or earth is a ball matter. It's a lie. That's what I'm here to debunk So if somebody says that the earth is a ball I'm going to ask for scientific evidence and if you don't have it you're done for it You're destroyed. The question was is why are you being a hypocrite accepting one definition not the other? That's the question Question you balltard. Why are you making me repeat myself? The earth is not a ball. You've never proven it. You don't even know what science is Why should I accept a definition of something that does it own that it only exists in your imagination? So five dollar super chat From p barns I asked for an example of an experiment not more definitions. Thanks any way Davey, but I'm going to read see so his last thing was Davey, can you give me an example of what you do what you do accept as a valid experiment? Sure a valid hypothesis cause and effect in the physical and natural world That's what science deals with. It's the observation and experimentation of the physical and natural world What is an experiment? It's a hypothesis test. What is a hypothesis? You're trying to guess what causes an effect in nature T jump doesn't know what science is so he has no clue what's going on right now Look at how much he's yawning. Look how much he's shaking his head. Did you guys realize earlier how you keep telling Amy? Amy mule him mule him mule him. That's what they all do because they're clowns with a capital C T jump you're not good in science and logic move to some other kind of hobby dude. This is not your thing Davey this guy is like wow What is the point of playing a clown and not responding to the basic premise premise conclusion argument? You couldn't attack any simple premises from cupcake Uh t jump said that the moon was an independent variable The debate is over right there. He doesn't even know what he's talking about Uh from pancake of destiny let's assume t jump Is dumb and don't know anything about science What does it change? Can you tell us why his observation and measurement is wrong? Well, he could have an observation. Can it be correct? Well as we read Science the key to science is experiment. There's no there's no Looking at something is not science guys looking at the stars looking at the moon Is not science as he proved it when I asked him. Oh, you have an experiment What's your dependent and independent variable? You know what he said? Who cares you don't need that for science and then later on his audience started saying hey You need some help here, buddy. And then he said the moon is an independent variable He doesn't know what he's talking about. So next time I come into one of these debates I need you need to bring somebody who knows what science is That's it Five dollar super chat from Yuck you you are measuring the time it takes for Ham radio waves to bounce and return. This is not an experiment, but an observation of time And then it's not science because in science you need observation And it needs to be coupled with Experimentation if you just have an observation that is not science I'm only interested in finding Scientific evidence as all these guys claim to they have but they don't because tjup doesn't know what a scientific experiment is Five dollar super chat from great sky if you put a microbe on a basketball from its perspective It would appear flat, but we can observe that the ball is round Cool. I'm not interested in anybody proving what a what a ball does I'm interested in people proving using the scientific method The ground that they stand on is a giant ball But nobody can prove it because nobody has scientific evidence has proven today with tjump who doesn't know what an experiment is no knowledge of it Five dollar super chat from motel wi-fi Which specific experiment proves the earth is flat davi do not give any definitions Well, uh, let me just tell you guys why balltards are so scared of definitions because In order for you to have a valid argument and a cohesive debate you have to define terms I'm not going to say that an apple is an orange If an apple is not an orange an apple is an apple an orange is an orange The scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement It's required of systematic Experimentation that's from the university of rochester. Okay, so you're done if you don't have an experiment You don't oh who cares what the experiment is who cares what the dependent variables are you don't have science Stop saying that you know what science is when you don't For the flat earth or how are we able to get accurate Hourly weather predictions several days in advance on our phones without the use of stationary satellite How can we predict? What are you using? A model we're using a ball model person because if you are You're just telling me what your model does you're not showing me what happens in reality I can create a Earth model in the shape of a penis and I could say all the stars are going to rotate around this way on this Part of the penis and all the stars are going to do this everything happens the way that exactly it does Like it shows on my model models are a reification fallacy. They are ambiguous They do not prove What you are standing on if somebody tells you what a model does they're telling you what that model does Somebody created that model to do what they want it to do. I can create a penis model I can create a unicorn earth model. Does that mean that the earth is a unicorn? Nope what Spits out $20 question from Don Fullman Richard Branson recently used orbital mechanics for a round globe to complete His flight is he lying? Orbital mechanics is not science if it is I would like to jump to tell me But he doesn't know the dependent and independent variables of any experiment That proves orbital mechanics go ahead t-jump going to spaces in science. You heard it right here Like this is this is how silly flers are they don't even know anything about experiments doesn't have an independent dependent variable. Thank you t-jump $5 question from tapestell What scientific experiment can I do right now to prove the earth is flat? Hypothesis dependent and independent variables, please The earth in the aspect of it is not an effect. It's not an event that needs a causal Uh cause and effect relationship. It doesn't there's no You don't need to prove that the earth is flat. You're standing on an earth that is flat Nobody needs to prove using a scientific method. You can't the earth and its nature of it being level and flat Is not an effect that we need to find the cause of that's just the way nature is Question from endo t-jump. Can you quickly describe the experiment again and why it shows the earth is not flat? Sure, so many many scientists have done this what you do is you build a ham radio And you send radio waves from the ham radio and bounce it off the moon and then bounce it back We can know the speed of a radio waves. We know how fast it travels And so when we send a signal if we wait until we hear the signal back the amount of time divided by the speed The the of the radio waves can give you the distance of whatever object you're hitting And since it's going to there and back divided by two, you'll know the distance between Where you sent the signal to where it bounced off And that's how radar works. So so this is just we're just using radar and we can build a Radio tower and then send radar to the moon and back to know how far away the moon is So if we know how far away the moon is and if we always measure it like all night long That it's always the same distance Then just geometrically for an object to always be the same distance Even though it's going all the way from the right to the left of your vision There's only one shape it can be going in and that's a circle So it has to be going in a circle for it to be in the same distance away like for example If you have a pencil or a pen or something and if it's going like in the same distance away from your Wrists or whatever it has to be going in a circle So we know that the object the moon is traveling in a circle And so if the world is flat that means it must be traveling from the horizon like from the earth Going up and then smashing back into the earth problem is is that The moon can always be seen from somewhere on earth Which means it can't be going like from the ground to the ground again so it has to be The world has to be round since it's always going to measure to be 250 000 miles away from everywhere on earth And it can always be seen the moon can always be seen so necessarily the world must necessarily be round And how much curvature should we see let's say On a flat level surface of water At a hundred kilometers how much curvature should we see how much vertical drop? What does that have to do with my argument? I'll tell you you want to show you What does that have to do with my arguments nothing you're arguing that the earth is a ball, right? What what does that have to do with my experiments that can measure the distance of the moon don't have an experiment It's an experiment. You're just dumb independent variable your scientific experiment you clowns go ahead disprove my experiment you can't disprove it Oh, how sad you don't even have one to begin with you dumbass still can't disprove it You don't have a dependent an independent variable. You wow. Oops. This guy is literally recorded He doesn't even know what he's talking about find out super chat from non-experimental research Non-experimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable from frank I'll read that one more time Non-experimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable Cool. Well, if it if it does then it's Not considered natural science. That's what I'm The reality of nature So when I asked t-jump, what is the dependent and independent variable for your experiment because the final Arbitr of truth in science is experiment. This is by lewis e.g. Computational chemistry Introduction to the theory and application of molecular and quantum mechanics. He doesn't have an experiment He keeps saying that he does but he doesn't know what he's talking about When I stop him and I call him out and I say what are your dependent and independent variables He doesn't even know He's a clown. He doesn't have an experiment and he doesn't even realize it. I think you realize it I think he's a liar like mattoon and the other guy Yeah, there is non-experimental science. It's definitely a real thing like because google uh, non-experimental research Also notice abduction. So he's just kind of ignorant of like everything. So it's like Easy Yeah, the only way we can change In physics is experiments. Everything is based on experiment. That's the only way we change your mind Chair professor of physics at Yale experiment is the only knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry and imagination Max plank Nobel prize physics. Now, this isn't me saying this This is my argument and I'm citing an expert in debunking t-jump He doesn't even have an experiment. He doesn't have science. What he has is what he said poetry and imagination He thinks he lives on a globe in his head. He thinks he's spinning in the middle of nowhere in a vacuum He can't prove it. It's in his imagination. He has zero science people zero $10 super chat from p barns one last try because i'm bored in lockdown Davey now that you've defined how you think an experiment works. Can you give a specific example of what you would consider an experiment? Um, yeah, I've already shown you guys. Um, if you can find a cause and effect relationship in nature You can you have a valid hypothesis. Therefore you have an experiment. That is a valid hypothesis. This is science T-jump doesn't even know what science is yet. He claims to have an experiment. It's embarrassing He's asking you to give those things. He wants you to give a hypothesis and an independent dependent variable I'll just say those Okay, fine. You want me to bring one up? That's what he's asking. That's what he's asked four times Okay, okay. Let's just do this t-jump could not provide a scientific hypothesis because he doesn't know what dependent and independent variables are