 Turnies mixed with self-oppression, what am I to do? But tear away when I'm boiling at the top By the fire, the smothered wrath from the mind's fliers You call the shots, you bow your heads, the marchin' never stops The strings before your lives start to decay From tears of blood to grit, subtle laughter Turn around and I'll be faster in your hollow shape As the faith begins to drop Hey everyone, tonight we're going to be debating Glow versus Flat Earth And to start us off, we have troubling tribune Actually, sorry, I apologize, Alan is going to kick us off So Alan, the floor is all yours Alright, thanks James Alright, so I'll kick us off here, I'm going to share screen Let me know when you're good Yep, we can see you screen now Alright, okay, so to kick us off, I'm going to talk about GPS and the history of laser interferometry and how they're tied together and how they prove that the Earth is a stationary non-rotating plane So to begin with GPS, to summarize the art arguments in hand, there is a variance of the constancy of the alleged constancy of C There is a preferred reference frame to make these measurements in and there is a So through the transformations of this variance seed when it's measured to another reference frame this produces an invariant or a non-invariant transformation which breaks Lorentzco variance which the entire framework of special relativity is built upon And in addition to that, the principle of relative simultaneity is violated by how GPS functions, you know, just for bonus just for bonus work So to get into a little bit of that GPS is a time interval system that uses the range measurement equation to accurately deduce the distance So what it does basically is it it takes a snapshot of when the time at the time that the signal was sent and when the time signal was received the difference in that value was multiplied by C and that's how they're deriving the distance So traditionally in a coordinate system when you have when you're trying to derive distance so you would take like this location E5 and you would take C2 and you would say the distance between this is one, two, three, four tiles of measurement and the way GPS functions is it says it says I sent the signal propagation when I was at C2 and the time it took for that signal to propagate to F5 is, you know, this is X amount and then when you transform that amount to another coordinate system it should be invariant because GPS is synced to GPS time which is done through atomic clocks which also account for the same effect which is called the SACNIC effect So all these varying speeds and all this is going to be tied to the SACNIC effect which is the only thing that they really account for So the burn through GPS and atomic clock synchronization So we'll get into the history of interferometry now Once we, anyway, let's see here So the history of laser interferometry began in 1887 when Mikkelson Morley tried to measure the orbital velocity of Earth They were never able to get the result that they needed So they came up with a system to interpret the results One fringe shift was equal to five kilometers a second The measurement they got was just over one fringe So they measured allegedly five kilometers to seven kilometers a second and to be consistent with the Copernican principle and the heliocentric model the orbital velocity measured would have needed to be 30 kilometers a second Now, of course, they say that this experiment was a no result and that proved that the speed of light is C in all reference frames and this was the jumping off point really for special relativity But as shown in GPS, there is a varying speed that needs to be accounted for and that's explicitly done with the range measurement equation in the ECI reference frame, which is the stationary non-rotating frame which allows for the measurement of absolute motion rather than relative motion So when they transfer that distance or when they transfer anything derived from the ECI reference frame I'm sorry, when they transfer the distance derived from the ECI reference frame into the ECEF reference frame which is the rotating Earth reference frame that they say we live on the distance transformation breaks and it's not co-variant So there's a huge problem with that and if that breaks, that means that the speed of light fluctuates and the explanation given by special relativity to answer the no result so-called a Mickelson-Morley is invalidated So this measurement is actually the same measurement that was done in 1925 the Mickelson-Gill Pierce experiment which is basically the same thing that they just added an extra mirror to reflect off of and they made a square into a ferrometer They produced the same measurement and then in 1913 there was the Sagneck effect which was a rotating interferometer which produced the same effect or which produced a friendship pattern although this was attributed to the rotation of the device and they say that because this is a rotating device special relativity doesn't apply and it doesn't falsify it or whatever and then in 2004 Ruyang Wang came along and linearized the Sagneck effect and showed that it's not due to angular rotation it's actually directionally dependent and that the propagation of electromagnetic waves is faster going east to west than it is going in the opposite direction There's a delay going with and against the sidereal rotation of the sky and this was further measured by Dayton Miller So Dayton Miller did 5,200,000 interferometry experiments that were directly analogous to the Nicholson-Morley experiments and what he measured was a friendship pattern that fluctuated reaching its minimum and maximum dimensions corresponding to the equinoxes So what he showed was that there's a translation of motion of the sky that's coming down to the earth and that speed that fluctuates as the sun in the northern hemisphere moves to the southern hemisphere it goes lower and faster and then when it comes back it's higher and slower So that speed fluctuation was directly measured by Dayton Miller 5,200,000 times he did the most extensive complete work on laser interferometry experiments and I think that's pretty much everything I wanted to open with so I can yield the rest of my time and kick it over to Tribune Alright, if you want to end the screen share there Oh, my and then we're going to kick it over to the other side so let's get back over here I just want to say thanks to everybody for being here tonight and just a reminder the modern day debate is a neutral platform where we're hosting debates on science, religion, politics and flat earth, of course So over to you, troubling Tribune for your up to six minute intro Thanks for being here Awesome, thanks for having me Once again, what an awesome intro that we had Mine's not going to be quite as high level so you guys don't have to be worrying about keeping up with a whole bunch of scientific stuff or scientific literature all that stuff is fun to get into We are talking about the true earth debate something that I'm very fond of the shape and nature of the place of which we live How is it that we know definitively one side claims to know or claims to have all the answers with the specific shape as a matter of simple geometry hoping that this presentation will be able to show that that's not quite the case So we do have multiple evidences or positive evidences for proof for the plane We have mirror flashes that go up to 183 miles radio waves that go 2,700 miles when they're over the limit that would go through the ionosphere sonar that's going 400 miles long distance photography confirmed at 275 miles and more the Rock Lake to get specific with it We have a Rock Lake observation eight miles at one foot target height and one and a half foot observer height with no curvature detected We also have a infrared photography here, Texas to St. Lucas 760 miles from J. Toland Media again, no curvature detected So to double down on the electromagnetic waves here's an article that you can find from the Library of Congress in regards to Marconi's first telegraph across the Atlantic Ocean over 2,200 miles they're referencing the flat earth here Here we have a model of how the stars could work over a with a flat plane of stars over the flat earth invoking a hyperbolic grid of vision which has actually been confirmed there are papers out direct measurements of the curvature of visual space that can demonstrate this very clearly So then we also have it modeled in Muppet vision so that the Globers can understand a little bit more not to be insulting but this is what they always try to show us in perspective lies So this is how it all lines up and then you have six inch objects being taller than 6,000 foot objects in the distance No, it's not curvature it is perspective We also have several references to the flat earth over in army and NASA documents here feel free to pause the screen get your references and then we're also going to have the horizon being one of the biggest proofs of the globe right how things disappear when you actually have a flat enough surface to see far enough and especially when it's a little bit reflective you can see things like this here you have the biker literally merging into his own reflection here No, he's not dipping behind any sort of curvature We see the same effect here with sunsets when you get again flat enough mostly over water here you can see literally a sun having a perfect reflection of itself all of a sudden when it gets low enough gets far enough you can actually see it merge into its own reflection and fade off into the nothing right so where is this consistent sunset is proof of a globe with a consistent radius of 3959 miles it simply does not exist so on top of that you can actually see where they draw the horizon here with all that being said what exclusive evidence of the globe can we rely on I can see that this download didn't have the other argument here so let me pull that up real quick let me stop the share there's one more thing that I did want to bring up and that's what I was just trying to fix before we came on so no big deal just let me know when you're ready and I'll start the clock again in the meantime everybody who's hanging out hit the like button we're just getting a screen share ready for the rest of Troubling Tribune's opening here ready to go yeah this is a good chance share it out hit the like button and we're ready to go all right let's get to oh I thought you said we were ready yep I'm ready there we go all right let's roll it all right here we go so then this is going to be a demonstrable debunk of the curvature claim now it is said from one of our favorite surveyors over on the true earth debate panel over on my channel that we have Ruhiff that in order to get the more accurate readings you need to get higher up so here we have in a plane it is a time lapse going from um you can't remember the names off the top of my head now that I got a little scrambled but here you have the flight path that you can track this it comes from a taboo conspiracy as well as you can see it on a Flatter Thieves channel as well it is 3000 miles of travel time lapse and 3000 miles when looking at the stars should equate to about 43 degrees of upward change upward displacement due to the plane traveling over the curvature of the earth here they have two stars that they use as reference and you'll see that throughout this entire time lapse which is about six hours that we don't see any of this upward upward lift from these stars as a result of going over the curved geometry of the presupposed globe earth this would lead us to the conclusion that the earth actually is not curving that the plane is not dipping over any sort of predetermined geometry to hammer this point home this can actually modeled out you'll go on google earth and you can do this exact flight and see what the stars should do and you'll see that they're clearly rising up and dramatically too it's very obvious to anybody who's paying attention that if we were living on a ball this is what we should observe and yet it is not so I'm interested open-minded to see if there are any evidences that the globe earth can provide that can be demonstrable and exclusive and above all scientific thank you all right well thank you so much for your opening statements on our flat earth side we're going to kick it over to the globe side who would like to go first I'm going first thank you so much for excellent the floor is on your screen sorry to be here awesome I'm really excited to address some of the very interesting arguments that the opponents have made including the sag neck effect and the time lapse so that I will just go into my opening which will require me to share my screen real quick yeah go for it there we go all right up and running thank you so much appreciate it and here we go is the time lapse that I believe my opponent troubling tribute was just referring to so looking forward to getting to that later hi nice to see everybody great to be here on modern day debate look forward to the debate about the shape of the planet we all live together here on I'm Jen those of you who aren't familiar with me I love to debate whatever I love to talk about non dualism panpsychism as well as anything to do with quantum mind and mentalist first metaphysics so with that I will get on with trying to persuade you to my point of view which is that the planet is approximately a globe more accurately an oblong spheroid due to a little bit of compression from the planet rotating around its stationary axis which is of course what generates that image that I opened on so this debate has always been pretty confusing for me because to my mind the earth must be a sphere because to me everything is kind of not necessarily a sphere but has a bubbly nature that that shape naturally expanding three-dimensional bubble is what would happen if nothing were there to oppose it and since in space there's nothing there pretty much why wouldn't it be the unimpeded shape so I'll try to explore that a little more in my presentation here how much time do I have left just real quick yeah you still have four and a half minutes four and a half minutes thank you so much so how can we check our intuitions about the shape of the planet both sides seem pretty firmly entrenched in their views and you can ask people on either side to try to like build it up for first principles you're probably eventually going to get stuck somewhere because it's just well well it's obvious translation like I never really thought about it enough to actually give you justification but it all really comes down to the question of how can we reliably differentiate appearances from reality because nobody actually claims to have seen the entire shape of the planet simultaneously and it's arguably not possible to see around something that much bigger than us no matter what its actual shape is so what's the answer how do we differentiate imagination from reality ha ha you know we don't put them just instead we can agree on what might call a metaphysical basis so make reasonable inferences about what shape we expect the earth to be and then if we get something wrong out of that well we can alter it how do we do that well we have this huge amount of work that's been done before us in modern science that we can tease out the best parts in my opinion that would be the least action principle and that would be my axiom for reasoning and given its wide range of applications from quantum physics to just general mechanics I make inferences using this axiom you can look this up this isn't just my own invention you can see that the according to the least action principle or stationary action principle that action is minimized okay great well what does that mean we're going to look at the two axioms that I used to deduce the shape of the planet number one action is minimized and number two matter can be modeled geometrically oh well that's obvious well actually it does sometimes behoove us to mention the obvious axioms because really what is action if it's minimized I mean show me the action show me the action since the action is minimized and path formation is an action the action corresponds to the action corresponding to path formation is also minimized next what I'm going to do is estimate the path formation energy and the path itself using mathematical models so it's just really a matter of finding the shape for which the action of the formation path would be minimized and how do we do that all right well we have to start at the very beginning so that means whittling it down to the metaphysical primitive the absolute simplest concept we can conceptualize of in this case we're looking at a path simplest self-connected path in particular and I'm going to say that that's a circle and obviously if anyone disagrees with me on anything that I send this proof feel free to bring it up during the debate looking forward to hearing about it so I'm we're just going off the circle that's the simplest self-connected path then we're going to look at all the set of its variations so what does that mean well we are looking at how is it possible for a circle to move so we take the circle fix a point in the center and then move it in all directions that gives us a sphere if like with the planet we fix a line thank you fix a line and spin that circle we also get a sphere so we can generate the sphere through derivative motion in two ways using a circle therefore in three dimensions the sphere is the simplest motion of the simplest self-connected path therefore that is the shape we should expect the planet to be a couple things to think about for the upcoming debate at what scales is perception accurate because both sides are essentially making an epistemological claim that may not be fully founded and is perception reliable outside of the range for which it developed thanks for listening please enjoy the debate and I'll pass it over to my debate partner thank you for being here today all right well thank you so much for your intro there Jen over to you I kill for your up to six minute introduction and thank you so much for being here absolutely thank you for having me appreciate you be moderating today thanks to James moderate debate as well and thank you to our interlocutors as well I really appreciate everything that's been said so far because that's all the science and the data and I feel that we can do ourselves a service by standing on these shoulders of giants that's people who have already kind of done all the footwork all the research and all that sort of stuff for us nothing would work for us if we tried to reinvent the wheel every time we need to use so I just want to ask a question to everyone I'm going to go about this a little bit differently so how did this happen to us how did this happen to where we're debating what the earth is the earth that we all live on so in my professional opinion I believe that there's a certain amount of people that have been groomed to feel unduly and unjustly disenfranchised it's the same folks that call themselves things like the silent majority or sometimes just out of minority yet there are always a lot of people in the room so this thought process has its roots in what's called cognitive dissonance which happens when you hold two conflicting thoughts in your mind at the same time it'd be like claiming ancient peoples have had awesome technologies that we don't have anymore but while you're embracing far greater technologies right now or government agencies are all powerful yet they're so sloppy that they leave breadcrumbs everywhere around their clandestine projects the hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators involved in hiding the flat earth are also involved in an ongoing campaign to undermine those same projects by trolling flat earthers at the same time so let's take a look back into the past to kind of get a big picture on how we got here first of all March 3rd, 1969 the first flight of our lunar module May 18th, 1969 the Apollo 10 flies around the moon July 16th, 1969 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins fly to the moon on Apollo 11 so in the show of ultimate pro-American patriotism by manly tried and true U.S. soldiers on July 20th, 1969 Neil Armstrong becomes the first man to walk on the moon so let's fast forward to the present so there are currently more than 70 because of standing on the shoulders of those giants and that previous work there are currently 70 space agencies existing all around the world and of those 16 are capable of completing space launches as of 2022 so in addition to the hundreds of planned space initiatives some of which are currently underway right now and they are set on courses spanning thousands of years so they've been launched into orbit and they can be going out and gathering data for thousands of years so NASA and ESA are working on a new mission to go to the moon called Artemis called the Artemis and that's going to land on the moon next year 2024 so let's take a look at the future so those involved in aeronautics space exploration astrophysics biology chemistry geology meteorology and physics will continue to revolutionize the world and beyond for the good of all humans even science deniers even flat earthers but in the future flat earthers won't exist the same group will worship whatever new science denial deity happens to be there at the time so if we can take a look and take a page out of the psychology handbook so the Dunning-Kruger effect is a bias in thinking usually where a person is unaware of how badly they grasp a subject not understanding that they are failing at it this happens a lot because people say do your research as opposed to looking at the research that's already been done so this is the best evidence we have to explain why flat earthers are vehemently antithetical to establish forms of science and incurious about learning new things even religious religion tells us that a house that is built on sand which is your lack of critical thinking in the beginning and not on rock which is established science is doomed even before it is complete the house is going to fail so or you could put it this way to not have a strong proper starting basis and therefore you're likely to fail in the end so we can see in paraphrase from scripture it says this gives us a highlight in into why flat earth ideas ultimately fail in the end when subjected