I am about to do this me a flatter through one second And while he's doing that, I'll just keep on reminding everyone to send in your questions tag either Bob Sadler or Amy Newman or just the traditional at modern day debate Uh, but send them into us so we can get them up here and ask our interlocutors Or if you're feeling fancy Feel free to send in those super chats with send it right to the front of the line Okay, um, here is a valid hypothesis Okay, he will cause water to boil at 212 degrees Fahrenheit or 100 degrees Celsius at one atmosphere of pressure 101 kpa or 14.7 psi You want another one? I'll give you another one I'm actually educating t-jump because he doesn't know what science is. Okay. Given otherwise healthy type 1 dm Patients the lack of insulin on board will lead to diabetic Key toe acidosis. Here's another if the witch path information is known or can be known Then we will observe wave function collapse i.e. No interference Matter existing that is an experiment a scientific experiment something that t-jump doesn't know anything about from cern You want another one? I keep going So they're exactly the same experiments that I gave you If we bounce radius is off the moon. Here's the number. We'll get back boom It's not a scientific experiment. You're not doing it I'll ask you one more time you balltard. Give me your dependent You can figure that out on your own. It's still to experiment. I don't have to prove your claim This is a debate you idiot. Yep. Yep. I don't need to know the definition for my claim for me, dude You're I don't know why you're even here. I want to debate somebody who knows what they're talking about You have no idea what you're talking about I don't even know the definitions for it to be an experiment. It's experiment whether I know the You don't need to know the definition the dependent and independent variable something that's necessary for an experiment to have an experiment Yeah, I don't need to know the definitions for it to be an experiment. You're a clown You're done. All these people in my group chair are saying dude. This guy's an idiot. He's boring move on They want me to hang up this call because of how bad you're losing five dollars super chair. Oh, no So I don't know none of the definitions. I know actually make it Not an experiment. So in this experiment whether I know the definitions or not. You're just dumb. You just don't know it Five dollar super chat for Davey Why do some engineers who construct bridges have to take in account the curvature of the earth when they make bridges in their foot blueprints Which what are you talking about? There's no such thing as Any bridges? There's no such thing as any canals like the the china canal. That's 1100 miles There's no curvature. There's no eight inches per mile square. There's no Nothing, there's no curvature whatsoever. Maybe in the plans. Yeah, but when they actually build waters level visit my website waters level.com to learn more Sounds good and actually say it looks like sideshow nav Is collecting some questions to send them inside your nav and all right Five dollar super chat from bill Suggested to date top suggested debate topic. What is science? Definition of science a formalized method employed by sentient beings To accurately describe that which occurs That sounds about right. Yep. You need the You need the physical in the natural world Not things that exist in your imagination like living on a spinning water ball in a vacuum You need to actually prove a cause and effect relationship in the physical and natural world That includes both the observation and the experimentation as stated by oxford university And many others I don't need to cite the rest I have a comment from one of my your chats. He said davie gets too caught up. You won His face said it all. I don't care laughing my ass off. Who says that in a debate Five dollar super chat from endo davie if I showed you the time it takes for radar waves to go to the moon and back is Consistent worldwide. Would you still believe flat earth? Flat earth is not a belief It's the it's the nature of the reality in which we live a belief I'll give you the definition of a belief so that we can Take this to the woodshed an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists T jump has a belief that he lives on a ball even though curvature math lost or curvature Proof lost in a court of law Um, I actually know that the earth is not a ball at least as fear With the radius that decides that they've given us I can debunk that if we want to move to curvature But I don't think he wants to go there because he's kind of already lost this one You want to move to curvature? You want to move to gravity t jump anything else? So the floor for so dumb. He doesn't know that knowledge is actually a subset of belief So knowledge is some things you believe you believe are true No, when you know something because you have information here, let me bring up Let me bring up. No definition. Oh boy. Let's not bring up definitions anymore. I want to Be aware through observation inquiry and information I have information that the earth is not a sphere over 100 kilometer flat water span Distance we will under one meter of vertical drop Where are the seven hundred and eighty two missing meters of earth curvature? They don't exist the bolivian salt flats are 100 proof that we do not live on a spinning ball That has this radius of 39 59. Why because we don't observe 781 meters of vertical drop at a 62 mile or 100 kilometer distance fall debunked um sunsets debunk The ball areas if you're standing if i'm standing on the island Of oahu and i'm looking at kawaii which is 200 miles away And i'm at a six foot height observer height from sea level I should observe the sun being obstructed By the horizon at 3.1 miles That is curvature math now I can see the sun setting way behind 200 miles Why because the earth is not a ball. I just debunked the ball again Using nature supposedly we're spinning and we're falling backwards at a thousand miles an hour Well, if that was true and the sun was right here I would see an obstruction at the horizon at three miles ahead of me And we don't see that I just proved to you I live in hawaii And I could see the sunset way past kawaii which is 200 miles away. It should only be 3.1 miles That's pretty easy math. You can do this yourself on your iphone It's 1.23 times the square root of the observer's height Which is six foot and you should see a tangent to the geometric horizon that doesn't exist You should only see it 3.1 miles away, but that never happens the sun doesn't set Behind a horizon only three miles in front of you happens way further that disproves that we live on a ball 100% fact So knowledge is a justified true belief you can't have knowledge without having to be a belief He's just ignorant of the definition of knowledge and belief. You need to define ball guard You can't just make up your own opinions No to be aware of through observation inquiry or information I gave you information of an actual topographical measurement of the flatness of the bolivian salt flats I know that the earth is not a ball with the radius that they give us It's a lie. It's debunked at the bolivian salt flat. So I don't believe that the earth I know that it's not a ball and you lost your yonzer telling that dude hilarious five dollar super chat Davey you admit you have no scientific test to demonstrate a flat earth and you just Asserted that it was flat Long live great attune autumn atuin long live great that You don't need Again the aspect of the earth being flat is not an effect that we need to find the cause of that's just the nature of the reality in which we live what I used using A university professor's measurement topography measurement at the bolivian salt flats was that we have 100 kilometers and only one Less than a meter of vertical drop over 100 kilometers where it should have been 783 That right there is a measurement of the physical and nature That we live in that proves that we're not on a ball end of argument ball debunked Five dollars from that's information. That's something that I know So know by the definition of oxford dictionary is to be aware Of through observation and career information. This is not my definition t jump. This is oxford okay That's the definition of no I have information that the earth is flat I know it's pretty flat if there's only under a meter of vertical drop Okay to believe is you just accept it an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists You just accept it. Let's believe it. That's why people say do you believe in gravity? Oh, he doesn't believe that the earth is a ball because it's all a belief What's a belief pseudoscience pseudoscience is just a systematic belief doesn't require real science It just matters what's in your imagination. That's what t jump has he has admitted He doesn't know what scientific experiment is he doesn't care He's just all about imagination. He watches so much star wars wants to live on a ball so bad He convinces himself that he lives on a ball when he's just a liar confused or hypnotized or probably all of the above Five dollars super chat from harry white Why don't you save up and go to Antarctica via Argentina in the summer and observe the 24 hour sun Which should not be possible by flat earth theory Flat earth is not a theory a scientific theory also requires systematic experimentation So there is no such thing as a scientific theory of flat earth And there's no scientific theory of a globe earth because earth is not a ball And earth is flat therefore doesn't require any scientific evidence Now if you claim that water curves where I just disproved it at the bolivian salt flats You have to tell me what is causing that large body of water to curve because we all know that water is level. So Again, there's no belief here. There's no experimentation needed for me to prove that earth's flat By a measurement I proved to you that the earth is flat and it's not a ball Five dollar super chat from kyle can davie explain why t-jump gets these results if earth is flat She doesn't have scientific experimentation. He's already proven it when I asked him is this science He says, yeah, it's scientific evidence. And then I say, what's the dependent and independent variable? Well, the moon is the dependent variable Actually, it's the independent variable. He has no idea what he's talking about therefore I'm not going to claim that what he's saying is scientific evidence because he doesn't have it because he doesn't know what it is Five dollars from will steward thfc rance davie since When is ad hominem and name calling an intellectual debate method most folks Tend to do that when they have lost He actually opens the door in the beginning called me a flirt and I asked him if I can call him a balltard And he said fine. I never had the intention of making any type of attacks Personal attacks. Why I don't need to attack him. But if he opens up the door, guess what? I'm going to do it too. So, um, we all know that ad hominem fallacies, which is what he started with is, um Let me pull it up for you real quick An ad hominem fallacy is A logical fallacy. So what's a logical fallacy, which is how he started out this entire conversation? Um, not this is not an intellectual conversation This is just him trying to prove his imagination to be real, but he can't do it. So I'll tell you guys real quick Um, what a logical fallacy is according to Purdue University fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument fallacies can either be legit illegitimate illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points and are often identified because they lack Evidence that supports their claim. He lacks evidence that supports his claim So he's going to come out and attack me somebody who he's never met But he's going to come out and disrespect me and call me a flirt. I'm going to come out and do the same thing tooth for tooth eye for an eye The flirt doesn't know what a fallacy is I just defined it by Purdue University This guy has literally retarded people. He just brought over a university citation