to minimal scrutiny and why conspiratorial beliefs act as a gateway to other nonsense philosophy says that anyone who can be you can make believable absurdities can commit you can make them also commit atrocities Voltaire said that so this is why I feel justified getting involved in debates like these so from surrounding then forcing off the road your vehicle motorcade seconds of your political opponents and staffers to attempting to physically overthrow your own government to spreading destructive propaganda about life saving vaccines so these are things that we combat every single day because of this destructive mentality so in finality here's what I want to ask so here's the main question I want to ask as far as I'm concerned for our opponents so if you believe everything that you said about science and then the organizations that are in place it would kind of make you a little bit anti-american if those are American agencies and anti-soldier because soldiers were the ones that trained to go to space and ended up ultimately going there and letting them on the road did you say I had about a minute left or am I? actually that is time right there okay all right I'll save the rest for later excellent so after this we do kick it into an open discussion generally after our introductory statement so I want to thank everybody for your introductory statements and also want to let you know that James popped a poll in the live chat because you know how cool James is I love working with James he's a fantastic fellow so he's popped in our live chat a poll so for context right now 449 votes are in 35 36 actually just now 36 vote for flat 49 percent of our audience right now is globe and 16 percent is banana shaped well you know what else is banana shaped cucumbers all right so before I make any other awful jokes I do want to remind everybody that if you see any upcoming debates on our on our YouTube page and you're like why are these scheduled for 300 you know days in the future this makes no sense who's gonna like remember that or like keep track of that those are actually just base reminders that we are putting all of these on our podcast within 24 hours and just like with our YouTube description we're gonna have all of our guests tagged in the description if they're not tagged right now they will be so without further ado let us kick it into our open discussion so we usually put it to the other side to respond to what they've just heard and kind of launch us off so Allen and trouble troubling tribune the floor is all yours yeah awesome so I'd like to thank Jen for at least making an attempt to you know make a good argument and I do agree with the bait like the beginning of the argument right which is that we can't at least for your side that you can't prove it either way that's kind of what I want to get into into this open discussion and a kill I'm a little ashamed that you would just result to calling us anti-American basically terrorists instead of addressing any of our actual arguments so I'm a little disappointed in that but I'm excited to get things kicked off did you want me to respond to that well Allen if you have any thoughts about what you heard from Jen or a kill to kind of launch us into our open discussion here floor is yours I don't know if we can hear you right now Allen addressing me you're uh there you go oh sorry there you go I can hear you now Allen got me you hear it yep you loud and clear okay yeah cool so I wanted to avoid getting into the philosophical implications and of like why or who are anti-American this or that and just look at the direct evidence that's put forward by the scientific community and the contradictions that lie within it so so moving forward I'm not really super interested in hearing about any you know philosophical interpretations or opinions based on what you think about my allegiance to the corporation of America Allen I noticed just has taken a slightly different direction I noticed you made some arguments that seem to relate more to ether theories than theories about the shape of the planet can you talk a little more about how ether theory connects to flat earth if it does it all yeah so uh in order for you know the orbital velocity of earth or in order for earth to be you know moving has to have an orbital velocity and this was never never measured now they now the uh the experiments that were done you know make us a morally starting with that they said you know that there was no ether you know because it didn't produce the friendship pattern big enough to uh correspond to the heliocentric model right so they got rid of the ether by saying that you know the spacetime coordinate system itself so they say at space and time are merged so the distance in time contracted you know to to give the illusion that uh that there was a friendship pattern but in reality there was none now that evidence it's like okay you want to go with that it's a little little ad hoc if you ask me but if you want to go with that that's fine but then in 2004 the sag neck effect was shown to be a linear effect and even the equation used which I can pull up here I am familiar with apparently it's actually used to calibrate GPS systems and the whole it's general relativity things actually a myth but yeah I don't know how far we can really go into this but I'm just curious as to what this actually says about the shape of the planet because as far as I understand that ether theories don't say anything about the shape of the planet if there's no orbital velocity and the rotation effects attributed to earth rotation are linear lies and they're shown to be directionally dependent and there's no rotation if the earth isn't orbiting the sun and it and it's not rotating then it's not then I don't think it's a ball right so and that's a that's even further illustrated by GPS's range of measurement equation when used in the ECI reference frame so they have a separate reference frame that they that they take the initial measurement and then they transform that distance derived to the ECF reference frame which is you know rotating a blade sphere way that they say that we live on and that that that transformation should be an invariant transformation because the speed of light should be constant in all reference frames and GPS being a time interval system you know they're all synced at the same time so there should be no discrepancy in the in the distance derived in the first reference frame so when you get into you know coordinate system transformations and stuff like that if you were to use the traditional way to measure distance right if you take these two coordinates EF or was a E5 and C2 and you transform them to spherical coordinate system etc the distance is going to be messed up they're not going to be the same but using the time interval system that GPS you know came up with or whatever that eliminates that so the the transformation should be invariant in all reference frames and if they're not that means that the measuring stick that they're using C isn't the same in that reference frame and if that's and if that's the case then all the interferometry is back on the table in terms of proving an ether and not any sort of earth rotation or orbital velocity couldn't this also just mean that the distance formula was wrong no and the thing I'm actually really confused about is you went from stationary to flat and I just I didn't follow that because I am familiar with a lot of these stationary notions about models like it's a simplification relative to the center of math math and such in heliocentrism how do they say the earth is or how do they think how do they say things are formed into spheres they're rotating coalescing in space you know the matter is getting together whatever and attracting and it's you know turning into a rotating ball if that's the word is accretion the word is accretion I believe and I think that's flawed sorry you're good yeah if that's not measured then that's not what's happening right if the if the orbital velocity or if the rotational effects and the orbital velocity aren't measured then the story about how earth became a ball isn't isn't relevant right and then you can get into other effects like tribune pointed out so when you so when a plane's traveling over the plane you see the exact effect that you would see over a stationary non-rotating plane and the and the presentation that tribune opened with he shows you know what the flat earth prediction would look like and it has the the stars overhead and then like a little celestial personal dome or whatever so that's your perspective and then you can see the how the how the sky kind of rotates around to conform to where you're at prospectively so that that right there I mean the plane flies 3000 miles over no curvature so that in tandem with laser interferometry I mean there's just there's no rotation there's no orbital velocity there's no curvature there's there's nothing you got nothing so because of the lack of evidence for accretion which I agree with by the way therefore it the planet hasn't been established as spherical because the Mexicanism by which it became spherical you don't give it your skeptical of that mechanism is that correct yeah there was the end results of that mechanism have never been measured and a plane flies over a plane as seen in the video so I wouldn't then I wouldn't then turn around and say oh well maybe it's curved for some reason that doesn't make sense or present itself in reality and I think Ryan was asking for whoever screen sharing to oh oh yeah yeah my I apologize oh that was it you can does someone else want to take it away for but I'm interested in this line of inquiry but I don't want to dominate the whole debate yeah let's get our other voices in here let's kick it over to a kill for now and then over to troubling after this sounds good thank you so I'm a fighter so I don't usually pull my punches so I maybe I should have said at the very beginning of what I presented or what I read off I know it wasn't slides and all that sort of stuff modern day debate has been something I've been watching for a while I've watched a lot of flatter debates and I didn't hear anything new or from the flatter side I mean does it mean that I need to understand every last bit of that I really don't so and the reason for that is because I'm pointing out something that's much more pressing it's something that we have to pay more attention to right now the science denial side so I'm sorry that it hurt your feelings about it me saying that you were anti-american I didn't say that and I didn't call you terrorists what I said was if you're wrong doesn't it make you on American since we as Americans had this huge achievement doesn't it make you anti anti-soldier if those soldiers are the ones that led the course and were brave enough and manly enough to do the work to get out there and serve their country that's what I ask I'm sorry that I mean I must have been talking a little bit too fast but that's what I asked and I would like an answer to that wouldn't make you if you say to all the science is incorrect on the global side or the or the parts that you're pointing out doesn't it make you anti that science no and here's why and by the way specifically you said that people that question that stuff can be convinced to do atrocities and then even possibly overthrow their government which that would be considered terrorism so I'll just call it like I see it I don't pull my punches either as far as as far as as far as science goes right it's not anti science in any regard in any category to question and challenge the assertions made in that scientific field that's actually the basis in the core of the seed if you will behind the whole scientific thought process is to challenge those claims and then to try to come up with something the mainstream claim is that science is always trying to best each other and always trying to come up with the new best and greatest thing so that they can get the Nobel Peace Prize and yada yada even though we know that that's not what happened when you look at papers published in the Lancet you can see that the peer review process has been peer reviewed and it's absolutely atrocious it's basically a good old boys club publishing each other's papers until they all die off and then their apprentices with their slightly different ideas come up and publish stuff we're probably about to get away from the whole idea of general relativity because always gotten the it's always gotten a lot of predictions wrong especially when we're talking like looking supposedly deeper out into space but I specifically brought up a very specific example of where why there's no curvature right and so actually several different examples but the Rock Lake experiment and the flight observation as well as the debunk of the actual mechanism behind how all this stuff works as Alan so elegantly put at the end of my presentation I asked if there was any actual scientific verifiable proof for you to claim that I deny right because that would be science denial if I'm just like yeah that's just not a thing right and I've got a question I've got a question would you agree that a sufficiently large sphere would appear flat to its inhabitants sure but can we acknowledge that we're explaining away the observation of we see flatness we want to assume that it's a ball we still have to have all the work maybe we're just maybe a lot of people are just not even acknowledging it but I'm acknowledging it as inconferential that's why I didn't include sensory perception in my proof because I was you know basically saying in the on the scale of the planet it's probably garbage we can't see the planet from our perspective well what can we actually again just back to the question right now put the ball in y'all's court what can we actually rely on that has gone through the scientific process that can help us determine that your claim of the earth being a globe with this set radius of 3959 miles orbiting through space at all these different vectors while also wobbling and processing that this is a valid claim well I showed you I know I didn't bring you slides but remember what I told you about the past the first flight of the lunar module a powlton flying around the moon astronauts Neil Armstrong Buzz Aldrin you remember all that stuff all of that was done because they followed the scientific method all of that was done with math and all of that was done with very precise trajectories or else it would not have been able to be done you understand so that is a scientific method wouldn't you agree I would disagree and the reason why I would be able to point out this disagreement very obviously is by asking you where the control and variable are in this so-called experiment that you're calling the Apollo moon landings we'll just start there where the control and variable are yeah you know the two core things that are needed to present an experiment to make something scientific instead of it being a story in pseudoscience something that claims to be scientific but has not gone through the method okay so then let's eliminate this all the way then let's just say you know what okay you know what hey you got me buddy the past didn't happen let's what about the present what about the 70 different space agencies that I told you about what about 16 of them being able to are capable of launching space launches as of last year so is that not true as well are you denying all of that so I don't we launch things up I just deny that you guys are putting into something called a presupposed orbit into a presupposed force that has not ever been verified right satellite nuance in the disagreement right we can obviously look up and see that rockets are being launched up right but we can also look up and see that they're making a parabolic arc right we don't actually see them go off into space as you let's say I grant let's say I grant that you can't prove scientifically that the Earth is a sphere I can deduce it using logic can you deduce a flat surface using logic easily I'd love to hear it sometime because to me it it seems impossible to get there because it would start to self consume itself because it would have a center of mass that all the gravity would be pulling towards so it seems that you have a presupposed notion of like the way you think gravity has to work there's never been any verification or any experiment that proves that gravity is a radio force or that the same force that pulls things downward is the same force that keeps the things in the sky suspended and keeps our gases in place there's been no verification of any of that what we have done is we have actually done a try to get close to that with doing a vandagraph generator experiment where we added and took away charge from different objects and see if we could affect the vector and we did would this be 100% proof I don't think so but it does give a good positive piece of evidence towards that way but this was done with manipulating electric currents this wasn't done with manipulating bending space-time so again the burden of claiming that all things would pull into this center right from some force I'm not even going to go as far as to make you claim the cause and effect relationship because mainstream admits that they don't know that it's space-time but how do you prove that it's a radio force and that what you're claiming is true that everything it can't possibly be flat because everything would pull into a sphere the sphere is consistent with the evidence although I'll grant you that it's an indirect interpretation of evidence so at some point you have to agree what your convention is for what exactly matter is doing and on this level I think we're describing matter that's holding itself together and the gravity people have an answer for that they're saying well the plan is holding itself together by attracting itself to its perceived center its center of mass and I can follow that and it all seems to check out pretty good to me and I'm just saying for the flat earth people like do you have a corresponding line of logic that you can follow where the end result is oh the earth is flat it doesn't seem like you have an alternate model of gravity but I'd love to hear a Malin model Jen so the effects attributed to what did you call it earlier accretion accreting or something you know when the coalescing of the matter is placed I was trying to verify sorry I was trying to verify that you were talking about accretion which is the general title of planets and stuff gathering together sure sure so would you agree that if that's if that were the case and that we were we were standing on a rotating ball that formed under such circumstances would you agree that these effects should be measurable yeah and I don't think that they are I think accretion is actually something you can negate with empirical evidence because all the planets in the solar system are measured to be the same age which means they must have had a beginning let me rephrase yeah let me let me rephrase would you expect that you could measure the effects of the rotating ball that you're standing on that was a result of the effects that you're attributing to not necessarily because there's something in measurement theory called a grounding principle where not everything is necessarily measurable by making certain things measurable you're necessarily excluding other possibilities from measurement just kind of a structural thing so do you think it's weird then that the Michelson-Morley experiment was co-opted as a no result saying that the speed of light is invariant and then they turn around and through the mechanism of transformation equations they use this to explain that there is a velocity even though it can't be measured you find that that's a sufficient answer when the speed of light you know varies that directionally dependent and that it has nothing to do with rotation or anything like that so do you think that that would still be an accurate measurement stick to then come up with a mathematical framework to explain why there's no velocity detected because time and space contract because it's asserted mathematically I'm not sure what you mean by there's no velocity detected because clearly there's a limited velocity detected even for us that you know the sun's not always in the same place which means either we're stationary and it's moving or we're both moving or stationary and we're moving you're correct so let me let me rephrase that actually so the Mikkelsen-Gale experiment provides a measurement to the relative to the latitude right so similarly to how they say that the glob or the glob how the globe rotates at a thousand miles up the equator and then at the 45th latitude it would be like 500 and then you know at the north pole to zero right so similarly to how that scales the Mikkelsen-Gale experiment was was done and measured even with the varying speed of light they used the equation that they used like and bring it up here in one second is not it doesn't invoke any relativistic effects or anything like that they use a the ether framework so they use an absolute reference frame to measure the relative velocity of the light traveling through the the pipes that go east west and the pipes that go north south and through that they determined that there's a varying speed and also GPS does the same exact thing with the range measurement equation and even the sagnic effect can be derived using the range measurement equation and I have papers and all that to back up the math and connect show you all that if you need it so with all that being said it's pretty clear that there's a varying speed of light so to then jump into a framework of interpretation where the first two postulates are that all reference frames are equally valid and that the speed of light is the same in all frames that's obviously shown to not be true in nature so to then ad hoc use transformations as the explanation to facilitate the mechanism required to verify you know earth's orbital velocity and the Copernican principle and all that doesn't exist so you know well it's a constant speed in a constant medium if the medium is changing then this measured speed of light will also change so that would I agree with you there may be some gray area for interpreting what exactly the nature of this distortion may be I'll give you the grayest of areas so even