and he says This flirt doesn't know what a fallacy is He's literally retarded because his brain does not Register information the way that our brain was designed to register information. He's a liar. He's a sham He's hypnotized and his brain doesn't work properly When somebody brings a university citation in a debate And then the other person says flirt doesn't know what a scientific what a logical fallacy is He's already lost. He's been defeated chewed up spat Dug buried This argument was over even before it started when he opened up with the word flirt It's over. It just means he doesn't have enough evidence to support his claim Purdue University dumbass Flirt doesn't realize that to be a fallacy. You actually have to use the ad home as the argument Yeah, now he doesn't know what a fallacy is. All right. You probably got all the jabs, right? Dude, you're 100 indoctrinated cheap. You are the person that they need They need to stay in power with people like you whose brains do not work Who the hypnosis has worked on all the years of the government indoctrination You bow down in these liars and you believe you don't know you believe the lies You're a clown. I gave you Purdue University's definition and you said, I don't know what it is You're a fool grade a the epitome of a fool. That's what you are t jump Sir not sure what currency but 30 currency from a adam alibi Davey the independent variable Location of the moon dependent variable em round trip travel time measured controlled variables location of the em radiation source Now address the blanking argument So if location then distance to the moon is his hypothesis uh, i'm gonna go ahead and shut that down because Distance doesn't cause I'm sorry location doesn't cause distance to the moon. That's not science. This is called pseudoscience He's not figuring out An effect the cause of that effect in the natural and physical world He doesn't even know what the moon is physical Tijin will tell you that we went to the moon because he loves science fiction He loves star wars start check. He's probably seen all the massive footage His brain is fried with This kind of pseudoscience is there for he thinks he's living on a ball Doesn't know what science is doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is this guy's a joke next time you have me on here James, please bring somebody who knows what their dog. This is embarrassing. It's a waste of my time honestly If we can see it, it's physical. So we can see it. It's physical. Oh, it's physical who touched it We we can see it So if we can see it, that means light is coming off of it. The light is coming on it light is physical That means it's physical who touched it Light light touched it light touched it. That's how you know, it's physical. You didn't touch it That's why you can see it light light bounces off of it. So if light bounces off of it, it's physical physical Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind Tangible concrete like Like who touched it who touched the moon to make sure the light the light that's touching your eye came from the moon Dude Look, you don't have science. You don't know what scientific experimentation is all these balltars are telling you that when you move Location it causes the distance to the moon you moving locations does not cause anything You moving locations does not cause anything to the moon does not cause the sun to move Moving does not cause earthquakes a change of location is not a cause that causes an effect I'm sorry. You don't know what science is you proved it right at the beginning of this conversation $5 super chat from p barns. How is measuring a salt flat Different from measuring the distance to the moon. Let me know if you need me to define my any terms Yeah, the the salt flat is actually something physical a distance to the moon a distance Is that physical? No, you're not measuring an actual distance And if you are cool if you are bouncing stuff off the moon cool That doesn't prove that you're standing on a ball. I just debunked it at the bolivian salt flats I debunked it using curvature math 1.23 Times the core root of the observer's height is the distance to the geometric horizon We never see that nature. I live in hawaii and never see the sunset behind the horizon 3.1 miles away from me Well, I'm 6 foot observer height above sea level. It doesn't happen. There's no ball. You guys t jump You're lying to yourself anybody else who believes this garbage It's just all a sham to keep you dumbed down. Look at t jump. You don't know what to do with himself That's how they stay in power to keep you dumbed down. Look at him. Look at his face People on my group text are like dude. Look at his face. It's over. It's over t jump Like what are we even doing here? Like go play video games or whatever you get at $5 super chat from kyle. I asked why did he get those results? Do you answer any questions? Why did the the guy who was measuring the boolean salt flat get those results? I'll repeat my stuff Before that, which was can davie explain why t jump gets these results if the earth is flat He doesn't have scientific experimentation. I'm only interested in science I can tell you what the stars what I think they're doing. I can tell you million things about what I think the moon's doing That's not science looking at something pointing a light pointing a laser at something is not science Science means that you're finding the cause of an effect. I think I've repeated this I don't know a couple dozen times. We didn't ask about science I've shown you scientific citations something that t jump hasn't done all day because that's what balltards do They tell you their opinions and then they want you to just accept it Although I've debunked every single one of his claims using oxford using usc scientific citations He doesn't have Doesn't ask about science what the dependent independent variables are you didn't ask about science He says I don't care. It could be anything. He's a clown So you didn't answer the question the question was not anything about science. It was asking Why does t jump wait wait wait the question was why does thank you Wait, so the question was why does t jump get these results? Why do I observe these results? Doesn't matter if it's science or not. I observe the results. Why do I observe these results to collect scientific evidence? If it's anything other than that that's called pseudoscience I'm not interested in it. You are because you're brainwashed. You watched every episode of Star Trek star wars not me. I'm not brainwashed. My brain still works properly You don't have scientific evidence. That's what I am after. I need scientific evidence I don't care about any observations. I don't care about anything else. It does not have to do with the scientific method Is that clear t jump? Observations are pseudoscience. You heard it here folks. You need the experiment with the observation you clown How many times do I have to tell you how many scientists do I have to cite? Are you that retarded t jump $10 super chat from great sky if the highest point on earth is Mount Everest at 29,000 let me put my zero. Yes. It's 29,032 feet If we placed a laser and placed it horizontal at the height Then on a flat earth it should be visible at the height anywhere on earth Okay, is he gonna is he gonna do this or is this just a hypothetical because i'm interested scientific evidence not pseudoscience not hypothetical situations Hey, if we did this no, who's done it? Where's the experiment? Where's the logic? And if you don't have science this argument is done. It's been done t jump you're out $5 super chat from ozan davie. Why when I weighed one kilogram of lead at the 35th parallel Did it weigh more than when I measured at the equator on a flat earth with same scale? I have no idea what this claim is to be I don't I don't see this being proof of a ball earth I don't see in this being any type of scientific evidence the problem is with people who believe in the globe is that They don't know what science is They've been introduced to pseudoscience Like gravity is a force. That's not real Sciences have confirmed that gravity is not a force So if they're going to say that gravity causes things to weigh differently around the earth Pseudoscience, there's no experiment. There's no science behind it t jump already confessed. He doesn't care I don't care what sciences. I don't care what experiments are We just live on a ball because I believe it. So if you guys have scientific evidence, I want it There's a group. There's a large community of us who are still Wanting Scientific evidence that is cause and effect when it has to be proven by a researcher or scientist Doing this experiment validating the hypothesis This is going in One ear of t jump and out the other because he doesn't his brain doesn't process information Like normal people. He doesn't know what science is and I don't feel sorry for him because he doesn't do the research himself He doesn't bother to look at what scientists have to say He's stuck in this imaginary favorite fairytale baller and it's hilarious. I laugh at it I haven't done one of these in a while, but it's hilarious. Thank you t jump for the entertainment $2 super chat from cupcake davie We can trust university as sources that they're asking question mark. I guess can we trust universities as sources If the hypothesis Is validated through experimentation. Sure if you're just looking at something and making a guess Nope, I don't care about guesses. I care about scientific evidence $2 super chat Sorry, go ahead. No, you're good. Do you accept an artica has a 24 hour sun in the summer? I've never confirmed that I've heard it when I first started researching this stuff I kind of looked into it Then I it doesn't really do anything for me. So I'm not going to do any research In that area because I don't have enough sources to cite. I don't know anything about it really $5 super chat from soldier of science davie. Can you tell us when you'll be singing with next with tenacious d Um Right now actually I T jump things that he lives on the ball, but he can't prove it at all My guitar is so untuned because my baby was playing around with it. So next one $5 super chat from our menendo T jump you are assuming the distance to the moon. What scientific experiment is there to prove the distance to the moon? I'm not assuming the distance to the moon We can demonstrate the distance or the speed of radio waves if we know what the speed of radio waves are because we can bounce them off Like buildings and tell take measure how long it takes them to hit the building and come back And we know how far away the building is because we can literally walk there Then we can know that if we bounce it away bounce it off something further away We can tell the distance of the thing that's further away So we know how fast radio waves travel and we can bounce the radio waves off of the moon And just time it so you can know how far away the moon is so i'm not assuming anything in that argument You have a good argument t john But you don't have an experiment. I proved it. No, you don't have an experiment. Yep. I have an experiment and you just you're dumb I'm gonna do this again for everybody who's watching. I'm sure Amy's been sick It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how many times you say your dumb stuff. Your dumb stuff is still wrong Variables for your experiment go ahead Like I said, I proved it with an experiment. What are you? Don't don't interrupt don't interrupt kiddo kiddo kiddo kiddo kiddo kiddo kiddo kiddo don't interrupt kiddo So kiddo Go ahead. Flurff. Flurff. Come on. Flurff. Flurff. Don't interrupt Flurff. Flurff. Flurff. Can you mute him? Can you mute him so I can finish my sentence please? That was a joke. Amy, could you could you mute? Thank you. All right. So the Flurff doesn't understand experiments He just wants pedantically Arguments for the specific definitions like you could ask any scientist who actually is familiar with these definitions You can you can find out like it's not hard asking me to give you which was the dependent