accounting for those effects in the range measurement equation it would automatically would deduce that the delay in GPS is proportional to the velocity of the moving receiver so if they're moving at 30 miles an hour or whatever the delay in which they receive it relative to a stationary observer in the same exact position in time would vary due to their velocity it's already accounted for in it so it definitely 100% varies to the observer right so the first postulate being that it wouldn't affect that so it clearly does so let's say the earth is in motion right and it's moving through the cosmos or whatever well the light that they're saying you know it's coming in from all directions they're saying that's the same speed but I have direct evidence experimental evidence showing that it's directionally dependent so that completely invalidates the interpretation of of the distances that they say everything is and all how everything's derived because they are not accounting for that what that would mean is that the refraction index was changing the refraction index in space the measured speed of light changes with the refraction index so what you're describing sounds like that no it's not it's proportional to the velocity of the observer moving it's outside of the confines of the small miniscule effects of of a refractive index and furthermore there was another experiment done in the 90s where they did you know with satellites in space they're just you know out right losing you oh you're cut so but in the same vacuumist conditions that you would expect an invariant speed they were they were oh sorry it might be lagging a minute oh that's all right we do want to try to get the other voices in here so let's try to kick it over to a kill at the end of this okay okay yeah yeah yeah can you hear me okay yes okay see here where was I at I can't even remember now orbital velocity can't measure it never been done what was the and the mechanic behind the null result is uh also invalidated so you pretty much if you're being intellectually honest you're pretty much you accept oh right right sorry so we were talking about if refractive indexes in GPS so for GPS they did an experiment you know whether it's in space in a vacuum the propagation wouldn't be affected by any sort of refractive means what they found is that you know so basically positioning the satellites around the globe in the in the same sense that a for for a mere interferometer would would be they sent the signal going around the globe and what they found you know so called and what they found was that the propagation going east to west is faster by 14 microseconds and it's slower by I'm sorry 0.014 microseconds and then slower going in the opposite direction and there's no mechanism in space to facilitate that if it's due to earth rotation right because these satellites are you know doing their own thing in a vacuum so there's no reason why that would carry over and would matter and yet it does so and the fact that all the GPS clocks are synchronized with with an equation that is equivalent to a calculating for the Cygnet effect as well tells you that they're not you know out in space either that whatever is affecting them is close and local and it has to be affected it has to be kept within those confines it's it's pretty obvious like if we're Ockens razoring this there's no chance that they are spinning or rotating and oh dude I forgot about that too so check this out Jen you know how I was telling you earlier about the proportional velocity being relevant to the observer right so in the case of where the earth is orbiting that's a linear motion right and then the the orbital velocity would be a linear velocity as well so if you the earth was rotating into its orbit that effect would also have to be accounted for for a stationary observer and it's no and there's even been some some like hold on a minute do we even have access to stationary observers what's that do we even have access to stationary observers and the thing I really wanted to say was that the Sagnac effect I'll grant you that it relies on the ether but how does that connect to the flat like how does stationary equal flat I don't get that part I'm not going to keep repeating it you should rewatch the intro or rewatch what we talked about earlier yeah maybe someone else can take it away from here yeah all right let's try to kick it over to yeah go for it oh sorry I thought you were about to jump in I kill if I if you oh yeah go ahead and go yeah hey thanks guys so I'm having a independent debate I guess outside of everyone else's so the reason why I'm not given too much of the data and all that sort of stuff I could just repeat back things I've heard but the reason why I'm not doing that is because I'm not a scientist and the reason why I'm focusing more on the moral and philosophical implications of what you're talking about is because like I mentioned to you before there is a danger in believing this way and if you don't believe me look how many times you hear the word conspiracy in people's tag name in people's names and in our avatars and in our channel names and things like this once you start believing this way that hey established science got it wrong we have the correct science what happens is everybody else is going to space private companies are going to space we have people that aren't even that smart going to space but the rest of us are talking about very very niche and very very specific parts of science that one side says it's this one side says it's that at the very end of this debate nobody's going to be switched over from one side to the next because of the science they came exactly knowing exactly what they would hear I knew I knew exactly what I would hear and I heard exactly what I thought I was going to hear so I'm trying to tell you get your heartstrings doesn't it doesn't it fly in the face of all the established science to say yeah no no no I'm not I'm not denying the science it's just incorrect I'm not denying the science it's just incorrect America has made leaks and bounds in getting to space and just because we did that the world is a better place here's my question to Flat Earthers or those that believe in the Flat Earth what exactly is what is the goal what do you plan to accomplish by thinking this way by having the channel in the first place what is it that you want to do what I want to do is I want us to believe good things and not bad things because when you start to believe bad things or things that aren't correct or true you'll notice that once you start believing in a conspiracy like that oh they're all lying to you oh all of a sudden you believe in all these other conspiracies and that's what I was alluding to it doesn't make you un-American I said doesn't it if you don't believe that your own country has the strength and has the fortitude and the bravery to do a thing like they did like they did and all those soldiers like address some of these questions that I'm asking I'm rapid firing at you because I keep asking them and then you keep saying no but ask these answer these questions about the science I'm not here for the troubling trip you're here for that all right so you keep saying answer these questions about the science specifically and I'm still kind of waiting to hear the specific science that you're referring to you actually specifically said I'm not going to get into it I'm not going to get into it so I don't know what specifically I could respond to other than saying you claiming that it's too big of a conspiracy or that the whole world needs to lie to me or that I don't understand how it could possibly work is not actually a valid argument it's by definition an argument from incudulity so I presented positive claims what that means I've presented positive claims towards why I believe what I believe and ultimately I'd like us for I'd like all of us to believe less and no more because belief is the enemy of knowing so I would like us to be able to formulate theories and postulates that are closer to what we actually observe in reality as opposed to ad-hawking explanation after explanation to explain away the obvious of course the obvious being that we are at the center because we aren't measuring any curvature we are sorry mixing it up we are flat because we're not measuring any curvature and we're not moving because we're not measuring any orbital velocity and again that's the whole mechanic behind how we would be a ball in the first place the only evidence that we've had offered is that well I just believe that this is the way that it has to work because of what I know about quantum mechanics essentially and that just doesn't really fly when we have actual measurements right like no one has Jen you I believe you said that you had something for the star observation for the star time lapse would you like to like get into that maybe oh there we are sure I can screen share it right to it all right here we go this was presented to me some time ago this an image like this one on right here and I won't click it just as YouTube but to get the basic idea and I I think they actually sent me this picture as evidence for flat earth and I was like how do you get to flat earth from this that I guess because in the image it looks maybe like all the stars are in the same plane to me this could only be precipitated by a sphere rotating and a point on that sphere tracing out a circle as it rotates so I guess I'll put it to you how do the flat earth people account for this motion of representing the time lapse of stars overnight yeah I can tackle that I was in my opening presentation so although we did go over it super duper brief basically what it is is we see in a sphere all right it's that simple we have a hyperbolic grid of vision which you can make specific measurements to things in the sky get azimuth readings which is why which it has coined the term of the azimuthal grid of vision which has been been a straw man because it can actually be addressed that if we can actually accurately plot things within a limited sphere of view and then have that be projected over a flat plane and make accurate predictions which you can with the Walter Bislin flat earth model then there you go I mean that your claim that the stars the way that they move is debunked on its face and on top of that all of the assumptions for the globe earth mathematics with the way that the things move in the sky right or it's the based on the spherical geometry but none of that takes but none of that takes into account the fact that we do actually see in hyperbolic space none of that none of those measurements are taken into account when we're talking about the way that things are dropping or are you saying sorry when you say hyperbolic space I just want to stop you because I'm confused are you saying that this circular shape of the time lapse that night that's an artifact of our vision yeah I mean the stars are actually I'm going to be wrong what can we trust I mean what can we trust if everything is just the human lens of hyperbolic vision I understand that that's kind of your position we observe the earth is flattened on rotating and have mechanical things that work that way and you're saying despite that we are going to assume that it is a curve thing that we're living on even though it's only our vision that's curve well that's not my position my position is what do we actually have a reason to believe and we don't always have a reason to believe our senses and the reason we don't believe our senses when estimating the size of the planet is that we're much smaller than the scale of the planet and so we have to invoke some other we have to appeal to something other than our senses for that I would say that what you're doing is a sensory reification Valcy would you see why I might say that so again I'm not making the positive claim that the stars move and that means that we're on a globe right that was what your claim was and then you asked for a way for the flat earth to explain it and I offered that with the known fact that we do knowingly observe things in hyperbolic visual space this has been documented this has had scientific literature produced about it there's an actual paper that I reference in my TikTok debates all the time literally called curve direct measurements of curved visual space and it's not that the light itself is bending or anything like that but because we see in a sphere around us things project basically onto this sphere that we see and so the further away thing is basically a fancy way of saying perspective right how do you know the flatness isn't how do you know the flatness isn't an artifact of your perception well we attempt to measure it right and we see that when we do line of sight propagation i.e radio waves would be a great example that they go way too far and as a result of this the globe has had to add hawk an explanation of multiple different varying layers of electrons and density that actually bounce and reflect these signals back at the perfect angle every single time without us having to take this into account with a measurement it's just literally we shoot at line of sight as if it's right there and it just and if it's a globe it's just a crazy coincidence and what should the globe be doing to that well if it's a globe right so this is how I put it to make it make as much sense as possible so what's being claimed right now when it comes to radar waves or radio waves is that it's line of sight propagation meaning if I take a you know paper or trash ball and I throw it to the trash can directly right that's a straight shot right that's line of sight boom through it I saw it I threw it what the globe is claiming is happening is that despite us doing that we are actually bank shotting it we're throwing it up bouncing it off the ceiling and making it into the trash can still that's what the claim is from the globe even though we're not measuring it that way and obviously if I was going to throw something a bank shot versus throwing it straight on it's gonna be completely different but it's not it's the same and this is just an explanation that they've created after the fact when the other explanation was that there just was no curvature right there's no obstruction the ground isn't bending away from the signal and so the only thing we have to take into account really is the attenuation of the signal all right well we want to stop the screen share there I'm just gonna let you guys know that as per what we agreed before we started the debate here we got about 20 more minutes to go but I'm the type of person that I don't mind if people want to riff for a little longer but we do have quite a few super chats and that can turn into some riffing time too so just gonna remind our audience to get your super chats in because we are going to do the Q&A for anybody that does submit a super chat keep them friendly keep them kind and I'll read them that's usually how that works so yeah we got another 20 minutes if you guys want to keep going just let me know if not I'll stop you there all right so yeah let's kick it back over to Jen there so I think you were just coming off the screen share I guess I could hand it over to Akhil not sure how I can respond to that so spit too much information at once thanks Jen and Jen I really appreciate you taking the heavy work for me I appreciate it your knowledge is on this stuff as far as past mine so thanks can someone please address the pictures that we saw so it's a time lapse picture you see the foreground and you see the stars moving in the background how in the world is this an artifact of our vision if it's in the picture you see the foreground is not moving with the time lapse the background's moving with the time lapse so can somebody please address that because I think that that's what you were asking Jen I think how is it that we see this happening and we're able to do a time lapse of it we can do it on video we can take pictures of it we've seen many many of these and the foreground isn't moving so that means that on a flat earth the flat earth itself would have to be moving or the stars would have to be moving on a rounder can someone please address the actual images that were shown the stars are moving around the earth and the proof of this is the flight image that I or video time lapse that I showed that it still has not been addressed and where the pilot is flying over 3000 miles there's 43 degrees of calculatable change that is supposed to occur the stars are supposed to shift up 43 degrees it's every 69 miles is one degree of shift and yet in the video that I presented there is no degrees of shift in that regard there is only the clockwise rotation that we typically expect to see while looking that direction how was that possible the others let's try because it's in one place because it's just in one physical location it wasn't it was over the screen share sorry it was a plane going over a thousand miles sorry I thought you were talking about taking measurements from a single location no I was just talking about the plane that flew overhead and was supposed to fly over 43 degrees of curvature and there was none that comes back to scale we have a given scale though like the earth has a radius we know you know you guys know the scale so you should know exactly how much the earth has to curve in order the distance between the flight taking off and then flight landing and how much they wouldn't be perceptible curvature it wouldn't be perceptible curvature you'd just be maintaining a constant not a constant altitude but some type of consistency in your altitude well the claim is is that we actually use the stars to navigate because and we have a reliable reading on them because they move one degree per 69 miles so you can get gauge your general location from the stars so again that implies that when you change direction or change your relative position from the stars every 69 miles that that would equate to one degree that is the scale that's why I've already done the work for you and noted that it's 3000 miles of change which equates to 43 degrees of curvature or change or the way you would measure the curvature shift in the stars which there is none when you're making it sound like it's nothing and then something but really it's something that's happening gradually the curvature is always the same in all the places so in that sense it seems like there is none at all I'll grant you that that's why you have to start somewhere else to build up the reasoning behind the shapes otherwise you do end up stuck in these sort of holes where it's like why do we think that again how far would I need to go over six hours in order to show the stars shifting up I'm not familiar with this but can you understand that there would be two sources of movement there would be the planet moving on itself and then you moving within the planet the flood was north to the south yeah it was a north to the south quite a north yeah yeah I'd have a very capital it's game over it was north to south it should have inverted yeah it's bad for you guys there's really no explanation for it except for when you you can try to invoke scale but if you try to do that mathematically you'll see there's no way to do it and keep the actual radius value of the earth the way that the stars have to change within 3,000 miles which is demonstrable right if you're on the sea in a boat right and you move 3,000 miles your position to the stars should be different and that's supposedly different by a measurable amount again 69 degrees so again I'm judging it not just by the shift of like just two certain stars right it's the shift of the whole sky they do have two stars to a pinpoint so that you can track it but all you see during the whole time lapse is just six hours roughly worth of rotation of the sky but nothing of actually dipping up do you guys understand that if we were on a ball and there's a rotation point right that that rotation point would change to your relative position if you moved around that ball and that if that doesn't happen that's your what's a rotation point exactly like you mean the center of the planet yeah center there isn't a rotation point on the planet there's a rotation line there's a stationary line so I'm saying the optical rotation right we're the regardless of the cause of if you want to say the earth spinning or if you want to say the stars are spinning which I'm saying the stars are spinning and that you can't prove that the earth is moving or I would attribute most effects interferometry like most effects like that to the density of the material it's passing through it and what that's it's ultimately what we're interpreting is density here that's why I keep saying I have a line of logic that can get me to a global am I a hundred percent certain it's a globe I'm as certain as I can be about anything but maybe that's not that certain and I'm sort of trying to encourage the other side to show me the reasoning because I could see how you're interpreting the evidence but to me you haven't gotten past the sensory reification policy you're just repeating what you're perceiving and you're not alone in making that epistemic mistake but I believe it is nevertheless a mistake but you're asking us to form principles based on the hypothetical right you like you have with everything making more sense just if it's in spears right that's that's your opinion right that's not right and everyone's entitled to one and we should have a look at them and figure out which ones actually make the most sense and then maybe we can agree on what principle of what step of the reasoning is it that we're disagreeing because maybe both sides have some sensory reification fallacies of different types I don't think that the stars not moving in line with the globe earth prediction as even Google earth like in my opening it was right there right Google earth has it modeled and you can take the flight on Google earth and you can see how much the stars ship and that doesn't happen it completely contradicts what we see and that means it doesn't matter what our opinions are the as Ben Shapiro would say right facts don't care about our feelings who cares if we feel that a sphere is the most perfect shape right if we have a measurement it's more than a feeling though there's a logic behind it and you're saying oh that's one experiment like I've never seen it so I can't really speak to this one experiment I'd love to see it because I do like looking at this stuff but yeah to me for stuff that's beyond our media perception and I don't think the stuff our media perception we are authoritative or but stuff beyond our media perception yeah we have to invoke some type of reasoning principle and maybe most of us can't but at least on the globe side there is a set of possibly fallacious reasoning steps that I don't think anyone is actually push back on but I'd love to hear any objections to three-dimensional space or the like well it's not even just fallacious it's just like adequately debunked right I mean again if you assert that it has to be curving because of the way you feel about it but I present you in it you say one experiment right but in my opening there was several several different observations and examples of the lack of curvature what happens oftentimes when this gets presented is that they either get hand-waved away or ad hoc away and in this case it seems like they're getting hand-waved away we literally treat the earth as if it's flat we shoot a radio wave not just those but electromagnetic waves in general microwaves long-distance photography we have infrared photography that can see way further and yet that's supposed to cut through refraction which is the mechanism that allows us to see further on the globe how does that work shouldn't we see not as far if we're using infrared photography just doesn't make sense the claims that your side what if the atmosphere is a lens and that lens is bending light well that's what's taken into account with infrared right it's actually cutting through most of that refraction which the bending light is supposed to be what allows us to see further on the globe however we know from real-world observations that refraction actually obscures things it doesn't make it easier to see it makes it harder to see so and this is there's not an example that you can provide that doesn't beg the question of the globe that shows that it makes things easier to see it wouldn't predict it makes things easier to see it's more about establishing the possibility that we could see beyond the pure extrapolation of the horizon oh maybe we can see a little bit further oh it's actually because there's this lensing effect that is compressing the light that's how sunsets can get their light effect sometimes or refraction you know we can send again radio waves over the horizon transmission I think the record is 10,000 miles so again you have to invoke a bouncy layer of electrons in order to explain that and then you have to ignore the fact that they're shooting at line of sight and yeah go ahead doesn't the uh doesn't each wavelength have its own has its own horizon meaning that it can just propagate further based on the strength of the wave and the frequency so like it's not even dependent on going over curvature or hitting to any curvature it just depends on the the frequency and how much power energy you put into it to get it you know so the fact that they all have their own horizon and that there's not a an actual one to you know stop the propagation is you know it's pretty obvious right if we were going to Ockham's razor this we would say it's just propagating straight dependent on how much energy you put into it to cut through atmosphere conditions or what have you any thoughts or did you guys want to this might be a good time to go to question yeah I was just saying all of a sudden everybody just kind of maybe we came to a moment of a true natural moment of where we decided well that's the end of our open discussion so I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight and having the open discussion we're going to move into our Q&A just a reminder to keep those super chats friendly everybody I see let's see we've got over a thousand votes in our poll now 35 percent flat 49 percent globe and 17 percent banana shaped hmm yes okay well let us continue on to our Q&A and I'm gonna load this up now here's where the fun begins all right I'm not going to make any more meme references or Star Wars references all right so Sparky Steve before the debate began we were going to have Witsa on tonight Witsa's hanging out in our live chat I tried sending Witsa the message though to see about getting you on well I won't tell anybody we'll keep it a surprise but I'll send you a message Sparky Steve $10 had asked for Witsa and Kai this is important one of the last debates use did together use stated that your P90 P9 sorry P900 sorry guitar player P900 brought the sun back after sunset can you confirm if this was true or were you both lying I'm not sure if either of you fellas understand that experiment or what they were talking about there but we can just move on from there I'm sorry Sparky Steve we'll save it for the next time and we'll try to get that question answered so let's move on Caluké $2 to all CGI globe lovers avoid vaccines be smarter we don't really need to respond to that that's not really a question there again Caluké says for two dollars space agencies equal money laundering rockets to nowhere thoughts on that on our globe side I have a thought on that so I think that it will be more lucrative just to become a flat earth youtuber or a tiktoker rather than work for the government having to go in every day and all that sort of stuff that's a lot of work but you know all fun aside if you really take a look at this all you have to do is go to NASA's website and see how they're using the money plus remember I mentioned that there are independent agencies all over the world that are doing the same work so look into those and see how they're funded and all that sort of stuff there are 16 of those agencies out of 70 that are space capable as of last year so forget about the money stuff and just look at the fact that the technology has advanced okay yeah it's not money laundering when you're being funded by the government that's so funny and accurate any thoughts on the other side yeah I agree it's a money laundering extremely in a jobs program keep people's wheels spinning if you look at the experimental evidence that's been you know published papers that are done by the astronauts on the ISS to back up what the you know their experimental stuff that they do up there there's none there's no evidence no published papers no nothing that comes out of that and the history of the ISS so all the times they say they're up there looking at XYZ cell growing in a zero gravity environment so that they can better understand the effects of cancer HIV etc it's all made up they've they've produced nothing that that even shows that they're up there looking at things in zero G and I don't know how that would even how that would even matter because we don't live in a zero G environment so why you would go there to look at something growing a zero G environment and then come down to earth with this gravity and then treat something that's running under the effects of that makes no sense it's something they just tell people so that everyone assumes that science is being done and that science will take care of us science science science thank you yeah there's about thousands of pounds of science on board we're going to spend a whole day just busting out the science we have a whole room in the back dedicated to pure science and these are not my words these are actually quotes I can't remember the astronauts name but this is actually an interview that they were talking about when they were talking about what they were about to do on the ISS and then I believe he took some drugs I don't know I have to go back and take a look but yeah I tend to agree big government jobs program keeps people invested keeps people believing in the greatness that is the American dream which by the way I do love the constitution and the ideas of freedom that we get I just wish we could live up to them more all right well let's continue on with our super chats from there just making sure I'm not being my legendary self on mute here just letting our live chat know that I affectionately identify as a hop head because they always catch me drinking beer on stream I don't usually try to hide it though so it's kind of on me all right so let's continue on with our super chats here everybody we're having a great conversation tonight keep them coming in I love these super chats the you know they're fairly friendly so far so lj 499 why is the flat earth map on the UN flag Jen may have a chance to wake up but a kill is clearly too brainwashed do you still believe in Santa Claus is that to me it's the type of map making technique so I forget exactly what it is maybe there's stereographic projection but it's basically a way to get a three-dimensional surface projected onto a two-dimensional surface because the flag of UN is a two-dimensional surface pretty easy and plus we have dragons on flags and stuff like that so I don't know I mean it seems as though what's on flags doesn't really matter when you're still doing the science all right did you guys want to move on from there get it all right excellent sorry I'm just keeping a little eye on the live chat as well here just making sure everybody's behaving themselves all right Justin your membership question no curve no ball simple well thank you Justin so much for your super chat if you guys had any thoughts on that there's not too much of a question there it's more of an assertion yeah let's continue on fellas sunflower ten dollars thank you so much for being here again sunflower always a joy to see in the old live chat a kill didn't come to debate the specifics of the topic it seems rather he came to grandstand on the consensus and spew theories as to how his opposition could be so insane to believe anything otherwise it's for you akhil yeah um it was a challenge like when you read out the the stats at the very beginning as far as who believed what it's still the same in the very end right so rather than having a discussion that we've all heard before I wanted to ask a simple question which was what if you're wrong so if you're wrong and I know you're going to say you're not but what if you are so if you're wrong and the the other established science is correct then doesn't it make your mission here kind of pushing against progress that's what I was saying so I'm sorry if it sounds like grandstanding but I wanted to offer something different in the debate I feel I've done that mission accomplished if the heliocentric position was correct what we think of it it would be irrelevant wouldn't matter at all wouldn't require suppression wouldn't require censorship would require anything like that to uh to keep it within there there isn't any of that to keep it confined well that's a cool opinion you have but there's well they watch if you listen don't interrupt you can literally go watch a video of the CEO of youtube in a hearing with congress talking about how they're going to censor it so I don't anyway well just to be fair let's see what was the other things goings oh was it my bad I apologize continue never mind that's okay um but yeah where the question was for a kill uh yeah uh would you yeah I was gonna say we'll let you wrap it out there that's fine okay I'll just wrap it up hey look I'm sorry I'm hurting your feelings I apologize guys I I'm really it may sound like I'm being cynical because I am kind of because we have a very serious situation so this is bigger than us right we're talking about the shape of the earth here but we're also as I keep alluding to and to think I'm correct I think that there's science denial you said no it's not science denial we just don't agree with the science so did you bring any science to us to me hey don't interrupt so yes I brought science to the debate bear this year okay here here you are so science to the debate is what I told you about all the great accomplishments of this country right going to the moon that's pretty awesome different space agencies and things like that now you're asking to get my proof to those things you're asking if I prove those things I don't have to I'm standing on the the soldiers of those are the shoulders of those giants so your position is basically I don't have to prove these things because I rely on the consensus got it no not really but you're relying on your consensus we don't have right you do have a consensus but that's why you that's why every single one of you flat earthers sounds exactly like I'm sorry isn't the claim that flat earthers don't have a model yes because you don't have a model you have a consensus you have a consensus belief the science is incorrect we are right that's your consensus okay that's the consensus of mainstream science yeah I was just saying where you did call about I mean I don't mind you wrapping up there but yeah let's try to move through our super chats I do apologize if I cut you off there Alan but we do have quite a few questions and I think we might have more more you know substantive questions that we will get be able to get into so teabaggins for five dollars modern day debate Tribune you're my boy killing it as usual glad to see you on mdd keep up the great flat smacks hey thanks teabaggins we love a good fan super chat just some positive support for the people that came out here to have a discussion tonight that's really sweet so let's continue on ozzy gold gifted five modern day debate memberships thanks for that which gets it yeah join us for next Saturday buddy what's going on would the globe side like to emit that according to relativity it is impossible to detect earth's orbit around the sun and that's and that it's just a belief so with the globe side like to admit that according to relativity it is impossible to detect earth's orbit around the sun and that it's just a belief i guess i must be confused because i feel like we can establish that through our senses but you know i'm sorry maybe we can debate about that sometime in person you can go through the proof in detail and that's the best thing about this is that you have multiple areas of research right you have all these different areas that i was mentioning like that are all converging on the same thing you don't just go through one avenue of study like if i drove from here to mexico and just went over mountains and things like that it's not it may get me there but it may not be the best way so we got to look at all avenues in order to get to where we want to go right so that's why we don't rely on just one thing so there's varied varied many different areas of science that are bringing back data and they all converge on the same thing that's how you know that the other science is correct the scientists you left and right are correct because what you found is exactly what they found i will just add in that i believe that jen committed a uh what was a sensory fallacy yeah it looks like you caught me you're right much love all right all right well we have some agreement before the end of that super chat that's always uh that's always a nice service too we like that richie constitution ten dollars i work for a defense contractor and we test a very big missile that flies halfway around the world the missile flight path is calculated using the globe model and it works how can you explain that if i may um so i'd have to see the actual equation that you're talking about but last time somebody told me that they worked on the intercontinental ballistic missiles and told me something similar that they have to calculate for the curvature of the earth i simply went on google and looked up the equation and uh one of the top uh i believe it was the second assumption was to assume a flatten on rotating earth to get the correct trajectory so i'd have to see what equation you're talking about that's actually taking it into account all right excellent uh i was just trying to respond to unknown friend here and uh the answer to where my grilled cheese is is it was in my belly and now deep in our sewer system uh and it was a wonderful grilled cheese that my wife made me that night so uh yeah i'll continue on from there love you wifey let's go uh so which gets it again go are you aware that grandstanding built upon appeals to authority and consensus is actually fallacious thus intellectually admissible it would be if those um authorities weren't authorities so um that's that's incorrect so if they are authorities then if you appeal to them like for instance i'm not going to go to my mechanic to have them take my liver out i'm going to go to a surgeon right so the reason why we do this is because we have to appeal i mean i know what he's doing when i'm anesthetized but i don't have to i have to rely on his expertise in that field to make sure that the liver comes out correctly right so you can appeal to authorities without being fallacious in your appeal if the authorities that you're appealing to have evidence backing what and their and their um and their um authorities in their field so that's that's my understanding of it i'm sure he doesn't agree but and i'm sure that my interlocutors may not agree but that's my understanding of the appeal to authority fallacy it's not a fallacy if their actual authorities and if someone wants to show me something written down in a you know i um i'll i'll review it and i'll take back my words if they're uh incorrect and i'll just come at this a different way next time so that way i can please everyone with my with my speech all right you got it kango 44 20 i have a question for the flat earth people do your fellow uh physicists geologists uh geologists or astronomers and engineers that work with every day as you are close as you are clearly experts in these fields do they think the earth is flat couldn't tell you and i don't see how that's relevant nope that would be an appeal to authorities and uh it's a clever way to not address the arguments presented as always all right let's continue on tea baggins for two dollars thanks again for being here tea baggins and gravity is pulling down on my balls thanks tea baggins for that you know you can't baggins unless the gravity pulleth i've been playing a lot of halo lately okay so just you know it's it's bringing me back to the era so bite me xd five dollars if the earth is flat what's on the opposite side does anyone live there we just haven't met yet or is it like dirt and tree roots didn't tell you and you thought struggling tribune well i'm ashamed to admit that i was caught reading the chat and i missed the question oh they're basically asking what's they're asking uh what would be on the other side of the flat earth is oh so there is a uh an idea right speculation station right you could ask a similar question like what's at the edge of the uh universe right we don't really know but if i had to guess i'd say it's the other pole of our magnetic charge i think that our magnet are the way our magnetic field works is that we have a uh north charge or it doesn't really matter the name of it right we have a certain charge over the north that propagates over our whole plane and then the south charge that would be on the other side of it but speculation station right i don't know for sure all right you got it and i see there's more super chats pouring in so uh yeah hopefully you guys are braced for impact i'm going to ask right now just because it might seem to be a good time if any of you need to grab a drink of water or use the washroom i feel free to you know step out right quick we'll keep the super chats going though i just want to let you guys know that if we end up going a little bit longer and you're kind of sitting in your chair like oh darn it ryan come on hurry up um you feel free to step on out and use the washroom and get a drink whatever um so it's all good uh so which it gets it oh turned off as a camera so we'll just go back to screen share in a second here what it gets asks 499 a relativity necessitates kino kin kinematic the dynamic dynamic equivalents yet geocentricism doesn't have the dark matter energy problems so isn't geocentricism more viable kinematic i have to get these old glasses on because i'm using a different monitor tonight it's hard to check if i could have a chance to answer that one like yeah for sure if you're just accepting heliocentrism that's a lot less framework than the other possibilities so it's a lot easier to establish that than the extra stuff no you answered in the inverse it's this geocentrism is the one that requires less all right any thoughts over there i kill before we move on oh sorry about that i i apparently misunderstood the question is i have to address that geocentrism is less presuppositions that for it to be the center there's no justification for that it's not the largest object so i think it really doesn't have any evidence to support that the uh sorry geocentrism has no evidentiary support that is actually valid in my worldview because remember direct perception of an ant on the surface of a gigantic cosmic anthill it's not relevant all right you got it we'll continue on from there uh whisko matt five dollars says ryan is the best mod uh well thank you i i feel the love uh from you there whisko matt thank you so much you know it's always nice to hear some encouraging things about me because sometimes people think i mod too much or that i don't mod enough so it's uh it's a bit of a balancing act of kind of like okay where do i step in and when am i stepping on somebody's heels so uh i always appreciate the support there uh so the second part of his question troubling can you explain what loran is where is troubling he's still at the bathroom so why don't we just hold on to that for one second and we'll come back to it that way i can remind everybody that uh we love whisko matt just as much as he loves me uh no that's fine what to get sit for a dollar ninety nine didn't the cmb axis of evil refute helo heliocentricism i think that one's for you jim well it depends on the scale right so it's unclear what ancients thought that that's what you're asking a modern you know approach did have a helio geocentric model for a while which was then updated to heliocentric but yeah it's uh then negated by the next scale up where you realize oh the approximation that the sun was stationary is actually only an approximation that's valid for this scale when you go up to this bigger scale oh it turns out the sun is actually moving quite quickly which is one of the more baffling