independent variable is irrelevant to the argument He's just kind of dumb and doesn't know that so My argument wins. I proved it. I have an experiment it demonstrates the world is round and he's dumb There you go He's right. It is irrelevant because he doesn't have science. So when he says I don't need the dependent and independent variables because he doesn't have science It's all imagination, which is why max plank Nobel prize-winning physicist said Science is all about experiments If you don't have it, it's poetry and imagination. And that's what he has Thank you for confirming that t-jump. You don't even know what an experiment is as he has still not given me the dependent and independent variables And I'll ask him one more time so everybody can see how I don't know you're gonna say it go ahead. Give me the the dependent and independent variables. Go ahead One of the dependent independent variables in the heat thing you listed earlier the heat experiment if you water We'll boil at x temperature and x pressure. What are the dependent independent variables? Okay? That's an easy one. We don't even need to go there. What are they? What are they? It's easy. What are they? Cause and effect heat causes water Good, what are they? What are the independent independent variables? Did you just say that cause and effect are not the independent independent variables? Yeah, yeah are causing the fact the independent independent variables in that experiment. Is that right? Is this guy retarded? Is he for real? I just read you like four citations of scientists saying that the dependent variable is the cause and the dependent variable is the effect And now he's saying they're not In the heat experiment, which ones are the which ones are the dependent independent variables? All right. All right. Listen, you don't know Yeah, I do. I just told you and I'll say it again shut your dumb little Second You've muted me enough. Can you mute him for one second as I will I'll let him talk if he doesn't talk then No, no, just just mute him for a sec Continue I will if he cocks I will if he talks talking over me all the time But you don't seem to do anything the floor is yours I thought this was a unbiased This is absolutely a neutral platform. I just don't want you guys to talk over each other Here we go So, um, this is from thoughtco.com and marie helmstein Phd in biomedical sciences physics and math I don't know why I have to repeat this independent variable the variable that is stable and unaffected by the other variables You are trying to measure it refers to the condition of an experiment that is systematically manipulated by the investigator it is the presumed cause University of southern california department of science number one We're in the same citation observed natural phenomenon two hypothesis the cause of the effect Three independent variable the cause four dependent variable the effect Are you still retarded t jump because if so i'm just gonna leave this is a waste of time seriously So so the question was is in the heat experiment water will boil at this temperature What is the independent independent variable in that experiment? Do I have to repeat myself again? What did I say last time retard cause and effect? I think is what you said. Yeah, and what did I say is causing the effect What's the cause and what's the effect and what I just said like five minutes ago three minutes ago Uh, I don't think you said that I don't think you said which was the cause and which was the effect Which one is the cause and which one is the effect? He causes water to boil Okay Five dollar super chat. Amy you're muted. What's your point? Oh You that i'm teaching you about science What's your point t jump? Hello? Five dollar super chat from p barns d Retarded have you touched the bolivian salt flats? No, never two dollar question from osin I can't touch taste smell or see a god. So Uh, if you're new to this conversation, you can go to waters level.com I have a page called creator and there I actually give quantum physics experiments Something that t jump has no idea about of scientific evidence for a creator So you can go to my website waters level.com click creator I have about three different experiments my arguments are 100 validated by scientists That we do have a creator information for one is the number one proof of a creator We have information Go read my website go read my arguments go read the scientific experimentation something that t jump Has no clue Go ahead carry on Five dollar super chat from rosea Davey doesn't understand that he is the embarrassing one in this scenario Without google at his fingertips. He would literally know nothing Never once read google besides looking up two citations Everybody uses google google is youtube. I'm sure you guys all get your information off of youtube That's where we're on right now. We're on a live youtube show Everything that i've cited comes from university citations or scientists I have all the documentation here to prove it all of my arguments that i've stated so far on waters level.com They will all lead you redirect you to this university sources citations all that good stuff So how am I embarrassing myself when this clown doesn't even know what science is That's the funniest part about this whole thing The other funny part is i'm actually entertaining it because i can be surfing right now And i'm literally here debating this baltard who has no idea what science is Five dollars Super chat from tim pryor Dude quit talking about science. No science backs up your belief See there's another one who cares about science throw it out the window Let's just talk about fairy tale land. No, i'm sorry baltards. I need scientific evidence That includes experimentation via the scientific method That's all i'm going to accept because everything other than that as i've cited poetry Imagination it doesn't agree with experiment. It's wrong t-jump does not have Scientific experiment therefore. He does not have scientific evidence. It's been debunked here today on modern need debate Another 30 from adam wtf davie Should we spell it down for you? the independent variable Location affects the dependent variable Round trip time measured transmitted from controlled locations Address it already Round trip. What did he say round trip? What Amy? Round trip time measured But where do we see round trip time measurements in nature? anybody t-jump you're the science expert here go ahead Yeah, you can you can do experiments on tools too. You don't need to actually it's not literally only nature You can have tools and you can measure the tools and there what happens to them in nature You're kind of dumb like it's not Variable as we can see he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know what science is people He had asked me what the dependent and independent variables were for the experiment that I brought And I educated him and when I waited for his response. He just went like this He didn't know what to say so t-jump Um, I appreciate this debate, but dude, it's over. You lost all your arguments today You never once proved with science only with your imagination. That's great Um, but you never actually proved that the earth is a ball Do we have any more super chats if you want to read Amy this is game? We do I will say I want to add just so He gets it out. He also wanted to add ie independent is the location of the moon Just added clarification if that clears anything up and if not, we're actually kicking but we're getting more Super chats, uh You notice how everybody has all kinds of different, uh, uh hypothesis Is none of them have ever agreed with each other and none of them are even science or all pseudo science because Locations do not cause anything distance does not cause anything space does not cause anything time does not cause anything These are all pseudo scientific indoctrinations that we have been Um, our brains have been fried with them for so many years and if you're somebody like t-jump who is a star wars fan Um, your brain will consistently keep being fed this pseudo scientific, uh misinformation And you will actually reify it into reality when it is actually not science And so I won't oh no distance between the moon and the transmitter will cause the time Difference to read a specific number that is the cause and that is what's the effect? What's the effect again the Measurements between the time it takes for the signal to hit the object and bounce back that time is caused by the distance So where do you see that into that dependent variable in nature if we're dealing with Natural science experiment you're doing it in nature like like you have an object and you Signal from the object to a different object. That's nature. Hold on. Where do we see round trip time in nature? Go ahead The sound with light with any electromagnetic spectrum waves all waves hit objects and bounce backs This is like super simple in your experiment. Where do we see round trip time? In nature go ahead in the experiment. We see round trip time Oh, so you see it in these experiments, but you don't see the natural world You said that no no no No, no no no so you asked how do you do it in the experiment? Well, if you're sending a transmitter signal from a transmitter to an object Guess what it's going from the transmitter to the object So the cause is the distance between the transmitter and the object and the effect And the effects is no time. It's that simple your distance does not cause anything. Yes, it does You're done. No, it doesn't look at this Here's the distance from me to my mouse ready What did I cause The light from you and your mouse that's that's an effect of the distance between your mouse The time it takes the light to hit the mouse and go to your eye. That's that's from distance This is this is a dependent variable in the physical and natural world, right? I've debunked your I've debunked you enough. You're so dumb You don't even know what you're talking about. What are you talking about debunked? You don't even know what you're talking about Five dollar super chat from great sky Davey, you haven't cited any evidence to support your claims. You have huge random quotes cherry pick to support your claim But could you be wrong? Sure. I could be wrong T jump I challenge you Show me one video of a rocket Starting from earth with the camera attached Going all the way to the fairytale sky vacuum Whilst having zero edits the camera looking back and seen a baller Can you do it? That wasn't my argument. I might be able to I don't know No, you can't because nobody's been able to produce that so if I saw a rocket we From here to the fairytale sky vacuum, which we're not even going to get into pressure because There's going to be another obliteration. I don't know how you'll sleep tonight I Would say hey guess what earth is a ball. I saw a rocket took off it had zero edits It had one camera angle the entire time and I saw a ball earth sure I'd be If there if there were actual scientific evidence of a globe there wouldn't be any flatter. There's I wouldn't be a flatter third Why I'm interested in the physical and natural world. I miss it's just I'm interested in seeking truth How through science through logic viable math not fairytale math. Um You don't do just you don't even know what science is man. I don't know how many times I have to say this $5 super chat from long nights youtube and now that we can commercially go to space Why don't all of you flat earthers get together go to space and get your damn proof? No experiments needed The only space that we have is from here to the gas pressure container At sea level. We are experiencing 14.7 Pascal's um of pressure and as you go up the pressure changes um, but pressure is caused by the um, and I'll just tell you right now gas particles are constantly colliding with each other and There's your and the walls of their container these collisions are elastic That is there is no net loss of energy from the collisions. This is from open text bc.ca kinetic molecular molecular theory of gases Um, I can go on with these citations pressure is caused by gas molecules