things that larger objects move faster i would have thought that might have been brought up during this debate but maybe in a future debate all righty uh troubling tribune is back so let's see if everything's working out here oh we just got to fix up a few people here in the zoom chat because we got a few people on the wrong side there we go everybody's looking pretty again and under the right names so troubling tribune we have a question for you my friend just hold on a second here so first off they said i'm the best mod i can't help but agree with that no i i can't help but disagree james is obviously just the code but troubling can you explain what loran is oh yeah i'd be happy to that's long range navigation it's a radio wave based navigation system so all righty there we go everybody all right so i got that zoom chat moving everybody around again we stop wiggling for a moment on screen but it's okay uh we just uh we just needed a moment to shake out our bodies the lock hunter is 999 i live in argentina i fly regularly to europe and the us i have flown direct to australia i sailed across the atlantic in a sailboat a flat earth would not work for those times and distances right i was gonna say do you want to take this one did you just cover it on globe busters yeah what was the distance again i was also reading the chat just arbitrary distances that don't work on a flat earth because of uh what's it called uh tailwinds and all that yeah they didn't put down specifically yeah so they say they don't like um yeah they said i live in argentina and i fly regularly to europe and the us i flown direct to australia i sailed across the atlantic in a sailboat a flat earth would not work for these times and distances uh it's more of a statement so i mean it's not really you know you can kind of extract a question but we can move on if you want no that's fine i can address it that's very simple in that you're starting to know all the factors and you just don't you don't know your true ground speed so you think that you do because um you have to guess it between two uh distances that are presupposed but in actuality you don't really know so oh yeah you get to jet stream on that flight you're not gonna you're not going to know it's going to be added to your ground speed but you're not going to know so that's going to affect the you know the distance traveled obviously so you would think you're doing globular distances when you're in fact not all righty let's uh move on from there i know jenna stepped out so we'll uh we'll just continue on and try to pick questions that aren't direct towards jen uh whisko man here again five dollars oh sorry troubling what is dark matter and dark energy what percent of the universe is supposedly made up of matter we can see awesome yeah dark matter and dark energy are the things in the universe that we can't see that have density that are supposed to help us fix how long mainstream cosmology is about their gravitation equations um it's about 68 i believe 60 yeah 68 percent is dark energy and then dark matter is going to be 27 percent so i think it's like 90 96 percent 95 percent of the total universe this is uh invisible stuff that you can't really measure it's just a mathematical necessity um this would be one of the ad hoc uh explanations that also uh add into making the globe unfalsifiable which means it's not scientific uh by definition all right you got it let's carry on uh the next super chat coming in from matt for two dollars i'm not sure exactly what this means maybe it's some sort of youtube thing that i'm not aware of but i i'm just gonna i'm gonna say that there's not really anything here it seems like they're suggesting somebody here is too low IQ for the debate i mean you just spent two dollars to not have your question really asked so that's fine uh what's it gets it 499 so to clarify a kill you admittedly do not understand any of the science yet you know you are correct because of your blind belief in authority no i do understand some of the science but see there's like i was saying i don't i don't think you're understanding what's it so if i'm not a surgeon right i can understand what surgery is how it works all that sort of stuff enough to get on with get on with my life i have other things to do i work to go to right so why in the world what i need to know about scalpel density and why would i need to know about the difference between sutures and all this sort of nonsense i wouldn't because it's not pertinent to my life that's why i asked the flat earthers what exactly does this mission get you what exactly okay let's put it this way with it you that you've been doing this for a while right you're you're one of the main people out there everybody's as a collective you've got a lot of hours and you've got a lot of stuff that you've been doing right so what have you accomplished you've done a lot of stuff what have you tangibly accomplished in all of this outside of being able to bring up some obscure science in some in some old book or something like that well i would like to just i don't i don't want to cut you off there akhil but um just where it is a question from one of our debaters that is on modern day debate quite often and uh yeah i quite like with it actually you know he's he's quite i don't have a problem with but uh yeah i was gonna say just to try to make sure that we're addressing the question and not attacking someone's character or anything like that um or or you know on the cusp is just because uh he's not really here to defend himself and i'm sure if he you know if we want to arrange something where you can talk to witsid i'm sure then then we can have that moment but for now we're going to try to stick to the other questions being asked uh lj we'll continue on if you don't mind lj for dollar ninety nine explain why youtube in real footage of space shows cgi youtube in anybody i used to work in video there was a job and it's pretty common to alter what you're starting out with namely optimizing brightness contrast color saturation so that we can see it as good as possible a lot of astronomical images have artificial color we don't consider those artificial though or to help us in our terrible sensory apparatus that isn't all that reliable systemically all right any thoughts anybody else do you want to move on all righty let's uh let's kick it on to the next one here let me just scroll on down the science of science for five dollars a kill does not think you should not seek to understand your own reality i think you might have injected an extra word there a kill does not think you should seek to understand your own reality that makes sense that's a question so it's more of well i shouldn't say it's a question it's more of a statement once again so if you want to respond to it you can okay and i'll try to be a little less combative sorry i um offended anyone so um i do believe that but what i've what what i believe is that we have more important work to do this is this is what i believe i believe we have more important work to do because if i was telling the truth and if i'm correct about the 70 different space agencies and the independent space agencies and space x and us being able to go back to the moon in 2024 that's more important than hey but are you sure that the rockets don't just go and land off on the other side of the earth like come on like we have more important things to do now if they're actually on the iss doing experiments and and on cancer and hiv and things like this that's way more important than i believe than what i've heard so far i don't hopefully i'm not attacking anyone what i'm just saying is this is why i keep asking what are the accomplishments did you guys want to respond to that while you're here or did you want to carry on from there you know you're on mute i think what he's trying to ask though is uh you know what what if there's like an underlying goal or something that i guess that's kind of what you're after that question so is there any like underlying goal like something that hasn't been discussed you know yet tonight as to his question i just want the truth we just want the truth baby all right that's what trouble tribune's saying oh oh it'll be you ellen did you want to respond to that or did you want to carry on with the super chats let's roll roll already excellent uh manga fan dan five dollars a slight tilt of the axis is the difference between a hundred degrees and zero degrees uh whether uh so that would be i think he's saying fahrenheit whether uh how didn't neil armstrong freeze when the moon was on the other side of the earth any thoughts i think that might be towards eugen or uh kill this isn't directly related to the topic but i guess theoretically would be a space suit all right excellent uh yeah i was gonna say it wasn't entirely you know maybe maybe save that one for when we have like a moonhooks debate you know that's always it's always fun and on the dockets but right now i'm trying to do uh and is nasa lying to us debate is what i'm trying to uh organize so um stay tuned for that lj 499 even my dog knows the moon landon was fake we are stationary back to the didn't i just say uh we are stationary there we go we're back to the topic maybe we are stationary the sun and moon our lights rotating around us what will it take for you globes to wake up um thoughts on that you have to explain to me how that's a more metaphysically parsimonious solution to my thing which doesn't involve any magical thinking or especially putting us ascribing some special position to us in the universe all right maybe it would take accomplishments it would take it would take all of this wealth of knowledge that you gather and do something with it not just ask questions and expand your thinking and things like this and put together slideshills it would take you doing something with that something worthwhile can you cure cancer can you help with hiv research can you help feed people around the around the world or i don't know put satellites around in the orbit of the flatter can you do these things the things that help us down here then yeah um that would that's what it would take for me to believe but if i could calculate the trajectory of an icbm yes but you can't so it can't be done on the globe earth it can only be done on the flatter it's literally the equation it assumes a flat non-rotating earth they assume a flight path of a parable over a flight over a flat plane so yeah so i'm going to look that up and then i'm going to come back to you with an answer i have it pulled up and yes yes and if you can do that absolutely so there's one perfect all ready oh well let's continue on from there and it looks like we have a super chat from big bad mama who is actually the first super chat i ever read on any of the streams that i hosted so glad to see you're here big bad mama for two dollars flat earth there is what was your religious upbringing once again it's off topic so if you want to just you know we can skip it or if you want to you know tell us if you had a religious upbringing or not that's up to you i had nuns whipping my hands as i was growing up and told me that if i had to write with my right hand i couldn't write with my left and that Jesus was the only way to salvation i'm just kidding i didn't have a religious upbringing at all really my parents were always working you know trying to do the right thing so i kind of found any type of religion later in life and then learn to disagree with it so i don't like using religious books or religious context to try to argue for this particular topic otherwise i would just brought up how all the other religions and cultures throughout history actually thought that we were a flat enclosed system any thoughts on your side there island or do you want to carry on carry on all right once again it's off topic and it's kind of personal so yeah it's totally up to you if you want to answer these questions that aren't related to the flat earth or the globe model there so uh what which gets it 499 gen doesn't have the globe model see that was right in my right in my vision as i was saying that gen doesn't have the globe model invokes sensory evidence all the time such as every celestial observation and the illusion that the earth is in the center that's for you gen what do you think of that well well i mean i'm not making the claim that we can get around mind dependence so i'm asserting that mind dependence is a necessity and that's what i've been trying to get back to during the debate is well if mind dependence throws this thing into the mix where we we're not sure how we can divide ourselves out of the reasoning well in spite of that what makes sense to proceed with uh further in terms of a line of inquiry in spite of not perfect sensory apparatus and that's something called logic or metaphysics and that's a central part of physics that allows us to know things with a level of certainty that we can't know with our senses because they're only evolved to be accurate in certain ways that's why whether it says fallacy to use something in your perception as evidence is actually very important philosophical concepts so i'm really glad we got at least a little bit of a chance to delve into that thing oh there we go in my little preamp button there let's carry on from there and you know what if you're hanging out you're watching this right now and you like what you're seeing super smash bros the like button everybody because that's what we like to see uh we got you know 636 watching right now let's see if we can get uh as many likes as we have people watching that would be sick oh let's carry on uh let me just grow it up here it'll just take a little bit of screwing up everybody you just have to wait a second here congo 44 $10 question for the flat people please explain the sunset please don't say perspective the sun does not change angular size as it sets so what is happening so explain sunsets but don't explain the mechanism behind sunsets got it alan go ahead you were muted yeah i was gonna say i'll pull up a video on it if you want to go to the next question i'll just share a screen when it's up and you can watch all about sunsets you know you can pull that up and i'll just explain again it was in my opening presentation right the sun uh it merges into itself when you don't have any obstruction right so that's just what we observe when you don't have the trees mountains hills and stuff in the way and uh you can't really get around that plus the horizon is always changing its location so like why is the sun setting at a potentially different location you know based on the conditions of the day right and also why do you claim it doesn't change angular size it objectively does uh slightly throughout the day i'll be it very very small and then it also does throughout the year admittedly in the mainstream globe earth model we've actually taken a video of the sun with a solar filter and counted the pixels and proved out definitively that it does in fact a change in angular size by a small bit as far as why it doesn't form a little pinpoint that's because it is above you we actually have a demonstration when objects are above you or below you your field because due to your field of view the angular size does not change nearly as much as almost we can't see your screen share yet so just hold on a second oh keep talking sorry about it it almost does the uh it almost uh man i lost my change of thought now so sorry buddy i just was looking before you played i remember now the uh angular size doesn't change uh barely at all when you're looking at it above or below you so uh thanks dave from deep inside the rabbit hole for that sorry to interrupt you there uh troubling tribute and i didn't mean to cause you to lose your thought there but yes you are screen sharing now there alan so uh yeah so right here right here we're watching a flashlight set on a warehouse floor that's completely level as the observer bit just backs away keeping at the same elevation angle the camera is pretty close to the floor what's happening here it starts to merge into the floor you can do it oh no you're finding it's your video oh it's it's uh zack's video yeah they were we're watching the sunset so this you know we should see it infinitely and see from new york to england or whatever but you know in a warehouse you can't even do it so as as as you get further away it just you know there's something called riley's criterion and that's basically what we're seeing here and the light is diffusing and we're actually seeing the right uh what is it angle of incidence where the light is traveling at just the right angle to reflect the floor and you'll see this at the beach all the time funny thing is if you try to take a theatolite measurement to the horizon you will mistakenly uh think that the false horizon the dark line of the water is the actual horizon you will miss the reflection entirely unless you have a boat or some birds or something there to show you that it's reflecting thoughts on the other side i'm working with warehouses a lot was the warehouse floor level because i've never seen a warehouse floor is level ever pretty close but not not level sure it was the sun is getting really far away as it's setting it is but remember the claim also is that uh that the setting itself is only possible due to the geometry of it right and it is known right that the flashlight is obviously above the level of the camera you can see from earlier on as it moves back it appears to sink below it this flies in the face of all the surveyors that say that the dipping on the horizon is proof of the curvature oh those those videos just CGI all right so you agree the sun has to get really far away then when it sets yeah is that right all right let's end the screen share there because we're just looking at a pile on now oh my bad i apologize i'm done that's all right i keep assuming that it's going to end automatically somehow and i'm not in charge of it but it's me i only got the one screen now and actually i think somebody else's screen share and zoom is like three steps so it's uh right yeah not a quick thing and everybody can see it too so it's easy to ask but anyways thank you so much and thanks everybody for chiming in there um let's continue on and uh i think i have a question coming up here i was reading one let's see okay there's quite a few guys as i scroll up here my my fingers can be tired from all this scrolling i tell you all right so brutally honest for 11 euros question for flat earthers one if earth is flat what's on the other side well brutally honest i'll be brutally honest we answered that question already so let's move to two if earth is flat would that mean that there is an end or an edge any thoughts there troubling tribune or alan sure if there's an edge then it would be in the area that we're not able to freely and uh adequately explore without the government holding our hand and keeping us in specific areas and safe zones um for our own protection of course because Antarctica is so dangerous um but that is also assuming that there even is an edge right we could just be the bottom of the universe um this could be all that there is right and would you say that there's an edge to that uh not so sure i could easily just turn the question around and say where's the edge to the universe right any thoughts over there alan nope let's continue all right continuing on with the question here from brutally honest um says this um sorry we mean that there's an edge this flat plump of earth agreed i'm not sure what they mean by that believe moon and so yeah the only other part of their question here they're asking do you believe that the moon or other planets are flat as well i don't believe they're physical objects i don't believe they have any correlation to what's on the ground and to assume that they do is fallacious and proof that you're indoctrinated into a story all right excellent well let's try to continue on there everybody and keep your super chats coming in and i'm gonna stop trying to hit the youtube button when i'm trying to hit the top chat here uh because that reloads everything and then it makes it hard for me to get back to the uh the questions that's my bad uh so let's continue on and like i said hit the like everybody share this out in your contentious spaces we love a good debate over here modern day debate alex for five dollars still no unified model of day and night and seasons i see thoughts on the flat earth side sorry what's the question about the seasons yeah i think they're asking about having a model for day night and seasons and they must have been yeah they must be super late to the debate no offense so yeah on the flat earth uh cosmology if you will we have a smaller and more local sun it navigates between the uh capricorn sorry the um brain farting on the word the uh capricorn and uh topic yeah the tropics sorry total brain fart moment there yeah it goes between the two tropics throughout the year this is uh this is obvious when you look at the anelima and which gives us the small loop for the smaller uh northern uh circle and then the bigger loop for the wider southern uh hemispheric circle if that's what you want to call it and yeah the relative positioning of the sun over the earth and how much sunlight it gets uh for its angle is what determines the season so it's pretty much the same explanation that the globe earth has it's just a different scale yeah the welter-bislin model like will help you you know visually see it perfectly all righty well let's continue on from there and thank you uh for your super chat there uh yeah so uh let's keep these try to keep them in order here uh witsig gets it it was back again for 499 if you are flying in a convex path over a globe then the stars must shift up one degree every 69 miles this is basic geometry why doesn't it happen oh we're going right for it everybody right into the screen share warren a fella all right there we go oh that was to the older question sorry i was looking for that oh about the uh the seasons oh yes yeah the sun just moves over top of this it's pretty strange sorry i thought i didn't know who was screen sharing at the at that moment so i thought uh i thought somebody who was answering the question there was uh screen sharing so yeah um this is from witsig so naturally it's for the globe side uh is asking about if you're flying in