colliding with each other And the walls of the container this is lumen learning. You've the university of physics volume one fluid mechanics So anybody making a claim that the sky is vacuum? There's no such thing. Um, we wouldn't be breathing gas pressure Um, if the sky was vacuum, we wouldn't have the pressure here It would all equalize into that of a vacuum that is entropy Second law, namely the second law of thermodynamics, which states, um, this is Gibbs free energy something you have no idea about at all But Gibbs free energy states that the absolute temperature and pressure Is contingent on the available volume. So outer space. This is delta g. This is the second law of thermodynamics Um, so if outer space was an available volume The gas pressure and their no net loss of energy from the collisions Would disperse into that available volume. So anybody making a claim about space? That's why we need these fake space programs and all this, uh What's the new and star force or space force? That's why we need jeff bezos and richard branson who's been You know pretending that we're gonna go to the moon and 22 since 2002 He's been for 20 something years been promising just keep pushing it pushing. We have to keep pushing it to keep The elite in power. They need t-jump to be where he's at so that they can fully control him enslave him not only physically mentally and spiritually He's enslaved. He's bonded by lies and he's okay with it. That's totally fine. That's his life I on the other hand i'm interested in science A gas must be held in a closed container to prevent it from expanding and freely escaping university of physics Uh volume one again. These are all citations. I can go on and on that says that pressure is caused by the walls of a container So the sky is not a vacuum. I'll keep debunking that until the cows come home So what you gotta do is put gas in a container and it'll actually be more pressure on the bottom than the top No matter what and you can flip the container upside down and there'll always be more pressure on the bottom than the top Because there's this extra thing called gravity What's gravity curvature of spacetime? What spacetime? It is the Lambda signal represented by the lambda signal in general in special relativity Can you cite it please? Can you cite whatever you're saying? I'm treating general special relativity like you've never heard of those things like Oh, yeah, I'm about to debunk it. What do you mean never heard of those things? This is my specialty All right, so gravity is the curvature of spacetime spacetime what I said Hold on. Hold on. I don't want to ask. Oh, I was right. Oh, oh shit. I was right. Oh my god debunked Okay gravity is the curvature of spacetime spacetime is the concept It's a concept of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum oxford dictionary. Thank you concept according to oxford dictionary an abstract idea a general notion abstract Existing in thought or an idea, but not having a physical or concrete existence Adjust debunked your gravity Space doesn't have a physical existence. Oh, no, like oh, oh, you heard it here folks That's a straw man fellacy. I never said space does not have a physical existence I said that the only space you have is from here to the gas pressure container So spacetime does have a physical existence. Okay Spacetime is an abstract idea. It's a concept that only exists in your little peanut brain t-jump. It's not real So so space isn't real then okay You clown listen to me gravity is the curvature of spacetime. I'm going to do another one for you because you're not that smart What is spacetime? This is from wiki. You're alma mater. What's spacetime? spacetime is any mathematical model Which fuses three Dimensions of space the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold Reification fellacy What's this a common case of reification a little peanut confusion of a model With reality spacetime is a math model as stated here And it's also as I stated earlier a concept spacetime is an idea. It's a math model It has no existence in reality It's You guys gravity is not even part of quantum Quantum the energy the how much doesn't exist in quantum physics Gravity is not even part and he doesn't know anything I'm talking about right now But it just goes to show how much I've researched this and how much he hasn't Gravity the bending of spacetime is not even part of the standard particle physics Weak and strong electromagnetic Gravity is not included. Would you like me to cite it or are you guys okay with that? What are the four fundamental forces the three or The three or the four fundamental forces of nature are included in the standard model of particle physics Particle do you know what particle means? Something one of the four forces. Yeah, like pressure Electrical magnetic those are real Right electromagnet. Okay. So model particle physics electromagnet is electromagnetism the strong force and the weak force gravity is not included in the standard model physics info slash standard CERN you want one from CERN? Here we go. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces omitting gravity You know why because gravity isn't a force gravity doesn't do anything to anyone Gravity is a concept as I've proven. It's an abstract idea. That's why it only exists in your imagination Is gravity a force t-jump? What are the four fundamental forces? Is this kind of like retarded after I read something? It's like he asked me to repeat it What's going on here? Like are you not listening to me? $5 super chat from kyle I give this money for t-jump to ask a question and actually get an answer. Please make sure he does answer Have a question t-jump So why do we observe that when we bounce radio waves off of the moon we get the exact same distance every time Okay, again, this isn't scientific evidence because you don't you have an observation great You don't have the experiment remember science only deals with observation And experiment that word and means that both are inclusive t-jump. You don't have an experiment You don't know what an experiment is embarrassing yourself My group chat is going off on you. Dude. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about get out of the debate, Davey I'm still here entertaining us honestly. So that's a nope. He's not going to answer You don't have science. Why do I need to entertain your pseudoscience fairytale crap? I don't have to you have not proven anything with using the scientific method hence You don't have scientific evidence. You're clown It's over And as we're passing the two hour mark I do want to respect our interlocutors time and we still have like a half dozen or more super questions left So if you absolutely want your question read make sure you get those super chats in i'm going to try and get everybody From five dollars from the logical hillbilly Davey how can a non-physical object have physical effects on physical objects? What physical what non-physical object is he talking about the moon the moon is physical We see it has radio waves Lights That anybody has actually touched the moon. That's the question That's what he's asking. He's asking how can the moon be seen and be physical or have physical effects without being physical That's what he's asking I don't know anybody who's ever touched the moon so We don't have actual evidence of somebody saying Yep, it's physical. All right, so I don't know why you keep circle jerking you on these same questions Question a five dollar super chat From great sky Davey with all these claims of proof of god and a flat earth proof. Where is your Nobel Prize? Nobody has to prove that the earth is flat the earth is already flat again. It's been proven Lost in court zen Garcia versus Thompson state of georgia 2019 The balltard lost because he didn't have actual physical evidence of curvature Nobody has curvature only exists in your mind. So I don't know why we're still having this talk and This debate's like long from over. Everybody's telling me this debate's over. I want to get out of there David $10 super chat from will stewart Davey the cause in t-jumps experiment is the solidity of the moon The effect is the radio waves bouncing back to its origin Totally analogous To your heat example You don't see radio waves bouncing back in nature. This is not natural science. He does not know Okay, so everybody understands everybody all of his friends who are trying to help him Have given me about a dozen different dependent and independent variables because this isn't science Science is very narrow science Establishes the cause of the effect the independent one thing that is causing the other thing so These guys are scrambling. They don't know what to do. It's because this is pseudoscience This is not science. I will continue to make a clown out of t-jump because this is not scientific evidence You don't see radio waves bouncing in nature. You don't need to you do well Cause of that because we know why that happened men didn't right? natural science So radio waves are generated by stars. So they do actually bounce off things in nature all the time Okay, so then you're telling me that now you have an experiment We always had an experiment. It was always an experiment. You were always wrong What is the dependent and independent variables? Please tell me you've been explained this multiple times like go ahead Give it to me again you I want it from your mouth Not your buddy's helping you out because they know you're scrambling around you Go ahead and give it to me. So the hardness of the moon and the radio waves bouncing back is a great example What what give me the dependent and you were just told you were just told you want me to tell you again The hardness of the moon and the bouncing of the radio waves done with the cause and which one's the effect As the guy said in the comments. Did you not listen? Read the thing again. Go ahead It's your claim. Go ahead The question was davie the cause and t-jumps experiment is the solidity of the moon The effect is the radio waves bouncing back to its origin Totally analogous to your heat example Okay, that's not a cause and effect relationship because we No, it's not yet. It's not major. This isn't natural science Oh, radio waves are emitted by the sun. So yes, it is No, this is not science people. This is you know science observations. Sure Experimentation. No, this is rejected. Anyway, this is not science. He knows it. Look at him. He's hurting No, I'm definitely hurting but it's for a completely different reason $2 super chat from the craw daddy flat earthers call t-jump our word. Oh the irony $2 super chat from sigifredo davie. Do we W3 bounce radio waves from moon or not? I've never done it I don't make the claim that that is scientific evidence because I've never been shown by t-jump What the dependent and independent variable if he says that location causes radio waves bouncing We don't see that nature. This is not natural science a measurement Possibly observation sure experimentation. No, this is not cause and effect relationship. It's not science I think I got this but just want to make sure The other person great sky was also asking if you were going for your Nobel Peace Prize or your Nobel Prize Okay, say that again Oh, it's a great skyline of davie with all these claims or proof of god and the flat earth proof. Where is your Nobel Prize? So I needed to have a Nobel Prize in order for me to Debunk the globe and prove the existence of a creator No, I don't need a Nobel Peace Prize They'll never give anyone don't never give anybody who actually says the truth a Nobel Peace Prize What are they gonna do? Sure. They'll award scientists. Sure. They're gonna award obama. Yeah, right Okay, cool That doesn't need to be Happening in order for me to prove that the earth is flat because the earth is flat doesn't need proof That would be a burden of proof reversal fallacy Five dollars from c mitch play does davie know what natural means in the context of science Since he doesn't it means not supernatural meaning anything in the universe Uh, does he have a citation for that because i'm pretty sure