a convex path over a globe then the stars must shift up one degree every 69 miles this is basic geometry why doesn't it happen i think this has been brought up before a few times i'm not familiar with this so if it's possible to get a link to this research and then i can look it over and acknowledge it because i'd really be guessing with regards to interpreting it as to what the effect is and i think that would be a bit irresponsible is that you link oh thanks did you in email or just a private chat here zoom chat thank you i'll check it out all right excellent uh witsig gets it again 499 please address the fact that the plane shows the stars did not change position 43 degrees as geometrically necessary and necessitated by the globe model or game over any thoughts there so witsig is asking sorry go ahead i was just saying not even an attempt to explain what could be happening there if it's if we are in fact on a globe not for me it's witsig i'm not allowed it's witsig i'm not no you could talk you're gonna answer the question all you want that's fine i you know like i said i'd like to like to arrange something if we were going to talk about witsig himself but the question was please address the fact the plane shows the stars did not change position 43 degrees as geometrically necessitated by the globe model what's to referring to the plane observation that i brought up in the beginning of the show i'll look back at that all right excellent let's uh let's carry on here because we do still have quite a few super chats cat what are you doing get out of here all right rick right five dollars achille other than religious pictures do you have one proof of a ball earth um many yeah um so we have did you say other than religious pictures other than pictures other than pictures so we have the hemowari satellite that's uh on a constant stream that you can look up right now elon musk launched a tesla into space didn't he and uh you're able to see the earth from there um those aren't pictures right um so we went to the moon i guess that's a pretty good one right we're able to see the earth from the moon there's more than just pictures when you look into that so i'm not sure if he's saying that all images are incorrect um which is weird because we've been showing a lot of images in video and pictures um from the flatter side so i i say that uh why not just accept the ones that are showing us the earth is round from space oh i do apologize they did say religious but um i don't think it was very pertinent to your i think i think what they're trying to say i think it's a dig i think they're trying to say it's religious pictures it's religious to believe in the earth being round so any pictures would be part of my religion so to speak i guess and i'm a christian all right uh flanker 420 10 i am an astrophotographer and i take pictures of galaxies planets in the sun regularly i can see the planet as spherical without a doubt sun also rotates and spherical with filter am i lying well you're just incorrect spicy spicy spicy anything uh on your side there alan any thoughts for that negative let's continue all right jerry held felt uh a hundred knock i'm not sure what that is flat earthers why do the stars viewed from the northern hemispheres appear to rotate counter clockwise and the stars from the southern hemisphere appear to rotate clockwise it's a different optical convergence point any thoughts over there alan or do you want to carry on yeah i'll find a video showing a model of it but basically what he just said i'll find those the video to supplement that claim so you can see a visual representation of it because it's easier to see it than it is to explain it all right well you look that up let's carry on orine calcay for two dollars verifying polaris at 432 light years ago uh earth equals religion um i'm not sure if there's much for question there but thank you for the two dollars one mic debates for two dollars akhil should flat earth be censored if so why absolutely not i don't believe in censorship um of people's ideas so this is why i was asking the questions that i was asking i was i'm saying what if you're wrong about this then what i was also saying what is this leading to what's the end so i don't think that they should be censored at all i think that i it's admirable for people to try to find out answers what i'm saying is you if you have if you have all these answers up to today from the past till now you're standing on the shoulders of those giants in the in your next answers and in your further research this is how and this is how all research works this is how all science works so i i don't think it should be censored at all i think that it should be um enjoy by the people who enjoy it all right uh i think alan's going back to our question here from before so thank you so much for for your super chat and thank you akil for answering the super chat there so going back uh alan wants to answer the uh the question from before there so we'll just refresh what that was uh the question was do do do um flat earth is wide yeah the northern hemisphere versus the southern hemisphere just to remind our audience so this is what uh what we'll be addressing here so alan the floor is all yours yeah so it's perspective in what uh tribune said about the counter convergence point so i'll show the anti-capuscular ray uh video here after this plays out but um there's no issue here it's literally just a perspective thing while this plays out you can continue with the next question if you want like these are just videos to follow up on it or follow up on the course they're not going to answer so well i mean yeah if they i was to say if jenn or akil want to uh respond to what you said there that's it's up to them or if yeah that doesn't i just find it a little funny that they have the video has to invoke a sphere shape to make its point but yeah that's all i had to say spherical vision of course it invokes a sphere all right there's the screen share if you don't mind just real that's kind of like the whole crux of like the misunderstanding right is that um we're not saying that there's not spherical geometry at play you're simply saying that it's the ground that we're standing on we're saying it's the vision of which we're perceiving everything through that's very well said all righty uh well let's move on from there um unless you guys had any other thoughts about that uh we'll carry on with our super chats if you want to end the screen share there and uh yeah this right here just so people understand the importance of what's happening this is the verification of what we're talking about when we say we see in a sphere in a dome around us because we literally have these light rays are supposedly coming in parallel you can see the picture right here where they diverge and then converge back this is literally the dome of vision manifested thanks to solid beams of light all righty well let's carry on from there what a curve or sorry what underscore curve 499 like hill claims nasa technology has gotten better but they haven't been to the moon in over 50 years how long until you figure out they never went all right uh this isn't on topic but we'll give it 30 you know 30 seconds over to you a kill uh exclusive here um yeah it claims that yeah the technology has gotten better why haven't we been to the moon in over 50 years that's what they're asking that's that's that's a really good question so we'll answer that next year all righty well that was our first super chat from what occurred or what underscore curve sorry so uh thank you for that what underscore curve and uh we'll continue on from there Rashad JD 92 and i'm sorry if i'm hurrying along with some of the super chats guys we do have quite a few of them and our speakers only did consent to be here for so long so we do want to try to uh stay within some of the bounds of uh respect here for their time um but you know this is interesting we're having fun so keep them coming if you got them but we're going to try to uh get through them so Rashad JD 92 499 a kill stop debating with your feelings and emotions and actually rebut anything tribune and alan has said tonight um not really a question but thank you for your first super chat um i mean you you can kind of answer do you do you think you've been debating from feelings and emotions tonight uh no i've been not debating from feelings and emotions because i've said we have done these things i didn't say i think we have say we have done these things so i'm claiming to know i'm playing i'm saying i in the affirmative that yes we did these things and yes we're still doing these things and next year we're going back to the moon and if we go back to the moon next year the the people the people that are giving the super chats they're not going to say oh man it's over with we went there they're going to ask well why what about this and what about that that's what's going to happen it's not like we could give you any proof that's going to get you out of what you're believing that's why the numbers didn't change in the very end jen gave a very strong showing of all the information that we needed to say on our side uh i believe i was appealing to something else i was trying to talk to your feelings and emotions all righty well let's carry on there and i'm so sorry jen that we haven't had too many questions for you yet um but feel free to jump in anytime uh you know if you hear something you're like well i got a thoughts on that uh Valerie st mary for 499 achille do you assert the dangerous opinions should be censored we kind of already had that question but you have a follow up if so would that censorship qualify as an american so i think they're hitting you up on the free speech i don't think that yeah i i believe in free speech so i don't believe that dangerous opinions should be um should be censored because how do who's going to be the judge of the danger now if someone is saying hey you actively do this and then someone does it and it's a danger then we handle that through the illegal process at the end i don't think that um what people say should be censored no all right run boston bear ten dollars does the fact that the stars did not change 43 degrees like the glow predicts prove the sky is parallel to the earth let's kick it over to you jen is that actually for us well i think it is so um doesn't the fact that the stars did not change 43 degrees like the glow predicts prove that the sky is parallel to the earth i'm just not going to take any questions on this uh experiment because i haven't seen it and i i don't understand it well enough to give an opinion i feel like it would be imprudent sorry that's fine you know you're being honest if you don't uh have an answer for that uh super chat but you know jen says she's going to look into that uh did you have an answer for our super chatter here tonight kill on the uh the 43 degrees that they're saying here uh or did you know no that that was what i said previously i i'm gonna have to look at whatever they're pointing to um and and study it i no all right well so sorry about that run boston bear uh about uh both of our uh speakers said that we'll look into it and uh maybe next time we host them uh we'll have a an answer for you there an explanation uh so uh stay tuned david five dollars do the globes not find the an arctic treaty suspect all these countries are at odds but all agree that no one can freely or independently explore it uh so jen uh thoughts over there oh i could see how you think it was suspicious but i don't think that that implies that we should be skeptical about the reported shape of the planet to be any number of things and i think just sort of phenomenally conservatively can pretty much shock it up to a military security they want to limit how many planes can make that journey so feel free to disagree with that but i you'd have to make a few more arguments uh before can't before restrictions on an arctic flights therefore earth flat well it looks like troubling tribune has some thoughts there so uh troubling tribune uh you look like you have something to say there if you want to chime in i was actually i had something in the background going on that i uh almost messed up on and almost caused a horrible echo and ruined the show so oh well i you didn't ruin anything over here as far as i know so uh all's good i just saw you had a smile on your face and i was like okay i think he wants to engage with this here so uh let's carry on then nominal for five dollars thank you so much for your super chat and i also thank you david uh and everybody else who's put in a super chat if i forgot to say thank you does the globe side have proof of dark matter or is it more of a faith thing i'll go ahead and admit that there's very limited evidence for dark matter but then i would say that not everything can be evidence something has to ground your evidence so if we're looking at a panpsychist model you can't prove consciousness because consciousness is everything so it's impossible to get outside of it materially i'm not saying it's the same way argument i just want to give an example it's a complicated question but i hope that's at least uh gives you a small taste of the answer all right any thoughts over there akhil no all right well we'll carry on from there the union ranger for five dollars thank you so much for your super chat for flat earth all you have is mythology and here say you have nothing to prove the flat earth wake up and accept reality well that's not very kind on the end there um but i know the one thing that maybe we could get extracted from that is uh he's he's declaring that all you have is mythology what are your thoughts um i'm wondering if he can even define what mythology is considering that i presented at least two valid observations uh to um scrutinize right you know we don't have to rely on mythology or old stories in fact the only side that has invoked history and all of science as a some sort of proof of their claim would be the globe side any thoughts there alan i agree with your view let's move forward all right uh richie constitution for five dollars back to you tt i'm telling you we do use the earth's curvature in the equation and it works why would i lie what do i have to gain i mean in this moment right here clout at least not saying that you're uh incorrect i'm just asking for you to present the evidence right it's since you're able to type and write and you know it just type the equation into the chat into the question and have me address it make sure to super chat the equation though so we can double dip on the on the money that we're not answering it for free guys come on our moderator stepped away pandemonium baby all right how about that awkward silence boys all right let's carry on welcome back so welcome back you guys didn't tear each other's head off that's great as i was expecting to come back and would just be a roughest now you guys have been great tonight honestly everybody's been fantastic so uh appreciate everybody coming out and we're getting near the end of our super chat so uh we'll get through the rest of these nominal five dollars a kill if the globe is reality why would you use a fake picture of it as your background because because um i like art i'm an artist so i like cool things um i play destiny too a lot none of those um none of those planets are real you know why would i even travel to them if if the earth is reality this is a not sequitur um there are pictures of the earth okay all righty well let's carry on from there and yeah at this point we've got over 1400 votes in our poll so keep those coming in keep hitting that like button uh as we are winding down on the last of our super chats everybody uh so uh let's keep it going so oh sorry i uh lost that there wit twit says for 499 question for the globe earthers what was your religious upbringing uh personal question off topic so you can pass or answer if you'd like i was raised catholic all right um christian and i was a pastor for 10 years all right well let's carry on and thank you for answering that question matt for two dollars um once again i'm not sure what this means and sometimes i'm curious if on i'm saying things that are off brand so matt once again uh wasn't your last super chat about iq or something like that you just spent two dollars again to ask no question that sucks awesome loss and awesome loss and clips for five dollars tribune show the airplane footage time lapse from taboo again please and explain maybe ask jen to open her eyes okay well the last of that's a little bit spicy but um was there a miscommunication with the error the airplane footage time lapse that you'd shown i guess that'd be a question for you guys i mean i i felt like i've made my position pretty clear i just didn't see it so i think it must have just flown by too quickly for me if you want i this is the one i was saying i would like to see again let's do that um let's bring that up all right videos up boys all right here we go okay let's get to the relevant part i'm not sure if we're able to hear you are you trying to oh one sec i don't think i shared the audio properly that's okay you don't really need the audio yeah it's real audio yeah so yeah i was gonna say basically what he's saying here it's a 6000 mile flight the recording is for 3000 miles so the section we're going to be looking at is between here and here and then this is video footage of the plane in route so these two stars here are going to serve as our reference stars so as the plane travels 6000 miles 3000 in the case of the footage these two stars should be displaced by 43 degrees every 69 degrees there's a change in the elevation angle you know necessitated by the globe that's how uh you know celestial navigation works on the globe like this is where the relevance is coming to or coming from in terms of uh you know the so you know how you saw the celestial sphere model earlier and you said they have to be a celestial sphere i find it funny or whatever well so if the celestial sphere model was truly a sphere these two stars here as this plane moves towards them and is going down the globe they should be displaced upwards and there should be new stars beneath them but what actually happens is these two stars right here just move to the right and this is consistent and this is consistent with the model that Tribune was showing um where there's you know a plane of of stars above us and we see in curved visual space as noted by the corpuscular and anti-copuscular rays this is forming what we see uh in space so we see in this curved dome so everything we see uh is in relation to that now if the earth were actually curved and this plane was traveling you know along the curvature of the earth over 6000 miles um you know that would have to be accounted for and like i said the displacement of the stars would be would show that corresponded 60 or would correspond to that displacement 69 degrees to the mile so we're going to continue with the i'll just play it fast um and we'll just see that the stars do not go under the horizon they don't go under you they go to the side and there's no there's no i'm sorry they don't they don't rise up correctly the way that they should on the globe this is such a death flow let's try to get to the video here let's see what you got here it's completely flies in the face of the globe earth geometry thoughts over there jen and to kill while we are looking at this i don't have the greatest geometric intuition so i probably need more than like 30 seconds to familiarize myself with this idea this is really the first time i've had a chance to see it but i look forward to uh seeing what this is all about you can do the reverse of it if you put a sharpie mark it on a ball and turn the ball you'll notice that the sharpie turns in relation with the ball so that's exactly what we're doing here only it's like you've got your marker up right we have the stars and google earth shows us exactly what should happen that's the part that's about to play next i mean this is not just us claiming what should happen on the globe this is what mathematically is necessitated and this is also what google earth tells us should happen but it doesn't so so let me just ask you so how do you know the speed of the plane the speed is relevant so you said that the stars should be doing one thing but they're doing something else right are you looking from outside of you're looking from outside the plane window no inside of what should happen where are you looking from inside the cockpit of the plane so the planes flying straight and you're looking from inside the cockpit i'm gonna have to take a look at this because the you can see in the in the very bottom this plane at the very bottom is isn't staying straight so i'm not able to my my my eyes are not able to fix on like what's actually happening yeah there's a slight correction where they have to adjust their heading that is noted but again the whole flight path is is outlined right there so again you do see the stars shift and this is a thing that's even more damning for the globe right if you because it's when the plane actually shifts its heading you can actually see the stars shift but one thing that you don't see even though they're not ever going due west right that the only way that this would work on a globe is if they were going due west from east because that's the exact direction of the star rotation right and then even then they would have to be going at the exact speed as the relative star rotation over the earth that's another whammy that is very improbable so this is not what's happening so guys i am capable of debating these topics i know that i didn't do that proficiently that was on my goal tonight but so what i'm going to do is i got to take a look into this and i promise you i'll do my homework and i'll find out some information and i will find some way to get that to you people in the chat are saying there's no sound yep bugger's there's no sound ah see that's the worst isn't that the worst everybody now i gotta explain all that again and it's just it's nonsense about me you see because angel quiles asked me uh ryan plug your music channel and i went on a logging on the mute that's because i had to step out for a second there and tell that cat to mess off uh so yeah if uh if you're hearing into the music on modern day debate that's made between me and