that's fight the flatter Five dollar. Oh if he does it one second, Amy I'm just gonna define natural using oxford dictionary Existing in or caused by nature not made or caused by humankind Okay, so when you make a laser and you're saying what's causing this? Well, it's humankind That's making the cause of that effect because natural is existing in or caused by nature Not made by not made or caused by humankind tgm. Do you hear that humankind mankind? It's not natural not natural science Experiments are outside of nature. That's right. No, no, no, no Natural science You can have experimentation you actually you need it But you don't know what we're talking about because you're totally scientifically illiterate You need experiments. You don't have experiments. You need experiments in natural science tgm You're totally straw manning me. I did not even say what you said You're just running around like a chicken with your head off because you don't know what to do So anything in a petri dish isn't natural science anything in a test tube not natural science anything in a car Not natural science. Those are controlled variables. Thank you very much So so those aren't natural sciences, right? Because they're done by those are apparatuses something that you need To conduct a scientific experiment. Oh like it like a transmitter something you need If location then radio waves bounce off of moon That's not something that's happening in nature. That is not natural science as defined I'm gonna say it one more time. I'm not gonna repeat myself natural Existing in or caused by nature Okay Not made or caused by human kind. So that's not existing in nature Existing in or caused by so if it's existing in nature It's natural radio. Show me a ham radio in nature All of the they're all in nature all ham radios exist in nature. They exist in in the universe Were they made by humankind? Yep Then they're not natural I'm like getting done with listening to him. Go ahead. Five dollar the lot from the logical hillbilly Example of round trip time in nature echolocation in baths and sea mammals Cool doesn't prove that you're standing on a giant ball So He's pwned and now he's just out doesn't prove Red herring is because he seems to love this a lot of ball tarts actually love red herring fallacies So it's uh According to oxford dictionary. It's something especially your clue that is used or intended to be misleading or distracting So it's like again talking about unicorns oranges and apples something that has nothing to do with the basis of the argument It's misleading and it's distracting. So we want to find we need to find out Cause that effect in nature of this so-called experiment. Nobody's been able to do it He's had about 20 people trying to help him out. Nobody's been able to accomplish it So this is not science. Sorry, man. They're trying to help you out. Not me. Like you're the one who's confused here They're trying to help me out. Oh, yeah. Yeah, why do I that's not my claim that this is an experiment. Why are they trying to help me out? Well, because everyone knows it's experiment. You don't know you can't understand it You said that the moon was it was the dependent variable you idiot It is the hardness of the moon and it's the independent variable too. So so like really easy They're trying to help you out here, bro And when I clown on you bro, that it was the independent variable You're a clown You're not smart in science. Get out of here. Go play your video games. Like I said, they're trying to help you out here Because you're too dumb to understand. Oh, watch your Star Wars, buddy Long nights, youtube and What the f are you talking about question mark? I said go to space because we can go now go fund me can get One of you there live stream if the damn earth flat goof Okay, as I have stated using laws of physics laws of nature gas laws boils law second law of thermodynamics You cannot have pressure without a container. Is there a space? Sure. There's space from here to the container Other than that, there's no such thing as the vacuum of space as debunked by all the physics laws that I just named I can go on and on anybody talks about pressure Um, uh outer space. They have to prove gas pressure without a container vacuums do not cause pressure That's a fairy tale $2 super chat from ozen universe is the container universe is closed um Yeah, thanks. That's that's like the last straw That the balltards were able to get because they couldn't figure it out. I've heard um hydro static something I've heard gravity. Of course got debunked. It's just an idea. It's not real. It's a math model I've heard um a massless container I've heard um Gas particles only move down. That's been debunked And then the last thing that they said because they were getting debunked so much is well The universe is the container and since the universe in their fairy tale Believe is a vacuum Vacuums do not cause pressure. Vacuums are an available volume for gas molecules to fill So outer space debunked again $5 from al our bats and the ability to echo locate distance from objects part of nature Does change in difference affect the round trip time of their sounds? um again anything that is made by humankind Is not natural Um t-jump, would you agree echo echo location bats? Hold on. Let me ask you a question. Bats and dolphins are not made by humans. Hold on. Hold on. Is making a Barbie science? Bats and dolphins are not made by humans Echo location is not made by humans. If making a radar is science You're not you're not answering the question. The question was about echo location not made by humans Echo location not made by humans made by dolphins and bats nothing to do with the shape of the earth We're only this is the flat earth debate Red herring fallacies logical fallacies just mean that you lack evidence to support your claim So stop bringing up things that are relevant to your argument about the shape of the earth Outer space gravity those are the things that I'm interested in and you have to prove them Using the scientific method. I don't care about anything else. We can talk about anything else. I don't care about it You ask We didn't think this was gonna be challenging, huh? You thought you were just walking here just walks around It's challenging to get time to speak. So you asked where does this occur in nature? They have just told you where this occurs in nature So it is directly relevant to my argument So then so then okay, so then echoes of whales is proof that the earth is a ball Echoes of whale proves that waves can increase in length over distance Great. Does that prove that earth is a ball? That you asked where does the radio signals happen in nature? Here's where here's where waves happen in nature One more time because ball herds have a hard time registering information Does this prove that you're standing on a large ball with a 24,901 circumference The my experiment with radio waves does you don't have an experiment stop saying that Yes, I do Was a dependent in a variable and then you said the moon was an independent variable. You don't know what you're talking about You said it's both moon So so he's deflecting he can't answer the question Deflecting can't answer the question. Okay got it Whale echoes do not prove that you're standing on a ball. That would be a red herring fellacy You're trying to mislead. You're trying to distract from the actual argument at hand Red herring fellacies are not scientific evidence. You lose my friend $15 from adam Davey, are there any temp measurement devices in nature showing eg Cellulis degrees, which is the dependent variable in your example Celsius degrees is a dependent variable Are there any temp measurements devices in nature showing things like cellulis degrees, which is The dependent variable in your example No, they're not independent. They're not a dependent variable in my example. I have the only science experiment that I've I'm sorry. Yes, they're right The the thermometer is the apparatus that is used to measure temperature You can also use a Gosh, what is that thing called to measure pressure? You can also use a yard stick to measure a yard But are these things found in nature? No, they're apparatuses used in experiments as controlled variables so a thermometer and and temperature variations pressure variations None of these are scientific evidence For like my My experiment that I brought I only brought because t-jump t-jump didn't know what a scientific experiment was So I had to present him with a viable Uh hypothesis That's why I brought that experiment has nothing to do with the shape of the earth has nothing to do with um Space gravity nothing that is just an example that I used to show him That he didn't know what he was talking about as far as scientific experimentation. Thank you hand it back fired Five dollars from tim prior all science backs up the globe, which means there's scientific evidence Quit asking for it. If you don't believe science when it says it Science does not say anything science is a method science doesn't talk and say hey t-jump The earth's a ball science is a method that is used to determine cause and effects Cause and effect relationships. This is not um science Doesn't speak that would be a reification fallacy science is not A sentient being it's not a human being has no vocal cords can't do anything. It's a method that we use to um elucidate cause and effect uh cause and effect relationships in nature t-jump our radio waves a constant BAM now what ha ha Uh on radio waves a constant Yes, they travel at the speed of light almost universally at the speed of light It's very hard to change their speed, but you can but not by much. It's not like you can You still light down a little bit. Yeah, radio waves travel like pretty much constantly at the speed of light Five dollars from tim prior seriously You're not a tiny percent of the world's population because science backs you up Quit insulting science when it doesn't even like you Again science does not have the ability to think talk like speak Science is a method that is used to elucidate cause and effect relationships. So um When a ball tart says well science says this no science doesn't say that you can prove things using science Yeah, you can you can prove why the water was boiling in snow using the scientific method you can Figure out different things as far as ailments in in medical sciences But anything that you don't have That you can't touch physically is not experimentation because you cannot manipulate an independent variable Of course t-jump doesn't know anything about variables because he said it from the very beginning doesn't know and he doesn't care Five dollar question from great sky gravity is a concept like light. Have you ever seen light davie? No, you see the effects of what light is made of em x-rays uva uv ir and radio waves The light is not um fictional as um as a um World renowned physicist said and it's right on my website. Um, they asked him, um So the graviton is fictional and he said yes, it's absolutely fictional. You can study it in math But you can never study it in reality. So, um There's nothing there. There's no gravity gravity is nothing. It's just an idea It's it's the lie that um was introduced by Occultists such as isaac newton in 1666 just a coincidence He said it was a force That's what we're taught when we're from kindergarten all the way to high school Sometimes all the way to college, but then when you start uh mastering in those departments of science astrophysics Then they tell you actually gravity is not a force. It's the bending of spacetime So gravity is not a force. It's the bending of a math model. Can you bend a math model? Sure I can write the math model right here on this piece of paper if I bend it It's not going to cause anything in nature against science is cause and effect And so we have Six more super chats And then we are going to roll into closings. I do want to thank everyone for their many many questions And especially everyone who's sent in those super chats This is your last chance if you want to get Your question read because we're about to