my buddy josh um that's uh cosmic breach uh you can still find us on facebook i think he's doing our tiktok thing as well and we got lots of clips there um but uh majority it's just a facebook thing and i've got uh something pretty shreddy i'm gonna close the show the show out with so um yeah don't mind me and my mute button i had to happen once i had to happen once everybody uh so uh i wouldn't be on brand if it didn't happen at least one time and my other main group is like a led zeppelin judas priest cover group which is called light and shade which you can find on facebook so if you want to like see a fairly decent version of me screaming stairway to heaven the forbidden guitar center song uh go check that out so that's all the plugging i'm going to do and now that i'm not on mute and uh now you can go see how loud i can be elsewhere run boston bear for ten dollars troubling and alan you were global believers before correct have you found freedom in peace coming out from under the globe deception make sure i'm not muted awesome yeah make sure you're not muted that's that's the pro measure right there so uh yeah uh alan's back now so i'm gonna re ask the question and if we were muted hey alan can you hear us yes sir sorry about that my internet no uh it's okay that happens the best of us and uh i definitely don't claim to be anything but the uh most mediocre uh myself so you know it could certainly happen to anybody so question we have from run boston bear troubling and alan you were global believers before correct have you found freedom in peace club coming out from under the globe deception yeah so what led me to you know disavowing the globe was the lack of evidence upon further investigation so uh you know like things like this starch rail that have been presented here there were other things you know that that i came across that weren't answerable uh or that didn't provide a sufficient evidence in terms of being actual proof of the globe not something that could work either way or something that upon further investigation reveals that it doesn't actually work on a globe or uh or anything like that so you know there it's it's the it's the lack of evidence for the for the for the globe the positive claim right so me and tribute showed up here with uh you know evidence to falsify the current model and the other two people you know showed up with not that no evidence and just talking about you know quote-unquote past achievements that nobody could verify and all the evidence is deleted and all that so it's not uh it's not really it's not really comparable when you're when you take it from an approach of assuming all this stuff is true and verified and there's some scientific community out there to care of everything these people all believe in you know mathematics and stuff and the one of the big things that i found as of recent was that there's a huge break in covariance in terms of general and special relativity and the the non-adressing of this is what is allowing the that's facilitating the the propagation of space time to continue on as if it's a true thing so when they talk about oh we we invoke this reference frame and that reference frame well to to maintain the laws of physics and make sure that that's a valid equation and a valid presupposition to assert the laws of physics have to maintain uh or have to be invariant under transformations right so uh that's that's a that's a huge crux of it with gps and the speed of light being shown to have a varying speed and all interferometry it completely invalidates everything they say about space space and space time and the merger of the two where they say that you know space and time actually contract and dilate and you know relative to how fast you're moving or how much gravitational uh influence you're experiencing and none of that is true at all because the two fundamental postulates that it's built on all reference frames are equally valid in the speed of light is independent of the source or observer or the speed anyway uh it has been falsified so there's no justification to contract time or merge it with space and and all that it's it's complete nonsense that's uh it's an abstract concept that's been attributed to physicality so that they so that people can uh and you know pretend yep sure thing undone that was it oh well sweet i was calling that pretty good i was like hey it feels like he's getting near the end of his uh of your thought there so um yeah we're getting near like i said the end of our super chats but we're uh well not really but we are going to try to keep uh keep them rolling pretty quick here so uh congo 44 five dollars flat earthers heavily censored dissenting voices on their platforms reddit karan b and discord all banned people who don't pair at the flat earth so if you found that troubling tribune um and allen that in your spaces um that people that don't agree are usually silenced in those places so you have a good tribune take that one yeah i'm uh on my debate channel um we censor the crap out of people it's relentless we make no uh fuss about it make no bones right we censor the heck out of people who are using very nasty language people who are character attacking people who are spamming the chat right just real bad annoyances that nobody wants to deal with we will get rid of you um but we won't get rid of people who just disagree no already well you heard it here everybody so uh let's continue that on there uh somebody said the cat was flat smacking me well that's funny i mean he's he's got little beans for pause so um be that as it may so uh let's carry on uh yeah let's uh let's throw another what's it good what's it had a few uh questions here so i'm going to throw a few and intermittently just to try to bleed them out what's it gets it for dollar ninety nine akhil can you define appeal to emotion yes and appeal to emotion and this is what i'm telling you i did it's where you try to say hey don't you feel that blank blank blank blank and then the person on the other side is supposed to if they reacted the way that i would want them to react they would say wow you know what yeah i feel that you know it you're right because you made that point like hey don't you feel that it's it's anti science or anti you know this or anti that and then the other side would say wow yeah you know what you're right that's what i was trying to do i'm not i'm not making any bones about that and if it's a fallacy so what i don't care that that's a fallacy because that was my point i was trying to use a fallacy i thought that the other side would start to feel a little something like you know what yeah you know yeah that makes sense completely back there you go woodset we'll carry on from there congo forty four twenty dollars question for flats so can you bring back the sun after the sun set with a telescope if that's what you think why does it get dark well that's going to be due to the attenuation of lights no you can't bring the sun set back up once it is completely and utterly set behind any ability to bring that light to the lens right the the lens cannot magnify what doesn't come to it so i hope that addresses that all right any thoughts on the other side do you want to carry on um i don't think that that does address it but what he's what they're saying is the earth being flat if the if the sun doesn't matter how small it gets if it if it's going into the into the distance you how far are you saying this has to be because telescopes should be able to bring it back that's why they're not telling you they're not asking about p nine thousands or nine hundreds they're asking you about telescopes they're saying hey what about using a telescope why can't you bring it back if the earth is actually flat you should be able to so if not where are you saying the sun is yeah it just shows a complete lack of understanding in in the way that light travels and how telescopes binoculars glasses how the stuff actually works right you can only magnify light that actually hits the lens if for some reason like via refraction or riley's criteria where the light actually scatters and attunes meaning the the apnos actually absorbs the light then that light particle or wave however you want to look at it is not going to get to the lens will it and if it doesn't get to the lens it's not going to be magnified and if that doesn't happen you're going to erroneously assume that it's earth curve but you'll still see the stars what about it do you not get this like it's a red herring how in the world how in the world if you're looking out let's say you just had a telescope and it's hitting out of my window right now and it's looking at the sun and i followed the sun all the way down to where it sets it's gone i can't magnify i can't go all the way in because you said the refraction and there's no way to do that because it's not hitting the lens but you see the stars no you don't see the stars once they get down low to the horizon either do you they set as well so oh my god do okay you know what you know what i think you should do is i think you should have a video of the sunset where you can see stars there then then you'll see what i'm talking about because i don't think that you're getting what i'm saying but it's like i didn't get what you were saying with your video you don't get what i'm saying i get what you're saying it just doesn't uh it's not a proof of anything right you're trying to say that because the stars are so far away you shouldn't be able to see them due to the attenuation or the dispersing of the light through the atnose but the thing is is that it's coming at a completely different field of view it's not coming through the thick of the atnose it's coming from the sky where it's the thinnest right that's the same in both of our paradigms that it's thinner up there so what mechanism would it stop the starlight from getting to us if it's above us versus when it's low on the horizon and it has to go through all the muck and the trees and the houses and all that other good stuff all righty uh into the break for 499 uh that's a bit of an ad hominem my friends so uh i'm sorry i'm not going to read your super chat this evening we got lots of super chats that are on topic but we really appreciate your support uh you know but uh try to keep it to the topic wisco matt five dollars troubling can you explain what einstein had to invoke in order to explain a way the results of um michelson morally retraction time dilation etc i'm not sure if i said that right but although i can um i would much rather if uh allen from space audits does it because he's deals with this more directly than i do so i feel like he'd be able to say it a little bit better yeah so what did einstein have to invoke so the results gave you know they say a quote unquote no they're the friendship pattern that showed wasn't consistent with what they needed to say you know to experimentally verify that the that the earth is moving around the sun so the rents came along and he said well hey maybe you know they're still in ether but it's compressing the apparatus and you know he kind of he kind of ad hoc came up with length contraction due to the apparatus moving through the ether and like that contracted it so it gave a slight displacement but the real overall take away from this slight displacement that caused the the baby friendship pattern not getting pulled around now was that uh the speed of light is actually from that einstein came along i'm sorry am i lagging you are lagging a little bit but it's kind of catching up with you so if you speak just a little yeah i'll give it a sec yeah i'll give it a sec all right well we'll try to move on to our next if that's all right we'll move on to the next super chat if that's okay essentially just answer the question super duper quick what did einstein have to invoke to explain away the michaelson moorley results an entire new uh physiological model right he had to invoke a special relativity general relativity and um interchangeable reference frames as well as length contraction um to explain away these results all right excellent let's move on to the next question here and uh you know you guys love this debate so much i can tell in the live chat that you're loving it because you're asking so many questions we're never going to be able to let these guys go if you guys keep this up um you know but we do really appreciate the the questions but also hit the like button you know don't just uh don't just hang out in the live chat hit the like button we like that as well uh the luck hunters coming back again from 999 says i sail and fly from argentina to other places in the southern hemisphere i know my speed over ground uh jet stream excuse is nonsense especially in a boat thoughts on that how do you know your speed over the ground all righty any thoughts from you all in there do you want to move on nope let's continue on i agree with your being all right well thank you the luck hunters for your super chat there which gets it for 499 on a spherical earth the sky must change one degree per 69 miles the plane time lapse showed that objectivity did not happen so globe debunked right uh over to you jen for that one just to say my example again i i haven't looked at it yet so i don't know how to answer yeah i'm sorry i didn't mean to really pass that off to you i should have picked up on that right away there yeah well they said they'll look into it and maybe we'll uh we'll get everybody back together and have a discussion on that since witsa you uh i you clearly wanted to be in here in the debate tonight because you've got a lot of questions there um into the break 499 a kill what does coming on to a debate for a topic you have no comprehensive you know what that's an ad home that's an ad home and i'm reading it and i should have all right i did i have both here i can take them if you want he's saying you have no comprehension of this topic um like i said it's not really relevant to the topic well but here's the here's my quick answer to this right so you know the the old saying do your own research right so if if i were to be competent in so have you know has this person not watched these debates one person one side has a their ton of facts the other side has their ton of facts so at the very end of the debate nobody swayed so i came to the debate to offer something different i said that at the very top i'm sure i wasn't listened to by this person but i said at the very top i'm trying to bring something different like an appeal to emotion right or appeal to patriotism or something like that i wanted i wanted to bring some of that into this debate the next debate i have i promise you i'm going to ask what topics there are that are going to be debated and i will do my research all right well you heard it here and the next one coming in for jen from Valerie st mary for 499 at what point in your daily life sees to rely on your own resec on your own senses so at what point do you in your daily life sees to rely on your own senses at what point does your personal sensory input become fallacious i saw this question a while ago and i really like it so thank you for asking it it's something we could probably all benefit from taking a bit deeper look at so just start with something simple the appearance to me the appearance of suffering is epistemically the same thing as suffering because if it appears to me that i'm suffering or if i actually am suffering that's the same they're both not great so that's what i use for my guiding principle when it's relevant how i should feel about something but with the planet i don't really have any feelings about it it's shapes not causing me suffering at least not directly so the minimizing of suffering which would be the principle by which i operate would just be to get the shape of the planet right so to answer your question is senses perception is important if direct experience of suffering is important but it's not really important when you're talking about something that is outside of your own scale like the size of the planet what's important there is how you reason your way to the answer which may or may not have anything to do with perception i think it's important to take a deeper look at that stuff so thanks again all ready well that one there for jen let's carry on and we are getting i think finally closer to near the end of the super chats though they keep pouring in so we'll try to keep them just for the one side there that they're addressed to so mike now home to both sides of mike did you not just hear what i said all right to both sides please explain why the north star appears higher in the sky the further north on earth you travel my turn for that troubling tribune sure start up here awesome so yeah the north star is above the north right so it makes sense that the closer you get there it's going to be up at the zenith basically what you're trying to allude to is the geometry of it means that it probably has to be some sort of curvature right but again we've addressed this with the current visual space the stars can all be on a plane above us and again because you're closer relatively to the north star right it's going to be higher in elevation but there's a point right it can't be higher than perfectly 90 degrees right so once you get to there it can only get lower on the horizon well let's kick it over to jen uh to give your thoughts on that one there we'll just bounce it back and forth here is it i'm not sure i understand that are they trying to under they're asking why the north star is higher when you're at the north pole yeah is that the question yeah i can read it again if you'd like um let me just get back here into our super chats because i am keeping an eye on you fellas in the uh the live chat making sure you're behaving yourselves they are sort of all right so uh scroll up here how did i lose this one now uh yeah they were asking yeah the north star how it appears to both sides yeah please explain why the north star appears higher in the sky the further north on earth you travel so yeah yeah you had it i think framed correctly there so just think just think about a sphere i don't actually have this sphere model here we just think about a sphere and the north star is above it if you're on the underside of the sphere you can't see the north star at all so it doesn't it's not above or below or anything it or the angle isn't it just doesn't exist when you're in the under it in theory i don't actually even know let's just say hypothetically it is but anyway when you get to the hemisphere like the center of the world it'll be really low and then as you get higher up it'll be directly above you so just think of every position being a deviation from when it's directly above you which is the as troubling tribune agreed the maximum that it can be above you and every other position is going to be less than that less than a hundred percent above you all righty well this one is coming in from uh let's see your sparky steve for uh 10 euros uh oh no sorry that's that's right to the top this copy and paste is not working out for me let me get rid of this and yeah this is what i get for uh moving my setup out to the living room here but it's the weekday and my wife has to work tomorrow so ryan's got to move this system out to the living room that's just the way it goes and i think that's fine so let's grab one samuel for two dollars canadian hey a fellow canadian a fake picture is worth a million fallacies to the globe side i think once again he's commenting on your background photo everybody stop stop picking stop picking on a kill's background photo there i i think it looks i think it looks uh aesthetic you know the everybody's got a good look about them tonight is not really a photo i'm actually in space oh you hear that everybody that's uh now that's something to to be to debate about all right is a kill actually in space we're going to hit the important one next time run boston bear five dollars all observations admittedly match a central earth so doesn't the idea it's an illusion require blind belief well you're putting a lot of belief into your sensory perception like on what basis are you judging that we feel like we're in the center your perception partially made that judgment but then you can invoke other stuff like inferences to the mass of the planet and think along the lines like well what reason would we have to believe that we had a privileged position in the universe i were in the center but if you back up even further than that you realize that a center of the universe doesn't even make sense as a concept center is something in a finite object and the universe is infinite all right well we have more super chats roll and then so let's carry on samuel for five dollars canadian kill what is more important to contemplate on your free time your daily work routine or the reality of your world how you are or not manipulated um i believe that that's up to the person so i think that it's up to i feel it's more important to build a good life for my family and things along those lines and to focus on artistic endeavors and you know um as opposed to whether i'm not i'm being manipulated or lied to because if i were being manipulated and lied to right now it is not affecting me in any way if so if everyone's going to say no but it is answer me how it's affecting me if i'm being manipulated like for instance here's here's a thought experiment if we are um boltzmann brains and we're just the brain in a vat in the vat somewhere um it doesn't matter because that's our reality that we know so sure i could contemplate on how i'm being lied to and all these conspiracies i could do that but i think that what i was trying to allude to in my um in my presentation was that those conspiracies act like gateway drugs to other conspiracies that's why you see them all kind of chained together not saying everyone does but you definitely are more prone to believe in conspiracy theories if you think that there's this overarching thing that's lying to you manipulating me all right well we'll try to continue on from there i know he's kind of implicating a little bit but uh maybe a little indirectly so we're going to try to carry on because the next question is for your side and i want to get over to the other side here with some of our super chats what's it gets it for 499 is it safe to say that the mere magnitude of flat earth seems so unlikely it prevents you from truly investigating without bias aka incredulity so uh jen or personally just it just doesn't make any difference to me the shape of the earth is not germane too much because like in my system you're either looking at the scale of the galaxy the universe or super small so the shape of the earth is like would only be relevant for a very small range of things so yeah it doesn't matter uh what it ends up being i i mean as much as it makes sense to be i could if someone presented me an argument for flatter that agreed with my own logic which is metaphysical parsimony like i'm flat out telling you simplest explanation i'm explaining how to get to it give me a simple geometry that you can drive using principles that we can verify here yes our perception will be involved in that but if you can divide out our perception e.g. through physical principles then it's much like leader that you can get something that i would in theory agree with but so far i don't actually even see a model so we're far cry from that but thanks for the question all right well yes indeed thanks for the question thank you jen uh for your answer there origin constitution for two dollars troubling tribune some google says we don't and you believe them i'm not sure what they mean i i don't know if they mean like you're you know i i i can't i can't seem to think how this might be uh tied in it seems a little like uh i don't know let's move on i'm sorry uh richie constitution but i don't really understand the question here um some google says we don't and you believe them i don't know if at some point you said you googled something and that confirmed what you might have been saying but yeah let's move on because there's not really a question there wit wit for 499 question for the globe earth there is this was already asked sorry um yeah because i'd moved around a little tiny bit there because witsett was asking a lot a lot of questions sorry witsett i was trying to disperse some of them in amongst the other superjats awesome loss and clips um no that one's good too good that's good that means we can scroll down quite a bit uh that's good witsett gets it oh how did this happen how did this happen witsett you're back again 499 globe model claims is all astronomical observations show earth in the center but it's all just an illusion doesn't this require blind faith and belief i'm just picking witsett i i appreciate the super chat i feel like we might have already asked we might have already heard this one he did ask a lot of questions so i was going to say in my defense this has happened to james as well so don't you don't you be calling me out too much in the live chat here uh this happens to everybody so let's continue one rick right for ten dollars anything you believe that you see on a cartoon tv screen is crazy without evidence other than just looking at the box didn't your can say earlier your eyes can lie give me anything or is it religion with no it's sounded like song lyrics um i don't watch cartoons there was there was no punctuation i just i don't know how you expect me to all right so what's it gets it another dollar ninety nine uh i keel can you define appeal to incredulity yes so a appeal to incredulity is um saying hey you know what i don't believe or no i'm sorry i don't understand this so obviously it must not be real or something along those lines so um hey you know what how is it that the that this is happening obviously or let me put it in the form of a syllogism solo um we i believe we've been to i'm just doing this for for the question i believe we've been to space therefore flat earth is incorrect that's an appeal to incredulity like hey well i don't know why is it that we went to space then how how do we have these pictures how do we have these videos how do we have all this evidence if we didn't go to space that's an appeal to incredulity as far as i understand all right i'm sorry if i snicker halfway through there because the next question question is from witsett again once it gets it for a dollar ninety nine what are you doing witsett tonight yeah you know you don't want to hang out gen you know flat earthers are way cooler i mean i i don't know that's that's that witsett um i i like hanging out with you buddy so uh you're pretty cool fella but uh um yeah i don't know i'm in space question oh yeah i was good he's in space hot dogs for sale five dollars a keel how does earth's magnetic field form when the iron core as per national geographic is five thousand two hundred c and the curie temp of iron is seven hundred and seventy c how does that work so like the previous question um this only works if i'm able to address the question and research it for you so um by the way i don't think we've been to the earth's magnetic core right so wouldn't those numbers be irrelevant um so um yeah you know what i say this all the questions that i don't get it go ahead and email them to me um i'll make sure that you have my email and i will address every single one of my problems all right excellent uh witsett gets it again don't worry gen 600 people in chat no glober gonna answer the question either the stars not shifting 43 degrees objectively refutes the globe i'm sorry witsett we've already decided that we're not going to get an answer for that specific uh question but i i do appreciate uh the 499 there and the super chat and uh you like i said i can't wait to host you again there buddy so uh definitely uh hit me up there uh robert tozzi 999 i can you seem to have kind of a blind trust for what government tells you i suggest you look into cdc's admitted uh tuski gi our airman experiment or are you familiar with it uh very familiar with it um i've never ever advocated for uh blind trust in anything especially not a government however there is a government that we do have right so and the government does do things right some of those things are good yes so if you can show me how they do more bad than good then okay i'll agree with you but we've come a long way from tuski gi they're still doing things that i don't agree with however the roads are built and we're getting into space that's important stuff that's that's stuff that's actually making lives better all right well let's move on there witsett gets it again for 499 i swear buddy i swear you better answer that email next time i pop you one if you're flying down he's got a lot to say you see if you're flying down around the globe then the stars would move up one degree every 69 miles because you're going down around a ball globe debunked any thoughts on that or do we want to move on i think we just move on or anything with the degrees because i'm trying to imagine what that degrees thing is even saying i just i don't get it yeah i look into it any any questions about this specifically i mean yeah they've already said they're going to look into it and you know maybe we'll get everybody back here to have a discussion later on uh run boston bear for ten dollars the video came across laggy find this video from three days ago it's crystal clear the plane is not driving around over a curved ball earth at one degree per 69 miles flown hey sorry go ahead no i apologize i was going to do i know we're going to do this at the very end but i will drop my email wherever it can be shared that way i they can send me stuff like this all right excellent yeah um yeah even if you want to just put in a live chat or yeah if you don't want to be that public with it then uh i'm sure i can get you in touch with witsett uh one way or another whether we get a debate going or you know if you personally want to get a hold of each other that can be arranged um so witsett gets it once again 499 uh oh sorry that one was from run boston bear but i know a lot of the like i said the degree questions have been coming in from witsett so when presented with evidence that physicality and geometrically refutes the globe model claim objectively we can just ignore it welcome to flat earth that's from what it gets it um well thanks witsett um there's hard there's not a whole lot of question there uh you know it's more of an accusation so we'll move on from from the super chat but i i know you know what you're doing so uh you're just cheeky robert tozzi $1.99 i don't think my ten dollar super chat question to akil was asked actually robert we just asked that question uh just a few moments ago which was the uh the one about the blind trust and the tuskegee so um you know scroll back a few minutes ago and you can check that out but i think you already said that before we got to it so david for two dollars welcome to flat earth everybody and they put a pancake emoji and a globe and he says it'll be okay uh so thank you david i think he's a fan of you guys troubling tribune and alan alan you're on mute uh i don't know if you're talking to us or if you're talking to somebody else but that's okay i'm just gonna let you know what's it gets it for $.99 if globe claim is celestial navigation requires accounting for one degree per 69 miles because earth is a sphere then wouldn't that happen in the plane also we will review the video sorry what's that oh no no you're good continue on continue lads you're good yeah yeah sorry so that was from witsit gets it so he said yeah he's who's that he was asking again about the one degree per 69 miles witsit gets it $1.99 jen admit it you think flat earthers are cool what do you think jen i think we might have already heard this question but cool yes no i was gonna say he has said it again and he paid for me to say it i think he just wants me to i think i think witsit's kind of trying to do this to me right now witsit are you are you trying to marry in at me i'm not sure what you're up to uh but i appreciate it buddy uh like i said i always have a ball when you're on awesome loss and clips five dollars a keel says i'm bringing something new a fallacious argument wow we've never seen a glober bring fallacious arguments before globe confirmed i think they're being sarcastic i think i read that right um any thoughts on that a killer do you want to move on no i'll just say that uh yeah i i did have a fallacious argument in there too but my whole point was hey here's all the evidence that we have that we've done things okay um and we can either move forward and and beyond the moon in 2024 or we can continue to debate whether or not we're being lied to all right any other input there shall we move on we're getting close now to the end for sure all right isa martel $1.99 if the aliens say it is a globe would you disagree not sure what you mean i'll agree not because they're aliens but because they're right all righty well we'll move on from there that's a bit of a maybe silly question though with uh the recent things that have been going on i did mention to james maybe we should do an aliens debate you know that might be a little bit of fun uh considering there's a bit of talk about it from what i've heard in my circles awesome awesome clips five dollars akile says i'm oh that yeah we already read that one jeremy bird 999 and dirth owes akile three bitcoin i'm not sure what that means but you paid 999 to ask it nobody seems to know what you mean so let's move on isa martel he gave me a he gave a globe proof fairly it's a facetious joke about dave's offer of three bitcoins for any one agreeable globe proof obviously said sarcastically because there was no evidence offered from the globe side this time all right um any thoughts on the other side all right well we'll move on then isa martel 499 how do amateur photographers take photos of iss what are we taking pictures of i guess as they point and click at something in the sky that has a predictable path you can call the iss all right any thoughts over there alan or do you want to move on yeah absolutely so i completely whole heartedly agree with what tribune said next question all right one might debate for two dollars glovers besides space nom smooth government lie not lie about namsaumth government lie about i'm not sure what that means i can't decipher this i think it's named something named something government not lie about to the glovers beside space i mean i yeah like there's tons they want to know what the government isn't lying about the limit it's a little bit like uh that's the it's a little bit like a heads i win tails you lose kind of questions so i you know you can try to answer it in good faith but i don't know if it was asked in such so i don't think that there's a point because what could you possibly say all right well let's ask the last question david five dollars mmx plus mgp experiment results together destroy any notion of motion do we know what uh what he means by these experiments all right well uh you can hear i'm not sure but maybe we can take a look at that next uh next debate and go into the that top it's a little more deeply all right well i appreciate the honesty there uh you know better better than the silence because i don't think i don't know if we uh know what you mean but the mmx and the mgp experiment uh mickelson gale pierce and and mickelson warley unless you're talking unless mgp stands for the mega giant p i had earlier uh midstream anyways uh we're like three hours in i can't get in trouble for this anyways what is a lunar eclipse shadow if not the earth sheep will phoenix for two dollars what is a lunar eclipse a shadow if not the earth thoughts last shadow if not the earth there's actually a predictable um there's a pattern that you can use i'm trying to remember the name of it but it was actually presented in the true earth summit uh shameless plug definitely check that out you can uh assume ascending and descending nodes for the sun and moon uh elliptical paths over the earth and basically that means that there's going to be changing in elevations one thing that i do know is that we don't know for exactly what causes the shadow we can speculate that it's a dark body we can speculate that it's a change in the elevation and relative position uh from the earth and the sun but one thing we do know is that it's not the shadow of the earth and we know this because there are eclipses where you can see the sun and the moon in the same plane above the earth and you can see this from an airplane even right so obviously if it was the shadow of the earth uh causing the eclipse then you would not be able to see the sun and the moon in the same plane above the earth at the same time doesn't work geometrically already well we are at the end of the super chats um so what we should do of course is we're going to give a closing statements up to a minute per each person um if they you know so choose i like to bounce these back and forth just because uh they can be a little bit uh thought provoking uh so troubling tribute and you just finished off so uh akil uh do you want to kick us off for our closing statements and do us the honor i would be honored thank you so um as i mentioned to you previously to to the audience and i want to thank um troubling and alan for um agreeing to this debate and actually engaging with me on topics and things like that i appreciate that and jen i really appreciate you as i said taking the reigns on the on the meat of it um i just like to say that you have to i believe it's more um more healthy of a of a viewpoint uh and more productive to believe in established things and if you can poke holes in established things you can spend all day going that or you can go from what is established to build something stronger and that's what i was trying to get at all right well thank you so much for that and uh we'll kick it over to alan up to one minute for your closing statements yeah i like to thank the people that showed up tonight and i apologize to kill for interrupting you earlier got a little feisty but uh you know is what it is uh no no hard feelings uh thank you for letting me come on and present it was uh honor and a privilege and with that said i'm gonna head out for the night boys you you all have a good night if you're interested in finding out more about uh how i came to the conclusions that i came to i have a channel it's at underscores or at space underscore audits you can you can check it out there if not you know whatever all right see you guys have a nice night take care all right well thank you hug your mom all right bye always hug my mom uh yes thanks for being here alan uh if you watch the the end tail of this debate we appreciate you being here and uh we will have your uh your link put in our description in our post stream because i didn't see it there yet so uh i'll make sure to get that done for you uh so yeah that was our closing statements from alan there and uh we'll kick it over to jen for up to one minute thanks ryan thanks for hosting the debate it was really good i enjoyed myself a lot it was nice to hear the arguments on both sides i heard some stuff i'd never been exposed to before so it's always exciting to have the conversation go in a new direction and i appreciate the chance to share some of my views please subscribe to my channel links in the description i believe and uh just before i say goodbye i would like to make a recommendation for some sort of a debate on ai and gpt tech if possible some point in the future that's just my two cents and thanks again to the audience and the other debaters and ryan and james bye excellent well thank you so much jen for being here we super appreciate you a big round of applause for everybody i hear so far troubling tribute up to one minute for your closing statements and thank you so much oh man you put me on the spot what am i gonna say close us out buddy you got it no i really appreciate it thank you guys for engaging in this debate putting up a platform it's been absolutely awesome i was a little disappointed in the amount of arguments actually presented that were scientific but i'm not gonna beat the dead horse it is what it is i'll love it for what it is don't hate it for what it's not i'll share the same sediment as alan from space audits did if you guys would like to learn more um about the true earth debate the nuances the different arguments um what not just myself but other true earthers in the space uh believe and present as well as globers as well then definitely go over to the channel troubling tribune check it out we do a stream like every other day almost but definitely mondays and fridays tonight we are actually doing an after show after this so i'm staying up uh ringing in the late hours and doing a members only chat so anybody can watch it but you gotta do uh be a member to chat it up we're gonna post a link so that you guys can hop on in and uh yeah talk about the debate talk about the uh things presented see what you guys think and uh other than that much love guys though hate obviously and uh i ask that everybody continue to be open minded and to do your own research don't just accept what is spoon fed to you even if you feel like it's established science after all back in the day you know what if you believe in the mainstream narrative um if we just believed in what the church people were telling us then we would still be believing in spontaneous generation you know and things like that so yeah it is okay to challenge uh even the things that we assumed to be 100% actual the truth here still scrutiny that's my time thank you oh no it's fine i i was just i was gonna give you a little extra just because uh you know you were you were gonna go on a good stretch there but uh i super appreciate you know getting all to me there uh troubling tribune and coming out here uh and and having this debate with uh jen and akhil and alan as well who's not here everybody a big round of applause for uh these folks and uh if you haven't checked it out already and a theme that has posted our discord uh in the live chat there i think he's posted it a few times so uh definitely go check that out you can get a hold of me there sometimes i mean i can be kind of lazy you know the kids the kids keep me pretty busy sometimes so uh you know with the sailing lessons and karate lessons and all that stuff but uh to close out the show i've got a pretty sick shred that i'm going to show you all uh that i did uh probably about a year ago that everybody enjoys the music so i'm going to close you guys out and uh thanks for being here everybody and enjoy my little good night good night everybody hopefully the music worked out there and y'all got uh a little taste of some shreds and some screaming in your ear there um a lot of those were all live takes too so uh don't don't be too harsh on me now you know i'm sensitive uh not actually i don't i don't give anyway we won't we won't do any of that on the air uh so yeah thanks everybody for coming out for the flat versus globe debate uh we had a lot of fun here tonight it was a very very kind discussion i think uh as far as getting good ideas out there uh you know there's not there were no screaming matches or anything like that uh lots to enjoy honestly as far as the discussion so you know definitely share this out if you haven't already hit the like button you know uh it helps us out a lot in the algorithm and and stay tuned we are going to have a few debates here coming up and aron and stewart are going to be back and from looks uh i was talking to aron there earlier and we are going to probably get them in here for thursday so stay tuned for that that's going to be a lot of fun and uh you know maybe we'll uh touch on an islam or astrology debate next week uh that might be cool as well so anyways i'm going to head on out and i'm going to go to bed it's 1244 where i am i i gotta get up with the kids and do all the uh the crazy stuff so uh uh i'll put it back to the uh the jams there this was actually alive at one of the locals um so i hope you enjoy and uh yeah that'll give you some time to kind of kind of get your thoughts out in the live chat i see a few of you kind of hanging out uh thanks jj hemp creep bear for uh for your support there um yeah i definitely enjoy the jams and whatnot uh guitars my uh my main instrument but i sing as well of course and uh try to belt out a good one so uh over we go and uh we'll see you in a few days everybody shuts your back heads the march and never starts cut the strings before your life starts to decay from tears of blood regrets of laughter turn around and i'll be faster your hollow shape as the faith begins to drop