pass 230. I want to thank both of our interlocutors The craw daddy 029 for two dollars. Davey. What's it like being the face of dunning kruger? Yeah, that's that's another ad hominem fallacy Ad hominem means attacking the man and the reason that these people do this is because They've ran out of arguments and they've been defeated so bad that they choose To attack me the person citing scientists Bringing scientific sources more than a dozen probably more than a couple dozen But of course, we know that logical fallacies are Only used when you lack evidence That's why he had to use fluff at first. He had to do the attack because he doesn't have enough evidence That's why this person says dunning kruger Because they don't have enough evidence to support their claim So they have to attack the man logical fallacies are not scientific evidence that we are on a ball. I'm sorry Chris cooms for a dollar says no question I ask thank you so much for your support chris and then five dollars from c mitch play davie citation Berkeley a science checklist science asked questions about the natural world google it five dollars That's like when somebody says uh to your own research Or you know, it's like no you tell me what you've Researched give me the information and then we'll validate it to see if it's real science is not a belief people science is It's it's a real thing you can actually See cause and effect relationships Gravity is a pseudo science. It's a belief. That's why people say he's a flatter third. He doesn't believe in gravity He doesn't believe in this but they're all beliefs. It's like believing in Santa Claus Santa Claus is probably more tenable than gravity Five dollars from gate sky Davie the sun emits radio waves those waves bounce off everything sunlight touches The earth the planets the moon everything a hundred percent natural effect Cool, um, that's not proof that we're standing on a large ball, which is the topic at hand here This debate is flat earth versus globers So anything trying to distract from that is called red herring fallacy Again logical fallacies according to Purdue University um are not scientific evidence they just um They just it just shows that you lack evidence to support your claim So I know it's stressful t jump. I know it but um, you know, this is what I'm here for. I'm here to democracy So radio waves are like the heat The transmitter is like the thermometer The moon is like the water the radio waves bounce off themselves. They're all natural things Just like your experiment. It's an experiment Well, the fact that you still don't know what a scientific experiment is Means that you can't claim to have science because you don't know you don't care what sciences This is why I didn't even try to engage with them like it's a complete waste of time This one's over dude. How much more how many more do we have Amy? Just a few questions left. We're taking it into the end game So from shogun lobster davie for five dollars What would be the purpose of a container being placed over a flat earth? Why does it exist and how did it get there? um, I don't make claims on How I got here why it's there um for anybody to try to divinate that is um, you know, it's it's on everybody's opinion But we know that pressure is caused by gas molecules bouncing off each other and the walls of their container p equals f over a That's the pressure formula that means pressure is that's what equal means pressure is the force over the area That area must be an object that area is not a vacuum a vacuum is not an area that causes pressure Vacuums do not cause pressure gradients. The only thing that causes pressure is a container five dollar super chat from tim prior the first semester of physics you learn about the caveats Experiment which proves gravity. Don't talk about physics if you don't agree with it c a v i t ies experiment Yeah, um gravity as I've stated is not a part of quantum physics. It's not a part of particle physics Gravity is just a math model. Um, it has no particle There's nothing there. So for somebody to keep saying that gravity is science It's just the baseless assertion. There is no such thing As gravity gravity is not a force Doesn't have a particle. Um, it has it's not electric. Um, there's nothing there It's just it just exists in your imagination And it's there to make you believe that you're a monkey spinning on a ball in a vacuum 15 dollars from adam independent variable The alleged stunning kruger effect dependent variable today's davie performance Mmm That that would be the cause So the independent variable one cause dependent variable dependent variable effect A lot of balltards don't really understand this because they don't actually Subscribe to science. They don't actually research it. They like pseudoscience. They like star wars. They love CGI they love math models. They love things that exist in the imagination But in reality, we don't experience gravity. We don't experience a ball earth And the sky is not a vacuum. I don't know how many more times I need to debunk this So he was right cause stunning kruger affects You today at homonym fallacy again He's full of them and the reason is is because he lacks evidence to support his claim Therefore he has to attack me and pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm literally Citing the research that I've done. These are scientists. These are physicists. They are They are Supporting my arguments. He has no support for his arguments. All he has is logical fallacies Which are not scientific evidence and he says, I don't know what the dependent independent variables are They're not necessary for science. I don't even care what they are. So I don't even know what we're doing here Davey you explicitly ask For an example of round trip time in nature. Why aren't you acknowledging the echolocation is an example The echolocation of an animal Um, that's great. Again, I don't know how many times I needed like harp on this. That's a red herring fallacy It's misleading. It's a distraction to the actual Argument at hand the actual argument. He says that he has scientific experimentation when I call him out on it You don't know what it is. All his buddies are helping them. They all have different opinions Science doesn't deal with opinions. It deals with The very narrow method that is the scientific method Five dollars from tim prior. Okay. I'll dumb this down for you. The scientific method does not even agree with you The scientific method does not agree at all. It's a method that you use Again, that's a reification policy Science does not talk science cannot write science cannot think science is not a person It's not a sentient being it's a method that is used to determine cause and effects in nature not May not created by humankind as I've proven to you guys. That's natural Karen B is uncapped bush for five dollars in a container. The volume is constant So the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature. We don't observe this on earth. Davey You can't have pressure without the container. The container is what causes the pressure Be it pressure pressure gradients A color is still a color A color gradient is still a color Just because you add the word gradient to temperature doesn't mean that it's not temperature Gradients are pressure. You cannot have pressure without a container The notion that the sky is a vacuum and we're spinning endlessly in so many different directions Uh, that it's not realistic. It's not scientific That doesn't it doesn't has nothing to do with laws of physics namely gas laws ideal gas laws Boils gas law. Um, we have the second law of thermodynamics They all point to the notion that entropy is what dictates The pressure that we're breathing and it cannot be Pressure if it doesn't have a container Five dollars from Timpire, but yet millions of people have jobs depending on gravity's existence Great There's there's millions of people that Their jobs consist on static laws and unicorns. Um, does that mean that any of those are real? No as This scientist a world renowned scientist already admitted That gravity is fiction. It doesn't exist in the real world. Um, his name is uh She's Norman Uh, let me get this for you real quick waters level.com. You can get a gravity And um world renowned physicist freeman dyson is asked So the quanta of gravity is fiction Freeman dyson. Yes, you can study it mathematically, but you can never study it in the real World what is the real world science real physical realm the natural realm so gravity is fiction according to a world renowned physicist named freeman dyson Um, it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a graviton It's never been discovered if the particle of the gravitational field is ever discovered that means it hasn't It would be called a graviton and it would have a spin too since it corresponds to its tensor field physics.info Ford slash standard so gravity is nothing. It's just an idea. It's beautiful. It's a beautiful idea Great, but it doesn't exist in the real world only in math because it's fictional 15 from adam How the f can any of it be an ad hominem if you didn't give a single argument? This is embarrassing That one's that one's for you So so we we're asking me why i'm ad hominem No, no, he's asking how can something be an ad hominem without it entailing an argument So so it's like an ad hominem is saying you're an idiot therefore the world is round That would be an ad hominem just saying you're an idiot isn't an ad hominem Because it's not an argument Um an ad hominem by the university of oxford Not my opinion not t-jumps baltard opinion And he has many Is an argument or a reaction of an argument or reaction? It's directed against a person that would be me rather than the position they are maintaining The position i'm maintaining is that the earth is not a sphere. Why am i being called the fleur? Oh because he lacks evidence. Why are people saying? Oh done in kruger because they don't have anywhere else to run Logical fallacies are not scientific evidence. I'm sorry t-jump. You and your team lost. Are we done here or are we still going? So nope. Yeah, he doesn't know the difference. He can't tell the difference We have four questions left Uh from the craw daddy for five dollars. Davey says hey t-jump. You're the r word. You're a clown Davey replies to me. You have nothing so you attack the person. Oh the irony Yeah, so we've gone away from Him being able to present scientific evidence Dependent independent variables and I was talking about ad hominems Again logical fallacies are not scientific evidence. You can call me an idiot a fleur if all you want You still have not proven that you know what science is and you still have not presented any valid hypothesis or experimentation um So That's it. That's that Five dollars from great sky Davey gravity is a label. We name the force because you can't hold it in your hand Does it mean it doesn't exist? simply A saying to believe otherwise Uh, I've already proven to you that gravity Graviton is fictional can't be studied in the real world Gravity is also not a force if you want to listen to brian cox There isn't really a force of gravity at all Um, this is universe today in general with tivity gravity is not a force between masses Um, and that's funny enough because the moon is a mass and so is the earth Why isn't the moon crashing into the earth if mass attracts mass gravity debunked right there? Technically technically that brian cox is correct. Uh gravity isn't a literal force because of uh Space time the curvature of space time isn't a field itself It's a change in a field. So it isn't technically a force Yeah, it's nothing. It's it's fictional as stated by um Freeman dyson, it's not part of quantum physics Can't be quantum mechanical all laws of nature are quantum mechanical since gravity is not part of quantum mechanics It's not a law of nature gravity debunk No And so I see your guys super chats coming in. I think tim prier you're going to be the last Uh as we wrap it up. We've been having fun tonight, but we'll do the last few so shogun lobster Davey you claim to know much about science gravity and flat earth theory But you can't even debunk alton's law. Have you even done any research? All right Elden's law. Yeah, do you do you know what that is? Yeah, let's look it up Elden's law It's something made up by vows, so it's not actually a real thing. Okay, here we go Elden's law Decision made by the supreme court the united states No, not it Um, well, I'm not making any claims to elden's law. I don't see any eight lda ALDEN Law, I googled it. I don't see anything up here. There's Elden versus main. There's a bunch of laws. I don't see any laws of physics here So if you guys want to go ahead and expand on your claims, feel free $2 from osin Dyson Knows it's a globe No, he doesn't Nobody knows it's a globe the globe only exists in your imagination, which is why curvature Evidence lost in a court of law not once but twice Zangar Sia Was about to get sued by a ball tired who said look I have curvature evidence right here my computer and the judge said That's not curvature evidence. That's just you doing what you want in your computer so there is no such thing as um curvature as um as What's his name astrophysicist phd neal de grassy tyson said himself in 2015 at a conference From 128,000 feet that stuff is flat No curvature anywhere waters level planes fly straight according to the altitude meter pilots can all confirm this pilot manuals there's actually a slew of documents from nasa Where they literally say the earth is flat and non rotating nasa 1973 page 126 You can go to waters level.com forward slash nasa Obviously, they use flat earth models so I don't even know what kind of model you can use As far as uh flight or any type of um oscillations because According to nasa here A model frequently used is that of a flat non rotating earth. Why do they use? Flat models flat earth models for flights for oscillations for helicopters for any type of missile launches It's because the earth is obviously unobservably flat There is no such thing as an airplane descending over a ball 27 almost 2800 feet per minute That doesn't happen in reality Earth is not a ball. It's confirmed by pilots confirmed by nasa That's it. You can believe in salt flats topography measurements State of florida is super flat then the next state over it is super flat too texas is super flat So is the united states like this just full of flat states? No, it's because the whole thing is flat as we can see at the bolivian salt flats There's 100 kilometers and there's only under one meter That's to my waist and down I'm probably even lower of vertical drop. So there is no ball. There's no curvature end of argument Tim prior for five dollars Okay, the name one field of science that That back your beliefs up or to back your beliefs up Okay, so again a lot of these people are confused They don't know what the difference is between science and pseudoscience. He asked me what I believe This is not a belief pseudoscience is the belief pseudoscience by oxford dictionary a collection of beliefs Or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method Kind of like what t-jump has been trying to do all day proves that he has science Doesn't know what the dependent independent variables are says. He doesn't care people try to help him out. Everybody has a different opinion This is pseudoscience. That's the belief. I don't believe that the earth is flat I can show you with university citations that they've measured flat water. There's no curvature Flat a flat earth one in court. I mean, what more do you want? NASA's has over 50 government documents released in 2011 saying the earth is flat the earth is flat norm rotating This is what we do. We use computational models in math over a flat earth Flight manuals assume that earth is flat assume the earth is non-rotating. Why because the earth is flat Why would you assume that earth is flat if it's a ball? of A vertically dropping at eight inches per mile square for the first hundred miles Really? We don't see that anywhere There's no such thing as anybody prove Anybody proving that the earth is a ball besides CGI models um television programming We don't live on a spinning ball end of argument And last question for the night tim prior in other words if you can't I was like one more is covered in but second to last Oh, no after in other words, if you can't name one field of science that backs you up Then you're the one using pseudoscience What is spacetime physicists believe? That at the tiniest scales space emerges from quanta george muster phd astrophysicist cornell university Scientific american.com. So gravity is the belief as we can see here physicists believe What's pseudoscience fake science pseudo means fake? What is pseudoscience a system of beliefs? So spacetime is a belief. It's an idea. It's an abstract Um concept. So I don't have any beliefs. I don't believe in gravity Why because it's not part of quantum physics not part of quantum mechanics I don't have any beliefs. I don't believe that the earth is flat I walk around on an earth that's flat all the measurements tell me nasa says it That's it. I mean end of argument so I'm going to do a comment and then this is the last question So tim priors says stop quoting people that you don't agree with that the world is flat for five dollars You can respond to that and then we're doing the last question tonight A hundred scientists can come together and say that they agree that unicorns exist. Does that mean that unicorns exist? No Science is not based on how many people can agree or how many people believe on a certain thing Science only means that it's that you have a method that you use to figure out the cause of an effect Science is not a belief 100 scientists a million scientists the whole world can believe that you know what this is called This is called an ad-populum fallacy. Let me define it for everybody who Wants to know what type of logical fallacy. This is an argumentation theory an argument ad-populum is a fallacious Argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it That's a logical fallacy. Hey, you believe that unicorns are real. So does your neighbor That doesn't mean that unicorns are real Unicorns aren't real. They're fictional. They're pseudo animals Gravity is a pseudo force. That means it's not really a force. It's nothing gravity unicorns unicorn farts same thing So an ad-populum fallacy only applies to general public. It doesn't actually apply to authorities I think he's confusing that for an appeal to authority fallacy. That would be an argument from authority When he says scientists that's authority But that's also wouldn't be an appeal to authority because appeals to authority only apply to false authorities scientists aren't So it seems like the pd of fallacies Number nine ten and be authorities. It could be hey, this guy knows what he's talking about. I'm not as smart as him So I'm gonna believe him. I'm not gonna believe something I'm going to know once the information the experimentation is presented to me I know this is totally new to you But you have to watch Actual scientists who know what they're talking about when they discuss these types of things because you're gonna you're gonna do what you're doing Right now, you're just gonna lose you're gonna keep attacking me You keep acting like you know what you're talking about and you're just gonna be a science denier You're denying science. I don't know what an independent and very I don't know and I don't care That's your son I'm including this because he just said another ten dollars But I'll dump it from tim fryer. I'll dump it down for you one more time No, scientists or physicists will back you up quit talking about science and physics that don't agree with you He's saying that science agrees again All these guys think that science is a human being that can agree that can laugh that can talk to you Science is a method that elucidates cause and effect relationships my voluntary friends Science doesn't agree does not have anything that has to do with agreement It has to do with proving something a scientist can prove that this causes this We know it to be true. We don't have to believe it. We know That's the difference between realists flat earthers natural earthers and ball tarts or spinning space monkeys They believe that they're on a spinning ball. I don't believe that i'm a spinning ball I know that i'm on a flat earth. I've seen the measurements. I've seen tons of models modeling after a flat earth I don't believe that we're on a model But hey nasa is using the flat earth models pretty frequently. That's what they're saying. Why because the earth's flat super obvious Last question slash comment of the night before we let these two wonderful air locketers go Five dollars from great sky We can observe the curvature of the earth by the way the light bends on the horizon If the earth was flat a sunrise slash sunset would be an instant light on slash off I already debunked this The curvature math would be 1.23 times the square root of the observer's hike So when I am standing on any west side beach on oahu I can look west because the sun and all the celestial bodies move from east to west No matter where you are on this earth on this plane So when the sun disappears in the west, I can observe at a six foot altitude that The 3.1 miles in front of me is not the tangent the top of the sphere Why because if the sun Was my head and you were standing here. It would have to disappear 3.1 miles in front of you That's where the curvature is if you claim that the sun is not moving and you're rotating backwards at a thousand miles per hour Then you should see curvature. I don't see any curvature I don't see the sun setting behind the horizon 3.1 miles in front of me I see it setting Way further back that either means that one the ball is much bigger than they tell us Or two, but it's just not a ball. So take your pick Thank you so very much and with that that is going to clue tonight's debate I'm going to hand it over To tom so we can finish our closing statements But I want to thank both t jump and davie for joining us and all the viewers out there watching But tom your closing statement and where people can find you is all yours Uh, yeah, you can find me at youtube.com slash t jump where i'm destroying flurfs all the time just like this guy destroyed today He's probably the easiest to destroy because i don't know the definition of fallacies or science Or appeal to authority or appeal to consensus or any of the like just anything in general I crushed him so bad here. He just couldn't refute it at all and he just had to argue semantics Which is what most people do when they just lose completely So If you want to destroy a flat earther, it's pretty much just use the same argument. I did you can use the experiments of Measuring the radios bouncing off of the moon to show that it is in fact for sure A globe and there's nothing they can do about it except argue semantics. So I'll conclude there. Thanks guys for watching Check out my youtube channel Thank you so very much chi jump and both of our interlocutors descriptions are in the links below Davy the floor is all yours and where can people find you? Uh, cool. Uh, my website is waters level.com from there. You can Um, find my facebook. I've had four in flat earth instagram accounts removed by instagram I'm not sure why but um, they don't like me. They don't like flat earthers I've had people come to my door with death threats. I don't know why but anyways, um T jump if you live on a spinning ball in a vacuum and your ancestors were monkeys all the power to you, bro All right, and with that I want to thank you all for joining us out here on modern day debate We are a neutral platform Welking everybody from All walks of life if you're looking for more juicy debates in the future Don't forget to like and subscribe And if you enjoyed what you heard in this debate tonight Both of our guest links are in the descriptions below. I want to thank both t jump and davie for joining us I'm amy newman with modern day debate and we hope you keep having great conversations discussions and debate Good night, everyone